Decision CRTC 2001-366
Ottawa, 20 June 2001
File no.: 8660-C12-05/00
To: Interested parties to Decision CRTC 2000-24 & Public Notice
CRTC 2000-17
Re: CISC recommended competition-related Quality of Service
indicators Follow up to Decision CRTC 2001-217
On 9 April 2001, the Commission released Decision CRTC 2001-217; CRTC creates
new quality of service indicators for telephone companies (Decision
2001-217). Decision 2001-217 established a new series of quality of
service indicators that measures the supply and repair of services
provided to Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) by Incumbent
Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs). The Commission believes that there is a
continuing need for ILEC regulation of quality of service indicators due
to low levels of competition in some areas. Customers are still largely
captive to their ILEC and in some cases competitors are dependent on the
ILEC for their ability to compete. In setting these new standards of
service for ILECs, the CRTC is expecting to foster an environment where
CLECs are better able to meet customer expectations and compete in the
market more effectively.
Decision 2001-217 requested that two working groups of CISC, Business
Process Working Group (BPWG) and Network Operations Working Group (NOWG)
assist the CRTC in developing intervals for certain specific indicators.
The working groups were required to report back to the Commission with
proposed measurement standards within 30 days. The BPWG and NOWG
submitted reports on May 11 and May 10 respectively.
CISC Reports
The two working groups filed reports numbered BPRE028a and NORE024c,
attached, that, by consensus, recommended the following:
Revised definitions to three indicators;
Three new indicators with service intervals;
Inserting service intervals discussed in the body of Decision
2001-217 into the formal definitions of 9 specific indicators;
A performance standard be set after one year of data collection for
a particular indicator.
The reports asked that the Commission determine the intervals for six
indicators where the groups' members were unable to agree and that:
All the new intervals be established on an interim basis with a
report back to the CRTC on the appropriateness of the intervals after
one year.
The Commission determine the technical interpretations for aspects
of the new indicators.
Finally, the reports contained the competitors' request that the
ILECs report on a CLEC by CLEC basis without combining the data for all
CLECs into one report, as the ILECs would prefer.
Conclusion
The Commission notes that within the BPWG and NOWG both ILECs and
CLECs were well represented.
In Decision 2001-217, the Commission established a regime that
required the ILECs to file reports for indicators that measure quarterly
competition-related intervals and standards beginning with the third
quarter 2001. The indicators that required the assistance of CISC to
develop intervals were not included in the third quarter timeframe
schedule. However, the Commission considers that there should be no
delay in measuring the new indicators for competition-related intervals
and standards and the start date for the reporting of the new indicators
should also be set to begin with the third quarter 2001 data.
The Commission considers the consensus-based recommendations of the
CISC working groups to be reasonable and approves them as follows:
The revised definitions for indicators 1.8, 1.9 and 1.10 be
adopted.
Three new indicators numbered 2.7A, 2.8A and 2.9 with service
intervals be created.
Specific service intervals in the formal definitions for 9 specific
indicators numbered 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.12, 1.13, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17 and
1.18 be adopted.
For indicator 1.14, a performance standard be set only after one
year of data collection.
For indicators 2.7A, 2.8A, 2.9, 1.12, 1.13 and 1.15, where consensus
within the working groups could not be reached the Commission concludes
as follows:
Indicator 2.7A immediate implementation of actual benchmark
rather than waiting until data has been collected and reviewed.
Indicator 2.8A alternative B which requires ILECs to report on
the status of all loops by the end of the working day.
Indicator 2.9 Standard of 90% set for clearing of degraded
trouble reports rather than the 80% standard proposed by the ILECs.
Indicator 1.12 The establishment of a confirmed due date
measurement for expedited orders rather than standard service interval
which may be longer.
Indicator 1.13 A measurement of 1 working day after confirmed
due date for orders that are late (expedited same as 1.12).
Indicator 1.15 A measurement of 1 working day after confirmed
due date for standalone LNP orders that are late (expedited same as
1.12).
The Commission directs that:
The new indicators are approved on an interim basis.
The working groups are to review all the collected data for a full
year that is up to and including 2nd quarter 2002 data and to report
to the Commission on the appropriateness and reasonableness of the
indicators by 1 December 2002.
The ILECs report the new indicators on a CLEC by CLEC basis in a
manner similar to the other competition-related indicators established
by the Commission in Decision 2001-217.
With regard to Indicator 1.16 the Commission finds that the due date
is to be considered met if the order is completed within the standard
service interval.
The Commission will soon issue a document that provides:
a full explanation and commentary with respect to the setting of
the intervals and standards;
rationale for Commission determination of non-consensus items and a
technical interpretation for each indicator.
Appendix 1 describes the approved wording and definition of each
indicator.
Yours sincerely,
Ursula Menke
Secretary General
Attachment
Appendix 1
Synopsis of indicators
Indicator |
Title |
Explanation |
1.8 |
New Unbundled Type A and B Loop Order Service Intervals Met |
The percentage of time that the due dates for the provisioning of
new unbundled type A and B local loop orders are met within the
applicable standard service interval |
1.9 |
Migrated Unbundled Type A and B Loop Order Service Intervals Met |
The percentage of time that the due dates for the provisioning of
migrated unbundled type A and B local loop orders are met within the
applicable standard service interval |
1.10 |
Local Number Portability Order (Standalone) Service Interval[s]
Met |
The percentage of time that due date[s] relating to orders for
the standalone porting of numbers are met within the applicable
standard service interval |
1.12 |
Local Service Request Confirmed Due Dates Met |
Completed LSRs are compiled, and the percentage of these which
were completed by the confirmed due date is reported |
1.13 |
Unbundled Type A and B Loop Order Late Completions |
Completed loop orders which missed their confirmed due dates are
compiled, and the percentage of these which were completed within 1
working day of their respective confirmed due dates is reported |
1.14 |
Unbundled Type A and B Loops Held Orders |
The number of orders for type A and B loops which were not
completed on the confirmed due date because of facility shortages,
expressed as a percentage of loop inward movement |
1.15 |
Local Number Portability Order (Standalone) Late Completions |
Completed (standalone) local number portability orders which
missed their confirmed due dates are compiled, and the percentage of
these which were completed within 1 working day of their respective
confirmed due dates is reported |
1.16 |
Bill & Keep Interconnection Trunk Order Late Completions |
The percentage of orders for the turn-up of Bill and Keep
interconnection trunks, which missed the confirmed due date, that
are completed within 5 working days of the confirmed due date |
1.17 |
Local Service Request (LSR) Rejection Rate |
The percentage of LSRs submitted by CLECs that are returned due
to errors perceived by the ILECs |
1.18 |
LSR Turnaround Time Met |
The percentage of occasions that the applicable LSR confirmation
interval is met |
2.7A |
Mean Time to Clear Competitor Out-of-Service Trouble Reports
Outside The Performance Standard of Indicator 2.7 |
The ILECs will measure and report on the mean time to repair
local loops capturing the actual length of time for occurrences that
are outside the performance standard of indicator 2.7 |
2.8A |
New Loop Status Provided to Competitors |
Compilation of all new loop orders on a given day and status
provided by 5:00 p.m. (ILEC Time) |
2.9 |
Competitor Degraded Trouble Reports Cleared Within 48 Hours |
The total number of CLECs degraded trouble reports cleared by
ILECs within 48 hours of notification |
Date Modified: 2001-06-20
|