OR96-332

This is an electronic copy.

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

OF OREGON

AR 316

AR 322

In the Matter of the Amendment of OAR 860-023-0055 and OAR 860-034-0390, Telecommunications Service Standards.

)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

DISPOSITION: RULES ADOPTED AS MODIFIED

At the March 26, 1996, Public Meeting, Commission Staff (Staff) recommended that the Commission authorize a rulemaking docket for the purpose of updating OAR 860-023-0055, a telecommunications utility service quality rule. The Commission accepted Staff’s recommendation in Order No. 96-107, which also accepted a stipulation ending U S WEST Communications, Inc.'s (USWC’s) alternative form of regulation and providing for certain service quality remedies for USWC customers.

On May 15, 1996, Commission Staff filed the text and supporting materials for its proposed amendment of OAR 860-023-0055, Telecommunications Service Standards, with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State published notice of the proposed rulemaking and hearing in its Bulletin of June 1996 (Volume 35, No. 12). Notice and the proposed rule were also sent to the Commission’s telecommunications service list. The rulemaking was docketed as

AR 316.

From June through October 1996, Staff, Oregon telecommunications utilities (large and small), alternative exchange carriers (AECs), and customer groups engaged in a collaborative process through a series of workshops, to develop new telecommunications service quality standards.

From its inception, the purpose of AR 316 was to develop new rules covering, at a minimum, the large and small local exchange carriers (LECs). In September 1996, Staff discovered a legal oversight in the process. At the March 26, 1996, Public Meeting, Staff should have also proposed modifying OAR 860-034-0390, which is concerned with the service quality of partially exempt telecommunications utilities, as well as OAR 860-023-0055.

At the September 24, 1996, Public Meeting, Staff recommended that the Commission authorize it to modify AR 316 by filing an additional notice with the Secretary of State’s office. The Commission authorized Staff to file the additional notice, and the modification of OAR 860-034-0390 was filed with the Secretary of State on September 24, 1996. That rulemaking was docketed as AR 322 and consolidated with AR 316.

After numerous written comments and the workshop process, Staff’s proposed rules were brought to the December 17, 1996 public meeting. A number of participants appeared to comment on the rules. At that meeting, the Commission approved the proposed rules attached to this Order as Appendix A.

General Questions. Participants filed three rounds of comments, one on each draft of the rules. A general question that several participants addressed was whether the service quality rules are necessary. Some participants stress that they believe only one company, USWC, is targeted and that the rulemaking is therefore inappropriate.

OITA urges the Commission to identify individual concerns about a company and work with the company to address specific problems where improvement is needed, as the Commission has done in the past. OITA argues that there is no industry-wide problem that requires fixing. Instead, with the advent of competition, the Commission should allow the market to regulate management and other operational issues. GTE and PTI argue that with the development of competition, the rules are unnecessary.

United argues that the new reporting requirements in the proposed rules are burdensome, and that it should not be penalized just because USWC has had service quality problems. PTI and GTE also express concern about increased reporting requirements and the need to measure in new ways or to develop new measurements to satisfy the rules’ requirements.

AT&T urges the Commission to include in the rules a statement that it sets minimum standards. At least for services to AECs, LECs may be required to meet more exacting standards commensurate with the service standards the LECs provide to themselves. AT&T notes that under the Act, incumbent LECs have a duty to provide interconnection at least equal in quality to that provided by the LEC to itself or to any subsidiary. AT&T also wishes the proposed rules to cover all services that an AEC may purchase from a LEC, not just basic exchange services.

In addition, several general questions about the applicability of the rules arose during the workshop process. In a memorandum issued September 23, 1996, the Administrative Law Judge posed these questions to the participants, to which they responded in a separate round of comments:

Should all telecommunications providers (telecommunications utilities, competitive providers, small companies, cooperatives) be subject to the same service quality rules? Should this be the case whether the services that are offered are competitive or noncompetitive?

Should the rules differentiate between the provision of service to a company’s end user versus service to another provider purchasing network elements/building blocks? Versus services provided to resellers at wholesale rates? What rules should apply to resellers? Can there be different standards under the Telecommunications Act of 1996?

What provisions should exist in the rules to allow a company to no longer be subject to the rules? Should those provisions be tied to the competitive marketplace?

The following tables exhibit how the responding participants answered the questions.

Question	Yes	No
Rules apply to all?	USWC; OITA (not coops; flexible for small companies); GTE	Staff; ELI; AT&T
End user treated differently from other providers?	USWC; OITA	Staff; ELI; AT&T
Treated differently from resellers?		Staff; ELI; AT&T ; USWC
Service quality rules for resellers?	USWC	Staff; ELI; AT&T
Different standards permitted under Act?	Staff; ELI; AT&T; USWC

Relief from rules?

ELI: Petition under 759.030

AT&T; OITA: at development of competition. Periodic evaluation of market.

Staff: suggested language, service by service basis

USWC: when competitive zone established or when there is competition

The LECs and OITA argue that the rules should apply to all providers, including facilities based providers and resellers. They argue that under §253(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the Act), service quality rules must be competitively neutral. Applying the rules only to utilities presumes a monopoly environment and could, the LECs argue, prevent them from making efficiency gains because of fear of failure to meet the precise language of the rules. USWC argues that the requirements are appropriate for resellers based on its recent experiences of customers ordering service from a reseller many weeks in advance, but the reseller failing to place an order with USWC in a timely fashion.

In support of applying the rules to all telecommunications service providers, USWC also notes that applying service quality rules only to local exchange companies gives them a unique obligation that seems to be a carrier of last resort obligation. The rules do not indicate how USWC or other LECs would be compensated for the obligation imposed on them, but USWC asserts that the cost burden associated with this obligation introduces significant competitive disadvantages. USWC believes that applying the rules to only one set of telecommunications service providers could violate the equal protection rights of those providers.

USWC makes two further points. First, under ORS 759.050, in certifying competitive providers, the Commission must take into account the effect on access to high quality service of granting the application. USWC notes that the Commission has not yet requested information relating to service quality to ensure that competitive providers are meeting service performance standards. Second, USWC asserts that Order No. 96-021 (dockets CP 1, 14, and 15) determined that for purposes of interconnection, competitive providers should be treated like local exchange companies. USWC argues that the Commission should make competitive providers similarly situated in terms of service quality rules.

Staff and the AECs, on the other hand, argue that the rules should apply only to LECs. They contend that if the service quality a competitive provider offers is unsatisfactory, the competitive provider’s customer will take service elsewhere. Service quality rules should be relaxed for the LECs only when facilities-based competition is robust enough to protect consumer interests. The AECs maintain that they too are customers of the LEC and need the protection the service quality rules provide in order to offer service of a quality high enough to satisfy their retail customers. ELI notes that the service quality rules should not apply to resellers, because they are unable to control the provisioning of the underlying carrier.

Staff and the AECs also argue that the rules should not distinguish between provision of service to an end user and provision of a like service to a competitive provider or reseller. Otherwise, competitive providers trying to use the incumbent LEC’s unbundled loops to provide local exchange service could be disadvantaged relative to the LEC’s bundled services. USWC concurs that the service quality rules should not distinguish between end users and resellers, in keeping with §51.603 of the FCC rules promulgated under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

All responding participants agree that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 permits different service quality standards for services provided to end users. ELI notes that the competitive provider must agree to different service levels. Staff asserts that the Act envisions different service quality standards for different types of customers if there is a reasonable basis for the distinctions (see §253(b); Joint Explanatory Statement at 13), but urges the Commission to adopt a single set of service quality standards for basic exchange services regardless of who the customer is, as a matter of policy.

Staff further recommends that the Commission address service quality standards for services other than basic exchange services (e.g., high-speed digital services) in Phase II of this docket. In the meantime, Staff argues, competitive providers can protect themselves with respect to service quality standards for high-end services by means of the interconnection agreements they enter into with LECs.

Finally, the responding participants generally agree that a company should no longer be subject to the telecommunications service quality rules once competition is effectively established. Staff proposed explicit language describing how a utility may petition the Commission for an exemption from these rules on a service by service basis.

Disposition. We find that service quality rules are necessary and desirable at this point. We are not yet living in a competitive environment. While a number of companies have been certified as competitive providers, the LECs still have a disproportionate amount of market power. Very few of the competitors actually have interconnection agreements in place; fewer yet have begun offering service. It is premature to expect, therefore, that the market will take care of service quality problems on the part of utilities, especially for the basic exchange service addressed in this docket. Once vigorous facilities-based competition develops, there will be time to reassess whether service quality standards are necessary. As we make the transition from a monopoly environment to a multiprovider environment, however, it is still the Commission’s role to ensure that those customers without a choice of providers have high quality service.

We also believe new service quality rules are necessary because the current telecommunications service quality rules lack customer service standards. The current rules say nothing about how telecommunications utilities should treat customers to be or existing customers who have service problems. Moreover, the technical standards in the current rules reflect a mix of technologies that no longer exists in Oregon. Those standards should be updated.

As to the argument that the new rules target only one company, that is not the case. The rules have two functions. One is to set standards for basic exchange service in Oregon, taking current technology and performance capabilities into account. The second, equally important, is to inform customers what kind of service they may expect from their telecommunications utility. Neither of these functions is limited to any one company. It is possible that LECs other than USWC could develop problems with service in the future. The rules are designed to protect customers against that eventuality, as well as to give all telecommunications utilities notice of what performance is expected of them.

Several companies express concern that the new rules impose burdensome and expensive reporting requirements. We refer these companies to Section (11) of the proposed rules:

(11) Reporting Requirements. Telecommunications utilities shall report to the Commission when any of the above standards are not met on a monthly basis.

(a) The Commission may require after its own investigation that a telecommunications utility provide monthly reports on any or all items covered by this rule.

(b) Where a telecommunications utility does not measure items covered by these standards on June 30, 1996, it need not begin doing so unless ordered to by the Commission.

The rules require reporting on the standards on an exception basis. If a company meets the standards set forth in the rules, it need not report. We will order monthly reports only if circumstances warrant; that is, only if there is indication of serious noncompliance with the standards in the rules. Further, subsection (b) provides that a company need not measure items it did not measure on June 30, 1996, unless the Commission orders it to do so. Again, the Commission would order reporting to begin only in the event of serious trouble with the standard in question. Section (11) should allay the companies’ concerns about burdensome reporting requirements. Furthermore, if a company does currently measure a standard, but measures it somewhat differently than the rules prescribe, the company may file for a variance or file a tariff under Section (12).

As to AT&T’s concern that the rules set a floor and that the AECs must be able to purchase interconnection and network elements at least equal in quality to what the LEC provides itself, we believe that the Act speaks for itself. Section 251(c)(2). Phase II of this docket will deal with performance standards for other services that an AEC may purchase from a LEC. Nothing in these rules prevents AECs from negotiating with or seeking arbitration decisions affecting an incumbent LEC for standards in addition to those prescribed in these rules.

We also find that the rules in this docket should apply only to telecommunications utilities, not to all providers. As things stand, the competitive providers are dependent on the LECs for interconnection at a minimum, and those competitive providers who resell LEC services are dependent on the LECs for much more than that. We consider the competitive providers, including resellers, to be LEC customers. It follows that all consumers of LEC products--end users, resellers, and competitive providers--should receive the same protections. It also follows that we impose no special rules on resellers at this point.

As to USWC’s carrier of last resort argument, if compliance with the rules imposes extraordinary costs on LECs, they may file for rate relief. We do not believe that imposing service quality standards on providers who have disproportionate market power is an equal protection violation. Finally, USWC argues that the Commission must ensure that competitive providers are meeting service performance standards. As we set out below, we reserve the option to apply the standards adopted in this order and in Phase II of this docket to competitive providers if it should become necessary.

All commenters agree that the Act permits different standards for different types of customers. We believe, however, that the rules we adopt here provide a baseline of protection for all customers. If a customer wishes to negotiate a different standard of protection, that is a matter of contract between it and the LEC.

In theory, we agree with the participants that these rules serve a purpose only so long as no vigorous competition exists for the services covered by the rules. We adopt Staff's proposed section covering the means by which a utility may be relieved of the requirements of these rules on a service by service basis. See below, Section (15).

We also adopt Staff's proposal that we open Phase II of this docket to cover advanced services and aspects of the network not addressed in these rules. In Phase II we will also reevaluate whether the service quality rules in this docket and the rules contemplated in Phase II should apply to all providers or only to utilities. We will have a better perspective at that point on how competition is developing and whether it is generating a market that will protect consumer interests. Our mandate is to protect customers. If consumer interests are not sufficiently protected by growing competition, we reserve our option to apply service quality rules to all telecommunications service providers.

Staff’s Proposed Rules. Staff proposed three versions of the rules in the course of the workshops. The last version was circulated on November 1, 1996. That is the version on which our comments and participant discussions are based.

The rules contain service standards for all telecommunications utilities. However, they are designed to be flexible. See, e.g., Sections 3(d) and 11(b). They also provide a means by which a company may file for a variance or a waiver, or file a tariff, if the company, for instance, uses different measurements for a given standard or is a rural company unable efficiently to meet the repair standards. The variance procedure, found at Section (12) below, requires a company to engage in paperwork to take advantage of the waiver or special tariff, but we do not believe that the filing will be onerous for utilities. Weighed against the benefits of having service quality standards in place, we are certain that the benefits outweigh the burden of filing for a waiver.

Some utilities have expressed concern that using the waiver/tariff procedure will make them ineligible for universal service support. That is not the case. A telecommunications utility whose filing for a waiver or special tariff under Section (12) is approved is deemed to be in compliance with the service quality standards. Making use of Section (12) will therefore not affect a telecommunications utility’s universal service fund eligibility.

Companies have also expressed concern about the interaction of the rules proposed in this docket and legislation dealing with penalties for service quality violations, which the Commission will sponsor in the 1997 Legislature. Section (14) sets out remedies for violation of these rules, and subsection (c) includes "Other relief authorized by Oregon law." Thus, if the penalty legislation becomes law, violations of the rules could trigger liability under the penalty statute.

As Staff pointed out in its November 1, 1996, memorandum accompanying the last version of the rules, however, the mere fact that a company is out of compliance with a standard does not mean that the Commission will impose sanctions on it. Under Section (14), a company believed to be in violation of one or more service standards receives notice from the Commission and an opportunity to explain the violation before the Commission requires the company to remedy the violation or has recourse to other relief authorized by Oregon law. The Commission will consider special circumstances, service quality standard trends, and other factors in determining whether a company is subject to sanctions under the rules.

GTE has asked for clarification of subsection (1)(d), the definition of wire center. A wire center and an exchange are the same thing in almost all instances. Exchange defines the local service area. Some large (by number of subscribers) exchanges have more than one wire center; the Portland exchange, for instance, has nine wire centers. For smaller exchanges, the wire center and the exchange are coextensive.

The following discussion proceeds through the rules section by section. The two most contentious standards in these rules are the standards for held orders (Section 2) and for trouble reports (Section 5).

Section (2): Held Orders. The proposed rules define access line and held orders as follows:

(1) Definitions

(a) "Access Line"—Refers to a dial tone line that provides basic exchange services extending from the telecommunications provider’s switching equipment to a point of termination at the premise of the telecommunications provider’s end user customer.

(b) "Held Access Line Service orders"—Requests for access line service delayed beyond the commitment date due to lack of facilities.

* * * * *

(2) Provisioning

(a) At the time a request for access line service is taken, a customer shall be given a committed due date of five business days (unless a later date is mutually agreed to). Access line service is a dial tone line that provides basic exchange services from a telecommunications utility’s switching equipment to a point of termination at the end user’s premise. Access line service installation orders include orders for new or transferred service or additional lines or change orders.

(b) A telecommunications utility shall meet at least 90 percent of commitments for service.

(c) Held Access Line Service Orders. Once a request for service becomes a held order, commitments to fill the order must be made in writing to the customer within 15 business days.

(d) The average number of held access line orders shall not exceed the greater of 2 per wire center per month averaged over the telecommunications utility’s Oregon service territory, or 4 held orders per 1,000 inward orders.

(e) A record of why each order is held shall be maintained, together with the commitment date.

(f) Held orders shall be reported to the Commission upon request, by total number and those held over 30 days past the initial commitment date.

Participants are generally in agreement about the definition of access line and held access line service orders. USWC notes, however, that orders requiring customers to meet specific prerequisites (e.g., line extension charges) should not be counted as held until after the prerequisites have been met. Language to that effect currently appears in OAR 860-023-0055(1). USWC’s point is well taken. We will modify subsection (1)(b) to read:

(b) "Held Access Line Service Orders"—Requests for access line service delayed beyond the commitment date due to lack of facilities. Orders requiring the customer to meet specific reasonable prerequisites (e.g., line extension charges) shall be measured from the time the prerequisites have been met.

USWC argues that only requests for new or transferred basic service should be included in access line service installation orders. Subsection 2(a) as proposed includes new and transferred service as well as additional lines and change orders (which includes features). We recognize that these standards address basic exchange service, but that is not a static category. Basic service for small business or even residences increasingly includes additional lines. As to the inclusion of change orders, features reside in the switch. Once a line is provided, it is a simple matter to provide features as well. We include change orders because technology ties them to the provision of access lines and because they, too, are increasingly viewed as part of basic service. We will retain Staff’s proposed language describing the category of services to which held orders apply.

AT&T and AARP suggest adding the phrase "no more than" before "five business days" in subsection (2)(a). We agree. We modify the first sentence of subsection (2)(a) to read:

At the time a request for access line service is taken, a customer shall be given a committed due date of no more than five business days (unless a later date is mutually agreed to).

USWC argues that the five-day commitment date should apply only to requests for basic primary service, not to requests for additional lines or to large, complex orders. USWC contends that a five-day commitment date is unreasonable when a customer wants 50 lines at a single location or requires a specific network design. We agree that for large orders or orders requiring an engineering design, it may not be possible to meet a five-day commitment. In that case, the utility should negotiate a reasonable commitment time with the customer, as the subsection provides. If for some reason it is not possible to negotiate a reasonable commitment time, the utility has an opportunity to explain any held orders to the Commission under Section (14) of the rules before sanctions are imposed. The Commission will take reasonable explanations into account in determining whether a violation has occurred.

USWC, GTE, and the industry have argued that written notice, as required under subsection (2)(c), is unnecessary. They contend that they inform customers by telephone and on an ongoing basis as to the status of their orders. If written notice is necessary, USWC argues that it should be provided after 30 days or when a certain threshold of lines is involved at a single address. We will retain the language proposed by Staff. We feel that the lag of 15 business days, which is three calendar weeks, should be sufficient to allow utilities to inform customers about the status of their orders. We also believe that written notice can serve a useful purpose in the event of disputes about orders, where parties may remember events differently.

Participants’ comments indicated that the originally proposed fixed number of held orders per wire center per month, averaged over the utility’s Oregon service territory, disadvantaged companies with smaller service territories. Staff provided the inward order based standard to address this concern.

USWC argues that with the change in the definition of held order—from 30 days under the current rules to missed commitment—and the inclusion of other than the main access line, the standard in the proposed rules is too stringent. USWC believes that the standard of an average of 2 held orders per wire center is unrealistic and would impose unreasonable costs. USWC argued in favor of a standard that would use inward orders instead, but asked for a much higher standard of 33 held orders per 1,000 inward orders.

We do not consider Staff’s numbers in the held order standard unrealistic. In 1990, when USWC applied for its Alternative Form of Regulation (AFOR), it had 703 total held orders. It made and met a commitment to reduce its total held orders to below 100 by April, 1991. At that time, USWC had 101 wire centers, so its average of held orders per wire center per month was 1. The proposed standard is twice that number. USWC has met a more stringent standard in the past and should be able to meet this proposed standard. We adopt the proposed language of Section (2) as modified.

Section (3): Access to Telecommunications Utility Representatives. Section (3) provides:

(3) Access to Telecommunications Utility Representatives.

(a) Business office. Eighty-five percent of calls to each of a telecommunications utility’s business office centers shall be answered within 20 seconds each month.

(b) Repair Service. Eighty-five percent of calls to each of a telecommunications utility’s repair service centers shall be answered within 20 seconds each month.

(c) No more than 1 percent of calls to each business office and to each repair service center shall encounter a busy signal.

(d) Equivalent measurements to those specified in this paragraph may be used when approved by the Commission.

USWC and GTE argue for a standard of 80 percent of calls answered within 20 seconds each month, and argue that subsection (c) is unnecessary given the standards proposed in (3)(a) and (b). We note that calls answered include calls answered by a voice response system, which leads a caller through a decision tree to the desired kind of representative. Because the standard does not require a human representative, we believe that 85 percent is an appropriate number to include in the standard. We also note that subsection (c) should include a provision that no more than one percent of calls to each business office or repair service center shall encounter a voice response system that tells the caller the system is busy at that time. With that addition to the subsection, we find it still to be necessary. We therefore retain subsection (c) and modify it to read:

(c) No more than 1 percent of calls to each business office and to each repair service center shall encounter a busy signal or other busy indication.

We adopt Section (3) as modified.

Section (4): Repair Commitment and Restoral Times. Section (4) of the proposed rules provides:

(4) Repair Commitment and Restoral Times.

(a) A telecommunications utility shall clear at least 95 percent of all reports within 48 hours each month.

(b) A telecommunications utility shall provide each customer making a network trouble report with a commitment time by which the repair will be completed.

USWC and GTE oppose this standard. USWC argues instead for 90 percent of all reports cleared within 48 hours. In its July 9, 1996, comments, however, USWC argued for precisely the standard in the rules. GTE would prefer the standard to require clearing 90 percent within 24 hours. We do not see the standard as proposed any more difficult to meet than GTE’s formulation. United argues that because of its unique service territory, it cannot meet this standard. Again, United should file a tariff explaining what standard it can meet, or file for a variance or waiver under Section (12). We adopt Section (4) as proposed.

Section (5): Trouble Reports. Section (1) (c) defines trouble reports:

(c) "Trouble Report" – Means a report of a malfunction on existing lines, circuits, or features made to a Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) by or on behalf of that LEC’s customer in the LEC’s network up to and including the point of demarcation at the customer’s location. Trouble found to be caused by conditions on the customer’s side of the demarcation point, or by a connecting carrier, shall not be counted. Trouble reports shall also not be counted if the Commission finds that the trouble was caused by factors beyond the telecommunications utility’s control.

Several utilities urged that trouble reports should include only trouble found in the utility’s network. The definition as written contemplates only trouble in the utility’s network. The language specifically excludes trouble caused by conditions on the customer side, by a connecting carrier, or by circumstances beyond the utility’s control.

Section (5) deals with trouble reports:

(5) Trouble Reports.

(a) Each telecommunications utility shall establish and compute an ongoing 12-month rolling average trouble report rate for each wire center or central office for reports of trouble on the utility side of the network interface.

(b) Each telecommunications utility shall maintain a record of reported trouble. The record of reported trouble shall contain as a minimum:

(A) Telephone number

(B) Date and time received

(C) Time cleared

(D) Type of trouble reported

(E) Location of trouble

(F) Whether or not the present trouble is within 30 days of a previous trouble report.

(c) Records shall be kept in such condition that they can be forwarded to the Commission immediately upon request. All records shall be kept by wire center for a period of one year.

(d) Service shall be maintained by the telecommunications utility so that the rolling 12-month average trouble report rate does not exceed 2 per 100 access lines per wire center.

As to subsection (5)(c), USWC proposes that records be forwarded to the Commission "upon request and within a reasonable period of time." USWC also notes that some customer specific information may automatically age off the system and not be available for a full year. We support Staff’s proposal that records be kept in such condition that they can be forwarded immediately on request. As to information aging off the system, USWC should consult with Staff to determine how to address this problem.

Subsection (5)(d) sets the rolling 12-month average trouble report rate at 2 reports per hundred access lines per wire center. The industry recommendation is a 12 month average for operations within the state, not by wire center. We reject this suggestion, however, because some wire centers have vastly higher trouble report rates than others. A customer in a troubled wire center is not helped by a statewide average where that customer cannot switch wire centers at will. We note that the standard of 2 trouble reports per 100 access lines is the Regional Oversight Committee (ROC) standard adopted in October 1995.

GTE argues that the ROC standard should not apply to it. GTE argues for a statewide average and a sliding scale of trouble reports based on the size of the wire center. GTE also argues that changing its reporting standards from a statewide basis to a wire center basis would be very costly.

If GTE is concerned that a few of its wire centers may not comply with the standard, we note again that the Commission will not automatically impose sanctions for lack of compliance with the rules. Further, GTE should consult with Staff about the possibility of filing a variance from this standard if its reporting methods are much different from what is proposed in the rules. GTE may file for rate relief if compliance with the rules imposes significant costs on it. We find the ROC standard reasonable for all utilities. We adopt Staff’s proposed language on trouble reports as written.

United argues that its definition of trouble reports is broader and more customer oriented than that in the proposed rules. United may either file for a variance with respect to this standard or, as it suggests, count only "network events" for purposes of reporting under this standard.

Section (6): Dial Tone Speed. Section (6) provides:

(6) Dial Tone Speed. Ninety-eight percent of originating average busy hour call attempts shall receive dial tone within 3 seconds.

GTE argues that this standard is obsolete, given digital switch technology. We adopt the standard with an eye to rural exchanges. We see no harm in retaining this standard as long as some customers do not receive digital service.

Section (7): Toll Operator Answer Time. Section (7) provides:

(7) Toll Operator Answer Time. Ninety percent of toll operator calls shall be answered within 10 seconds (equivalent measuring methods may be used).

This standard has not changed from the earlier rules. The LECs object to it because, they argue, toll operator behavior is beyond their control. However, the LEC contracts for or provides operator service itself. It is responsible for the operators it employs or for which it contracts. The standard will remain in place.

Section (8): Subscriber Lines. Section (8) provides:

(8) Subscriber Lines.

(a) All subscriber lines shall be designed, installed, and maintained with the objective of no more than 8.5 dB (decibel) loss at 1004 HZ (Hertz) from the serving central office to the customer premise network interface.

(b) All subscriber lines shall be designed, installed, and maintained so that metallic noise shall not exceed 20dBRNC (Decibels Above Reference Noise level – C message weighting).

(c) All subscriber lines shall provide a minimum of 20 to 23 milliamperes of loop current from the central office to the customer network interface when terminated with 400 ohms.

(d) All combinations of subscriber lines and central office switching equipment shall be capable of accepting and correctly processing at least the following network control signals from customer premise equipment:

(A) Dial Pulse – 8 to 12 pulses per second and 58 to 64 percent break.

(B) Tone Pulsing – 50 milliseconds DTMF (Dual Tone Multi Frequency) on; 50 milliseconds DTMF off.

(e) Special Service Lines. All special service lines shall meet performance requirements specified in Bellcore technical specifications in effect on December 17, 1996, or applicable telecommunications utility tariffs.

We find the reference to Bellcore technical specifications troublesome, because if we incorporate reference to them, we must update the rules to incorporate the newer version of the standards whenever the standards change. We understand that utility tariffs reference these standards. Therefore, we will modify subsection (8)(e) to read:

(e) Special Service Lines. All special service lines shall meet performance requirements specified in applicable telecommunications utility tariffs.

We adopt Section (8) as modified.

Section (9): Intraoffice, Interoffice, and Access Trunking. Section (9) reads:

(9) Intraoffice, Interoffice, and Access Trunking.

(a) All intraoffice, interoffice, and access trunking and associated switching components shall be engineered and maintained to allow 99 percent completion of properly dialed calls during the average busy season without encountering blockages or equipment irregularities.

(b) All interoffice and access trunk groups shall be maintained so that the AML (actual measured loss) in no more than 30 percent of the trunks shall deviate from EML (expected measured loss) by more than .7 dB and no more than 4.5 percent of the trunks shall deviate from EML by more than 1.7 dB.

We adopt Section (9) as written.

Section (10): Interexchange and Competitive Carriers. Section (10) provides:

(10) Interexchange and Competitive Carriers. All interexchange or competitive carrier facilities interconnected to the facilities of a telecommunications utility shall be operated in a manner which will not impede the telecommunications utility’s ability to meet required standards of service. All telecommunications utilities shall report situations contrary to the above promptly to the Commission.

We adopt Section (10) as written.

Section (11). Reporting Requirements. Section (11) provides:

(11) Reporting Requirements. Telecommunications utilities shall report to the Commission when any of the above standards are not met on a monthly basis.

(a) The Commission may require after its own investigation that a telecommunications utility provide monthly reports on any or all items covered by this rule.

(b) Where a telecommunications utility does not measure items covered by these standards on June 30, 1996, it need not begin doing so unless ordered to by the Commission.

USWC objects to the monthly evaluation period for standards, proposing a two consecutive month period instead. We will retain the monthly period for reporting. We remind the utilities that failure to meet standards does not automatically mean that sanctions will be imposed. The monthly reporting requirement is a way for the Commission to track service quality problems before they become acute. We adopt Section (11) as written.

Section (12): Alternatives to These Telecommunications Standards. Section (12) reads:

(12) Alternatives to these Telecommunications Standards. Telecommunications utilities whose normal methods of operation do not provide for exact compliance with these rules may:

(a) File for a variance from, or waiver of, one or more of these rules specifically indicating the alternative standards to be applied or indicating which standards are desired to be waived.

(b) File a service standards tariff indicating the levels of service that the utility is committed to provide.

(c) Any variance or tariff must be in substantial compliance with these rules.

USWC objects to the language of this section because it would allow the Commission to pick and choose which utilities were granted a variance. USWC argues that it is unreasonable to establish service quality standards and then grant variances, so that certain providers do not have to meet them. We discussed the function of the rules, and of the variance provision, earlier. We need rules that are flexible enough to apply to large and small, urban and rural utilities. Given the choice between waivers and adopting lower standards for all utilities, waivers are preferable. We need to guarantee a baseline of high quality basic exchange service for all utility customers. To do this, we find it appropriate to set standards and allow companies to meet them or present us with functional equivalents of the standards.

Granting the waiver does not suggest that the company receiving a waiver is, in some sense, providing substandard service. The waiver recognizes that the company has demonstrated an alternative way of satisfying customers. We will judge each variance on a case by case basis. We adopt Section (12) as written.

Section (13): Installation Agreement. Section (13) provides:

(13) Installation agreement.

(a) In lieu of adhering to the service standards set forth in this rule and upon request of a business customer with an order for service, the exchange carrier shall provide a written Installation Agreement which shall include, at a minimum, the following terms:

(A) An identification and description of the services to be installed;

(B) The location of the customer’s facility;

(C) The facilities required to service customer;

(D) The date upon which the requested services shall be installed and operable in accordance with industry specifications and standards ("Installation Date"); and,

(E) If agreed to by the business customer and exchange carrier, the amount of liquidated damages to be paid to the customer by the exchange carrier in the event the exchange carrier fails to meet the Installation Date in lieu of any other remedies provided herein.

(b) An exchange carrier’s failure to provide service in accordance with the provisions of a written Installation Agreement shall be deemed to be an omission under the exchange carrier’s duty to provide adequate service.

(c) The customer and exchange carrier may negotiate an Installation Agreement that provides for payment of specific liquidated damages by the exchange carrier in lieu of consequential damages to be paid to the customer in the event the exchange carrier fails to provide service in accordance with the terms of the written agreement.

USWC objects to this section. USWC argues that it was added after the last industry workshop. USWC also argues that utilities should not be required to provide written installation agreements. USWC contends that this alternative always exists as an option for providers but should not be codified as part of the service quality rules. We disagree. One function of the rules is to inform customers of their rights. This section informs the business customer about available options for service.

USWC also objects to subsection (13)(a)(C), which obligates the utility to include information about the facilities required to service the customer. USWC considers specific information about serving arrangements to be proprietary. The installation agreement is a contract between USWC and a customer. USWC may negotiate a nondisclosure provision as part of the contract. We do not consider this subsection problematic.

Finally, USWC objects to (13)(b), because it expands the risk of liability for the utility. We note that the installation agreement is negotiated between the two parties. The utility has a say in the provisions of the agreement and can protect itself from expanded risk of liability by negotiating commitments that it can meet. To the extent that subsection (b) creates a potential for law suits, we view that potential as a strong incentive for the utility to strive to satisfy customers. No such incentive currently exists. We adopt Section (13) as written.

Section (14): Remedies for Violation of this Rule. Section (14) reads:

(14) Remedies for violation of this rule. If the Commission believes a company subject to this rule has violated one or more of its service standards, it shall give the company notice and an opportunity to explain the alleged violation(s). If, after hearing the company’s explanation, the Commission believes that a violation has occurred, the Commission may require the company to provide the following relief to the affected customers:

(a) A requirement that the company provide an alternative means of telecommunications service for violations of 2(d).

(b) Customer billing credits equal to the associated nonrecurring and recurring charges of the company for the affected service(s) for the period of the violation(s).

(c) Other relief authorized by Oregon law.

In its July 9, 1996, comments, USWC argues that the Commission lacks statutory authority to assess penalties, assuming that adequate notice of penalties was provided in the rulemaking. In its November 20, 1996, comments, PTI also argues that the Commission has overstepped the bounds of reasonableness in suggesting penalties in subsection (14)(c). PTI argues that under this provision, the Commission could impose special, liquidated, punitive, and compensatory damages.

It is unclear whether USWC’s argument applies to the proposed rules as they are now written. When it made its comments, the participants were debating whether to include a penalties section or simply to include remedies. The proposed rules include remedies to be provided to customers and a reference to "other relief." The Commission is acting within its authority when it prescribes remedies provided to customers for service failures. As the Court of Appeals said in Garrison v. Pacific NW Bell, "Rates, service levels, and the remedy for . . . service failures are inseparable." 45 Or App 523, 531 (1980). The remedies in subsections (a) and (b) determine the scope of the utilities’ service obligations, as the regulation approved in Garrison did.

As to subsection (c), that provision does not open a window for the Commission to impose general tort or contract damages, as PTI fears. The Commission requires an explicit legislative delegation to act. If the Commission-sponsored legislation dealing with penalties for service quality violations becomes law, the Commission would then have authority to impose penalties on utilities, payable to the Commission. It would not have authority to impose general tort or contract damages beyond its current authority. We adopt Section (14) as written.

Staff also proposed Section (15), dealing with when a utility may become exempt from standards for a given service. That section ties the exemption to the development of facilities-based competition. Section (15) reads:

(15) Exemption from these rules.

(a) A telecommunications utility may petition the Commission for an exemption from these rules with respect to one or more telecommunications services offered by the utility.

(b) If the Commission determines that effective facilities-based competition exists for a service in one or more exchanges, it may exempt the utility from this service quality rule for that service in those exchanges.

(c) In making this determination, the Commission shall consider:

(A) the extent to which the service is available from alternative providers in the relevant market;

(B) the extent to which the services of alternative providers are functionally equivalent or substitutable at comparable rates, terms and conditions;

(C) existing barriers to market entry;

(D) market share and concentration;

(E) number of suppliers;

(F) price to cost ratios;

(G) demand side substitutability (e.g., customer perceptions of competitors as viable alternatives); and

(H) any other factors deemed relevant by the Commission.

All participants that responded to the question of when a company should cease to be regulated as to service quality standards agreed exemption from service standards should be linked to the advent of competition. We agree, and adopt Section (15) as written.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

Staff’s proposed rules are adopted as modified herein. The modified rules are attached as Appendix A.

The rules are to become effective on January 1, 1997.

The rules set forth in Appendix A are adopted as OAR 860-023-0055 and OAR 860-034-0390.

Phase II of this docket will deal with advanced services and other aspects of the network not dealt with in these rules. Staff will convene Phase II in early 1997.

Made, entered, and effective ___________________________.

BY THE COMMISSION:

______________________________

Vikie Bailey-Goggins

Commission Secretary

A person may petition the Commission for the amendment or repeal of a rule pursuant to ORS 183.390. A person may petition the Court of Appeals to determine the validity of a rule pursuant to ORS 183.400.

[Telephone] Telecommunications Service Standards

[Telephone Service Standards

860-023-0055 Every exchange carrier shall adhere to the following service standards:

(1) Held Access Line Service Orders. Requests for access line (main) telephone service delayed over 30 days because of lack of outside plant or central office equipment shall be counted as held when service is not provided within 30 days after the commitment date. Alternatively, the date the order is taken from the customer may be used in lieu of commitment date where it is not the utility’s practice to establish commitment dates. At 60 days and over 120 days the order shall be moved to the appropriate period for which it has been held. A record of why each order is held shall be maintained together with the estimated "in service date." Orders requiring the customer to meet specific prerequisites (e.g., line extension charges) shall be measured from the time the prerequisites have been met.

(2) Held Regrade Service orders. Requests for change in grade of an existing access line service delayed over 60 days, because of lack of outside plant or central office equipment, shall be counted as held when service is not provided within 60 days after the commitment date. Alternatively the date the order is taken from the customer may be used in lieu of commitment date where it is not the utility’s practice to establish commitment dates. Requests for change in grade of an existing access line service delayed because of facility shortage shall be counted as a held order 60 days after the taken date and/or commitment date. At 120 days the order shall be noted to indicate it has been held for that period of time. A record of why each order is held shall be maintained together with the estimated "in service date." Orders requiring the customer to meet specific prerequisites shall be measured from the time the prerequisites have been met.

(3) Installation Due Date Commitments:

(a) At the time the request for access line service (excluding key and PBX service) is taken, a customer shall be given a due date based upon the following mileage zones (where outside plant facilities are available):

Zone Due Date Objective

0-15 Miles Three Working Days

16-30 Miles Five Working Days

Over 30 Miles Seven Working Days

(b) It is recognized that the "objectives" cannot consistently be met. Therefore, for reporting purposes the average number of days required to install service shall be the "due date period" of record for any given month. Mileage shall be measured from the point where employees engaged in service installation are normally assigned.

(c) Key, PBX, and special systems and lines shall be on a due date basis which is compatible with equipment and manpower availability. Each utility shall make all reasonable efforts to assure expeditious installation of its Key, PBX, special systems, lines, and other special services.

(4) Dial tone Speed. When measured 98 percent of originating average busy hour, call attempts shall receive dial tone within 3 seconds.

(5) Toll Operator Answering Time. 90 Percent of the Toll Operator Calls shall be answered within 10 seconds. (Equivalent measuring methods may be used.) This standard would be applied only if customer complaints of slow answers were received by the Public Utility Commission of Oregon.

(6) Directory Assistance Operator Answering Time. 84.9 percent of attempted calls shall be answered within 10 seconds.

(7) Trouble Reports:

(a) All utilities shall maintain a record of reported trouble. The record of reported trouble shall contain as a minimum requirement:

(A) Telephone number.

(B) Date and time received.

(D) Type of trouble reported.

(E) Location of trouble.

(F) Whether or not the present trouble report is within 30 days of the previous trouble report.

(b) Records may be kept in a format suitable for each utility’s operation. Utilities are not required to forward such records to the Commission on a continuing basis. Records shall be kept in such condition that they can be forwarded to the Commission immediately upon request. All records shall be kept by central office designation for a period of one year.

(c) Service shall be maintained by the exchange carrier in such a manner that the monthly rate of all customer trouble reports, excluding reports concerning connecting company calls and customer premise equipment, does not exceed 5 per 100 local access lines per central office equipped with 1,000 or more access lines. The standard for central offices with less than 1,000 lines shall be 7 per 100.

(8) Subscriber Lines:

(a) All newly constructed and rebuilt subscriber lines shall be designed with the objective of no more than 8.5db transmission loss at 1,000+ -20 HZ (Hertz) from the serving central office to the customer premise network interface. All subscriber lines shall be maintained so that the transmission loss does not exceed 10 db (decibels).

(b) All newly built and rebuilt subscriber lines shall be constructed and maintained so that metallic noise shall not exceed 20dBRNC. All subscriber lines shall be maintained so that metallic noise does not exceed 30dBRNC. (Decibels above reference noise level – C message weighting.)

(c) All subscriber lines shall provide a minimum range of 20 to 23 millamperes of loop current from the central office to the customer premise network interface when terminated with 400 ohms.

(d) All combinations of subscribers’ lines and central office switching equipment shall be capable of accepting and correctly processing at least the following network control signals from customer premise equipment:

(A) Dial Pulse – 8 to 12 pulses per second and 58 to 64 percent break.

(B) Tone Pulsing – 50 milliseconds DTMF (Dual Tone Multi Frequency) on 50 milliseconds DTMF tone off.

(9) Intraoffice, Interoffice, and Access Trunking:

(a) All intraoffice, interoffice, and access trunking and associated switching components shall be engineered and maintained to allow 99 percent completion of properly dialed calls to the trunk group during the average busy season without encountering blockages or equipment irregularities.

(b) All interoffice and access trunk groups shall be maintained so that the AML (actual measured loss) in no more than 30 percent of the trunks shall deviate from EML (expected measured loss) by more than .7db and no more than 4.5 percent of the trunks shall deviate from EML by more than 1.7db.

(10) Interexchange Carriers. All interexchange carrier facilities connected to the facilities of an exchange carrier shall be operated in a manner which will not impede the exchange carrier’s ability to meet required standards of service. All exchange carriers shall report situations contrary to the above promptly to the Commission.

(11) Exchange carriers shall report to the Commission when the following conditions are exceeded where measured:

(a) Local calling – 3 percent of properly dialed local calls cannot be completed.

(b) Blockages on incoming trunks exceeding 1.5 percent and exceeding 3 percent on outgoing trunks.

(c) Trouble reports per 100 access lines exceeds: 5 per 100 local access lines for central offices equipped with 1,000 or more access lines or 7 per 100 for central offices with less than 1,000 access lines, excluding reports concerning connecting company calls and customer premise equipment.]

Telecommunications Service Standards

860-023-0055 Every telecommunications utility shall adhere to the following standards:

(1) Definitions

(a) "Access Line" – Refers to a dial tone line that provides basic exchange services extending from the telecommunications provider’s switching equipment to a point of termination at the premise of the telecommunications provider’s end user customer.

(b) "Held Access Line Service orders"- Requests for access line service delayed beyond the commitment date due to lack of facilities. Orders requiring the customer to meet specific reasonable prerequisites (e.g., line extension charges) shall be measured from the time the prerequisites have been met.

(c) "Trouble Report" – Means a report of a malfunction on existing lines, circuits, or features made to a Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) by or on behalf of that LEC’s customer in the LEC’s network up to and including the point of demarcation at the customer’s location. Trouble found to be caused by conditions on the customer’s side of the demarcation point, or by a connecting carrier, shall not be counted. Trouble reports shall also not be counted if the Commission finds that the trouble was caused by factors beyond the telecommunications utility’s control.

(d) "Wire Center" – Refers to the LEC-owned facility wherein the local exchange cables terminate and are accessible for connection to the switching or call processing equipment. Wire centers also have common language codes assigned to them.

(2) Provisioning

(a) At the time a request for access line service is taken, a customer shall be given a committed due date of no more than five business days (unless a later date is mutually agreed to). Access line service is a dial tone line that provides basic exchange services from a telecommunications utility’s switching equipment to a point of termination at the end user’s premise. Access line service installation orders include orders for new or transferred service or additional lines or change orders.

(b) A telecommunications utility shall met at least 90 percent of commitments for service.

(c) Held Access Line Service Orders. Once a request for service becomes a held order, commitments to fill the order must be made in writing to the customer within 15 business days.

(d) The average number of held access line orders shall not exceed the greater of 2 per wire center per month averaged over the telecommunications utility’s Oregon service territory, or 4 held orders per 1,000 inward orders.

(e) A record of why each order is held shall be maintained, together with the commitment date.

(f) Held orders shall be reported to the Commission upon request, by total number and those held over 30 days past the initial commitment date.

(3) Access to Telecommunications Utility Representatives.

(a) Business Office. Eighty-five percent of calls to each of a telecommunications utility’s business office centers shall be answered within 20 seconds each month.

(b) Repair Service. Eighty-five percent of calls to each of a telecommunications utility’s repair service centers shall be answered within 20 seconds each month.

(c) No more than 1 percent of calls to each business office and to each repair service center shall encounter a busy signal or other busy indication.

(d) Equivalent measurements to those specified in this paragraph may be used when approved by the Commission.

(4) Repair Commitment and Restoral Times.

(a) A telecommunications utility shall clear at least 95 percent of all reports within 48 hours each month.

(b) A telecommunications utility shall provide each customer making a network trouble report with a commitment time by which the repair will be completed.

(5) Trouble Reports.

(a) Each telecommunications utility shall establish and compute an ongoing 12-month rolling average trouble report rate for each wire center or central office for reports of trouble on the utility side of the network interface.

(b) Each telecommunications utility shall maintain a record of reported trouble. The record of reported trouble shall contain as a minimum:

(A) Telephone number;

(B) Date and time received;

(C) Time cleared;

(D) Type of trouble reported;

(E) Location of trouble; and

(F) Whether or not the present trouble is within 30 days of a previous trouble report.

(c) Records shall be kept in such condition that they can be forwarded to the Commission immediately upon request. All records shall be kept by wire center for a period of one year.

(d) Service shall be maintained by the telecommunications utility so that the rolling 12-month average trouble report rate does not exceed 2 per 100 access lines per wire center.

(6) Dial Tone Speed. Ninety-eight percent of originating average busy hour call attempts shall receive dial tone within 3 seconds.

(7) Toll Operator Answer Time. Ninety percent of toll operator calls shall be answered within 10 seconds (equivalent measuring methods may be used).

(8) Subscriber Lines.

(a) All subscriber lines shall be designed, installed, and maintained with the objective of no more than 8.5 dB (decibel) loss at 1004 HZ (Hertz) from the serving central office to the customer premise network interface.

(b) All subscriber lines shall be designed, installed, and maintained so that metallic noise shall not exceed 20dBRNC (Decibels Above Reference Noise level – C message weighting).

(c) All subscriber lines shall provide a minimum of 20 to 23 milliamperes of loop current from the central office to the customer network interface when terminated with 400 ohms.

(d) All combinations of subscriber lines and central office switching equipment shall be capable of accepting and correctly processing at least the following network control signals from customer premise equipment:

(A) Dial Pulse – 8 to 12 pulses per second and 58 to 64 percent break.

(B) Tone Pulsing – 50 milliseconds DTMF (Dual Tone Multi Frequency) on; 50 milliseconds DTMF off.

(e) Special Service Lines. All special service lines shall meet performance requirements specified in applicable telecommunications utility tariffs.

(9) Intraoffice, Interoffice, and Access Trunking.

(a) All intraoffice, interoffice, and access trunking and associated switching components shall be engineered and maintained to allow 99 percent completion of properly dialed calls during the average busy season without encountering blockages or equipment irregularities.

(b) All interoffice and access trunk groups shall be maintained so that the AML (actual measured loss) in no more than 30 percent of the trunks shall deviate from EML (expected measured loss) by more than .7 dB and no more than 4.5 percent of the trunks shall deviate from EML by more than 1.7 dB.

(10) Interexchange and Competitive Carriers. All interexchange or competitive carrier facilities interconnected to the facilities of a telecommunications utility shall be operated in a manner which will not impede the telecommunications utility’s ability to meet required standards of service. All telecommunications utilities shall report situations contrary to the above promptly to the Commission.

(11) Reporting Requirements. Telecommunications utilities shall report to the Commission when any of the above standards are not met on a monthly basis.

(a) The Commission may require after its own investigation that a telecommunications utility provide monthly reports on any or all items covered by this rule.

(b) Where a telecommunications utility does not measure items covered by these standards on June 30, 1996, it need not begin doing so unless ordered to by the Commission.

(12) Alternatives to these Telecommunications Standards. Telecommunications utilities whose normal methods of operation do not provide for exact compliance with these rules may:

(a) File for a variance from, or waiver of, one or more of these rules specifically indicating the alternative standards to be applied or indicating which standards are desired to be waived.

(b) File a service standards tariff indicating the levels of service that the utility is committed to provide.

(c) Any variance or tariff must be in substantial compliance with these rules.

(13) Installation Agreement.

(a) In lieu of adhering to the service standards set forth in this rule and upon request of a business customer with an order for service, the exchange carrier shall provide a written Installation Agreement which shall include, at a minimum, the following terms:

(A) An identification and description of the services to be installed;

(B) The location of the customer’s facility;

(C) The facilities required to service customer;

(D) The date upon which the requested services shall be installed and operable in accordance with industry specifications and standards ("Installation Date"); and,

(E) If agreed to by the business customer and exchange carrier, the amount of liquidated damages to be paid to the customer by the exchange carrier in the event the exchange carrier fails to meet the Installation Date in lieu of any other remedies provided herein.

(b) An exchange carrier’s failure to provide service in accordance with the provisions of a written Installation Agreement shall be deemed to be an omission under the exchange carrier’s duty to provide adequate service.

(c) The customer and exchange carrier may negotiate an Installation Agreement that provides for payment of specific liquidated damages by the exchange carrier in lieu of consequential damages to be paid to the customer in the event the exchange carrier fails to provide service in accordance with the terms of the written agreement.

(14) Remedies for Violation of this Rule. If the Commission believes a company subject to this rule has violated one or more of its service standards, it shall give the company notice and an opportunity to explain the alleged violation(s). If, after hearing the company’s explanation, but Commission believes that a violation has occurred, the Commission may require the company to provide the following relief to the affected customers:

(a) A requirement that the company provide an alternative means of telecommunications service for violations of 2(d).

(b) Customer billing credits equal to the associated nonrecurring and recurring charges of the company for the affected service(s) for the period of the violation(s).

(c) Other relief authorized by Oregon law.

(15) Exemption from these Rules.

(a) A telecommunications utility may petition the Commission for an exemption from these rules with respect to one or more telecommunications services offered by the utility.

(b) If the Commission determines that effective facilities-based competition exists for a service in one or more exchanges, it may exempt the utility from this service quality rule for that service in those exchanges.

(c)In making this determination, the Commission shall consider:

(A) The extent to which the service is available from alternative providers in the relevant market;

(B) The extent to which the services of alternative providers are functionally equivalent or substitutable at comparable rates, terms and conditions;

(C) Existing barriers to market entry;

(D) Market share and concentration;

(E) Number of suppliers;

(F) Price to cost ratios;

(G) Demand side substitutability (e.g., customer perceptions of competitors as viable alternatives); and

(H) Any other factors deemed relevant by the Commission.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 183.335, 756.060

Stat. Implemented: ORS 759.035, 759.240

Hist.: PUC 164, f. 4-18-74, ef. 5-11-74 (Order No. 74-307); PUC 23-1985, f. & ef. 12-11-85 (Order No. 85-1171)