PENNSYLVANIA
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
Harrisburg PA 17105-3265
Public Meeting held April 15, 2010
Commissioners Present:
James H. Cawley, Chairman
Tyrone J. Christy, Vice-Chairman
Wayne E. Gardner
Robert F. Powelson
PMO III – Directory Listings Tariff (F0016) / Docket Nos.M-2009-2134347
Performance Metrics & Remedies (F0016) / M-00011468
ORDER
BY THE COMMISSION:
Presently before the Commission is a petition filed by Verizon Pennsylvania Inc. (Verizon PA) that seeks approval of: (1) Verizon PA’s Other Telephone Company Customer Listing Error Remedy Plan (Plan); (2) a proposed tariff filing that would implement the Plan; and (3) proposed changes (F0016 changes) to the Pennsylvania Carrier-to-Carrier Guidelines (PA Guidelines). We shall approve herein the proposed Plan, the proposed tariff, and the proposed F0016 changes.
Background
In 2002 in PMO II,[1] this Commission, inter alia, approved two metrics, GE-5 Directory Listing Verification Reports and GE-6 Timely and Accurate Provisioning of White Page Directory Listings LSRs and DSRs. The Commission also directed the Pennsylvania Carrier Working Group (PA CWG)[2] to recommend a remedy for errors in directory listings in Verizon PA directories that affected customers of competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs).[3]
With the consensus of the local exchange carriers (LECs) in the PA CWG, GE5 and GE6 were never implemented due to internal ambiguities regarding their submetrics as well as the administrative burden and expense of making the metrics work as drafted. Commencing in 2003 and in conjunction with its attempt to revise GE-5 and GE-6, the PA CWG has worked to develop a directory remedy plan that would operate outside the PA Performance Assurance Plan (PA PAP).[4] The LECs in the PA CWG have concluded that GE-5 and GE-6 cannot be made to work and that it is appropriate to address directory errors affecting CLECs’ customers outside of the metrics and remedies process. That consensus is reflected in the proposed Plan, the proposed tariff, and the proposed F0016 PA Guidelines changes.
History of this Proceeding
The proposed Plan, tariff,[5] and F0016 changes were filed and served on the parties by Verizon PA on October 1, 2009. Notice of the opportunity to file comments and reply comments was provided to all members of the PACWG and posted on the Commission’s website.[6] Comments were filed by Verizon PA and the Office of Small Business Advocate (OSBA). Reply comments were filed by Verizon PA.
Verizon PA supports the petition in its Comments and Reply Comments. OSBA does not oppose the proposed Plan but believes that, in addition to the financial remedies in the Plan, some non-financial remedies should be imposed for directory listing errors that affect CLECs’ customers. OSBA asserts that it is critical to a small business to have a way of getting an incorrect listing updated in some immediate manner. OSBA suggests that, in addition to approving the Plan, at a minimum, eighteen(18) months of data should be collected pursuant to the DL metrics. OSBA argues that only after such data is collected can the Commission and the parties ascertain whether the financial remedies are working or whether further non-financial remedies are necessary.
In response to OSBA’s concerns, Verizon PA asserts that it will undertake the following reporting: Eighteen (18) months after the Plan goes into effect, Verizon PA will report to the PA CWG the total number of CLEC customer directory listing error reimbursement claims submitted by CLECs to Verizon PA under the Plan for which Verizon PA has provided credits to CLECs. Verizon PA suggests that the Commission should not presume that any additional action is required with regard to this issue but rather allow the PA CWG to evaluate and discuss the data Verizon PA has committed to collect and review with the PA CWG.
Synopsis of the Plan[7]
In order to participate in the Plan, a CLEC would be required to have a Section252[8] interconnection agreement with Verizon PA. The Plan would apply to directories published after the effective date of the new tariff section containing the Plan. The Plan would apply to the following Verizon PA-provided directory listings and listing services:
(i) White Pages CLEC’s customer listings (including listings for which no specific charge applies and listings for which a specific charge applies);
(ii) The “free” customer listing for a CLEC’s business customers in a Verizon PA Yellow Pages (classified) telephone directory; and
(iii) Non-published and non-listed telephone number service.
The Plan does not apply to listings provided by Verizon PA such as:
(i) Customer listings associated with resold services;
(ii) Customer listings associated with Verizon Wholesale Advantage Service (Verizon’s UNE-P replacement service) or any comparable successor service;
(iii) Customer listings associated with telecommunications service provided by a CLEC as an incumbent LEC;
(iv) Customer listings pursuant to an agreement that excludes application of the Plan.
(v) Customer listings for which the CLEC’s customer has made a claim against Verizon PA and/or the directory publisher or printer; and
(vi) Customer listings that the CLEC arranges directly with the directory publisher or printer for publication of the CLEC’s customer listings.
The exclusions would reflect the expectation that, in some circumstances, remedies for a CLEC’s customer directory listing error are covered by an alternative arrangement.[9]
The Plan would provide compensation for the following types of directory listing errors when the errors are attributable to Verizon PA:
(i) Omission from a printed Verizon PA telephone directory of a CLEC’s customer listing that the CLEC requested be included in the directory;
(ii) Publication in a printed Verizon PA telephone directory of a CLEC’s customer listing that the CLEC requested be excluded from the directory; and
(iii) Publication in a printed Verizon PA telephone directory of a CLEC’s customer name, address, or telephone number that differs from the name, address, or telephone number that the CLEC requested Verizon PA to publish in the directory.
Upon notice from a CLEC of a directory error allegedly attributable to Verizon PA, Verizon PA would have sixty (60) days to respond as to whether it would provide the requested credit to the CLEC. If Verizon PA agreed that a credit is due to the CLEC, Verizon PA would apply a credit to a CLEC bill within forty-five (45) days of the notice that a credit would be provided. Verizon PA would credit a CLEC’s bill for the amount the CLEC has credited to its own customer as a result of a Verizon PA-caused error[10] in the CLEC’s customer listing in a Verizon telephone directory, up to the maximum amount stated in the tariff.[11] Verizon PA would also provide to the CLEC an administrative bill credit equal to an additional twenty-five percent (25%) of the credit that Verizon PA reimburses to the CLEC for payments by the CLEC to its customer.[12] The proposed Plan contains an extensive set of examples showing the credits that would be available to a CLEC under the Plan in the event of an error in its customer listings.
Discussion
Non-Financial Remedies
OSBA raises the issue of non-financial remedies but asserts that a resolution of non-financial remedy issues should not interfere with implementation of the proposed Plan and the proposed tariff or the elimination of GE-5 and GE-6. To address OSBA’s concerns, Verizon PA offers to “report to the PA CWG the total number of CLEC customer directory listing reimbursement claims submitted by CLECs to Verizon [PA] under the Plan for which Verizon [PA] has provided credits to CLECs” at the end of eighteen (18) months of operations pursuant to the Plan. (Verizon PA R.C. at 2). In our opinion, while this offer purports to be a way to quantify the magnitude of the problem of Verizon PA directory errors that affect customers of CLECs, it does not directly correlate with the issue of non-financial remedies. Accordingly, we shall discuss Verizon PA’s proposal to provide such data (DL Performance Data) in the context of the proposed Plan and proposed tariff, below, rather than in the context of non-financial remedies. If, however, the parties can reach a consensus proposal relative to non-financial remedies at any point in time, then the PA CWG is at liberty to submit its consensus to this Commission for consideration and approval.
OSBA’s commitment to non-financial remedies is laudable and serves to remind us in this proceeding that directory listing errors can affect a much broader population than merely the customers of CLECs. However, unless the parties propose specific non-financial remedies, the issue of non-financial remedies for directory errors attributable to Verizon PA actions or inactions should be addressed independently of whether the error affects a Verizon PA customer or the customer of a CLEC. The PA CWG is free to work on non-financial remedies and may ask this Commission to revisit the issue. Any discussions relative to non-financial remedies shall not delay implementation of the proposed Plan and the proposed tariff or elimination of GE-5 and GE-6, consistent with this order.
Plan and Tariff
By this order, we attempt to provide compensation for Verizon PA directory errors that affect CLECs and their customers and to remediate a perceived imbalance that favored Verizon PA customers with financial remedies for directory errors to the exclusion of CLEC customers affected by Verizon PA’s directory process errors.[13]
The proposed Plan and the companion proposed tariff are unique to operations in Pennsylvania. The PA CWG and a subgroup dedicated solely to directory matters have worked on the issue of directory errors affecting the CLECs’ customers for years. That the LECs (Verizon PA and the CLECs) have reached a financial-remedy consensus is remarkable. The PA CWG conclusion that GE-5 and GE-6 will not work was not reached lightly but only after painstaking attempts to define and isolate measurable steps in the directory listing process proved unworkable. Untold hours went into the manual collection of directory listing data and the analysis of that data and the directory processes. Numerous enhancements and alternatives for GE5 and GE-6 were debated. In the end, the LECs concluded that the directory process was not amenable to metrics and that it would be more productive to address directory errors in the context of the impact of a Verizon PA error on a customer and on the CLEC. Consistent with the task we asked the Pa CWG to address, the proposed Plan and the proposed tariff provide a clear-cut method for identifying and quantifying errors and providing remuneration for such errors.
We find that the PA CWG and other interested entities have had adequate notice and opportunity to review the proposed plan and the proposed tariff, to discuss the matter in the PA CWG, and to file written comments at this docket. We therefore conclude that the proposed Plan represents the consensus recommendation of the PA CWG. Accordingly, we shall approve the proposed Plan, subject to the concerns we have raised in this order. We also shall approve the proposed Directory Listings Tariff that implements the Plan,[14] consistent with this order.
DL Performance Data
We believe that Verizon PA’s proposal (Verizon PA R.C. at 2) to collect DL Performance Data and to have the PA CWG review the data initially is a prudent course relative to the matter of errors in listings affecting customers of CLECs. We wish to clarify two points: the content of the data and the availability of the data. We do not believe that any meaningful insight can be gleaned from merely knowing the number of CLEC customer directory listing reimbursement claims for which Verizon PA has provided credits during the initial eighteen (18) month period of operations pursuant to the Plan.
We believe that it is essential that Verizon PA, at a minimum, collect and provide to the PA CWG the following information:
· The number of errors reported,
· The number of claims with line counts,
· The number of payments with line counts,
· The reasons for rejections with line counts,
· The number of listings for CLECs with line counts,
· The number of errors reports for retail customers,
· The number of listings for retail customers,
· The directories in which an error is reported, and
· What steps if any have been taken to avoid such errors in the future.
This list may be modified or amended, initially or from time to time, by consensus of the PA CWG. Any DL Performance Data should be redacted as to customer and CLEC identity unless such information is known through other channels (e.g., news reports) or permission is obtained to discuss the data on an identified basis. Any discussions relative to what should be reported as DL Performance Data shall not delay implementation of the proposed Plan and proposed tariff, consistent with this order.
Further, the DL Performance Data should be available to the PA CWG on an on-going basis and not merely accumulated over the eighteen(18) months. Since the collection of this data is not a mechanized metric process, the data should be provided to the PA CWG as soon as possible. At the very least, it would appear that any available collected data could be reported on the 5th day preceding each PA CWG meeting, which will allow the PA CWG to address any issues at its first Tuesday meetings in even-numbered months. If this schedule is not workable, we direct the PA CWG to work out a schedule for distribution of the DL Performance Data, keeping in mind that discussions relative to distribution of DL Performance Data shall not delay implementation of the proposed Plan and proposed tariff, consistent with this order.