ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey
Before the Federal Communications CommisOOCKET FILE COpy ORIGII'L~L Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter ofApplication ofVerizon ) New Jersey Inc., Bell Atlantic ) Communications, Inc. (d/b/a Verizon ) CC Docket No. 01-347 Long Distance), NYNEX Long Distance ) Company (d/b/a Verizon Enterprise ) Solutions), Verizon Global Networks Inc., ) and Verizon Select Services Inc., for ) Authorization to Provide In-Region, ) InterLATA Services In New Jersey. )
COMMENTS OF ATX LICENSING, INC.
Michael Pryor Christopher A. Holt Lisa N. Anderson Vice President and Assistant General Counsel Mintz Levin Cohn Fems Regulatory and Corporate Affairs Glovsky and Popeo, P.e. ATX Licensing, Inc. 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 110 East 59th Street, 26th Floor Washington, DC 20004 New York, NY 10022 (202) 434-7300 Washington, D.C. 20004 [email protected] (212) 906-8488 [email protected] [email protected]
Counsellor ATXLicensing, Inc.
Dated: January 14, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION TO ATX 2
DISCUSSION .3
I. THERE IS LITTLE COMPETITION IN THE NEW JERSEY LOCAL MARKET DUE TO VERIZON'S INTRANSIGENCE AND AN INSUFFICIENTLY PRO-COMPETITIVE REGULATORY CLIMATE .3
A. Exorbitant Non-TELRIC Rates Stymied Competitive Entry and Has Led to Inadequate Commercial Data for a Meaningful Review ofVerizon-NJ's Performance 5
B. The State Regulatory Process Has Failed to Produce a Rigorous and Thorough Review ofVerizon-NJ's Compliance with Section 271 .1 0
C. Verizon-NJ's Eleventh Hour Concessions Precluded a Thorough Review 12
II. VERIZON-NJ HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED COMPLIANCE WITH CHECKLIST ITEMS 2 AND 6 13
A. Verizon-NJ has Consistently Denied ATX Complete and Seamless Access to the Features, Functions and Capabilities ofUNE-P 15
I. Centrex Service 15
2. Remote Call Forwarding 18
3. PBX Analog Trunks 19
4. "As Is" Conversion to UNE Platform 20
B. Verizon-NJ Does Not Provide ATX With Accurate, Readable and Auditable Bills 23
I. Verizon-NJ's Bills Are Inaccurate 23
2. Verizon-NJ's Billing Practices Limit the Auditability ofWholesale Bills 26
CONCLUSION .29
EXHIBIT A .30 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554
In the Malter ofApplication ofVerizon ) New Jersey Inc., Bell Atlantic ) Communications, Inc. (d/b/a Verizon ) CC Docket No. 01-347 Long Distance), NYNEX Long Distance ) Company (d/b/a Verizon Enterprise ) Solutions), Verizon Global Networks Inc., ) and Verizon Select Services Inc., for ) Authorization to Provide In-Region, ) InterLATA Services In New Jersey. )
COMMENTS OF A TX LICENSING, INC.
ATX Licensing, Inc. ("ATX") hereby files these comments pursuant to the Public Notice!
ofthe Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") requesting comments on
the application ofVerizon New Jersey, Inc. ("Verizon-NJ") for authorization to provide in-
region, interLATA service in the State ofNew Jersey. ATX has had significant experience in
offering services in the New Jersey marketplace and hopes to expand its operations further in this
state. As a result, ATX's experience directly bears on the Commission's analysis ofwhether
Verizon-NJ has met the Section 271 checklist and ATX has a keen interest in the outcome ofthis
proceeding.
As ATX's experience indicates, Verizon-NJ has failed to truly open the New Jersey local
market to competition, and its 271 Application2 is woefully premature. Verizon-NJ's 271
I Comments Requested on the Application by Verizon New Jersey Inc. For Authorization to Provide In Region, InlerLATA Services in the Stale ojNewJersey, CC Docket No. 01-347, DA 01-2994, Public Notice (reI. Dec. 20, 200 I)
2 Application ofVerizon New Jersey Inc., Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc. (d/b/a Verizon Long Distance), NYNEX Long Distance Company (d/b/a Verizon Enterprise Solutions), Verizon Global Networks Inc, and Verizon Select Servicesfor Authorization to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in New Jersey, CC Docket No. ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey
Application neither reflects substantive compliance with the standards ofthe Section 271 checklist nor is it the product ofa sufficiently rigorous and thorough state review process.
Accordingly, ATX respectfully requests that the Commission deny Verizon-NJ's 271
Application.
INTRODUCTION TO ATX
Since its inception in 1985, ATX has grown to become a national telecommunications provider offering services in Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. ATX offers a variety ofservices including local and long-distances services, Internet access, data services, wireless services, network integration services, web hosting, fax broadcast conference calling, and pre-paid calling. As of
September 30, 200 I, ATX has provided service to more than 50,000 residential lines and
240,000 business lines nationwide 3 ATX has been an active competitive participant in the telecommunications marketplace for well over a decade. In the 1980s, ATX began offering long distance services in New Jersey. Subsequently, relying on the 1996 Act, and its requirements intended to eliminate barriers to local competition, ATX expanded its service offerings to include both competitive local and long distance services.
ATX has utilized several entry mechanisms to offer local services in New Jersey.
Initially, in order to hasten its market entry, ATX provided services on a resale basis.
Subsequently, ATX desired to provide services as a facilities-based competitor. Thus, in April of 1999, ATX began installing collocation arrangements in New Jersey, and installed switching facilities in Pennsylvania to be used in part to serve New Jersey customers. ATX later
01-347. DA a1·2994, Application by Verizon to Provide In-Region InterLATA Services in New Jersey (filed Dec. 20,2001) ("Verizon·NJ 271 Application").
3 CoreComm Communications, Inc. is the indirect parent company ofATX. ATX was formed as the result ofa merger of A TX telecommunications Services, Inc. and CoreComm Limited consummated in September 2000.
2 ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey determined that it needed an intermediate strategy to facilitate the transition of its customers from resale to facilities-based services, and began attempting to convert its resale customers to the UNE-Platform ("UNE-P") instead ofimmediately serving those customers on its own facilities. Since that time, UNE-P has been a central component ofATX's business plan and the ability to access UNE-P is a key determinant ofits competitive viability in New Jersey.
DISCUSSION
Unfortunately, ATX's experience in accessing resale and UNE-P services from Verizon-
NJ indicates that the New Jersey local market is not yet open as required by the 1996 Act. For the past year and a halt: ATX has faced substantial resistance in accessing UNE-P from Verizon-
NJ in a complete and competitively neutral manner. Verizon-NJ did not begin providing UNE-P until several years after the passage ofthe 1996 Act4 Even then, Verizon-NJ limited ATX's ability to access all ofthe features ofthe switch in utilizing UNE-P arrangements. In addition,
Verizon-NJ's billing systems have been systemically flawed resulting in millions ofdollars in disputed charges.
I. THERE IS LITTLE COMPETITION IN THE NEW JERSEY LOCAL MARKET DUE TO VERIZON'S INTRANSIGENCE AND AN INSUFFICIENTLY PRO COMPETITIVE REGULATORY CLIMATE.
The market statistics highlight what ATX and other competitors have experienced and shown: the state of competition in New Jersey is minimal. Competitors only account for 6.7% oflocallines in New Jersey. Residential competition is even more dismal with competitors accounting for only 1.35% oflocal lines. Only 1.4% ofNew Jersey residential customers served by CLECs are served by UNE-P, as compared to 58% and 60% ofresidential customers served
4 On October 6, 1999, the NJ BPU ordered Verizon-NJ to provide UNE-P to residential and business customers by December 1999. In re Status a/Local Exchange Competition, Docket No. TX980100100, Slip Opinion, 1999 WL 1276836 (N.J. B.P.U Oct. 6, I999)("Oct. 1999 Slip Opinion").
3 ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey
by CLECs in New York and Pennsylvania respectively at the time Verizon applied for 271
approval in those states5 It is little wonder that a member ofthe BPU stated that "residential
choice is not quite there yet.,,6 The state ofcompetition in New Jersey contrasts sharply with
other leading competitive states in which the incumbent has received 271 approval. For
example, in Pennsylvania, the level ofcompetition was 16% ofall local lines and 5.3% of
residentiallines7
There are two primary reasons competition has been so slow in developing in New Jersey.
First, Verizon-NJ's pattern and practice has been to delay compliance with the requirements of
Sections 251 and 271 ofthe Act, and instead provide only as little as possible as late as possible.
Second, the regulatory climate in New Jersey, and in particular the UNE-rates, has not been
conducive to local competition.
5 Verizon-NJ estimates CLECs serve provide UNE-P over 800 lines in New Jersey, out ofa total of approximately 57,000 CLEC residential customers served by CLECs. Verizon-NJ 271 Application, Dec!. of William E. Taylor ~ 19 (filed Dec. 20, 2001). When the FCC approved Verizon's 271 application in New York, CLECs served 137,342 residential customers via UNE-P out ofapproximately 236,000 CLEC residential customers. Application by Bell Atlantic New Yorkfor Authorization Under Section 271 ofthe Communications Actfor Authority to Provide In-Region. InterLATA Service in the State ofNew York, CC Docket No. 99-295, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Red. 3953, 3960 ~ 14 (1999) ("New York 271 Order"). When Verizon applied for approval in Pennsylvania, CLECs served 197,000 residential customers via UNE-P out ofapproximately 329,000 CLEC residential customers. Application ofVerizon Pennsylvania In., Verizon Long Distance, Verizon Enterprise Solutions, Verizon Global Networks Inc., and Verizon Select Services Inc. for Authorization to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Pennsylvania, CC Docket No. 01-138, Application ofVerizon Pennsylvania Inc., Decl. of William Taylor ~ 36 (June 2001) ("Taylor June PA Decl. '); Application ofVerizon Pennsylvania In., Verizon Long Distance, Verizon Enterprise Solutions, Verizon Global Networks Inc., and Verizon Select Services Inc. for Authorization to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Pennsylvania, CC Docket No. 01-138, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Red. 17419 ~ 77 n.270 (200 I) ("Pennsylvania 271 Order"),
6 Board's Review ofUnbundled Network Elements Rates. Terms and Conditions ofBell Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc., Docekt No. T00060356, Hearing Transcript at 39, lines 22-23 (Nov. 20, 2001).
7 Application ofVerizon Pennsylvania Inc" Verizon Long Distance Verizon Enterprise Solutions, Verizon Global Networks Inc. and Verizon Select Services Inc. for Authorization to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Pennsylvania, CC Docket No. 01-138, Application ofVerizon Pennsylvania, Inc, at 77 (June 21, 2001); Taylor June PA Dec/. ~ 2.
4 ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey
A. Exorbitant Non-TELRIC Rates Stymied Competitive Entry and Has Led to Inadequate Commercial Data for a Meaningful Review ofVerizon-NJ's Performance.
One reason for the lack ofcompetition in New Jersey, especially for residential
consumers, is that competitors have lacked an essential market entry tool: a cost-effective means
to enter the local market. Unbundled network element rates have been simply too high to permit
efficient entry.8 A number ofcarriers in the state proceeding, as well as the Ratepayer Advocate,
noted that UNE rates were a serious impediment to the development ofcompetition.9 In June of
2000, the United States District Court ofNew Jersey rejected these rates as non-TELRIC
compliant and directed the BPU to revise Verizon-NJ's UNE rates. 10 However, it was not until
after Verizon-NJ submitted its Section 271 application to the state that the NJ BPU announce
revised UNE rates.
During the course ofthe state proceeding, the state orally adopted new UNE rates for some elements. II In addition, the NJ BPU directed Verizon-NJ to change certain inputs to its
cost model, generate new charges for the remaining UNEs and provide certified documentation supporting the results by December 3, 200 I, after which the NJ BPU would issue a final order in
R For example. for UNE-P. the predominant monthly recurring charge (switching costs) have been 2.5 times higher than Pennsylvania, and the rates for EELs have been 46% higher in New Jersey than in Pennsylvania. Consultative Report on the Application ofVerizon New Jersey, Inc. for FCC Authorization to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Service in New Jersey, Docket No. TOO I090541, Decl. of Scott Dulin on behalfofATX Licensing. Inc. ~~ 15,28 ("ATX Dulin Dec!."). The ATX Dulin Decl. was submitted by ATX in the New Jersey 271 proceeding and is attached as Exhibit A. ATX subsequently withdrew paragraph II ofthis Declaration.
9 See e.g., Consultative Report on the Application oJVerizon New Jersey, Inc. for FCC Authorization to Provide In-Region, IntereLATA Service in New Jersey, Docket No. TOOI09054I, Letter from James H. Laskey, Counsel for WorldCom to Henry Ogden, Acting Secretary ofthe State ofNew Jersey Board ofPublic Utilities (Jan. 4.2002) ("WoridCom Jan. 4 Letter"); Letter from Blossom A. Peretz, Esq" Division ofthe Ratepayer Advocate to Henry Ogden, Esq., Acting Secretary ofthe New Jersey Board ofPublic Utilities ("Ratepayer Jan. 4 Letter"); Initial Briefof WoridCom at I-4 (Dec. 7, 2001) ("WorldCom Initial Brief').
10 See AT&TCommunications ofNew Jersey, Inc. et aI., v. Bell Atlantic New Jersey, Civ. Nos. 97-5762 and 98-0109 (KSH) (D.NJ. July 6, 2000).
II New Jersey Board ofPublic Utilities, NJ BPU Announces Decision to Spur Competition in New Jersey's Local Telephone Market, Press Release (reI. Nov. 20, 2000).
5 ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey the UNE rate proceeding. 12 Verizon-NJ notified the NJ BPU that it would not meet this deadline, 13 and did not file documentation certifying its results until December 10, 200 I. 14
Although the state commission in a summary order provided that those rates were to be effective as December 17, 200 I, the state commission has not released a final order on those rates.
Further, as the NJ BPU I5 and othersl6 have recognized, there are still open questions about
Verizon-NJ's compliance with the NJ BPU's directive, and implementation ofthose rates.
Moreover, it is still unclear ifand when Verizon-NJ will true-up the excessive costs ofthe past several years, as the NJ BPU's summary order did not direct Verizon-NJ to true-up the past overcharges.
Verizon-NJ exacerbated this uncertainty by filing its 271 Application with the FCC prior to the completion ofthe state's UNE proceeding, and in an unprecedented move, prior to the state's completion ofits 271 review. As a result, the NJ BPU was not able to verify that
12 Id.; Soard's Ri?View ojUnbundled Network Elements Rates. Terms and Conditions ojSell Atlantic-New Jersey. Inc., Docket No. T000060356, Letter from Henry M. Ogden, Acting Secretary ofthe Board ofPublic Utilities. to Bruce Cohen, Verizon New Jersey, Inc. (N.J. B.P.U Nov. 20, 2001).
13 Board Review ofUnbundled Network Elements Rates, Terms and Conditions ofBell Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc., Docket No. T000060356, Letter from Hesser G. McBride, Jr. from to Henry Ogden, Acting Secretary, State of New Jersey Board ofPublic Utilities (Nov. 29, 2001).
14 Board Ri?View ojUnbundled Network Elements Rates, Terms and Conditions ojSell Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc., Dockel No. T000060356, Letter from Hesser G. McBride, Jr. from to Henry Ogden, Acting Secretary, State of New Jersey Board ofPublic Utilities (Dec. 10,2001).
15 The NJ BPU recognized that it is still unknown whether Verizon-NJ has complied with its rate ruling and has conditioned its 271 endorsement upon such compliance. New Jersey Board ofPubic Utilities, Soard Oks Verizon Request to Enter Long Distance Market, Press Release (reI. Jan 9, 2002) ("NJ BPU 271 Press Release"); Consultative Report on the Application oJVerizon New Jersey, Inc. Jor FCC Authorization to Provide In-Region, IntereLATA Service in New Jersey, Docket No. TOO I090541, Letter from Henry M. Ogden, Acting Secretary, State ofNew Jersey Board ofPublic Utilities, to Bruce D. Cohen, Esq, Verizon New Jersey, Inc. (Jan. 9,2002) ("NJ BPU Jan. 9 Letter").
16 On January 4, 2002, the Ratepayer Advocate submitted a letter urging the state commission to establish a six-month trial period in order to obtain a more complete and accurate record upon which to base its recommendation to the FCC; Raterpayer Jan. 4 Letter at 2; See also, Consultative Report on the Application oj Verizon New Jersey, Inc. for FCC Authorization to Provide In-Region, IntereLATA Service in New Jersey, Docket No. TOO I090541, Letter From James H. Laskey on behalfof WorldCom to Henry Ogden, Esq., Acting Secretary of the New Jersey Board ofPublic Utilities (filed Jan. 4, 2002) ("WorldCom UNE Rate Letter").
6 ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey
Verizon-NJ has implemented the new UNE rates prior to Verizon-NJ's Application to this
Commission,17 or conduct a thorough 271 review. 18 Instead, the New Jersey BPU indicated that
Verizon-NJ still needed to verify that it has implemented the new rates "to demonstrate to the
FCC and the Board that the market in New Jersey is completely and irreversibly open to competition.,,19 The NJ BPU further stated that, "[w]ithout the assurance that the rates are being charged, and will continue to be charged, the Board would not be in a position to recommend approval ofVerizon long distance request to the FCC.,,2o Finally, the Board also indicated that
"any attempt to increase or otherwise change these rates, will call into question whether modified rates would be TELRIC compliant [sic], and, therefore, also call into question the Board's finding of compliance with Checklist Item 2.,,21
Verizon-NJ has indicated that it will not complete changes to its billing system to implement new rates until January 20,2002, but that it will make those rates retroactive.22 Even so, it is not clear that Verizon-NJ's implementation ofthose rates will be consistent with the NJ
BPU's directives. There is already some evidence to suggest that Verizon-NJ is not implementing the new rates in a nondiscriminatory and pro-competitive fashion. In a supplemental motion before the New Jersey BPU filed on January 4, 2001, WoridCom noted
17 NJ PBU 271 Press Release at I. "See supra at 10-12.
19 NJPBU 271 Press Release.
20 !d.
2\ NJ BPU Jan. 9 Letter.
22 Consultative Report on the Application ofVerizon New Jersey, Inc. for FCC Authorization to Provide In Region. IntereLATA Service in New Jersey. Docket No. TOO I090541. Letter from Bruce D. Cohen, Esq., Verizon New Jersey, Inc. to Henry M. Ogden, Acting Secretary ofthe State ofNew Jersey Board of Public Utilities (Jan. 9, 2002).
7 ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey
several issues.23 First, it noted that the NJ BPU required that the reciprocal compensation rate
for end office termination be the same as the end office unbundled switching termination rate24
In Verizon-NJ's December 10 "compliance" filing, however, the reciprocal terminating rate was
not equal to the end office switching termination rate. Instead, the rate that Verizon-NJ intends
to charge a CLEC for unbundled terminating switching is higher than the reciprocal
compensation terminating rate. As noted by WorldCom, Verizon-NJ then compounds this
violation ofthe Board's order. When a UNE-P CLEC customer (served by one Verizon-NJ
unbundled switch) calls a Verizon-NJ customer served by a different Verizon-NJ switch,
Verizon-NJ intends to charge the CLEC the higher unbundled terminating switching rate for
terminating the call to the Verizon-NJ customer over the terminating switch, rather than the
lower reciprocal compensation termination rate, which it should use25 By charging the LEC the
higher UNE rate rather than the reciprocal compensation rate for terminating the call, Verizon-
NJ "overcharges" the CLEC by about 33 percent for terminating the call to Verizon-NJ's
customer.26
Additionally, in response to questions posed by the Commission staff, Verizon-NJ stated
that it intended to double charge CLECs for unbundled switching when the CLEC's customer
23 Consultative Report on the Application ofVerizon New Jersey, Inc. for FCC Authorization to Provide In-Region. InterLATA Service in New Jersey, Docket No. TOO I090541, Letter From James H. Laskey on behalfof WorldCom to Henry Ogden, Esq., Acting Secretary ofthe New Jersey Board ofPublic Utilities (filed Jan. 4, 2002); Board's Review ofUnbundled Network Element Rates. Terms and Conditions ofBell Atlantic-New Jersey. Inc, Docket No. T000060356, Motion for a Supplemental Ruling (filed Jan. 4, 2002) ("WorldCom Motion"),
24 WorldCom UNE Rate Letter at I; New Jersey Board ofPublic Utilities, Board's Review ofUnbundled Network Elements Rates, Terms and Conditions ofBell Atlantic New Jersey, Inc., Docket No. T000060356, Summary Order at 12 (reI. Dec. 17,2001).
25 Ofcourse. this would not be an issue had Verizon set the terminating unbundled switch rate at the same level as the reciprocal compensation terminating rate. See supra 9.
26 WorldCom Motion at 3.
8 ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey calls a Verizon customer served by the same switch.27 In those cases, Verizon intends to charge the CLEC using ONE Platform for a minute oforiginating local switching and a minute of terminating local switching for each minute ofthe calI.28 As WoridCom correctly noted,
Verizon's attempt to charge both an originating minute and a terminating minute for anyone minute of intra-switch calling is double counting. 29 Verizon-NJ charges the CLEC twice for the same minute ofuse. The issues raised by WoridCom cast doubt on Verizon-NJ's implementation ofthe ONE rates, and accordingly its compliance with checklist item 2.
Verizon-NJ contends that this Commission may only assess whether these new rates fall within the range ofreasonableness for TELRIC rates - there is no need to ascertain whether those are likely to result in increased competition in New Jersey.30 Verizon-NJ's argument is inconsistent with the Act's purpose ofrequiring cost-based rates. The Act demands cost-based rates to ensure that ONE prices will facilitate market entry. Further, Verizon-NJ's argument appears at least potentially inconsistent with the D.C. Circuit's recent ruling in Sprint
Communications Co. L.P. v. FCC et aI., No. 01-1076 (D.C. Cir. 2001).31 The Court, in reviewing a challenge to the Commission grant of271 authority to SBC in Oklahoma and
Kansas, found that the Commission had not adequately addressed arguments that ONE rates precluded competitive entry and remanded that question to the Commission.
27 Application ofVerizon New Jersey Inc., Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc. (d/b/a Verizon Long Distance), NYNEX Long Distance Company (d/b/a Verizon Enterprise Solutions), Verizon Global Networks Inc, and Verizon Select Services for Authorization to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in New Jersey, CC Docket No. 01-347, Letter from Clint Odom, Verizon Director ofFederal Regulatory, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (Dec. 28, 2001).
28 ld.
29 WorldCom Motion at 2-3. )0271 Application at 97-98.
31 http:www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/0 I-I076.pdf
9 ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey
Verizon-NJ's failure to implement cost-based rates not only precludes checklist item 2 compliance, but also weighs against finding compliance with other checklist items. Because non-TELRIC prices have kept competitors from gaining any substantial foothold in the New
Jersey market, there is little commercial usage data upon which to make a determination that
Verizon-NJ is providing nondiscriminatory access consistent with the 1996 Act.32
B. The State Regulatory Process Has Failed to Produce a Rigorous and Thorough Review of Verizon-NJ's Compliance with Section 271.
This Commission has long indicated that it relies on the rigor ofthe state process to ensure a thorough review. As the Commission has noted, "[g]iven the 90-day statutory deadline to reach a decision on a section 271 application, the Commission does not have the time or the resources to resolve the enormous number offactual disputes that inevitably arise from the technical details and data involved in such a complex endeavor.,,33 Further, "where the state has conducted an exhaustive and rigorous investigation into the BOC's compliance with the checklist, [the FCC] may give evidence submitted by the state substantial weight in making our
.. ,,34 deClslon.
Unfortunately, in this instance, the state process has not been the type ofrigorous process that can give the FCC certainty ofa thorough review. As several other parties have also noted,35
J2 WorldCom Initial Briefat 3.
33 New York 271 Order, 15 FCC Rcd. at 3976 'lJ 51.
J4 Id.
35 Consultative Report on the Application ofVerizon New Jersey Inc. for FCC Authorization to Provide In Region, InterLATA Service in New Jersey, Docket No. TOO1090541, Division ofthe Ratepayer Advocate Letter Motion for Reconsideration ofthe Procedural Schedule (Sept. 28, 2001); Joint Motion ofAT&T, NJCTA, Sprint, WorldCom and XO New Jersey, Motion or Reconsideration ofthe Procedural Schedule (Oct. 5, 2001); Initial Brief ofWorldCom at 4-7 (Dec. 7, 2001).
10 ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey
the NJ BPU established an extremely truncated schedule36 On September 5, 2001 Verizon-NJ
filed information with the NJ BPU asserting compliance with Section 271 ofthe Act,37 and on
September 27, 2001, the NJ BPU issued a procedural schedule. 38 The timeframe allotted to this
proceeding was insignificant given the magnitude ofthe issues. The Commission stated a goal
ofcompleting the review in 90 days39 -- the same tight timeframe that the FCC found insufficient
to rigorously review and reconcile disparate facts. 4o Competitors had five business days to
propound discovery, much ofwhich was subject to motion challenges until the end ofthe NJ
BPU's review, and some ofwhich was not answered until after the submission ofthe final
4 brief ! Competitors had to file their verified statements only seven business days after Verizon-
NJ's deadline for responding to discovery. Initially, the NJ BPU assigned only three days for
hearings. Following an October 26,2001 conference call where the parties attempted to
schedule over 43 witnesses into that extremely limited timeframe, the Board added four and a
halfdays to the hearing schedule, with the last hearing date on November 20,2001, the day
before initial briefs were scheduled for filing. 42 Because the parties could no longer meet the
initial brieffiling date, the Board rescheduled the initial and reply briefdue dates for December 7
36 Consultative Report on the Application ofVerizon New Jersey Inc. For FCC Authorization to Provide In Region. InterLATA Service in New Jersey, Docket Nos. TOO1090541, TX98010010, T097030166, Procedural Order (reI. Sept. 27, 2001) ("NJ BPU 271 Procedural Order"
J7 Consultative Report on the Application ofVerizon New Jersey, Inc. for FCC Authorization to Provide In Region, InterLATA Service in New Jersey, Docket No. T001090541, Application ofVerizon New Jersey Inc. (Sept. 5,2001).
J8 NJ BPU 271 Procedural Order at 9.
39 NJ BPU 271 Procedural Order at 5.
40 New York 271 Order, 15 FCC Rcd. at 3976 ~ 51.
41 For example, on January 4, 2002, the Board issued an ordering responding to a considerable number of motions to compel discovery and document production and directed Verizon-NJ to submit its required responses by January 7, 2002. Consultative Report on the Application ofVerizon New Jersey, Inc. for FCC Authorization to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Service in New Jersey, Docket No. TOOl 090541, Order (Jao. 4, 2001).
42 Consultative Report on the Application ofVerizon New Jersey, Inc, for FCC Authorization to Provide In Region, InterLATA Service in New Jersey, Docket No, TOO1090541, Order (Oct. ll, 2001).
II ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey and 17 respectively. Meanwhile discovery was still open, and the NJ BPU had not ruled on several motions43 ATX urges the Commission to consider the abbreviated review process in assessing how much weight to give the state's recommendation.
C. Verizon-NJ's Eleventh Hour Concessions Precluded a Thorough Review.
Exacerbating the tight procedural schedule, Verizon-NJ made a number ofeleventh hour concessions. These include several ksey issues of importance to ATX. For example, to blunt
ATX's claims that Verizon-NJ had been refusing to make available certain UNE-P products that the Commission's rules require it to provide, Verizon-NJ informed the state BPU that those products had recently or would soon become available. It is unfortunate that it appears to require the pressure ofa Section 271 proceeding to obtain what Verizon-NJ was all along obligated to provide. ATX requested these products on a region-wide basis over a year ago. Thus far, ATX has only been able to get Verizon-NJ to even attempt to address these concerns in states where it is in the midst of271 reviews. More importantly for purposes ofthis application, Verizon-NJ's last minute concessions did not result in effective provisioning as is discussed below,44 and certainly did not provide the BPU with any opportunity to assess Verizon-NJ's ability to actually provide these products in a manner that permits ATX a meaningful opportunity to compete.
Verizon-NJ must not only demonstrate a legal obligation to provide the checklist items, it must also demonstrate, by commercial usage or testing, that it is actually furnishing or is ready to furnish the checklist item in quantities that competitors may reasonably demand and at an acceptable level ofquality.45 As a result ofVerizon-NJ's refusal to provide these UNE-P products until the last minute, Verizon-NJ did not proffer before the state commission, nor could
43 [d.
44 See. e.g. supra 19 and 22.
45 New York 27/ Order, 15 FCC Red. at 3973-74 ~ 52.
12 ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey it proffer, any evidence that it can and will furnish these items in quantities competitors such as
ATX demand, or at an acceptable level ofquality. In assessing whether Verizon-NJ provides these UNE-P products consistent with section 271 requirements, this Commission will thus have no record from the state upon which to rely for these UNE-P products, nor, given the newness of these products, is it likely that Verizon-NJ will be able to proffer such evidence for the first time in this proceeding. Moreover, Verizon-NJ has never subjected these products to any testing.
II. VERIZON-NJ HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED COMPLIANCE WITH CHECKLIST ITEMS 2 AND 6.
Section 271 requires that a SOC provide "nondiscriminatory access to network elements" in accordance with Sections 251(c)(3) and 252(d)(I)46 Section 251(c)(3) requires that a SOC allow competitors access to its network elements "on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point at rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory in accordance with the terms and conditions ofthe [interconnection] agreement.,,47 Section
252(d)(I) requires that applicable rates be based on cost and nondiscriminatory.48 Importantly, the FCC has determined that these requirements extend to pre-existing combinations of unbundled network elements49 As the Commission has noted, access to combinations of elements is "an important strategy for entry into the local telecommunications market. ,,50
Indeed, as the FCC has recognized, "the ability ofrequesting carriers to use unbundled network elements, as well as combinations ofunbundled network elements, is integral to achieving
46 47 U.S.c. § 271(e)(2)(B)(ii).
47 47 U.S.C. § 271(e)(3).
4S 47 U.S.c. § 252(d)(l).
49 Pennsylvania 271 Order, J6 FCC Red. 17419, Appendix C ~ 44. 50Id.
13 ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey
Congress' objective ofpromoting competition in local telecommunications markets.,,51 Hence
this Commission has determined that a SOC must provide access to combinations ofnetwork
elements on a nondiscriminatory basis in order to gain 271 approval.52
In providing UNE-P, the SOC must, ofcourse, provide access to unbundled local
switching consistent with the 1996 Act and the Commission's rules. Importantly, the unbundled
local switching element includes nondiscriminatory access to all ofthe features, functions and
capabilities ofthe switch. This has been a consistent requirement since the Local Competition
Order, where the Commission defined the local switching element to include "all vertical
features that the switch is capable ofproviding, including custom calling, CLASS features, and
Centrex ....,,53 Custom calling features also include switch-based calling functions such as call
forwarding. 54 In the context of Section 271 applications, the Commission emphasized the
importance ofoffering switching features and functions in its Louisiana II Order. 55 Noting that
vertical features provide end users with various services, "such as custom calling, call waiting,
three-way calling, caller ID and Centrex," the Commission emphasized that SellSouth must
provide "all vertical features loaded in the software ofthe switch.,,56 Thus, in order demonstrate
compliance with checklist item 2 and checklist item 6, Verizon-NJ must demonstrate that it is
providing UNE-P with unbundled local switching that includes the features and functions ofthe
switch. As explained below, Verizon-NJ cannot make the demonstration because it fails to
51 Id. 521d.
53 Implementation ofthe Local Competition Provisions ofthe Telecommunications act of1996, CC Docket No. 96-98,11 FCC Red. 15499, 157061f 412 (1996), subsequent history omitted ("Local Competition Order").
54 ld at 15705, n.908.
55 Application ofBel/south Corporation, Bel/South Telecommunications, Inc., Bel/South Long Distance, Inc., for Provision ofIn-Region. InterLATA Services in Louisiana, CC Docket No. 98-121, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Red. 20599 (1998) ("Louisiana II Order").
56 Id. at 20726-207271f1f 216-217 (emphasis added).
14 ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey
demonstrate that it provides ATX with a UNE-P product that includes certain features ofthis
switch, specifically, Centrex or remote call forwarding (RCF).
There are other deficiencies in Verizon-NJ's UNE-P offerings. ATX resells to certain of
its business customers Verizon-NJ analog trunks that provide transport to and from the
customer's PBX. Until very recently, Verizon-NJ refused to provide these analog trunks as part
ofa lJNE-P offering. Verizon-NJ also fails to make available UNE-P in a nondiscriminatory
manner because it fails to allow ATX to convert certain resold services to UNE-P on an "as is"
basis. Instead, it requires ATX to submit "as specified" orders when converting resale customers
with BRI ISDN and foreign exchange (FX) service. These issues are described in more detail
below.
A. Verizon-NJ has Consistently Denied ATX Complete and Seamless Access to the Features, Functions and Capabilities ofUNE-P.
1. Centrex Service
For several years, ATX has been reselling to small business customers a Verizon-NJ
Centrex service called CustoPak. The Centrex service includes a popular feature called
automatic dial 9 capability which enables a Centrex customer to dial out without first having to
dial 9. As part ofits strategy to convert resale customers to UNE-P and eventually its own
facilities, ATX has sought to convert its resold Centrex service into a UNE-P Centrex service.
Verizon-NJ steadfastly refused to provide this UNE-P product, even though, as noted above, the
Commission's rules have long required BOCs to provide Centrex as a feature ofthe switch.
Moreover, Verizon-NJ provides the CustoPak Centrex service with the automatic dial 9 capability to its own customers - and offers it as a resold service. When ATX requested UNE-P
15 ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey
CustoPak Centrex service, Verizon-NJ refused to provide this product.57 Verizon-NJ's refusal
has hampered ATX's ability to convert thousands ofexisting customer lines, and has been
precluded from expanding its market share ofthis service through UNE-P.
Verizon-NJ's denial violated the Commission's rules and the 1996 Act. As noted above,
the Commission has long detennined that an incumbent LEC is obligated to provide access to all
the features, capabilities and functions ofthe switchS8 CustoPak is one ofthe features, functions
and capabilities ofthe switch, and further, Verizon-NJ provides CustoPak to its retail customers,
and makes it available to competitors using the resale entry strategy. Accordingly, providing
access to CustoPak is a precursor to compliance with items 2 and 6 ofthe competitive checklist.
In its application, Verizon-NJ contends that ATX's concerns about CustoPak have been
alleviated because Verizon-NJ promised to begin making this service available as a UNE-P
product as ofOctober 3I, 200 1. 59 However, the fact that Verizon-NJ has finally agreed to make
60 available that which the Commission's rules had required be made available since 1996 - or at
least since the UNE Remand Order which reaffirmed incumbent LECs' obligation make
57 Verizon-NJ has attempted to mislead the Commission, suggesting that ATX has admitted Verizon-NJ did not refuse to provide this service, by quoting out of content ATX's statement that Verizon-NJ '"made no claim that it was not required to provide this as a UNE-P offering.''' Verizon-NJ FCC 271 Application at 46-47 n.47, citing Consultative Report on the Application ofVerizon New Jersey, Inc. for FCC Authorization to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Service in New Jersey, Docket No. TOO 1090541, Initial BriefofATX (filed Dec. 7, 2001). When read in context, it is clear that ATX indicated that Verizon-NJ did not even attempt to excuse its refusal to deny CustoPak by challenging the legal obligation to provide it. Rather, Verizon-NJ simply denied CustoPak without any explanation at all. " Local Competition Order, II FCC Red. at 15,706.
59 Verizon-NJ FCC 271 Application at 46-47 n.47; Consultative Report on the Application ofVerizon New Jersey, Inc.for FCC Authorization to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Service in New Jersey, Docket No. TOOI090541, Verizon-NJ Reply Dec!. ~ 33 (Nov. 2, 2001).
60 Local Competition Order, II FCC Red. at 15,706.
16 ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey
available combinations ofnetwork elements to the extent already combined in the network61 - is
inadequate to demonstrate compliance with the competitive checklist.
Verizon-NJ must not only demonstrate a legal obligation to make the checklist available,
but also that it is, as a practical matter, capable offurnishing the item.62 This requires evidence
ofcommercial usage or at least testing. Because Verizon-NJ has been late in the game to offer
this product, there is no data to demonstrate that Verizon-NJ can provide this product in a
manner that permits ATX a meaningful opportunity to compete. Certainly no evidence was
presented in the state proceeding; and none is likely to be offered in this proceeding either. To
the contrary, as discussed below, the experience that ATX has had so far with this newly
announced product is unfavorable.
To further deflect scrutiny ofVerizon-NJ's unlawful refusal to provide this UNE-P
product and its failure to demonstrate that is capable offurnishing it consistent with the
Commissions' rules, Verizon-NJ has the temerity to suggest that, ifATX had not begun ordering
this service the very minute Verizon-NJ finally announced it was available, ATX's raising ofthe
issue before the state would prove to be "disingenuous.,,63 ATX has ordered CustoPak from
Verizon-NJ, but given the late stage at which Verizon-NJ has provided this product, there is
insufficient performance data to support a finding that Verizon-NJ's provisioning is capable of
the quantity and quality that the Act demands. So far, when ATX has placed orders to convert
resale customers to UNE-P with CustoPak, the orders are not consistently successful. In some
61 Implementation ofthe Local Competition Provisions ofthe Telecommunications act of1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, Third Report and Order. 15 FCC Red. 3696 (1999), subsequent history omitted.
62 New York 271 Order, 15 FCC Red. 3973-74 'If 52.
63 Consultative Report on the Application ofVerizon New Jersey Inc. For FCC Authorization to Provide In-Region. ln/erLATA Service in New Jersey, Docket No. TOO I090541, Reply BriefofVerizon New Jersey (filed Dec. 17.2001).
17 ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey
instances, the orders will go through, but in many other cases, ATX's "as is" CustoPak orders are
rejected. Further, Verizon-NJ's rejection ofthese orders appears to be indiscriminate, as ATX
has not been able to discern any reasonable or consistent rationale for the rejections.
2. Remote Call Forwarding
ATX also resells to its customers Verizon-NJ's remote call forwarding service. For over
a year, ATX was unable to migrate it resale customers with remote call forwarding ("RCF") to
UNE-P. RCF is another feature ofthe switch that Verizon-NJ makes available to its retail
customers. In order to demonstrate compliance with checklist item 6, Verizon-NJ must offer
remote call forwarding as part ofthe unbundled local switching element. Verizon-NJ does not
dispute this contention. Instead, when ATX raised this issue before in the state proceeding,
Verizon-NJ's acknowledged that RCF "has not been available in New Jersey to date" and that
any attempt to submit an order to convert a resale customer with RCF to UNE-P would be
rejected. 64 Verizon-NJ also acknowledged that UNE-P with RCF was available in other states,
yet offered no explanation for its unavailability in New Jersey. To demonstrate compliance with
checklist 6 to the New Jersey BPU, Verizon-NJ claimed that RCF would be available in New
Jersey in December 200I. 65 Again given the late stage at which Verizon-NJ has provided this
product, there is insufficient commercial usage data to support a finding that Verizon-NJ's
provisioning is capable ofthe quantity and quality that the Act demands.
Verizon-NJ offered no explanation as to why, for a number ofyears, New Jersey was
relegated to such second class status. Nor did Verizon-NJ explain why it would assert, in its
64 Consultative Report on the Application ofVerizon New Jersey Inc. For FCC Authorization to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Service in New Jersey, Docket No. TOOI09054, Verizon-NJ OSS Supplemental Dec!. ~ 58 (Nov. 2, 2001) ("Verizon-NJ OSS Supp. Decl.").
65 Consultative Report on the Application ofVerizon New Jersey Inc. For FCC Authorization to Provide In Region, InterLATA Service in New Jersey, Docket Nos. TOO I090541, Verizon New Jersey Reply Checklist Dec!. ~ 38 (Nov. 2, 2001) ("Verizon-NJ Reply Checklist Decl."); Verizon-NJ OSS Supp. Decl. ~ 58.
18 ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey
initial declarations in the state proceeding, that it provided unbundled local switching, including
"access to the functions and capabilities resident in the Verizon-NJ end office or tandem
switch,,66 when, in fact, Verizon-NJ plainly did not, as its supplemental declarations clearly
affirmed. Moreover, that Verizon-NJ promised to make RCF available in December 2001
provided no basis upon which the NJ BPU could assess whether Verizon-NJ in fact was capable
ofproviding UNE-P with RCF as practical matter. This Commission thus has no evidence from
the state commission on Verizon-NJ's ability to provide unbundled local switching as required
by the 1996 Act and this Commission's implementing regulations. Given that RCF was only
made available (ifin fact it has) since December 2001, there is no evidence ofcommercial usage
or testing upon which this Commission can conclude that Verizon-NJ satisfies checklist item 6
with respect to this aspect ofunbundled switching.
3. PBX Analog Trunks
PBX analog trunking capability is another service that is important for ATX to access in
order to serve its New Jersey business customers. This capability allows ATX to service its
customers efficiently and in the manner that customers have requested. For over a year and a
half, ATX has requested that Verizon-NJ convert resold PBX analog trunks to a UNE-P product.
To deflect attention from its non-compliance, Verizon-NJ then implied that PBX analog product 67 requested by ATX is outdated, and thus somehow justifies Verizon-NJ's noncompliance.
Verizon-NJ's attempted justification is not only legally irrelevant, but it ignores the factual
realities ofthe marketplace. Although many business customers have converted their services entirely to digital services, there are still many business customers who still rely on both digital
66 Verizon-NJ Checklist Decl.1f1f 258-265.
67 Id.1f1f 36-37.
19 ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey
and analog PBX trunking systems. For example, many businesses rely on PBX analog trunks for
fax capability. Moreover, a customer that requires both analog and digital capability will expect
to receive both capabilities from the same provider, rather than by receiving services from two
different providers. Consequently, it is critical that ATX have the ability to access both digital
and analog PBX trunking to meet those customers needs. ATX has been able to receive this
service on a resale basis, and there is no valid reason for Verizon-NJ to deny ATX this access
simply because ATX is converting those customers to UNE-P.
ATX raised this issue in the state 271 proceeding. On December 17,2001, at the end of
that proceeding, Verizon-NJ indicated to ATX that it would now provide this product.68 As the
product description indicates, however, the process is not fully automated. ATX can only order
this product by completing both an electronic LSR and faxing a supplemental questionnaire for
each order. The addition ofthis fax requirement makes the processes unnecessarily inefficient.
4. "As is" Conversion to UNE Platform
Third, ATX has been hampered in its ability to convert to UNE-P its resale customers
receiving PRI and BRI ISDN service or foreign exchange (FX) service because Verizon-NJ does
not provide ATX "as is" conversion for customers with these features69 Verizon-NJ has claimed
to provide PRI ISDN on an "as is" basis. 7o In ATX's experience, orders for PRI ISDN can only
be submitted manually. Moreover, Verizon-NJ does not dispute that it precludes ATX from
6R Letter from Jamie Gish, Director-Diverse Account Mgmt. and Sales, Verizon, to Chris Holt, Assistant General Counsel, CoreComm, regarding Availability ofUNE Analog PBX Port and Platform Service for PA, DE, NJ(Dec.17,2001).
69 Additionally, while Verizon-NJ has claimed that it will provide RCF, it has not indicated it will permit ATX to convert customers with this feature on as "as is" basis.
70 Verizon-NJ McLean FCC 271 Decl.1f 61.
20 ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey
converting its customers utilizing BRI ISDN and FX to UNE-P on an "as is" basis.7\ It claims
instead that "as specified" migrations are required these services because "ofthe greater
complexity ofthese services."n Verizon-NJ states that it requires specific detail from the order
to ensure that the CLEC's "wishes are implemented in the conversion from a resale ofa Verizon
retail service to the complex assembly ofindividual UNE components.,,73 This is a nonsensical
response. ATX's "wish" is that the customer receive the exact same services that it currently
receives, but over UNE-P instead ofresale. Verizon-NJ's existing internal records on the
customer contains the information on the services the customer is receiving given that ATX is
simply reselling Verizon-NJ's services. Verizon-NJ's reference to a "complex assembly of
individual UNE components" is also baffling. The network elements are already combined as is
evidenced by the fact the customer is currently receiving service over them but on a resale basis.
Verizon-NJ's explanation provides no basis for precluding ATX from ordering these services on
an "as is" conversion basis. Because ATX does not have the ability to convert customers on an
"as is" basis, in most instances conversion is not practical as a business due to the inevitable
ordering problems and the additional time and expense associated with "as specified"
conversions. As a result, ATX has not been able to convert over approximately halfofits retail
customer lines to UNE-P. 74
This is an important issue because "as is" conversions are much more efficient than "as
specified" conversions. "As specified" conversions require ATX to re-key substantial amounts
71 Verizon-NJ 271 Application, Dec!. ofKathleen et a!. ~ 61 (Dec. 20,2001) ("Verizon-NJ McLean FCC 271 Decl."). Verizon-NJ makes the irrelevant point that these services can be ordered using Verizon-NJ's interfaces and ass. See id. ATX does not claim that these services cannot be ordered, ATX's concern is that they cannot be ordered "as is."
72 Id.
7J ld.
74 ATX Dulin Decl. ~ 14.
21 ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey
of information onto its order that is submitted to Verizon-NJ's system. The result is the
imposition ofunnecessary delays in submitting the orders and greatly increases the possibility of
errors on the ordering form 75 This is quite unnecessary because conversions from resale to
UNE-P should require no more than identifying the customer on a spreadsheet and Verizon-NJ
making the necessary changes in its back office systems. Instead, Verizon-NJ has refused to
work with ATX in enabling such seamless conversions. 76
Despite these failures, Verizon-NJ alleges compliance with the Section 271 competitive
checklist and that the local market is fully open to competition. To mask its poor performance
for the NJ BPU and the FCC, Verizon-NJ claims that all ofATX's issues have been resolved by
Verizon-NJ's last minute concessions. The Commission should not reward this chicanery,
particularly with respect to requirements that have long been on the books. Indeed, the Act's
purpose would be flouted ifVerizon-NJ is able to repeatedly block competitors until the eleventh
hour of its Section 271 application, but then "satisfY" the checklist by suddenly purporting policy
changes.
Moreover, Verizon-NJ's eleventh hour pronouncements amount to no more than a
promise offuture performance, which this Commission has repeatedly indicated has "no
probative value" and is insufficient to demonstrate compliance with the Act. 77 Accordingly, the
Commission should determine that Verizon-NJ's performance history fails to show sufficient evidence ofcompliance with checklist items 2 and 6, and that before it can find such compliance,
Verizon-NJ must demonstrate over a reasonable period oftime that it is indeed providing full
75 ATX Dulin Decl. 1[ 13; Louisiana 11 Order 1[ 96.
76 Verizon-NJ FCC 271 Verizon-NJ McLean FCC 271 Decl.1[ 61; Verizon-NJ ass Supp. Decl.1[ 57.
77 New York 27/ Order, 15 FCC Red. at 3973-741[ 37.
22 ATX Licensing, Inc. - Initial Comments Verizon 271 Application in New Jersey access to UNE-P on an "as is" basis, and that it can provide such access in the quantities that competitors may reasonably demand and at an acceptable level ofquality. 78
B. Verizon-NJ Does Not Provide ATX with Accurate, Readable and Auditable Bills.
In order to comply with the nondiscriminatory requirements ofchecklist item 2, Verizon-
NJ "must demonstrate that it can product a readable, auditable and accurate wholesale bill.,,79
Verizon-NJ's bills to ATX have failed to meet this standard. Verizon-NJ's bills have for years continued to have errors that render its bills inaccurate and insufficiently auditable. Moreover, the same errors occur over and over again, draining ATX's resources due to the need to constantly monitor bills.
1. Verizon-NJ's Bills Are Inaccurate.
Over the past few years, ATX has found substantia! and repeated errors in Verizon-NJ's bills, identified them by type (indeed most are repeat errors of specific types) and requested correction. Verizon-NJ has acknowledged these errors to ATX, as evidenced by subsequent credits. ATX has repeatedly requested that Verizon-NJ not only correct the errors in the bills, but also make the appropriate system changes to prevent these errors from recurring.
The following are a few ofthe repeated errors that ATX encounters in Verizon-NJ's bills for resold services. Verizon-NJ's wholesale bills repeatedly charged ATX the retail rate instead ofthe wholesale rate for services purchased:o For example, Verizon-NJ often bills ATX for resold services that ATX has not ordered from Verizon-NJ:1 Verizon-NJ has billed ATX for reselling yellow pages advertising service for hundreds ofcustomers, even though ATX does not
78 New York 271 Order, 15 FCC Red. at 3973-74 ~ 52.
79 Pennsytvania 271 Order, 16 FCC Red. 17419 ~ 22.
80 A TX Dulin Dee!. ~ 22.
81 Id. ~ 23.
23