December 8, Very truly yours, Haran C. Rashes

Transcription

1 Haran C. Rashes General Counsel T F hrashes@clearrate.com December 8, 2015 Mary Jo Kunkle Executive Secretary Michigan Public Service Commission PO Box Lansing, MI Re: In the Matter, on the Commission s Own Motion, to Promulgate Rules Required by MCL (1)(c)(iii). MPSC Case No. U Dear Ms. Kunkle: Attached, please find a copy of the Comments of Clear Rate Communications, Inc. in the above-captioned proceeding. Proof of Service upon the Parties of Record is also attached. Very truly yours, Enclosures cc: Hon. Martin D. Snider Parties of Record Haran C. Rashes 555 S. Old Woodward, Suite 600 Birmingham, MI Customer Service Toll Free (877) Customer Service Fax (248) Customer Service Phone (248)

2 STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION * * * * * In the Matter, on the Commission s Own Motion, to Promulgate Rules Required by MCL (1)(c)(iii). ) ) ) Case No. U COMMENTS OF CLEAR RATE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Clear Rate Communications, Inc. ( Clear Rate Communications ), by and through its General Counsel, and pursuant to the Michigan Public Service Commission s ( Commission or MPSC ) October 7, 2015 Order and Notice of Hearing ( Order ) in the above-captioned proceeding, hereby submits its Comments and suggestions regarding the re-promulgation of rules for the provision of basic local exchange service customer migration ( Migration Rules ) issued under the authority of Section 202(c)(iii) of the Michigan Telecommunication Act ( MTA ), MCL (c)(iii). I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose and History of Migration Rules Section 202(c) of the MTA provides that the Commission shall Promulgate rules under section 213 (of the MTA) to establish and enforce quality standards for... (iii) The timely and complete transfer of an end user from 1 provider of basic local exchange service to another provider. MCL (c)(iii). On May 17, 2010, the Commission adopted the initial Migration Rules pursuant to MCL (c)(iii) in MPSC Case No. U These rules were re-promulgated and revised by the Commission and formally re-adopted on April 25, 2013 in MPSC Case No. U On October 7, 2015, the Commission issued the instant Order

3 requesting comments and suggestions on the statutory triennial re-promulgation of the Migration Rules. In consideration of any revisions to the Migration Rules, Clear Rate Communications encourages the Commission to consider the purposes of the MTA, set forth by the Michigan Legislature that should guide any Commission determination in telecommunications issues. Among these purposes are: Ensure that every person has access to just, reasonable, and affordable basic residential telecommunication service; Allow and encourage competition to determine the availability, prices, terms, and other conditions of providing telecommunication services; Encourage the introduction of new services, the entry of new providers, the development of new technologies, and increase investment in the telecommunication infrastructure in this state through incentives to providers to offer the most efficient services and products; Ensure effective and timely review and disposition of disputes between telecommunication providers; Authorize actions to encourage the development of a competitive telecommunication industry. It is with these guiding principles in mind that Clear Rate Communication s respectfully proposes certain revisions to the Migration Rules. Clear Rate Communications believes that its proposed changes will foster competition in Michigan and add clarity to avoid potential disputes between providers fostering the mission and purposes of the MTA. 2

4 B. Clear Rate Communications, Inc. Clear Rate Communications is an innovative telecommunications service provider specializing in providing voice, data and internet solutions to approximately 30,000 residential consumers and businesses throughout the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and Nationwide. By simplifying billing procedures and reducing the amount of various complex calling plans and confusing promos, Clear Rate Communications keeps rates clear and concise for all of its customers. Clear Rate Communications enables businesses to leverage innovative technology and increase productivity providing a significant competitive advantage. Clear Rate Communications voice products include ISDN-PRI, SIP Trunking, Digital and Analog POTS Business lines. Our Data products include MPLS, Ethernet, High-Speed Internet, Fiber-Optic solutions, Collocation Data Center Services and many other advanced telecommunications products. Clear Rate Communications is trusted by the public sector and almost every industry in the private sector to meet all of their telecommunication needs. In the public sector we provide service to police departments, fire departments, school districts, colleges, city and county governments. In the private sector, we provide service to hospitals, banks and credit unions, hotels, manufacturing facilities, car dealerships, Tier 1 automotive suppliers and many other businesses. Clear Rate Communications was initially licensed by the Commission in an Order issued on May 28, 2003, in MPSC Case No. U-13662, to provide basic local exchange service in the areas served by SBC Ameritech Michigan, n/k/a AT&T Michigan, Verizon North Inc., n/k/a Frontier North Inc., and Contel of the South, Inc., d/b/a Verizon North Systems, n/k/a Frontier Midstates Inc. Clear Rate Communications license was amended, on September 29, 2009, in 3

5 MPSC Case No. U-16056, to include all zones and exchange areas served by incumbent local exchange carriers throughout the state of Michigan. Headquartered in Birmingham, Michigan, and in business since 2001, Clear Rate Communications is cash flow positive, profitable, and has no long term debt. Clear Rate Communications market focus is continued organic growth by entering new markets throughout most of the continental United States and Canada. Clear Rate Communications goal is to provide its customers with customized telecommunications services that are innovative, competitively-priced, and the most reliable in the industry. II. PROPOSED RULE CHANGES Clear Rate Communications proposes the following changes to the Migration Rules to foster competition and protect Michigan consumers as they choose to change telephone providers: A. Migration Rules 3(1)(f) and 6(h) R (1)(f) & R (h). Clear Rate Communications recommends that the Commission revise Migration Rules 3(1)(f) and 6(h), R (1)(f) and R (h) as follows: R Definitions. Rule 3. (1) As used in these rules: (f) Customer service record or customer service information means account information including, but not limited to, the customer s address, features, services, equipment, directory listings, existing phone number, and network information, as appropriate. * * * * * R Exchanging customer service information. (h) A provider may only require a customer service record request to include some or all of the following: (i) Billed assigned telephone number. (ii) Acknowledgement of end user consent to review the customer service record or customer service information. (iii) End user name. 4

6 (iv) Contact information detailing to whom, how, and where to respond with the customer service record or customer service information. (v) A telephone number and person to contact for questions about the customer service record or customer service information request. (vi) The name of the company requesting the customer service record or customer service information. (vii) The date and time the request was sent. (viii) Indication whether circuit identification with associated telephone number is requested for loop reuse. (ix) Indication whether directory information is requested. Clear Rate Communications has experienced issues where a customer s initial carrier, from whom Clear Rate Communications seeks to port a customer s phone number, requests information such as the initial carrier s internal customer account number for the porting customer. In many instances, the customer does not know that number or must locate a printed invoice (if one can be located) from the initial carrier to provide that number to Clear Rate Communications. Those carriers who require that the porting carrier provide it with an internal customer service number known only to the customer and the initial carrier create an anticompetitive barrier to competition that causes difficulty for both the requesting carrier and the end-user. Such an issue can be easily corrected by the Commission by limiting the information requested in making a number port to that information that is normally and customarily in the end-user s possession and control. The revisions recommended by Clear Rate Communications would correct that impediment to competition and customer service. 5

7 B. Migration Rule 5(4) R (4). Clear Rate Communications recommends that the Commission revise Migration Rule 5(4), R (4), as follows: (4) The new local service provider is responsible for the coordination required to migrate the end user. The underlying network service providers shall promptly provide necessary support and assistance to migrate the end user. Neither the old local service provider nor underlying network service provider shall interfere in the transfer or otherwise use this opportunity to retain the customer prior to the transfer or win back the customer. This modification to the Migration Rules was originally proposed by the Michigan Cable Telecommunications Association ( MCTA ) in its comments regarding the 2013 repromulgation of the Migration Rules. The Commission rejected MCTA s recommendation stating, that [t]he words win back cover the problem posed by MCTA, since, as of the moment the porting request is made, the customer is already lost. In the Matter, on the Commission s Own Motion, to Promulgate Rules Required by MCL (1)(c)(iii), MPSC Case No. U , Order issued January 31, 2013, pp. 5-6 ( 2013 Order ). However, in its discussion upholding the methodology by which the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) enforced its prohibition against retention activities in Bright House Networks, LLC v. Verizon Cal., Inc., 23 FCC Rcd , (2008), affirmed, Verizon Cal., Inc. v F.C.C., 55 F.3d 270 (D.C. Cir. 2009), the D.C. Circuit Court noted as the FCC explained at oral argument, [prohibitions against retention activities] helps avoid the two-masters problem, to make sure that Verizon's incentive on receiving an LSR is unambiguously to complete it promptly and effectively. Verizon Cal., 555 F.3d. at 275, citing, Oral Arg. Tr As noted below in Clear Rate Communications proposed new subsection to Migration Rule 5, , even when the customer appears to be already lost it may not be the case as occurs when a carrier initiates a port which it does not complete. Initial carriers can take steps 6

8 that may not strictly be considered win back that interfere with the completion of the order and the orderly transition of the customer to the new carrier. For example, insisting on full payment of outstanding balances, return of equipment, or even having an onsite technician talk to the customer about the fact that he is an employee of the initial carrier and won t provide as good service when working on subcontract for the new provider. The simple additional language becomes a catch all to avoid any win back efforts, even those not traditionally considered win back. C. New Proposed Subsection for Migration Rule 5 R Clear Rate Communications recommends that the Commission add a subsection to Migration Rule as follows: When a local service provider initiates the migration of an end user, the local service provider must complete all steps for that migration following the release by the initial carrier within the timeframe provided by industry standard procedures and federal law or else must promptly release the end user migration back to the initial carrier. Clear Rate Communications has experienced situations where an end user has requested Clear Rate s services, but the migration cannot be initiated because a third-party carrier has already requested migration of that end-user s number but did not complete the migration. For example, Carrier X requests to port an end-user s number from initial Carrier Y. However, during the port process, Carrier X realizes that the end-user was a previous customer of Carrier X and left a rather large unpaid bill. Carrier X informs the end-user that they must first pay the outstanding bill before they can restore service with Carrier X. Carrier X never informs Carrier Y of this situation and Carrier Y, having never received confirmation of port has not fully released the number. When Clear Rate goes to initiate the port, it finds out that Carrier Y is still providing service, but Carrier Y cannot release the number because Carrier X has a hold on the 7

9 number. By creating a Migration Rule under which Carrier X would have to either complete the port or release the number, the Commission can avoid such a situation. This rule would be a corollary to Migration Rule 5(6), (6), which already provides for timely operation in migration but only applies to the provider receiving the request to migrate the end-user: (6) All providers shall follow industry standard procedures and federal law for porting an end user s telephone number and processing to actual completion the migration of the end user upon receipt of an accurate request from the new local service provider. For requests received outside of business hours, the date and time of receipt shall be considered to be the beginning of the next business day D. Migration Rule 8 R Clear Rate Communications recommends that the Commission revise Migration Rule 8 R as follows: Rule 8. (1) Upon receipt of an accurate request from the new local service provider, the old local service provider shall port the telephone number and, if requested, transfer the unbundled loop to the new local service provider within the specified time period listed in subdivisions (a) and (b) of this subrule, or the time periods specified in Federal law and regulations, which-ever is shorter, unless a later due date is requested. If the old local service provider reschedules the original due date without the consent of the new local service provider, or the old local service provider fails to complete the migration by the original due date, the original due date shall be the one measured against. The following apply to due dates: (a) Due dates for migrations involving number portability with or without a loop. a non-simple wireline-to-wireline or non-simple intermodal port, as those terms are defined in 47 CFR For a migration request involving 1 to 18 lines, the due date is a monthly average of 5 4 business days after a request is made. Any migration request involving 19 or more lines involving number portability with or without a loop is a project for which a due date shall be negotiated. 8

10 (b) Due dates for migrations involving a simple port request only, for example, not for orders that require other facilities, such as loops. For a migration involving a simple port, the due date is the date required by 47 CFR For migration involving simple ports for 2 to 30 lines, the old local service provider shall send a firm order confirmation within 24 hours and complete the porting of the telephone number to the new local service provider within 3 business days of the firm order confirmation. Any migration request that involves simple ports for 31 or more lines is a project for which a due date shall be negotiated. (c) Due dates for Return to Native migrations. A Return to Native migration is one where a reseller based carrier seeks to port a number that was previously ported from the reselling incumbent carrier to a facility based competitive carrier. In this situation, the reseller/competitive carrier is not able to provide service to the end user customer via the reselling/incumbent carrier until the telephone number is returned to the native reselling/incumbent carrier s network switch. For such a migration the due date is a monthly average of 2 business days. The current Migration Rules are unclear and conflicting with themselves. The current Migration Rules state that [d]ue dates for migrations involving number portability with or without a loop. For a migration request involving 1 to 18 lines, the due date is a monthly average of 5 4 business days after a request is made. However, they also state that [d]ue dates for migrations involving a simple port request only, for example, not for orders that require other facilities, such as loops. For a migration involving a simple port, the due date should be the date required by 47 CFR The FCC s Regulations provide, at 47 CFR 52.35: (a) All telecommunications carriers required by the Commission to port telephone numbers must complete a simple wireline-towireline or simple intermodal port request within one business day unless a longer period is requested by the new provider or by the customer. The traditional work week of Monday through Friday represents mandatory business days and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. represents minimum business hours, excluding the current service provider's company-defined holidays. An accurate and complete Local 9

11 Service Request (LSR) must be received by the current service provider between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. local time for a simple port request to be eligible for activation at midnight on the same day. Any simple port LSRs received after this time will be considered received on the following business day at 8 a.m. local time. (b) Small providers, as described in the 2009 LNP Porting Interval Order, must comply with this section by February 2, (c) Unless directed otherwise by the Commission, any telecommunications carrier granted a waiver by the Commission of the one-business day porting interval described in paragraph (a) must complete a simple wireline-to-wireline or simple intermodal port request within four business days unless a longer period is requested by the new provider or by the customer. (d) All telecommunications carriers required by the Commission to port telephone numbers must complete a non-simple wireline-to-wireline or non-simple intermodal port request within four business days unless a longer period is requested by the new provider or by the customer. (e) For purposes of this section: (1) The term local time means the predominant time zone of the Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) Region in which the telephone number is being ported; and (2) The term intermodal ports includes (i) Wireline-to-wireless ports; (ii) Wireless-to-wireline ports; and (iii) Ports involving interconnected VoIP service. 1 There is no reason for Michigan carriers to have a longer period of time (an average of 5 business days) in which to complete a migration than that provided for under Federal law. Nonsimple wireline-to-wireline or non-simple intermodal ports are required by FCC rules to be completed in 4 business days. Simple wireline-to-wireline or simple intermodal port requests are 1 On November 29, 2015, 47 CFR was amended by removing paragraph (e)(1) and redesignating paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) as (e)(1) and (e)(2). The previous paragraph (e)(1) read: (1) The term telecommunications carrier includes an interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) provider as that term is defined in 52.21(h). 80 FR

12 required to be completed in one business day. The FCC rules do not give consideration or extra time to complete multiple port requests made at the same time. An additional area that Clear Rate Communications would like clarification from the Commission is with Return to Native migrations. A Return to Native migration is one where a reseller based carrier seeks to port a number that was previously ported from the reselling incumbent carrier to a facility based competitive carrier. In this situation, the reseller/competitive carrier is not able to provide service to the end user customer via the reselling/incumbent carrier until the telephone number is returned to the native reselling/incumbent carrier s network switch. Because this is essentially two simple migrations linked together, Clear Rate Communications requests that the Commission adopt a standard of 2 business days for such ports to be completed. E. Migration Rule 9 R Clear Rate Communications recommends that the Commission revise Migration Rule 9 R as follows: Rule 9. (1) If, after 3 consecutive months, a provider fails to meet 1 or more of the standards as set forth by these rules for each of the 3 months, then the provider shall notify commission staff and any other provider who requested a migration within that time period and whose requested migration did not meet the standards set forth in these rules, within 10 days of such failure and the commission shall require the provider to take corrective action. This corrective action shall include, but is not limited to, the 2-part report described as follows: (a) Part 1 of the report shall be a root-cause analysis of the reported level of performance, explaining why the reported performance failed to meet applicable service quality standard(s). (b) Part 2 of the report shall be a corrective action plan. The plan shall be based on the causes for substandard performance identified in part 1, and it shall define actions proposed to bring performance up to a level at or above the applicable standard. This plan shall have a 90-day timeline 11

13 within which the provider commits to bring its performance up to a level at or above the applicable standard. (2) A provider shall deliver its 2-part report to the commission staff and any provider referenced in that report within 30 days after it files the report showing a failure to meet the prescribed standards. Unless otherwise requested by the commission staff, the provider shall provide a status report for each month thereafter until the provider meets the applicable service quality standard. Such status report shall also be served upon any provider having received the 2-part report referenced above. (3) This rule does not prohibit a provider from seeking commission action against another provider, nor does it prohibit the commission from investigating a provider s compliance under its own motion under the Michigan telecommunications act, 1991 PA 179, MCL to MCL (4) Violation of these rules may result in penalties issued under section 601 of the act, MCL While the Commission s Migration rules currently provide for carriers who are not in compliance to self-report such non-compliance to the Commission, the rules contain no method for carriers who have experienced delays caused by non-compliance to know if such reports have been filed. Clear Rate Communications proposes that the Commission require that any reports filed with the Commission under Migration Rule 9, R , also be served upon carriers affected by such non-compliance. Such a requirement will also help foster transparency and work in conjunction with the right carriers have to file their own complaints, pursuant to the MTA, and R

14 F. Addition to Migration Rule 8 R Regarding LEC and PIC Freeze. Clear Rate Communications recommends that the Commission add a subsection to Migration Rule 8 R as follows, to address migrations where a LEC and/or PIC Freeze has been lifted: As required by the Commission s Orders in MPSC Case No. U-11900, upon receipt of a PIC or LEC change order involving a customer with PIC or LEC protection, the LEC receiving that request shall promptly notify the person submitting the change order of the existence of the customer s PIC or LEC protection, and shall request adequate proof of verification of the change order as defined in Section 4(b), above. Following the LEC s receipt of adequate proof of verification, the LEC shall process and implement that change order promptly and without unreasonable delay completing any such migration within average due date as required for such migration elsewhere in this section. The FCC and this Commission permit carriers to grant to end users a carrier freeze on their account. See, 47 CFR to ; In the matter, on the Commission's own motion, to consider revisions to the procedures designed to prohibit switching an end user of a telecommunications provider to another provider without the authorization of the end user, MPSC Case No. U-11900, Order issued Apr 16, When a carrier freeze is imposed, migration or porting of a number may not occur until such a carrier freeze is lifted by the enduser. The FCC has established the following guidelines for lifting such carrier freeze: (e) Procedures for lifting preferred carrier freezes. All local exchange carriers who offer preferred carrier freezes must, at a minimum, offer subscribers the following procedures for lifting a preferred carrier freeze: (1) A local exchange carrier administering a preferred carrier freeze must accept a subscriber's written or electronically signed authorization stating his or her intent to lift a preferred carrier freeze; and (2) A local exchange carrier administering a preferred carrier freeze must accept a subscriber's oral authorization stating her or his intent to lift a preferred carrier freeze and must offer a mechanism that allows a submitting carrier to conduct a three-way conference call with the carrier 13

15 administering the freeze and the subscriber in order to lift a freeze. When engaged in oral authorization to lift a preferred carrier freeze, the carrier administering the freeze shall confirm appropriate verification data (e.g., the subscriber's date of birth or social security number) and the subscriber's intent to lift the particular freeze. 47 CFR In issuing its Procedures for Changing Telecommunications Service Providers this Commission directed: (g) Upon receipt of a PIC or LEC change order involving a customer with PIC or LEC protection, the LEC receiving that request shall promptly notify the person submitting the change order of the existence of the customer s PIC or LEC protection, and shall request adequate proof of verification of the change order as defined in Section 4(b), above. Following the LEC s receipt of adequate proof of verification, the LEC shall process and implement that change order promptly and without unreasonable delay. In the matter, on the Commission's own motion, to consider revisions to the procedures designed to prohibit switching an end user of a telecommunications provider to another provider without the authorization of the end user, MPSC Case No. U-11900, Order issued Apr 16, 2009, Exhibit A, Procedures for Changing Telecommunications Service Providers, Section 4(g). To avoid the prospect of carriers hiding behind PIC or LEC Freezes as a method for delaying migration or porting of numbers, Clear Rate Communications believes it would be beneficial for the industry and help with overall clarity if the requirement already adopted by this Commission in Case No. U was incorporated into the Migration Rules. 14

16 III. CONCULSION Clear Rate Communications, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to file these comments on the Commission s re-promulgation of Migration Rules. Clear Rate Communications believes that the above-suggested proposed changes to the rules will assist this Commission in its statutory obligation to encourage the development of a competitive telecommunication industry. Clear Rate Communications respectfully requests that the Michigan Public Service Commission re-promulgate its rules for the provision of basic local exchange service customer migration, R to R , issued under the authority of Section 202(c)(iii) of the Michigan Telecommunication Act, MCL (c)(iii), with the changes outlined above. Respectfully Submitted, Dated: December 8, 2015 By: Haran C. Rashes (P54883) General Counsel CLEAR RATE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 555 S. Old Woodward, Suite 600 Birmingham, MI (248) (248) Fax hrashes@clearrate.com 15

17 STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION * * * * * In the matter, on the Commission s own motion, to promulgate rules required by MCL (1)(c)(iii). ) ) ) Case No. U PROOF OF SERVICE Haran C. Rashes, General Counsel for Clear Rate Communications, Inc., hereby certifies that copies of the Comments of Clear Rate Communications, Inc., in the above-captioned proceeding, was served upon the parties on the attached service list via electronic mail and United States Postal Service First Class Mail, on December 8, 2015: Respectfully Submitted, Dated: December 8, 2015 By: Haran C. Rashes (P54883) General Counsel CLEAR RATE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 555 S. Old Woodward, Suite 600 Birmingham, MI 48009

18 SERVICE LIST MPSC Case No. U Administrative Law Judge Hon. Martin D. Snider Administrative Law Judge Michigan Administrative Hearing System for the Public Service Commission PO Box Lansing, MI Clear Rate Communications, Inc. Haran C. Rashes General Counsel Clear Rate Communications, Inc. 555 S. Old Woodward, Suite 600 Birmingham, MI Michigan Public Service Commission Staff Meredith R. Beidler Assistant Attorney General Public Service Division PO Box Lansing, MI Robin Ancona Director, Telecommunications Division Michigan Public Service Commission PO Box Lansing, MI Michigan Bell Telephone Company Mark R. Ortleib AT&T 225 West Randolph Street, Floor 25D Chicago, IL