CenturyLink and Minnesota PUC fight over OSS [telecom]

I came across this at a website for the Minnesota PUC headlined "Decisions -
August 11, 2011".
**11 P5340,5643,5323,
5981,438,465,
5986,421/C-11-684
Joint CLECs; Qwest; CenturyLink
Qwest/CenturyLink to stop implementing new OSS, explain problems with
current OSS, involve CLECs in future development. In the Matter of
the Complaint by Joint CLECs against Qwest and CenturyLink Regarding
OSS Implementation.
Does the Commission have jurisdiction over the matter and are there
grounds for further investigation of the allegations? (PUC: Briefing
Papers - O'Grady, Fournier)
In a Staff Briefing Paper prepared by Kevin O.Grady and Marc Fournier,
the dispute is summarized this way:
On June 28, 2011, several Competitive Local Exchange Carriers
(CLECs), referred to herein as the Joint CLECs, filed a complaint
against Qwest and CenturyLink, referred to herein as the Joint
Applicants, alleging that the Joint Applicants have:
(i) violated the terms of the Commission Order approving the
Qwest-CenturyLink merger (Docket 10-456; March 31, 2011);
(ii) breached settlement agreements between the Joint CLECs and
the Joint Applicants;
(iii) violated interconnection agreements between the Joint CLECs
and the Joint Applicants; and
(iv) breached their duty of non-discrimination pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes and the federal Telecommunications Act
of 1996.
Rest at:
formatting link
{E4091A8E-A4B1-499D-94E0-7B16FC12D66D}&documentTitle=20118-65056-01
Here's my question: the way I read this, the CLECs have complained
that Qwest/CenturyLink is ignoring a previous commitment to keep the
old OSS systems available for more than two years. Is
Qwest/CenturyLink trying to change the deal, or are the changes
between the "old" and "new" systems just cosmetic?
Bill
Reply to
Bill Horne
Loading thread data ...

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.