Untitled - AT&T Clec Online

Attachment 25: Appendix Line Sharing/SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE, L.P.
SBC TEXAS/CLEC JOINT PETITIONERS
PAGE 3 OF 11
082505
3.3.1.3 For the period from October 3, 2005 until October 2, 2006 - 75% of the state-approved monthly
recurring rate, or 75% of the monthly recurring rate set forth in SBC TEXAS’ and CLEC’s
interconnection agreement, for access to a DSL-capable.
3.4 Beginning October 2, 2006, SBC TEXAS shall have no obligation to continue to provide the HFPL for CLEC
to provide xDSL-based service to any new end-user customers that CLEC began providing xDSL-based
service to over the HFPL on or after October 2, 2003 and before October 3, 2004. Rather, effective October
2, 2006, CLEC must provide xDSL-based service to any such new end-user customer(s) via a line splitting
arrangement, over a stand-alone xDSL Loop purchased from SBC TEXAS, or through an alternate
arrangement, if any, that the Parties may negotiate.
4.0 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS RELATING TO LINE SHARING
4.1 CLEC may only purchase the HFPL from SBC TEXAS to provide xDSL-based service, and may only
continue to provide xDSL-based service over such HFPL when SBC TEXAS is providing retail POTS analog
voice service on the same loop to the same End-User.
4.2 SBC TEXAS will provide a HFPL for CLEC to deploy xDSL technologies presumed acceptable for
deployment. For the purposes of this agreement, ADSL, RADSL, and G.Lite, are presumed acceptable.
SBC TEXAS will not impose limitations on the transmission speeds of xDSL services; provided, however,
SBC TEXAS does not guarantee transmission speeds, available bandwidth nor imply any service level.
CLEC may only deploy xDSL technologies over the HFPL that do not cause significant degradation with
analog voice band transmission.
4.3 SBC TEXAS shall not deny CLEC’s request to deploy any xDSL technology over the HFPL that is presumed
acceptable for deployment as defined by Attachment 25: DSL unless SBC TEXAS has demonstrated to the
state commission in accordance with any applicable FCC order(s) that CLEC’s deployment of the specific
xDSL technology will significantly degrade the performance of other advanced services or traditional voice
band services.
4.4 In the event CLEC wishes to introduce a technology on the HFPL that has been successfully deployed
elsewhere but not otherwise approved by an industry standards body, the Federal Communications
Commission or any state commission, CLEC will provide documentation describing that action to SBC
TEXAS and the state commission before or at the time of its request to deploy such technology within SBC
TEXAS, consistent with the requirements of Attachment 25: DSL, Section 3.5.
4.5 In the event CLEC wishes to introduce a non-standard xDSL technology, as the term is defined in
Attachment 25: DSL, on the HFPL, this deployment will be in accordance with Attachment 25: DSL, Section
4.6.
4.6 Liability:
4.6.1 Where a CLEC or an ILEC claims that a deployed service is significantly degrading the performance of its
advanced service or traditional voiceband services, that carrier must notify the deploying carrier and allow
the deploying carrier a reasonable opportunity to correct the problem. Where the carrier whose services are
being degraded does not know the precise cause of the degradation, it must notify each carrier that may
have caused or contributed to the degradation.