Telephonic communications – With usage measurement – Call traffic recording by computer or control processor
Reexamination Certificate
2001-12-21
2003-10-28
Barnie, Rexford (Department: 2643)
Telephonic communications
With usage measurement
Call traffic recording by computer or control processor
C379S112010, C379S111000, C379S112070, C379S139000, C700S032000, C702S182000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06639976
ABSTRACT:
TECHNICAL FIELD
This invention relates in general to the analysis of data, and more particularly to analyzing performance measurement data to determine whether parity exists between the services provided by an incumbent local exchange carrier to its customers and the services provided by the incumbent local exchange carrier to the customers of a competing local exchange carrier.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
At one time, a local telephone market was served by a single local exchange carrier. However, local telephone markets are now open to competition from competitive local exchange carriers (“CLECs”). The incumbent local exchange carrier (“ILEC”) in a market is required to offer services to the CLECs that are equivalent to the services that it provides itself so that a competitive environment exists.
To determine whether an ILEC is providing services to the customers of a CLEC that are equivalent to the services that it provides its own customers, data is collected that measures the performance of the services provided to the ILEC's customers and the performance of the services provided to the CLEC's customers. One system for collecting transactional data and calculating performance measurements is described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/474,356 entitled “Method for Performance Measurement and Analysis of Local Exchange Carrier Interconnections” which is incorporated herein by reference. The performance measurements typically measure the timeliness, accuracy and availability of the services provided. For example, a performance measurement can be defined to measure the percentage of missed repair appointments.
Although the ILEC is required to provide equivalent services, there is no established method for determining whether the services provided are equivalent. Thus, there is a need for a method for determining whether an ILEC is providing services to the customers of a CLEC that are equivalent to the services that it is providing to its own customers. The method should be flexible enough to accommodate a variety of performance measurements so that a comprehensive comparison can be made.
If the ILEC does not provide services to the CLECs that are at least equal in quality to the services provided to the ILEC itself, then the ILEC may be subject to penalties. For example, a state public service commission (“PSC”) may impose monetary penalties for the failure to provide equivalent services or the ILEC may be denied entry into the long distance market. Thus, there is a need for a method for calculating a remedy if the ILEC is not providing services to the customers of a CLEC that are equivalent to the services that it is providing to its own customers. The method should be flexible enough to accommodate a variety of penalties that may be imposed by PSC's in different states.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The present invention meets the needs described above by providing a method for determining whether parity exists between the services provided by an ILEC to its customers and the services provided by the ILEC to the customers of a CLEC. In addition, the present invention provides a method for calculating a remedy if parity does not exist.
In one aspect of the invention four types of performance measurements are used to determine whether parity exists: 1) mean measurements, 2) proportion measurements, 3) rate measurements and 4) ratio measurements. The performance measurements typically measure the timeliness, accuracy and availability of the services provided by the ILEC. The performance measurement data is obtained from a performance measurement and analysis system.
The data is loaded into a number of fact tables. The fact tables are created so that each row corresponds to a transaction. Once the fact tables are loaded, a number of relation tables are created. The relation tables are created so that each row corresponds to a performance measurement.
A number of aggregation tables are also created. The aggregation tables contain summarized data that is used in determining whether parity exists. The aggregation tables aggregate performance measurements based on factors, such as product group, product, entity, geography and time, so that a like-to-like comparison is made. Once the aggregation tables are created, a number of cell tables are created. Each row in a cell table corresponds to a performance measurement and contains data for a service provided by the ILEC to its customers and data for an analogous service provided by the ILEC to a CLEC's customers.
An individual Z-score is calculated for each row in a cell table. The individual Z-score reflects the difference between the average of the ILEC performance measurements and the average of the CLEC performance measurements. Once the individual Z-scores are calculated, an aggregate Z-score is calculated. The aggregate Z-score aggregates the individual Z-scores that are related to a particular CLEC.
A balancing critical value (“BCV”) is calculated so that the probability of a type I error and the probability of a type II error are equal. A type I error results if the calculation indicates that favoritism exists, when no favoritism exists and a type II error results if the calculation indicates that parity exists, when favoritism exists.
To determine whether parity exists, the difference between the aggregate Z-score and the BCV is calculated. If the difference is negative, then it is determined that favoritism exists and an appropriate remedy is calculated. However, if the difference is not negative, then parity exists and no remedy is required.
These and other aspects, features and advantages of the present invention may be more clearly understood and appreciated from a review of the following detailed description of the disclosed embodiments and by reference to the appended drawings and claims.
REFERENCES:
patent: 5799072 (1998-08-01), Vulcan et al.
patent: 5940471 (1999-08-01), Homayoun
patent: 6389112 (2002-05-01), Stewart et al.
patent: 6449350 (2002-09-01), Cox
patent: 6480749 (2002-11-01), Lee, Jr. et al.
patent: 6526025 (2003-02-01), Pack
patent: 6542588 (2003-04-01), Mashinsky
patent: 6542593 (2003-04-01), Bowman-Amuah
Elmore Mitch
Grant Bill
Shellum Paul
Barnie Rexford
BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation
Cantor & Colburn LLP
LandOfFree
Method for parity analysis and remedy calculation does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Method for parity analysis and remedy calculation, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Method for parity analysis and remedy calculation will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3155703