March 2004 Product & Process CMP Team Meeting ... - CenturyLink

Product & Process Change Management Process 

March 2004 

Product & Process CMP Team Meeting 

Distribution Package 

March 17, 2004 

3/12/04 © 2004, Qwest Corporation


Product & Process 

Change Management Process (CMP) 

Monthly Meeting 

8:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. (MT) 

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 

Room 180, 1005 17 th Street, Denver, Colorado 

Conference Bridge – 1-877-572-8687, Passcode 3393947 

Facilitator 

Susie Bliss – Director, Change Management 

Agenda 

Time Topic Presenter/Facilitator 

8:00 – 8:15 Introductions / Roll Call Kit Thomte 

8:15 – 8:30 Announcements & Previous Meeting Minutes 

• See Attachment A – Previous Meeting Minutes 

8:30 – 8:45 Review Global Action Items 

• See Attachment B – Global Action Items 

8:45 – 10:00 Review “Active” CLEC Originated Change Requests 

10:00 – 10:15 Morning Break 

• See Attachment C – CLEC CR Summary Report 

• See Attachment D – CLEC CR Detailed Reports 

Kit Thomte 

AI Owners / SMEs 

CR Owners / SMEs 

10:15 – 10:45 Review “Active” CLEC Originated Change Requests (continued) CR Owners / SMEs 

10:45 – 11:00 Review “Active” Qwest Originated Change Requests 

• See Attachment E – Qwest CR Summary List 

• See Attachment F – Qwest CR Detail Reports 

CR Owners / SMEs 



Agenda – Continued 

Time Topic Presenter/Facilitator 

11:00 – 12:00 Discussion of CMP Operations and Proposed Modifications to 

CMP Framework 

12:00 – 1:00 LUNCH 

• See Attachment G – Proposed Modifications to CMP 

Framework 

Kit Thomte 

1:15 – 1:45 CLEC Forum Update CLECs 

1:45 – 3:00 Walk On Items 

• Eschelon Walk on Request – Notice 

PROD.02.09.04.F.01327.Removal_of_LNP_Surcharge 

Announcements 

• April 2004 Product & Process CMP Meeting – April 21, 2004, Room 180, 1005 17 th Street 

• April 7, 2004 is the last day to submit CRs for presentation at the April 21, 2004, Product & Process 

CMP Meeting. 

• Interactive Reports for CMP Change Requests can be found at 

http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/changerequest.html 

• The Qwest Wholesale Change Management Process Document can be found at 

http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/whatiscmp.html 



Attachment A – Previous Meeting Minutes 


Qwest Wholesale Change Management Process (CMP) Meeting Minutes 

Change Management Process (CMP) Monthly Meeting 

Product / Process 

8:00 – 3:00 Wednesday February 18, 2004 

1005 17 th Street Community Room 

Denver, Colorado 

INTRODUCTION 

Participants met February 18, 2004 to discuss and review status of Action Items; CLEC initiated Change Requests, Qwest initiated 

Change requests and other CMP items. Following is the write-up of the discussions, action items, and decisions made in the working 

session. 

The list of associated attachments is as follows: 

Attachment A – List of Attendees 

ATTACHMENTS 

MEETING MINUTES 

The meeting began with Qwest making introductions and welcoming all attendees. Qwest advised that the minutes were issued and posted 

to the CMP web site. Qwest asked if there were any additional comments. There were no additional comments. 

Review Global Action Items 

AI012103-3 Resource Requirements associated with TRO Activity 

Judy Schultz with Qwest said this action item was opened last month because Mike Zulevic with Covad had asked how Qwest would 

support the TRO system changes. Judy said additional resources will not be added to support TRO systems changes. Any systems 

changes and the systems support will be absorbed in the October release. This action item will be closed. 

AI012104-1 Binding Post Information on Non Design Orders 

Doug Andreen, Qwest stated that this action item continues to move forward to find the best solution for all parties. Two meetings were 

held in the past month. 

AI012104-2 Systems Architecture Meeting 

Connie Winston with Qwest suggested that this meeting take place during the afternoon of the Systems CMP meeting and suggested that 

the first topic be high level LSR flow and then the CLECs can give thoughts on future topics. Carla Pardee said this discussion should 

help the CLECs frame their CRs. Carla did wonder about timing of the meeting because people are trying to leave during the afternoon of 

the Systems meeting. Connie said that Qwest plans to give a general overview for the first meeting and Kit Thomte with Qwest suggested 

that the first meeting be held in April due to discussion about open CRs planned for the March meeting. This action item will be closed in 

Product Process and will be opened on Systems. 

03/02/0402/24/04 Page 1 of 12


AI012104-4 Documentation Process 

Mark Coyne – Qwest advised that at the January meeting we agreed to review the process. As a result of the review, we believe the 

process is meeting the intent. We gathered data and determined that the average turnaround time for Documentation CRs to be completed 

is 3-3 ½ months. This is less time than the CMP process. Some requests do go outside of the average time frame. The documentation 

team would like to propose 2 measures to help address Eschelon’s issues: 

• Add an escalation point at 14 days. The escalation would continue until we obtain a proposed completion date 

• Add a field on the Documentation Request form to identify how critical the request is; such as Minimum, Moderate and Major 

Impact. 

Mark advised that Qwest would try to determine within the first 14 days if the request can be completed in 60-90 days. If we don’t 

believe completion is possible in that time frame, then we will contact the CLECs and offer to drop the request from the Documentation 

process and put it into the CMP process. 

Bonnie recapped to clarify her understanding. Bonnie advised it doesn’t seem logical if we are 14 days into the process and then we are 

asked to go to the CMP process. Qwest has internal documentation but hasn’t done external documentation. Why, if we don’t have to 

develop the process, does it take so long? Bonnie said that she appreciates adding the additional steps to the process. Bonnie asked if we 

could get a time commitment to complete the request? Mark advised that he is not in control of the resources that provide the content of 

the process so he can not commit to a date to complete the request. Mark advised that these procedures are not always documented 

internally, that they are existing processes, but they may not be documented. Bonnie asked if she takes the request through CMP would it 

get completed faster (comment begin from Eschelon) and if the same Qwest personnel are doing the documentation for a CR as for the 

documentation process. Mark said yes it is the same personnel. Mark said a CR would take a higher priority, but it depends on what 

resource is impacted based on the request. Bonnie asked if we thought this made sense since it was the same people? (comment end from 

Eschelon). Mark advised that all current documentation requests are within the 60-90 timeframe. Mark would like to implement this 

process as a Level 1 and see how it works. Bonnie agreed to give this a try and Level 1 is okay. Bonnie advised it is okay to close this AI 

and if necessary another one could be opened later. This action item will move to Closed Status. 

AI012104-5 Network Disclosures 

Jim Maher – Qwest advised that he would explain the purpose of Network Disclosures at a high level. Jim advised that these are on the 

Wholesale web site, and are based on 1996 Telecom Act and Computer Inquiry lll requirements. There are only around 40 of them, so it 

isn’t a large volume. Network Disclosures alert the industry of network technology changes such as switch deployments / upgrades etc. 

All Wholesale customers IXC, CLECs, ESP etc. are addressed in the topics that are covered under Network Disclosures. The Network 

Disclosure site is updated and has been in place for quite some time. The question was how do Network Disclosures fit into CMP? When 

Qwest sends out the disclosure it is an announcement, not a commitment. There are two types of announcements; 6 month 

announcements that are posted to the website, and 60 day announcements that include a Network notification. Sometimes CRs are issued 

as a result of a Network Disclosure, if there is an impact to the CLEC. The Network Disclosure usually would go out prior to the CMP 

notification. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked if Network Disclosures do apply to Product Process? Jim advised if there is a CLEC 

impact there would be a subsequent CMP product or process notice. Phyllis Burt – ATT asked if Network Disclosures drive all Network 

Notifications? Jim Maher advised some Network Notification come out as CMP notices, and they are different than Network Disclosures. 

Phyllis asked about one Network Notification that impacted data that ATT receives. Phyllis asked why wasn’t this a Systems 

notification? Jim thanked Phyllis for the example and stated that the notification Phyllis was referring to was associated with Network 

dispatches and that Qwest had determined the category for that notice. Jim agreed that this was a gray area when the notices could 

involve content changes in the data that the CLECs received, and that Qwest would look at how notifications like this could be managed 

in the future. Connie Winston – Qwest advised that sending a system notice would depend on a number of things. Jim asked if we could 

close this action item, and Bonnie advised yes. This Action item will move to Closed Status. 

AI071603-1 Will Qwest offer CLECs a process to grant blanket approval for DSL Conditioning 

Kit Thomte - Qwest stated that this project would remain an open action item until spring (April 2004) until additional system work is 

completed. 

AI111903-1 Construction Definition and Charges Review 

03/02/0402/24/04 Page 2 of 12


Jamal Boudhaouia with Qwest said that Network modifications would be available in mid-March for review. The TRO will determine the 

requirements for construction, which will drive the QPF fee. Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon asked when documentation would be 

available for review. Jamal responded that documentation will be available in mid-March. This action item will remain open. 

Review Active CLEC Originated Change Requests 

PC042103-2 Escalation Ticket Reporting 

Michelle Thacker with Qwest gave an update that the January reports were sent on 2/16/04 and asked if the CR could be closed. 

Stephanie Prull with Eschelon said that Eschelon agrees to close this CR and suggested that Qwest also contact Michelle Sprague at 

McLeod to close. Qwest will e-mail McLeod to confirm closing this CR. This CR will move to Completed status if McLeod agrees. 

PC070202-2X Time and Material Repair Charges Invoice Process 

Jim Recker – Qwest advised that we made changes to the User Guide to help clarify and correct information regarding frequency of ticket 

updates and circuit id entry. We reviewed the Guide with Kathy Stitcher – Eschelon before we published it. Kathy agreed it met her 

needs and approved the changes. Kathy Stitcher – Eschelon advised she is fine with the changes and it is okay to close this CR. Kathy 

thanked Qwest for making the changes. Stephan Calhoun – Cbeyond asked if this tool is specific to a certain product. Jim Recker – 

Qwest advised no, it contains design and non design repair tickets. Kathy Stitcher – Eschelon advised this tool give CLECs a heads up on 

what will be billed. We use it to look at the invoice and CLEC repair system and compare charges. This CR will move to Completed 

status. 

PC072303-1 Customer Not Ready (CNR) jeopardy notice should not be sent to Qwest to CLECs before 5PM 

local time on the due date (for basic install) 

Jill Martain with Qwest said the final notice was sent on 1/2/04 and the PCAT was effective 1/19/04. Stephanie Prull asked if Qwest is 

holding the jep statuses in IMA. Jill said that a system CR would be required to hold jep statuses from the inquiry functionality, only the 

jeopardy notices were being held in IMA. This CR will be moved to Completed status. 

PC120803-1 Associated Move Orders 

Qiana Davis with Qwest reviewed the draft response and said that AT&T had revised the CR on 2/3/04 and that Qwest is evaluating the 

modifications and require additional time to respond to the CR. Qiana added that Qwest would provide an update in March. Carla Pardee 

with AT&T said AT&T had determined that a process does exist, however AT&T has had several examples where the orders are 

disconnected. Carla also said they have been working with their service management team on this issue as well. Qwest will provide an 

update in March. This CR will be moved to Evaluation status. 

PC120903-1 Qwest will track ‘access required’ information in its systems when Qwest installs new service, 

or when Qwest dispatches on the repair of an existing line/circuit. Qwest will make the information 

available to CLECs for use when a CLEC opens a repair ticket 

Don Tolman, Qwest stated that Qwest is currently reviewing the request and will provide a complete response in the March meeting. He 

requested the CR be moved to Evaluation status. 

PC011604-1 All Joint Maintenance and Trouble Isolation Documentation be placed in the same location on 

the Qwest Web Site 

This was a walk-on CR by Covad in January. Doug Andreen, Qwest in John Berard’s absence stated that a Clarification call was held and 

the intent of the CR is to provide a method of easy access to documentation that the Qwest and CLECs technicians commonly use in 

trouble isolation and maintenance work. The CR calls for the documentation to be located or accessible from a common point on the 

web. Jim Recker, Qwest added that John would provide us with examples of processes Covad now uses to find the documentation. This 

CR will be moved to Presented status. 

03/02/0402/24/04 Page 3 of 12


PC012004-1 Include escalation ticket detail along with the monthly escalation ticket report or create a 

separate report to provide the detail. 

Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon presented this CR. Bonnie said this is an extension to the CR just closed and this CR asks for more detail 

than the report currently provides. Eschelon’s service manager has provided a report that included the level of detail required to address 

Eschelon’s training needs. This CR will be moved to Presented status. 

PC022703-9X Support Production Defect Report (crossed over from SCR022703-09) 

Connie Winston – Qwest advised that this CR is the one ATT originally issued. This was discussed during the Global Action Item 

meetings. IT looked at specific data elements on the request and we are planning on providing these via PC111903-1. Donna Osborne 

Miller – ATT advised we understood when Carla submitted the other CR, Qwest would deny this CR. Donna said she thought that Qwest 

would identify the parts of this original CR that would not be met but the new CR PC111903-1. Qwest agreed that we would identify the 

data elements that are not being met by the new CR and send this information to ATT and populate it in the database. This CR will 

change to Denied Status. 

PC062603-03 Business Rules Clarification calls and event notification updates through the Addendum 

process 

Beth Foster with Qwest said that this CR has been discussed at the global action item meetings and last week Qwest met with AT&T and 

Liz Balvin with MCI. Qwest took action items from that meeting and determined that meeting minutes will be provided and posted on the 

production support page along side the trouble ticket information which is currently populated on the Wholesale Web site. There was 

discussion regarding the timeframe of posting meeting minutes. Connie Winston with Qwest said they would post the minutes within 3 

days and would strive to get completed as soon as possible. Connie also said that Qwest would capture necessary information, necessary 

action items and a general re-cap of the meeting intent. Phyllis Burt mentioned that issues of importance to Qwest might not be the same 

as those that are important to the CLEC. Connie suggested that the CLEC could provide a red-line of meeting minutes back to Qwest. 

Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T said that we could put this CR into CLEC test and see how the process works. 

Beth said that another action item was to look at how to handle the business rules clarification piece of the request, and noted that AT&T 

had initially asked that the Disclosure documentation be updated when CLECs ask for clarification. Qwest would like to start a single 

Q&A log with 15.0 release and provide the log on the wholesale website out where the EDI Documentation FAQ pages currently resides. 

This single Q&A log will provide needed clarification to documentation, a way to see documentation before the addendum is posted, and, 

will allow everyone to see what questions other CLECs have had and how Qwest has responded. Beth explained that the process for EDI 

will be covered by the CLECs EDI Implementation Teams, and included in the body of the Q&A document that will be posted. 

Randy Owen with Qwest said an e-mail address would be set up for CLECs to send questions. 

Phyllis Burt requested the Q&A log be categorized by topic, such as Appointment Scheduling. Randy Owen will take that action item to 

see if this is feasible. Donna Osborne-Miller said the Q&A log would be cumbersome if not broken out by fields. 

Beth asked if everyone agreed that the process trial could begin with 15.0, and once the documentation was posted the CR could move 

into CLEC test for AT&T feedback. All agreed and Beth said that a Systems Notification will be sent stating that the Q&A log will be 

located on the Wholesale Web Site, under OSS, IMA, EDI Documentation under the FAQ link. This CR will move to Development 

Status. 

PC102803-1 Improve Search Functionality of the Qwest Wholesale Website to minimize selections 

Doug Andreen, Qwest stated there is no new information this month. The CR will remain in Evaluation status. 

PC110403-1 Update accuracy of FAM records 

Connie Winston – Qwest advised that we have not gotten approval as of yet for this CR. We are still waiting for approval. Carla Pardee 

– ATT advised that ATT is disappointed that this did not get approved as it is a critical issue and it doesn’t seem as if this CR requires a 

lot of resources, so we do not understand the lack of approval. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked is this one is like the ICON database? 

Connie advised she is not sure. Bonnie advised that her Service Manager (Jean Novak) told her that the fix would take place on March 1, 

03/02/0402/24/04 Page 4 of 12


2004. Connie advised that maybe an update is scheduled but not the entire fix. Cindy Macy – Qwest agreed to check with Jean Novak. 

This CR will remain in Evaluation Status. 

PC111903-1 Website for Event Notifiers 

Connie Winston – Qwest advised this CR also did not get approved as of yet. We are working on this and should have an update soon. 

This CR will remain in Evaluation Status. 

PC112003-1 Differentiate between Loop-MUX combos and EELs due to different FCC treatment (TRO 

Order) 

Pat Finley with Qwest said the examples Cbeyond provided following the January meeting were examples of circuits with jurisdiction 

based on the class of service. There were hundreds of circuits converted correctly via record orders and the 10 circuits provided as 

examples were issued incorrectly, and required record orders to fix. Pat explained that the PCATs for EEL and LMC were updated and 

now contains a downloadable list of USOCs for interstate and intrastate. The USOC list, combined with the TRAK FID on the CSR 

differentiates LMC and EEL and there is no need to establish separate classes of service. The work associated with establishing separate 

classes of service is prohibitive because of the conversion to the embedded base. 

Pat said that the e-mail received from Stephan Calhoun on 1/22/04, confuses the request with other CRs requesting billing changes and 

believe that this CR can be closed. 

Stephan Calhoun with Cbeyond said the PCAT updates are appreciated and that he was only able to review the Qwest response on this 

CR yesterday. Stephan said he has concerns with the 2/3/04 Qwest response and asked that Pat read through the response. 

Pat read the draft response. Stephan said that his understanding is that usually classes of service define the product but not the 

jurisdiction. Pat disagreed saying that the jurisdiction of many Qwest products is identified by class of service. 

Stephan also said that interstate class of service was assigned to conversion orders that were issued last year, are also being assigned on 

new requests for EEL and LMCE. Pat said that the interstate EEL and LMC classes of service are only used to convert to Special Access 

circuits. 

Stephan said that he doesn’t understand the reason UMX was changed to new EEL and LMC. Cbeyond has not made any changes in the 

way the services were ordered. Pat Finley said that interstate was only used for conversion orders only. 

Stephan said that Cbeyond is concerned that billing doesn’t support the Qwest response. The billing department was not able to identify 

what was converted and what was a new order. There seems to be a disconnect with the policy and what is actually done. Pat explained 

that the Billing Center is able to access history information on the services, and to tell what is new and what was converted. Stephen said 

that the billing manager, service manager and process manager were unable to determine and planned to contact the product manager. 

Stephan has provided examples to their service manager. 

Stephan is also concerned that the recurring interstate and intrastate EEL do not bill the same as UNE. Pat said that PLT has different 

rates and is a finished service. Interstate and intrastate EEL and LMC are billed the same recurring rates. Stephan said LMC jurisdiction 

is based on FCC definition and doesn’t seem to fit. Stephan said the concern is not the rate itself, but the rate elements, and asked what 

would keep Qwest from applying different rates to interstate and intrastate. Pat asked if the concern is that Qwest may raise UNE rates 

that are interstate. Pat explained that Qwest is obligated to make these UNEs available to CLECs at TELRIC rates. 

Judy Schultz with Qwest said there are many concerns with this CR and suggested that an ad hoc meeting be scheduled to discuss. This 

CR will remain in Evaluation status. 

PC112403-1 Request for blocking feature for 411 and 555-1212 

Carla Pardee, Qwest said that she is waiting for AT&T to conclude their testing with CustomNet Option 1 to see if this will satisfy the 

needs of this CR. She would like to move the Status to Deferred until AT&T completes testing. 

PC031103-1 Convert Common Area Splitter Collocation to Cageless Shelf at a time Collocation 

03/02/0402/24/04 Page 5 of 12


Dave Williams with Qwest said that the PCAT changes will be effective on 2/26/04 and a contract amendment will be available at the 

same time. This CR will remain in Development status. 

PC042103-1 Tracking process for FBDL order issues 

Lee Gomez with Qwest gave the update and advised that the CR is on track for implementation in April and will be sending a notification 

updating the listing document. The first report will be available in May and the CLECs should contact the Listing Account Manager to 

receive the report. 

Stephanie Prull with Eschelon asked if multiple ACNAs will all be on the same report. Lee Gomez said there would be a separate report 

for each ACNA. This CR will remain Development status. 

PC050703-1 Change Qwest Wholesale CMP Website to make it easier to search, retrieve and view CRs 

Kit Thomte and Doug Andreen, Qwest said the prototype will be available 3/25 and will be located next to the existing Interactive Report 

on the Qwest Web Site. It will contain six different sorts for the data. The format is somewhat changed although the content remains the 

same. Kit asked if the CLECs would agree to move this CR to test since the prototype will be available in a week. The CLECs agreed to 

move the CR to test. 

PC051403-4 Sync Test for Loop Splitting on Maintenance Trouble Tickets and Sync Testing for 

provisioning of Loop Splitting 

Heidi Moreland with Qwest gave an update that the Loop Splitting V16 PCAT adding sync testing for provisioning and repair requests 

will become effective on 2/27/04. This CR will remain in Development status. 

PC061103-1ES Intercept CLEC customer calls to Qwest Repair Center 

Jamal Boudhaouia with Qwest said that funding for the project has been approved and will provide a date for implementation as soon as 

available. Bonnie Johnson said that she has asked several times and has not received an answer about the Qwest retail VRU project and 

when that is scheduled for implementation or has it been implemented. Jamal said that the project hasn’t been implemented and all 

changes will be incorporated and will include the CR requested changes. Bonnie said that Qwest hasn’t made clear what the 

implementation date will be. Carla Pardee with AT&T said that the changes were supposed to be effective in April. Jamal said there is 

currently no date for implementation. Carla said that the CR is important to AT&T and would like to see solid dates next month adding 

that the CR was escalated previously and did not do any good. Judy Schultz with Qwest said that we had just received word that funding 

was approved on Friday and IT will determine the dates as soon as possible. The dates will be provided, if available, before the March 

meeting. Bonnie said that Qwest had already provided the implementation date of April, (comment begin from Eschelon) 2004 but now 

states that this was just approved. Judy said all changes had to be reevaluated by Noteabart. (comment end from Eschelon). This CR will 

remain in Development status. 

PC070103-1 Provide ‘Lines in Service Report’ to CLECs 

Laura McGhghy with Qwest gave an update that 2/27/04 is targeted to provide the January data. In addition to the report, there will be a 

product code explanation file that provides a product code definition. Jennifer Arnold with U S Link asked how to get the report. Laura 

explained they should contact their service manager to request. This CR will remain in Development status. 

PC070103-3 DSL Volume provider and data migrations process to prevent extended 

DSL outage 

Anthony Washington with Qwest provided an update that we have received funding approval and are waiting for an implementation date. 

This CR will remain in Development status. 

PC081403-1 Jeopardy Notification Process Changes 

Phyllis Sunins – Qwest advised that she is working with Kim Isaacs – Eschelon and analyzing some examples that were sent in. Qwest 

did find a few process compliance examples that are being addressed. Cindy Macy – Qwest will provide a document to address 

Eschelon’s examples and this will be reviewed during the ad hoc meeting the first week in March. This CR will remain in Development 

Status. 

03/02/0402/24/04 Page 6 of 12


PC081403-2 Workback process/products expanded to include additional products and allow partial 

workbacks. Qwest will post the process and products included in the Business Procedure section of the web 

site. 

Cindy Macy – Qwest provided status for Joan Wells. The first part of this process was published and implemented. Joan is working on 

the process for the additional products. Joan is working with Retail to identify impacts. (comment begin from Eschelon) Bonnie 

explained Eschelon’s concerns about having a requirement that the porting cannot have occurred. Bonnie said that if the porting had not 

occurred we problably would not need this process because we could sup the LSR. The problem occurs when the customer is impacted 

after the order completes and the port has occurred. Qwest said that would have to go through Retail. Bonnie expressed concern about the 

customer going in the front door in an out of service condition and getting stuck in the Wholesale/Retail twilight zone. Bonnie said the 

existing process is that LNP workbacks are done AFTER the porting has occurred so Qwest is changing its existing process. Qwest did 

not disclose it would change the existing process along with adding partial workbacks. (comment end from Eschelon). This CR will 

remain in Development Status. Cindy, Where do we go with this? 

PC092903-1 Joint Inventory Process 

Cindy Macy – Qwest provided status for Steve Nelson. Cindy advised that the team met with the CLECs on February 4, 2004. The 

process and forms were reviewed. Qwest advised a Joint Inventory process trial would be held with some of the CLECs. Qwest will use 

the trial to work out any gaps in the process. This CR will remain in Development Status. 

PC102303-1 10,000 lines billed on Summary BANs before opening a new Summary BAN 

Sue Kriebel, Qwest said that an MCC notice has been issued to the centers reinforcing the minimum three day notice that Qwest must 

give the CLECs before opening a new BAN. Further, the PCAT covering the 6,000 limit per BAN will be published 3/18. This CR will 

stay in Development. 

PC111303-1 Allow multiple Billing Account Numbers Per Product Per State 

Sue Kriebel reviewed the action item concerning the examples from Cbeyond that carried non-active BAN numbers. Sue clarified the 

issue by stating that not all orders are assigned BANs automatically but only those that go through flow through. It was uncovered that 

orders manually typed were having BANs assigned incorrectly in some cases. She is working with the centers to correct. Stephen 

Calhoun, Cbeyond asked about the issue of the CLECs being able to use the alternate BAN field as they wished. Doug Andreen, Qwest 

said that was still being researched. Connie Winston, Qwest is looking into dropping existing edits of a formatting nature that now exist 

in the system. The CR will remain in development. 

Review Active Qwest Initiated Change Requests 

PC012604-1 LSR Rejects with RPON 

Anne Robberson – Qwest advised this is a new CR that is addressing a process that is not handled consistently and not currently 

documented. This CR was created as a result of a CLEC inquiry. Qwest is in the process of documenting the Draft Process and will 

review this with the CLECs the first week in March. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked if the process would be sent out prior to the 

meeting. Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that a meeting notification would go out with the process attached. The intent of the meeting is to 

review the process and gather input from the CLECs. This CR will move to Presented Status. 

PC090203-1 Define criteria for use of CFLAG/PIA field 

Jill Martain – Qwest advised the PCAT was published and comments were addressed. This closed January 28, 2004, effective March 3, 

2004. Subsequent FOC was addressed. There will be a CLEC meeting to discuss PIA 14 on February 26, 2004. Stephanie Prull – 

Eschelon was in the 15.0 walkthrough meeting yesterday and realized that there would be an Order Level PIA and an LSR Level PIA. 

Stephanie advised this was never discussed in any of the PIA meetings. Qwest was able to page Denise Martinez-Qwest to join the call. 

Denise and Jill explained this is the way PIA is being implemented, opposed to the content or meaning of the PIA value. Denise and Jill 

advised this would allow Qwest to be specific with the correct level of PIA. Some PIA values are related to a BAN so that would be at an 

LSR level, and some PIA values are related to a Due Date or TN change so that would be at an Order level. Stephanie advised she 

understand the functionality and she agrees that it makes sense to implement it this way, but she was not aware of how she missed the way 

this was going to be implemented. Her understanding is that there would be multiple values, but not multiple fields or segments. Bonnie 

03/02/0402/24/04 Page 7 of 12


Johnson – Eschelon asked if the multiple PIA values are at different levels for the same PIA reason? This relates to PO20 impacts. 

Denise Martinez – Qwest advised it is a means for us to apply the value most accurately. It would not increase the amount of other PIAs. 

Jill Martain – Qwest advised that you might have LSR level PIA and then PIA values on the orders that are created from the LSR. 

Stephanie Prull – Eschelon advised our vendor does not support this so we will not be able to implement. Connie Winston – Qwest 

advised this is the CR in 15.0 for ‘Multiple PIA Values’. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon said we never discussed (comment begin from 

Eschelon) nor did Qwest disclose(comment end from Eschelon) order versus LSR level. We were under the impression that PIA was PIA 

– no different between order and LSR levels. Connie Winston – Qwest asked if we can provide a comment on the draft Tech Specs and 

then we will provide a response the to comment. Stephanie Prull – Eschelon advised she already submitted it as a comment and that this 

would be fine to handle it this way, instead of holding an ad hoc meeting. This CR will stay in Development Status. 

PC103103-1 Buried service wire/placing/conduit/technician interface with end user 

Shirley Tallman, Qwest said the comment cycle completed with no comments being received. The PCAT will be published and 

operational on March 5. The CR will stay in Development status. 

PC103103-2 Binding Post information 

Shirley Tallman, Qwest said the comment cycle completed with no comments being received. The PCAT will be published and 

operational on March 5. The CR will stay in Development status. 

PC111003-1 Reserved TN Procedure 

Jan Dimmitt said she is currently working on the PCAT. No line ranges have been encountered that require contacting the CLECs. The 

CR will remain in Development. 

PC010604-1 Grandparent DSL Pro USOCs 

Janean Van Dusen with Qwest gave an update stating the effective date moved to 5/28/04 and some USOCs will be eliminated and some 

grandparented. A new list of USOCs will be provided. This CR will be moved to Development Status. 

PC0107043-2 Eliminate Analog Private Line USOCs from Qwest’s offering 

Janean Van Dusen, Qwest stated that the new effective date for the CR is May 28. The USOC has also changed and will go out with the 

notification. The CR will move to development. 

PC010704-3 Eliminate certain Voice Feature USOCs from Qwest’s offering 

Janean Van Dusen with Qwest gave an update that the effective date has moved to May 28 and an updated spreadsheet will be provided 

for the USOCs. This CR will be moved to Development Status. 

PC010704-4 Eliminate Access Line USOCs from Qwest’s offering 

Janean Van Dusen – Qwest provided status. This CR tentative implementation date is May 28. The USOCs have been updated and a new 

spreadsheet can be sent out. This CR will move to Development Status. 

PC020404-1 Grandparent Measured Service Plans in South Dakota, Bus and Res 

Janean Van Dusen, Qwest stated that the USOCs would be grandparented and eliminated at the same time since new USOCs will be 

implemented. The effective date will be April 21. The new USOCs are provided on the CR. The CR will move to Development status. 

PC020404-2 Grandparent Measured Service Plans in Minnesota, Bus and Res 

Janean Van Dusen with Qwest presented this CR and said that the USOCs will be grandparented on 4/21/04. This CR will be moved to 

Presented Status. 

03/02/0402/24/04 Page 8 of 12


PC020404-3 Grandparent Measured Service Plans in Utah, Bus and Res 

Janean Van Dusen – Qwest provided status. The Business portion of this CR has been cancelled. Residence still applies with a target 

implementation date of April 21. This CR will move to Presented Status. 

PC050503-2 Grandfather SVDS in all state tariffs including FCC tariff 

Janean Van Dusen – Qwest provided status. This CR is still pending FCC approval. 

This CR will remain in Development Status. 

PC050703-6 Grandfather Measured Service plans in CO, ID North, NM, ND 

Janean Van Dusen – Qwest provided status. New Mexico Residence is on hold and New Mexico Business is scheduled for 

implementation March 22. Idaho North is on hold, Colorado was cancelled and North Dakota was effective January 30 with the IT work 

complete with 15.0. This CR will remain in CLEC Test Status. 

PC100103-1 Grandparenting of Single Number Service in AZ 

Janean Van Dusen – Qwest provided status. This CR was implemented December 31, 2003. This CR will move to Completed Status. 

PC102703-1 Grandparent usocs BAUTB, BAMTB, and BAMHB in NE 

Janean Van Dusen, Qwest stated that this CR was implemented December 30 and requested the CR be closed. The CR will move to 

Completed status. 

PC120303-3 Grandparent Interstate SHNS and SST USOCs 

Janean Van Dusen – Qwest provided status. The final notification went out February 13. There are two effective dates with this CR. 

One is March 12 and the other is March 24. This CR will move to CLEC Test Status. 

Discussion of CMP Operations and Proposed Modifications to CMP Framework 

PC103003-1CM Notification of Planned Outage 

Jim Maher-Qwest advised we held several CLEC meetings to discuss this CR. In those meetings, Qwest had agreed to monitor the 

Planned Outage process during January and February. During this time the three Planned Outage notices had a 19-day advance time 

frame. Qwest has developed a forecast document ‘Potential Planned Outages’. This was modeled after the example that ATT provided 

from Verizon. The intent of this document is that Qwest would post the outage dates that they believe are potentially going to occur. The 

final communication would occur as defined in the current CMP Process. There was a language change requested by ATT, but ATT 

agreed that was not necessary. Qwest will meet a 15-day advance notification for most of the potential planned outages identified in the 

CMP document. There may be some emergency outages that will meet the minimum requirements identified in the CMP process. 

Additionally Qwest will update and post the Planned Outage Forecast calendar to the web site quarterly. Qwest requested for ATT to 

withdraw the CR. ATT advised they are happy with the document / calendar. Carla Pardee – ATT said she didn’t get a chance to share 

the final document with other CLECs due to schedule issues. ATT stated they would withdraw the CR and that they believed the other 

CLECs will be happy with the forecast calendar. 

PC112503-1CM CMP Document Language Change Section 3.0 to allow for alternative arrangements for 

the Change Management Process Meetings 

This CR was approved at the January CMP meeting. It will carry an April 19 implementation. Status will move to complete. 

PC120303-1CM CMP Document Language Changes to Section 12.4 and 12.5 


PC120303-2CM Changes to the CMP Document Section 12.7 

03/02/0402/24/04 Page 9 of 12



PC010704-1CM Change to CMP Document, Production Support Section 12.3 

Cindy Macy – Qwest provided status that this CR was voted on and passed during an ad hoc meeting held on February 10, 2004. It was 

agreed that this change would be implemented on April 19, 2004 with the 15.0 release time frame. There are three other CRs that were 

voted on during the January CMP meeting, and it was agreed that those CRs would also be implemented at the same time. (CR: 

PC112503-1CM CMP Document Language Change Section 3.0 to allow for alternative arrangements for the Change Management 

Process Meetings, PC120303-1CM CMP Document Language Changes to Section 12.4 and 12.5, PC120303-2CM Changes to the CMP 

Document Section 12.7). 

None 

General CMP Comments: 

CLEC Forum Update 

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised the CLECs met and discussed the following items: 

• Morning Appointment 

• Performance Measurements Report 

• Late adders on Qwest CRs 

• Walk on – Tickets system help desk 

• Batch Hot Cut CRs 

• Optional BAN field 

• CALA ordering 

Walk On Items 

CR Archive Web Site – file size issues 

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon explained that when they use the CR Archive file their computer locks up due to so much data. When she 

was searching using the word ‘escalation’ it stopped on page 3 and wouldn’t go past that. Bonnie said she didn’t have to reboot but she 

had to close the window and start over. Bonnie asked Cindy Macy – Qwest if she was able to recreate this. Cindy Macy – Qwest replied 

she wasn’t able to recreate the exact situation, but the file is large and it is slow when you use the ‘find’ command (comment begin from 

Eschelon) and Cindy had the same problem (comment end from Eschelon). Bonnie asked if we could improve this situation. Bonnie 

asked if the file gets duplicated when you are doing ‘finds’ or does it just search the file? Qwest replied that the file does not get 

duplicated on your machine. Kit Thomte – Qwest asked if Bonnie knows the CR number when she is searching? Bonnie advised not 

always. Judy Schultz – Qwest advised that we could take a look at the file and make a suggestion on how to break it up. ATT advised 

they are not aware of this problem. Bonnie advised they use the archive web site quite a bit and this just recently started happening. The 

suggestion was made to split the file and close out 2001 and 2002 CRs, or create separate reports. Qwest agreed to take an action item to 

look into this. 

Next Meeting Schedule 

March Product and Process CMP Meeting – March 17, 2004 to be held at 1005 17 th Street, Room 180 

03/02/0402/24/04 Page 10 of 12


CMP Meeting Attendee List 

February 2004 Monthly Product & Process CMP Meeting Wednesday, February 18, 2004 

Company Name Full Name Attendance Phone Number E-mail address POC Type 

Accenture McCluskey, James On Phone (612) 277-4632 James.f.mccluskey@accent Primary 

Allegiance Mendoza, Lori On Phone (425) 888-8585 lori.mendoza@algx.com Primary 

AT&T Burt, Phyllis On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

AT&T Mosley, Regina On Phone (732) 457-5873 rdmosley@att.com 

AT&T Osborne-Miller, Donna In Person (303) 298-6178 dosborne@att.com Primary 

AT&T Pardee, Carla In Person (303) 298-6101 cdickinson@att.com Secondary 

Cbeyond Calhoun, Stephan On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

COPUC Quintana, Becky On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished Primary 

Eschelon Issacs, Kim On Phone (612) 436-6038 kdisaacs@eschelon.com 

Eschelon Johnson, Bonnie On Phone (612) 436-6218 bjjohnson@eschelon.com Primary 

Eschelon Prull, Stephanie On Phone (612) 436-6058 saprull@eschelon.com 

Eschelon Stichter, Kathy On Phone (612) 436-6022 klstichter@eschelon.com 

Qwest Communications Andreen, Doug In Person (303) 382-5777 douglas.andreen@qwest.c 

Qwest Communications Bliss, Susie In Person (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Boudhaouia, Jamal On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Bratetic, Pat On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Coyne, Mark On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Davis, Qiana On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Dimmitt, Jan On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Finley, Pat On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Foster, Beth In Person (303) 624-1305 beth.foster@qwest.com 

Qwest Communications Gonzales, Mark In Person (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Kast, Steven In Person (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Kirves, Kyle On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Kriebel, Sue On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Lorence, Susan On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Macy, Cindy In Person (303) 382-5765 Cynthia.Macy@qwest.com 

Qwest Communications Maher, Jim In Person (303) 382-5766 Jim.Maher@qwest.com 

Qwest Communications Martain, Jill On Phone (801) 239-4159 jill.martain@qwest.com 

Qwest Communications Martinez, Denise On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications McGhghy, Laura On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Miles, Linda On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Moreland, Heidi On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Nelson, Steve On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Owen, Randy On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Peterson, Lydell In Person (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Recker, Jim On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Robberson, Anne On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Sanchez-Steinke, Linda In Person (303) 382-5768 Linda.SanchezSteinke 

Qwest Communications Schultz, Judy In Person (303) 382-5769 Judy.Schultz@qwest.com Primary 

Qwest Communications Sunins, Phyllis On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Tallman, Shirley On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Thacker, Michelle On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Thomte, Kit In Person (303) 382-5772 Kit.Thomte@qwest.com Secondary 

Qwest Communications Tolman, Don On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Urevig, Russell On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Van Dusen, Janean On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Washington, Anthony On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Williams, David On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Winston, Connie In Person (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

Qwest Communications Yohe, Eric On Phone (999) 999-9999 POC Data Unpublished 

USLink Arnold, Jennifer On Phone (218) 568-2647 jennifer.arnold@uslink.co Primary 

03/02/0402/24/04 Page 11 of 12


Company Name Full Name Attendance Phone Number E-mail address POC Type 

The information contained in this report is based upon CMP Point of Contact (POC) data for CMP Monthly Meeting attendees 

who announce themselves on the bridge or who sign in on the CMP Meeting Attendance List. 

Complete CMP Point of Contact (POC) information can be viewed in the POC reports available at 

http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/poc.html 

Updates to POC information (e.g. Phone Number, e-mail address, etc) can be made online at 

http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/ppform.html 

Report generated: 2/23/04 3:49:30 PM 

03/02/0402/24/04 Page 12 of 12


Attachment B – Global Action Items 

3/12/04 © 2004, Qwest Corporation 5

Summary - Change Management Process (CMP) - Product & Process Action Items 

Report Line 

Number 

Action Item # Title Originator Current Status Owner CR PM 

1 AI012104-1 Binding Post information on Non Design Orders 

Qwest Open Tallman, Andreen, Doug 

Communication 

s 

Shirley 

2 AI021804-1 I believe the CR archive web site has grown so large that I am no longer Eschelon Submitted Andreen, Andreen, Doug 

able to use the acrobat find or print pages I need. Can you reduce the size 

using some criteria? 

Doug 

3 AI071603-1 Will Qwest offer CLECs a process to grant blanket approval for DSL 

Covad Open Buckmaster, Thomte, Kit 

Conditioning. 

Cindy 

4 AI111903-1 Construction Definition and Charges Review 

Covad Open Boudhaouia, Sanchez-Steinke, 

Jamal Linda 

Information Current as of: Friday, March 12, 2004 Page 1 of 1 

Report Name: 001 ProdProc OF FINAL ActionItem Summary ATTACH B 

Attachment B

Open Product/Process CR Detail 

CR # Title Status Organization Area 

Status Date 

Impacted 

AI012104-1 Binding Post information on Non Design 

Orders 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 

Description Of Change 

Wholesale ProdProc 

For non design orders how should the CLECs obtain binding post information. Associated CR PC103103-2 Binding Post Information (specifically 

for design orders) 

Status History 

Retka, Mary 

Andreen, Doug 

Tallman, Shirley 

Andreen, Doug 

Open 

1/23/04 

Originator Company Name: 

01-23-04 Action Item Opened 

2/18/04 -February CMP Meeting - Meeting minutes will be posted to this CR's Project Meetings section. 

Report Line Number 

Qwest Communications 

Products 

Impacted 

Project Meetings 

2/18/04 CMP Meeting 

Doug Andreen, Qwest stated that this action item continues to move forward to find the best solution for all parties. Two meetings were held in the 

past month. 

Information Current as of: 

Report Name: 

Friday, March 12, 2004 

002 ProdProc OF FINAL ActionItem Detail ATTACH B 

CR # 

AI012104-1 

Page 1 of 5 

Attachment B 

1


CR # Title Date Organization Area 

Current Status 

Impacted 

AI021804-1 I believe the CR archive web site has grown 

so large that I am no longer 

able to use the acrobat find or print pages I 

need. Can you reduce the size 

using some criteria? 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 






Bliss, Susie 

Johnson, Bonnie 

Andreen, Doug 

Andreen, Doug 

Submitted 

3/4/04 



Impacted 

2/18/04 February CMP Meeting 

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon explained that when they use the CR Archive file their computer locks up due to so much data. When she was 

searching using the word ‘escalation’ it stopped on page 3 and wouldn’t go past that. Bonnie said she didn’t have to reboot but she had to 

close the window and start over. Bonnie asked Cindy Macy – Qwest if she was able to recreate this. Cindy Macy – Qwest replied she wasn’t 

able to recreate the exact situation, but the file is large and it is slow when you use the ‘find’ command (comment begin from Eschelon) and 

Cindy had the same problem (comment end from Eschelon). Bonnie asked if we could improve this situation. Bonnie asked if the file gets 

duplicated when you are doing ‘finds’ or does it just search the file? Qwest replied that the file does not get duplicated on your machine. Kit 

Thomte – Qwest asked if Bonnie knows the CR number when she is searching? Bonnie advised not always. Judy Schultz – Qwest advised 

that we could take a look at the file and make a suggestion on how to break it up. ATT advised they are not aware of this problem. Bonnie 

advised they use the archive web site quite a bit and this just recently started happening. The suggestion was made to split the file and close 

out 2001 and 2002 CRs, or create separate reports. Qwest agreed to take an action item to look into this. 


Report Name: 


Eschelon 

Friday, March 12, 2004 Page 1 of 1 

rptOpenDetailed CR INDIVIDUAL REPORT prodproc 

CR # 

1 

AI021804-1


Status Date 

Impacted 

AI071603-1 Will Qwest offer CLECs a process to grant 

blanket approval for DSL Conditioning. 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 

Campbell, Bill 



This Action Item is a spin-off of PC022403-2. Covad seeks to understand if Qwest will offer a process under which CLECs can grant Qwest 

blanket authorization to automatically conduct Load Coil and Bridged Tap Removal. 


CMP Meeting11-19-03 

Zulevic, Michael 

Buckmaster, Cindy 

Thomte, Kit 

Open 

7/16/03 




Impacted 

Cindy Buckmaster Qwest stated that this project will remain an open action item until spring (April 2004) until additional system work is completed. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------- 

CMP Meeting 08-20-03 

White-Qwest stated that Qwest had agreed to re-look this action item following implementation of the DSL Footprint Expansion project. He stated 

that this project was not yet finished. 


Report Name: 

Covad 



CR # 

AI071603-1 

Page 3 of 5 

Attachment B 

3


Status Date 

Impacted 

AI111903-1 Construction Definition and Charges Review Open Wholesale ProdProc Provisioning UNE's 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Qwest has agreed to review the current retail tariffs in conjunction with the definition of Construction based on the TRO Requirements. This action 

item has been opened as a result of denied CR PC071403-1. 


Retka, Mary 

Berard, John 

Boudhaouia, Jamal 

Sanchez-Steinke, Linda 

11/19/03 


11/19/03 - Action Item opened to track review construction definition and charges in retail tariffs 

12/17/03 - December CMP Meeting - Meeting minutes will be posted to this CR's Project Meetings section. 

01/21/04 - January CMP Meeting - Meeting minutes will be posted to this CR's Project Meetings section. 

02/18/04 - February CMP Meeting - Meeting minutes will be posted to this CR's Project Meetings section. 



Jamal Boudhaouia with Qwest said that Network modifications would be available in mid-March for review. The TRO will determine the 

requirements for construction, which will drive the QPF fee. Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon asked when documentation would be available for 

review. Jamal responded that documentation will be available in mid-March. This action item will remain open. 

______________________ 

1/21/04 January CMP Meeting 

Jamal Boudhaouia with Qwest said that this action item would be open until the definition of construction as it relates to TRO is completed. The 

TRO requires that Retail and Wholesale criteria for building facilities be treated the same. If there are three DS1s required for a route, the criteria 

for building facilities would consider Wholesale and Retail customer orders the same; both would be included in the same bucket. Wholesale 

customers are able to purchase services from the retail tariff if they would like to have construction charges the same as retail. 

Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon said that the estimate is given to retail customers without paying the Quote Preparation Fee up front. Bonnie asked 

if the processes for retail construction and the quote fee are paid up front for retail customers. 

Jamal said that the Quote Preparation Fee is not the same, and is not treated the same because Retail and Wholesale have different tariffs based 

on the cost recovery mechanism approved by the state commissions for either side. For Wholesale, the QPF recovers the cost of what is 

required to develop the estimate for the job that will be required to provide the facilities. The Retail tariffs were agreed to by the State PUCs and 

spread cost recovery mechanism projections. In Wholesale the QPF paid up front will be subtracted from the total cost of the project if the CLEC 

elects to move forward with the construction job. 

Mike Zulevic with Covad said that this is an issue of parity and creates a barrier for the CLEC to serve their customers. 

Bonnie said that Wholesale customers are out the QPF (Begin comment from Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon) if they get a quote and do not move 

forward (end comment), but Retail customers are not out the QPF if they do not wish for Qwest to construct facilities. Jamal said that the QPF is 

charged to CLECs in order for Qwest to be paid for work that has been performed. The risk with Retail customers is not as high because they 

provide more revenue and Qwest is recovering expenses from Retail based on the tariffs. 

Mike Zulevic asked if Qwest has finished the review. Jamal said Qwest is still reviewing the definition of construction from the TRO. Based on the 

new definition of construction from the TRO, the QPF may be lowered. Mike said that he hopes that new definitions will be incorporated into the 

QPF and the TRO identifies the true costs identified for construction. Jamal said that Wholesale could purchase from the retail tariff. 

Bonnie asked if the Qwest position right now is that Retail and Wholesale are in parity. Jamal answered yes. 



Impacted 

Liz Balvin with MCI stated that the retail tariff has a higher rate, but Wholesale has the fee up front, which will be included in the total cost of the 

project. Jamal said that retail will be charged whatever the job costs, and Wholesale can purchase from the Retail tariff. Liz said she thought for 

Wholesale the QPF must be paid. Jamal said if purchased through Wholesale, then the QPF is charged. 

Mike Zulevic said that the QPF allows Qwest to recover costs for providing that construction and Qwest does engineering and gives an estimate 

back. If the CLEC wants Qwest to do the construction then the QPF is subtracted from the total cost of the project. For Retail they are not 

charged the QPF upfront. 

This action item will remain open and Jamal will provide an update at the February meeting. 

____________________________ 

12/17/03 December CMP Meeting 

Jamal Boudhaouia with Qwest said that Qwest is reviewing the retail tariffs. Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon asked what Qwest is reviewing. Jamal 


Report Name: 

Covad 



CR # 

AI111903-1 

Page 4 of 5 

Attachment B 

4

said that Qwest is reviewing the retail tariffs to determine how construction charges apply when a retail customer orders service and there are no 

facilities. Bonnie Johnson said that in the Covad change request that Qwest provides estimates to retail but not to Wholesale. Will this determine 

whether or not to bring retail in parity with Wholesale. Jamal said Qwest is reviewing how today Wholesale vs. Retail is charged and there is an 

obligation to do for Wholesale and align Wholesale with Retail. Bonnie Johnson said that in comparing the process, should determine if Wholesale 

and Retail are out of sync. Jamal said modification of tariffs may be needed. John Berard with Covad asked if this would preclude a changing of 

the process on the Wholesale side. Jamal answered that it doesn’t preclude anything because of legal obligations on both Retail and Wholesale 

side. John asked the timeline for Qwest to have information. Jamal said that he hopes to have information next month. John stated we would like 

the deliverable to be state by state what the differences are between Wholesale and Retail. Jamal said he would look at alignment of Wholesale 

vs. Retail side. Judy Schultz said that by the January meeting we would like to have Qwest’s response so this AI can be closed. Jamal agreed to 

provide the information or a date when the information will be provided. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

AI111903-1 

Page 5 of 5 

Attachment B


Attachment C – CLEC CR Summary Report 

3/12/04 © 2004, Qwest Corporation 6

Summary - Change Management Process (CMP) - Product & Process 

CLEC Initiated CRs 

Report Line 

Number 

CR # Title Company Current Status Owner Director CR PM 

1 PC011604-1 All Joint Maintenance and Trouble Isolation Documentation Covad Presented Graham, Retka, Mary Andreen, Doug 

be placed in the same location on the Qwest Web Site 

Denny 

2 PC012004-1 Include escalation ticket detail along with the monthly Eschelon Presented Thacker, Huff, Loretta Sanchez-Steinke, 

escalation ticket report or create a separate report to 

provide the detail. 

Michelle 

Linda 

3 PC021904-1 Enhancement to existing Expedite Process for Provisioning Covad Clarification Martain, Jill Bliss, Susie Macy, Cindy 

4 PC022304-1 Develop a web based electronic interface to enter and 

maintain the New Customer Questionnaire 

Eschelon Clarification Lewis, Judy Hinkins, Ryan Andreen, Doug 

5 PC030204-1 Qwest to develop and implement a Directory Assistance 

only block. 

Eschelon Clarification foster, sandy Lynch, Randall Andreen, Doug 

6 PC062603-03 Business Rules Clarificaiton calls and event notification AT&T Development Winston, Winston, Sanchez-Steinke, 

updates through the Addendum processs 

Connie Connie Linda 

7 PC102803-1 Improve Search Functionality of the Qwest Wholesale Eschelon Evaluation Blackmun, McNa, Sue Andreen, Doug 

Website to minimize selections 

Jarby 

8 PC110403-1 Update accuracy of FAM records AT&T Evaluation Winston, Winston, Macy, Cindy 

Connie Connie 

9 PC111303-1 Allow multiple Billing Account Numbers Per Product Per 

State 

MCI 

Development Kriebel, Sue Burson, Sue Andreen, Doug 

10 PC111903-1 Website for Event Notifiers AT&T Evaluation Owen, Randy Winston, 

Connie 

Macy, Cindy 

11 PC112003-1 Differentiate between Loop-MUX combos and EELs due to Cbeyond Evaluation Finley, Pat Campbell, Bill Sanchez-Steinke, 

different FCC treatment (TRO Order) 

Communication 

s 

Linda 


Report Name: 003 Summary CLEC Initiated FINAL ATTACH C 

Attachment C

Report Line 

Number 


12 PC120803-1 Associated Move Orders AT&T Evaluation Davis, Qiana Schultz, Judy Sanchez-Steinke, 

Linda 

13 PC120903-1 Qwest will track "access required" information in its 

systems when Qwest installs new service, or when Qwest 

dispatches on the repair of an existing line/circuit. Qwest 

will make the information available to CLECs for use when 

a CLEC opens arepair ticket 

Eschelon Evaluation Tolman, Don Diebel, Diane Andreen, Doug 

14 PC031103-1 Convert Common Area Splitter Collocation to Cageless Covad Development Williams, Campbell, Bill Sanchez-Steinke, 

Shelf at a time Collocation 

David 

Linda 

15 PC042103-1 Tracking process for FBDL order issues. McLeodUSA Development Gomez, Lee Townley, Robin Sanchez-Steinke, 

Linda 

16 PC050703-1 Change Qwest Wholesale CMP Website to make it easier 

to search, retrieve and view CRs. 

AT&T Development Thomte, Kit Schultz, Judy Thomte, Kit 

17 PC051403-4 Sync Test for Loop Splitting on Maintenance Trouble Covad Development Moreland, Retka, Mary Sanchez-Steinke, 

Tickets and Sync Testing for provisioning of Loop Splitting 

Heidi 

Linda 

18 PC061103-1ES Intercept CLEC customer calls to Qwest Repair Center AT&T Development Boudhaouia, Retka, Mary Sanchez-Steinke, 

Jamal 

Linda 

19 PC070103-1 Provide "Lines In Service Report" to CLECs MCI 

Development Mcghghy, Staebell, Todd Sanchez-Steinke, 

Laua D. 

Linda 

20 PC070103-3 DSL Volume provider and data migration process to Eschelon Development 

Campbell, Bill Sanchez-Steinke, 

prevent extended DSL outage 

Linda 

21 PC081403-1 Jeopardy Notification Process Changes (new title). Eschelon Development Sunins, Schultz, Judy Macy, Cindy 

Delayed order process modifed to allow theCLEC a 

designated time frame to respond to a released delayed 

order after Qwest sends an updated FOC (old title). 

Phyllis 

22 PC081403-2 Workback process/products expanded to include additional 

products and allow partial workbacks. Qwest will post the 

process and products included in the Business Procedure 

section of the web site. 

Eschelon Development Wells, Joan Bliss, Susie Macy, Cindy 

23 PC092903-1 Joint Inventory Process (previous name: New Collocation AT&T Development Nelson, Campbell, Bill Macy, Cindy 

Process) 

Steve 



Attachment C

Report Line 

Number 


24 PC102303-1 10,000 lines billed on Summary BANs before opening a 

new Summary BAN. 

Eschelon Development Kriebel, Sue Burson, Sue Andreen, Doug 

25 PC030204-2 Qwest will red line and provide the changes made to the 

SGAT, Amendments and Negotiation Template in its 

Process notices. 

Eschelon Submitted Houston, Neil Retka, Mary Macy, Cindy 



Attachment C


Attachment D – CLEC CR Detailed Reports 




Status Date 

Impacted 

PC011604-1 All Joint Maintenance and Trouble Isolation 

Documentation be placed in the same 

location on the Qwest Web Site 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Wholesale ProdProc Web Site 

Covad requests that joint maintenance and trouble isolation be placed in the same location on the Qwest web site. This would include wiring 

diagrams for connecting DS1/3 circuits on their ICDF, number conversion chart for splitters located in the common area, splitter card RMA 

process, process for strapping out defective data lines that impair voice, synch testing for new services, synch testing for trouble isolation, etc. 

Covad believes that this will assist both the Qwest and Covad operations technicians in insuring that the proper processes are being followed. 

Expected Deliverable: As Soon as Possible 


01/16/04 - CR Submitted 

01/16/04 - CR Acknowledged 


1/21/04 - Status will remain in Submitted 

2/11/04 - Held Clarification call 

2/17/04 - Sent clarification call minutes 


2/18/04 - Status changed to Presented 


Retka, Mary 

Berard, John 

Graham, Denny 

Andreen, Doug 


This was a walk-on CR by Covad in January. Doug Andreen, Qwest in John Berard’s absence stated that a Clarification call was held and the 

intent of the CR is to provide a method of easy access to documentation that the Qwest and CLECs technicians commonly use in trouble isolation 

and maintenance work. The CR calls for the documentation to be located or accessible from a common point on the web. Jim Recker, Qwest 

added that John would provide us with examples of processes Covad now uses to find the documentation. This CR will be moved to Presented 

status. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

CLEC Change Request 

Clarification Meeting 

2:30 p.m. (MDT) / Wednesday February 11, 2004 

1-877-521-8688 

1456160# 

PC011604-1 All Joint Maintenance and Trouble Isolation Documentation be placed in the same location on the Qwest Web Site 

Attendees 

John Berard, Covad 

Liz Balvin, MCI 

Kim Isaacs, Eschelon 

Jim Recker, Qwest 

Mike Johnson, Qwest 

Alice Matthews, Qwest 

Doug Andreen, Qwest 

Jarby Blackmun, Qwest 

Presented 

2/18/04 


Introduction of Attendees 

Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed. 



Impacted 

Review Requested (Description of) Change 

Doug read and reviewed the CR. Covad requests that joint maintenance and trouble isolation be placed in the same location on the Qwest web 

site. This would include wiring diagrams for connecting DS1/3 circuits on their ICDF, number conversion chart for splitters located in the common 

area, splitter card RMA process, process for strapping out defective data lines that impair voice, synch testing for new services, synch testing for 

trouble isolation, etc. Covad believes that this will assist both the Qwest and Covad operations technicians in insuring that the proper processes 

are being followed. 

John Berard, Covad added that the request came from their technicans. He also wanted to add two items to the list of documentation ie. The 

Qwest Test Point Documents and the MOP form. 

Information Current as of: Friday, March 12, 2004 

CR # PC011604-1 

Report Name: 004 Detailed CLEC Initiated ProdProc OF FINAL ATTACH D 

Page 1 of 105 

Covad 

1 

Attachment D

Mike Johnson, Qwest asked if all documents have been identified. 

John answered with the two additions and the documents on the CR that all have been. 

Doug Andreen, wanted to clarify that no change in any document is needed but they just need to somehow be located together on the web. John 

indicated that was correct. 

John further stated that using a table to link to the documents current locations would be acceptable. 

Jim Recker, Qwest brought up that we would need to find out how the documents are being arranged today and their current locations. 

Mike asked if there was a time frame for this CR. John answered no but as soon as reasonably possible. 

Jim asked how Covad technicians located the documents today. 

John said that a lot of the time the technician would call his office. He will then try to get in the correct section and then do a search. 

Jim asked if he could provide an example. John said he would email an example to Doug for distribution to the group. 

Jim questioned if what John was interested was sort of a front door. 

John replied that would work. 

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted 

Documentation placement on web. 

Confirm Right Personnel Involved 

Correct personnel were involved in the meeting. 

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation 

Implementation to be as soon as possible 

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests 

None 

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) 

John will present the CR for Covad at the February CMP meeting. The response will be due at the March meeting. 

----------------------------------------------------------------- 


Mike Zulevic, Covad walked-on this CR which calls for the placement of all documentation used by technicians in a common location on the Web. 

He said most of the documentation is available but is located in several different locations. He is calling for a grouping perhaps by process or a 

functional grouping for the technician. Examples of the type of documentation would be demarc information, DS1-3 ICDFs and how they are wired 

out, blank form for MOP etc. 

Qwest Response 


For Review by the CLEC community and discussion at the March 18, 2004 CMP Meeting 

John Berard 

Covad 

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR PC011604-1 

"All Joint Maintenance and Trouble Isolation Documentation be placed 

in the same location on the Qwest Web Site" 

This CR as submitted by Covad requests that joint maintenance and trouble isolation be placed in the same location on the Qwest web site. This 

would include wiring diagrams for connecting DS1/3 circuits on their ICDF, number conversion chart for splitters located in the common area, 

splitter card RMA process, process for strapping out defective data lines that impair voice, synch testing for new services, synch testing for trouble 

isolation, etc. Covad believes that this will assist both the Qwest and Covad operations technicians in insuring that the proper processes are being 

followed. 

Qwest is evaluating this request in cooperation with Covad. Qwest is awaiting a response from John Berard in answer to a request from Qwest for 

examples of Covad’s current process to access this information. With this input Qwest can compare the Qwest Processes and the Covad 

processes to determine the feasibility of providing this request. 

At this time the CR is still in the clarification stage. Upon receipt of the Covad process, Qwest will move the CR into the Evaluation status. 

Sincerely, 

Denny Graham 

Staff Advocate, Policy & Law 

Qwest 

Cc: Mary Retka, Director-Legal Issues, Qwest 


Report Name: 


004 Detailed CLEC Initiated ProdProc OF FINAL ATTACH D 

CR # 

PC011604-1 

Page 2 of 105 

Attachment D

Catherine R. Garcia, Lead Process Analyst, Qwest 

Cheryl Rock, Senior Process Analyst, Qwest 

________________ 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC011604-1 

Page 3 of 105 

Attachment D


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC012004-1 Include escalation ticket detail along with the 

monthly escalation ticket report or create a 

separate report to provide the detail. 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Wholesale ProdProc Pre-Ordering, 

Ordering, Billing 

Include escalation ticket detail along with the monthly escalation ticket report or create a separate report to provide the detail. The detail should 

include: (when applicable) escalation ticket number, date received, caller name, caller call back TN, PON, LSR ID, product, complete date, reason 

for call (code opened under), service order number, remarks, closing code, closing sub code. The customer name and TN optional. Qwest has 

provided this information to Eschelon before and has this detail. 

The detail should include: (when applicable) escalation ticket number, date received, caller name, caller call back TN, PON, LSR ID, product, 

complete date, reason for call (code opened under), service order number, remarks, closing code, closing sub code. The customer name and TN 

optional. Qwest has provided this information to Eschelon before and has this detail. 

Expected Deliverable: 

Include escalation ticket detail with the monthly escalation ticket report or develop a new report to provide the detail separate from the existing 

report Qwest provides to the CLEC. 




02/04/04 - Held Clarification Meeting 



Huff, Loretta 


Thacker, Michelle 



Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon presented this CR. Bonnie said this is an extension to the CR just closed and this CR asks for more detail than the 

report currently provides. Eschelon’s service manager has provided a report that included the level of detail required to address Eschelon’s 

training needs. This CR will be moved to Presented status. 

_____________________ 



1:00 p.m. (MDT) / Tuesday February 3, 2004 

1-877-572-8687 

3393947# 

PC012004-1 Include escalation ticket detail along with the monthly escalation ticket report or create a separate report to provide the detail. 

Name/Company: 

Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon 


Michelle Thacker, Qwest 

Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest 


Qwest welcomed all attendees to the meeting. 


Presented 

2/18/04 


Eschelon 


Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest read the description of change; Include escalation ticket detail along with the monthly escalation ticket report or 

create a separate report to provide the detail. The detail should include: (when applicable) escalation ticket number, date received, caller name, 

caller call back TN, PON, LSR ID, product, complete date, reason for call (code opened under), service order number, remarks, closing code, 

closing sub code. The customer name and TN optional. Qwest has provided this information to Eschelon before and has this detail. 

The detail should include: (when applicable) escalation ticket number, date received, caller name, caller call back TN, PON, LSR ID, product, 

complete date, reason for call (code opened under), service order number, remarks, closing code, closing sub code. The customer name and TN 

optional. Qwest has provided this information to Eschelon before and has this detail. 

Expected Deliverable: Include escalation ticket detail with the monthly escalation ticket report or develop a new report to provide the detail 

separate from the existing report Qwest provides to the CLEC. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

2 


Impacted 

PC012004-1 

Page 4 of 105 

Attachment D

Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon said that the report Jean Novak provided was for February 2003 Escalation tickets. The report provided to 

Eschelon in April identified a high number of calls for account ownership. After researching the calls, Eschelon made internal changes and also 

discovered the loss report was inaccurate. Bonnie said she is disappointed that the original report did not include detailed information and it will be 

helpful to have additional details in the existing report as currently Eschelon doesn’t not have details about who made the calls and what 

department calls are being made from. Bonnie said that the report could be provided through the existing report or through the service manager. 

Michelle Thacker with Qwest asked if Eschelon tracks the calls made to Qwest. Bonnie said that only one group is tracking calls and there are 

many departments that call Qwest. 

Michelle asked if Eschelon asks the SDC for critical information on the ticket such as status or Product reason code, close code and sub close 

code. Bonnie said that she didn’t know if all departments were requesting that information. Bonnie said that Provisioning, Maintenance and Repair 

departments all make calls and the Billing group fields complaints for double billing, but primarily service delivery makes the calls. 

Bonnie added that she is hopeful that with 14.0, information will be stored and will have the capability to search by TN which will help reduce the 

number of calls and will provide order number and due date. 

Michelle asked if Jean would be tracking calls before and after the release. Bonnie said when Qwest provided the report in April 2003, no analysis 

was performed, just the report was provided. 


Pre-Ordering, Ordering, Billing 


Correct Qwest personnel were involved in the clarification meeting. 


Include escalation ticket detail with the monthly escalation ticket report or develop a new report to provide the detail separate from the existing 

report Qwest provides to the CLEC. 

I 

dentify any Dependent Systems Change Requests 

None identified. 


Eschelon will present this CR at the February CMP Meeting and Qwest will provide a response in March. 



DRAFT RESPONSE 

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the March 17, 2004 CMP Meeting 

Bonnie Johnson 

Eschelon 

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC012004-1 

"Include escalation ticket detail along with the monthly escalation ticket report or create a separate report to provide the detail" 

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request (CR) PC012004-1. This CR is a request by Eschelon to establish a process whereby CLECs 

can receive, on a monthly basis, ticket detail including (when applicable) escalation ticket number, date received, caller name, caller TN, PON, 

LSR ID, product, complete date, reason for call (code opened under), service order number, remarks, closing code, and closing sub code. The 

customer name and TN is optional. 

Qwest is currently evaluating this change request and propose moving this CR into Evaluation Status while a complete answer to the request is 

prepared. 

Sincerely, 

Michelle Thacker 

Sr. Process Manager 

Qwest 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC012004-1 

Page 5 of 105 

Attachment D


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC021904-1 Enhancement to existing Expedite Process 

for Provisioning 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Wholesale ProdProc pre order, order, 

provisioning 

UNE, Transport 

(including EUDIT), 

Loop, UNE-P, Line 

Covad requests that Qwest provide a formal process to expedite an order that requires an interval that is shorter than what is currently available for 

the product. 

No expected deliverable listed 

Updated the title as a result of the Clarification call 


Bliss, Susie 

02/20/04 CR Recieved 

02/20/04 CR Acknowledged 

2/23/04 - Contacted John Berard - Covad to set up Clarification Call 



Berard, John 

Martain, Jill 

Macy, Cindy 


February 27, 2004 

1-877-552-8688 7146042# 

PC021904-1 Expedite Process for Provisioning – enhancements to existing process 

Attendees 

John Berard – Covad 

Bryan Comras – Covad 

Mark Gonzales – Qwest 

Heidi Moreland – Qwest 

Jill Martain - Qwest 

Cindy Macy – Qwest 

Meeting Agenda: 

1.0 Introduction of Attendees 

Attendees introduced 

2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change 

John Berard – Covad reviewed the change request. John explained that Covad would like the title of the CR updated, as this is really a request for 

an enhancement to the existing expedite process. Cindy agreed to update the CR. 

John advised that the expedite process is limited today to certain types of orders and processes. For example, medical emergencies. We may 

find that it is Covad’s error that caused the customer to be disconnected. We would like to be able to get our customers restored quicker than 

standard interval, when it is our error. We are willing to pay for this service. Other ILECs provide this service. We would like the criteria to be 

expanded to allow an expedite when the CLEC makes an error. 

Cindy Macy – Qwest asked for an example of this happening today. John Berard – Covad and Bryan Comras – Covad advised this relates to the 

Jeopardy process. When Covad fails to complete the order, but we complete the work at the DMARC the customer has service, but we do not 

close out the records so Qwest doesn’t think the customers service is working. Qwest issued a jeopardy notice and since we didn't respond to that 

notice within 30 days Qwest then cancelled the orders and the service gets disconnected. Covad then goes back and resends the order, but we 

have to wait the standard interval and that is too long for the end user customer to wait, especially if it is a business account. 

John Berard – Covad advised disconnects can also happen when the end user selects migration to a new ISP provider. This isn’t as critical as the 

down time is usually very limited as they are hooked up to the new provider. 

Heidi Moreland – Qwest asked how often this happens? Bryan – Covad replied approximately 20 times per month for Qwest, or once a day on 

average. 

Bryan advised that we get faster turn around time on certain products. Heidi confirmed that Shared Loop has a shorter standard installation 

interval than an unbundled xDSL-capable loop. Heidi advised that thethat the customer could be disconnected when the sync test fails and the 

notice is not cleared. The DSLAM port is done by the CLEC and the customer is in service. If a supplement is not sent by the CLEC, and if there 

is no response in 30 days, then the line gets cancelled and pulled down. 

Covad advised it shouldn’t matter what the history or circumstances are, if we are willing to pay for the expedite. 

3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted 


Report Name: 

Clarification 

2/27/04 


Covad 




CR # 

3 


Impacted 

PC021904-1 

Page 6 of 105 

Attachment D

DSL, Line Share, Designed and DSL Products (all products 

This applies to any one that was in service and has gone out of service and needs to be set back up due to Customer or end-user error. 

4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved 

Jill agreed to get with Joan Wells regarding the Workback / Restoral Request proces 

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation 

Covad would like the ability to pay for an Expedited due date (restoral of disconnected end user 

Covad would like to treat these like trouble reports and get the end user back in service in one day. 

6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests 

PC081403-1 Work Back Restoral Reques 

7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) 

Covad will present the CR at the March CMP Meetin 

Qwest will provide our Response at the April CMP Meeting 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC021904-1 

Page 7 of 105 

Attachment D


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC022304-1 Develop a web based electronic interface to 

enter and maintain the New Customer 

Questionnaire 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Wholesale ProdProc New Customer 

Questionnaire 

Eschelon is requesting that Qwest develop a web based electronic interface to enter and maintain information on the New Customer 

Questionnaire. The current Word version of the New Customer Questionnaire makes viewing the current information and updating the information 

difficult for CLECs. Eschelon requests that this web based tool allow multiple CLEC users to view the most current CLEC profile data and allows a 

CLEC to update individual sections of the CLEC profile as needed. Eschelon believes a web based New Customer Questionnaire would streamline 

the process to make needed updates to the questionnaire saving the CLEC and Qwest time and resources 


1. Create a secure web based electronic New Customer Questionnaire 

2. Develop questionnaire sections so only sections requiring updates will need to be submitted 


02/23/04 - CR submitted 

02/25/04 - CR acknowledged 



CLEC Clarification Call 

11:00 a.m. (MDT) / Monday March 1, 2004 

1-877-521-8688 

1456160# 

PC022304-1 Develop a web based electronic interface to enter and maintain the New Customer Questionnaire 

Attendees 

*** Attended Conference Call Name/Company: 




Judy Lewis, Qwest 

Carrie Bell, Qwest 

Jennifer Beach, Qwest 

Ryan Hinkins, Qwest 


Hinkins, Ryan 

Isaacs, Kim 

Lewis, Judy 

Andreen, Doug 

Clarification 

2/25/04 





Doug read the CR description: Eschelon is requesting that Qwest develop a web based electronic interface to enter and maintain information on 

the New Customer Questionnaire. The current Word version of the New Customer Questionnaire makes viewing the current information and 

updating the information difficult for CLECs. Eschelon requests that this web-based tool allows multiple CLEC users to view the most current 

CLEC profile data and allow a CLEC to update individual sections of the CLEC profile as needed. Eschelon believes a web based New Customer 

Questionnaire would streamline the process to make needed updates to the questionnaire saving the CLEC and Qwest time and resources. The 

expected deliverables are to create a secure web based electronic New Customer Questionnaire and Develop questionnaire sections so only 

sections requiring updates will need to be submitted. 

Kim Isaacs, Eschelon added that recently she needed to update both the Qwest questionnaire and the SBC GUI profile and found it much easier to 

update the SBC GUI. She feels that we would also get more accurate information from an on-line version. It would also save time and resources 

for both Qwest and the CLECs. 

Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon said that this used to be a frequent topic of conversation in the CMP meetings and that the CLECs were told quite 

some time ago that Qwest had started work. So there may be some work already done. 

Doug Andreen, Qwest stated that Qwest would look into any work that had been started. 


Report Name: 

Eschelon 




CR # 

4 


Impacted 

PC022304-1 

Page 8 of 105 

Attachment D

Jennifer Beach, Qwest asked if the amendments should also be added to the questionnaire. 

Bonnie Johnson answered yes after Judy Lewis, Qwest clarified that we were talking about the product amendments. 

Jennifer Beach asked if there should be edits for quality and business rules and Kim replied yes that would be fine. 

Judy Lewis, Qwest asked if the SBC GUI was set up with digital certificates and Kim replied that it was. 

Judy also asked if on the SBC system if multiple Eschelon employees can use the system at the same time. Kim replied yes but there are edits 

around who can submit the profile and who has read only capabilities. 

Ryan Hinkins, Qwest asked how long the SBC GUI had been active. 

Kim replied since January and added that each different section is routed mechanically to the appropriate employee in SBC. 

Ryan asked how access control was envisioned. 

Kim said either digital certificates or by id and password. 

Bonnie added that there would have to be one type for update capabilities and one for read only or view capabilities. 

Ryan asked if SBC allows read only and change. 

Kim said yes for Eschelon 2 employees can make changes and the remainder is read only. 

Judy said then it similar to what we have in IMA. Kim answered yes. Ryan verified that what your looking for is ability to retrieve, update and 

submit. Kim said yes with an added qualifier that SBC has time stamp and will reject sections with errors through status messages on the web. 

Ryan asked if there were different questionnaires for different states. Kim answered no, just one questionnaire but with the option to select states 

and contacts. 

Judy asked if the previous information in SBC was put in the GUI or if Eschelon had to load. Kim answered that Eschelon had to populate initially. 


Web based questionnaire 




The expected deliverables are to create a secure web based electronic New Customer Questionnaire and Develop questionnaire sections so only 

sections requiring updates will need to be submitted. 


none 


Eschelon will present at the March CMP meeting. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC022304-1 

Page 9 of 105 

Attachment D


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC030204-1 Qwest to develop and implement a Directory 

Assistance only block. 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Wholesale ProdProc Centrex, Resale, 

Switched Service, 

Switching, UNE-P, 

Eschelon requests Qwest develop a block that allows blocking for local directory assistance (411 and 555-1212). Qwest currently only offers the 

ability to block 411 and 555-1212 through the Custom-net block. Customers do not always want to block direct dial long distance but do have a 

need to block local directory assistance. Custom-net forces the End User Customer to use an alternate billing method for long distance. Alternate 

billing for long distance is difficult to use because it requires a calling card or third party billing and can be very costly. Eschelon’s customers are 

often forced to absorb the cost of unauthorized directory assistance calls because the consequence of fraud or misuse on a calling card can be 

catastrophic to a business owner. Qwest should provide a blocking in a manner that meets customers needs. Qwest should not “package” 

directory assistance blocking so that a customer is forced to have additional blocks they do not need. The functionality does exist in at least the 

DMS100 and 5E switch to block only local directory assistance without requiring a customer use alternate billing for long distance. 


Qwest will offer a block to block local directory assistance calls only without requiring additional blocks that a customer may not need. 


Lynch, Randall 


foster, sandy 

Andreen, Doug 

3/2/04 CR Submitted 



Report Name: 

Clarification 

3/2/04 


Eschelon 




CR # 

5 


Impacted 

PC030204-1 

Page 10 of 105 

Attachment D


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC062603-03 Business Rules Clarificaiton calls and event 

notification updates through the Addendum 

processs 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Wholesale ProdProc All All 

AT&T requests that the Business Rules be opened up for clarification and that event notification updates be incorporated into the Addendum 

process. We seek Qwest adoption of SBC's process of a standard conference be established to address issues or concerns with the event 

notification and addendum updates. This SBC process includes conference call logistics: date, time and bridge number. They also send out a 

notification capturing the questions and answers provided durig the conference call. 

Expected deliverable: Adoption of SBC process relative to Business Rules Clarification and event notificattionupdates through the Addendum 

process 




07/02/03 - CR Posted to Web 


07/16/03 - July CMP Meeting - Meeting minutes will be posted to this CR's Project Meetings section. 

07/31/03 - Held Ad Hoc Meeting with CLEC community 

08/20/03 - August CMP Meeting - Meeting minutes will be posted to this CR's Project Meetings section. 

09/09/03 - Held Ad Hoc Meeting with CLEC community 

09/17/03 - September CMP Meeting - Meeting minutes will be posted to this CR's Project Meetings section. 

10/15/03 - October CMP Meeting - Meeting minutes will be posted to this CR's Project Meetings section. 

11/19/03 - November CMP Meeting - Meeting minutes will be posted to this CR's Project Meetings section. 




03/05/04 - Qwest sent SYST.03.05.04.F.01458.15.0_Comb_CLEC_QuestLog Combined Question Log for 15.0 


Thu 2/19/04 3:59 PM 

From: Sanchez Steinke, Linda 

To: 'Osborne-Miller, Donna, NKLAM' 

Subject; RE: Phyllis's items for documentation 

Thank you Donna, I forwarded to 

Beth Foster, Kyle Kirves, and 

Randy Owen. 

Linda Sanchez-Steinke 

303-382-5768 

________________ 

Thu 2/19/04 2:55 PM 

From; Osborne-Miller, Donna, NKLAM [dosborne@att.com] 

To: Sanchez Steinke, Linda 

cc: New Cr, Cmp 

Subject; Phyllis's items for documentation 

Hi Linda, 

Can you be sure to give this list to Beth Foster? It pertains to our conversation pertaining to PCO62603-03 and the Q&A log breakout of 

categories. 

thank you, 

Donna 

Winston, Connie 

Osborne-Miller, Donna 



Development 

2/18/04 


Attachment 

Category breakdown based on IMA Appendix Categories for Collective Q&A Migration 


Report Name: 

AT&T 




CR # 

6 


Impacted 

PC062603-03 


Attachment D

A.1 ADDRESS VALIDATION 

A.2 APPOINTMENT RESERVATION 

A.3 TN APPOINTMENT CANCELLATION 

A.4 CONNECTING FACILITY ASSIGNMENT 

A.5 CUSTOMER SERVICE RECORDS 

A.6 DESIGN LAYOUT RECORD (DLR) RETURN 

A.7 FACILITY AVAILABILITY QUERY 

A.8 LISTINGS RECONCILIATION 

A.9 LOOP QUALIFICATION 

A.10 MEET POINT 

A.11 RAW LOOP 

A.12 SERVICE AVAILABILITY 

A.13 TELEPHONE NUMBER ASSIGNMENT 

B.1 END USER 

B.2 LOCAL SERVICE REQUEST 

C.1 CENTREX RESALE SERVICES 

C.2 DIRECTORY LISTING 

C.3 DID RESALE SERVICE 

C.4 HUNT GROUP INFORMATION 

C.5 LOOP SERVICE 

C.6 LOOP SERVICE WITH NUMBER PORTABILITY 

C.7 NUMBER PORTABILITY 

C.8 PORT SERVICE 

C.9 RESALE 

C.10 RESALE FRAME RELAY 

C.11 RESALE PRIVATE LINE 

C.12 RESALE SPLIT 

C.13 UNE CENTREX 21 (P OR STAR) SPLIT 

D.1 BILLING COMPLETION NOTICE 

D.2 COMPLETION RESPONSE 

D.3 DIRECTORY SERVICE CONFIRMATION AND ERROR DETAIL (DSRED) RESPONSE 

D.4 LOCAL RESPONSE 

D.5 PROVIDER NOTIFICATION 

D.6 SERVICE ORDER STATUS INQUIRY 

D.7 STATUS UPDATES 

D.8 PENDING SERVICE ORDER NOTIFICATION 

GENERAL/OTHER 

_____________________ 


Beth Foster with Qwest said that this CR has been discussed at the global action item meetings and last week Qwest met with AT&T and Liz 

Balvin with MCI. Qwest took action items from that meeting and determined that meeting minutes will be provided and posted on the production 

support page along side the trouble ticket information which is currently populated on the Wholesale Web site. There was discussion regarding the 

timeframe of posting meeting minutes. Connie Winston with Qwest said they would post the minutes within 3 days and would strive to get 

completed as soon as possible. Connie also said that Qwest would capture necessary information, necessary action items and a general re-cap of 

the meeting intent. Phyllis Burt mentioned that issues of importance to Qwest might not be the same as those that are important to the CLEC. 

Connie suggested that the CLEC could provide a red-line of meeting minutes back to Qwest. 

Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T said that we could put this CR into CLEC test and see how the process works. 

Beth said that another action item was to look at how to handle the business rules clarification piece of the request, and noted that AT&T had 

initially asked that the Disclosure documentation be updated when CLECs ask for clarification. Qwest would like to start a single Q&A log with 

15.0 release and provide the log on the wholesale website out where the EDI Documentation FAQ pages currently resides. This single Q&A log 

will provide needed clarification to documentation, a way to see documentation before the addendum is posted, and, will allow everyone to see 

what questions other CLECs have had and how Qwest has responded. Beth explained that the process for EDI will be covered by the CLECs EDI 

Implementation Teams, and included in the body of the Q&A document that will be posted. 

Randy Owen with Qwest said an e-mail address would be set up for CLECs to send questions. 

Phyllis Burt requested the Q&A log be categorized by topic, such as Appointment Scheduling. Randy Owen will take that action item to see if this 

is feasible. Donna Osborne-Miller said the Q&A log would be cumbersome if not broken out by fields. 

Beth asked if everyone agreed that the process trial could begin with 15.0, and once the documentation was posted the CR could move into CLEC 

test for AT&T feedback. All agreed and Beth said that a Systems Notification will be sent stating that the Q&A log will be located on the Wholesale 

Web Site, under OSS, IMA, EDI Documentation under the FAQ link. This CR will move to Development Status. 

_____________________ 

Fri 2/13/04 8:38 AM 

From; Linda Sanchez-Steinke 

To; 'dosborne@att.com' 

Subject; Updated Draft Response PC062603-03 

Hi Donna - 

As a follow up to yesterday's meeting regarding 

PC062603-03, attached is the updated draft response. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC062603-03 


Attachment D

As we discussed, Qwest took the following action 

items; documentation addendum notification 

meeting minutes, question and answer log. We 

will give an update at the CMP meeting. 

Thank you 


CRPM 

Qwest 

303-382-5768 

_____________________ 

Meeting Minutes 

PC062603-03 Business Rules Clarification calls and event notification update through the Addendum process 

CMP Product & Process 


1-877-572-8687, Conference ID 3393947# 

2:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. Mountain Time 

PURPOSE 

This meeting was held to discuss CR PC062603-03. The following is the write-up of the discussions, action items, and decisions made in the 

working session. 

List of Attendees: 

Liz Balvin - MCI 

Regina Mosley - AT&T 

Phyllis Burt - AT&T 

Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T 

Beth Foster - Qwest 

Randy Owen - Qwest 

Kyle Kirves - Qwest 

Lynn Stecklein - Qwest 

Linda Sanchez-Steinke - Qwest 


Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest welcomed all attendees and explained that Qwest scheduled this meeting to discuss changes that have been 

implemented to address this CR. 

Kyle Kirves said that Qwest has made progress in the following areas; providing clearer information in the event notifications, revisited the event 

notification template, provide additional reasons behind severity issues, schedule conference calls on major impacts, and have initiated a CR to 

change the CMP document Section 12. A good example of Qwest’s effort to improve is the 2/13 conference call clarifying Event Notification 

674340. AT&T said they appreciated these efforts. 

Phyllis Burt with AT&T asked when clarification calls would take place. Kyle said they would take place for addendum changes. Phyllis Burt and 

Donna Osborne-Miller asked about meeting minutes from the clarification calls and Kyle said that minutes would be recapped in disclosure. Phyllis 

added AT&T prefers to get minutes as soon as possible because of the impacts to production. Randy Owen and Kyle Kirves agreed to address 

this action item and respond at Product Process CMP. 

Phyllis Burt asked about the question and answer log and said that with IMA 11 AT&T had lots of questions. Kyle said that in the addendum there 

will be a "change from" and a "change to" identification. Beth Foster added that the event notification would be in disclosure. Donna asked what 

the timing would be and Kyle answered that it may be two weeks after notification. 

Phyllis Burt said that when working with Wendy Green last year they wanted to have the ability to have clarifications added to the document about 

how the system behaves and didn’t want to wait until the next IMA release to get clarification updated. 

Beth Foster suggested that documentation changes could be made via the documentation request website. Kyle stated the website is for 

everything but disclosure document changes. Randy added that many times documentation changes have coding changes and is concerned 

about that. Kyle said that documentation rejects are not representative of what the system is doing, for simple clarification that represents 

enhancement to documentation. Phyllis said that AT&T builds systems from the documentation and then it will become a production problem. 

Beth said a trouble ticket should be opened for production problems. Phyllis said that AT&T asks questions and looks at the question log and 

gives them a good clarification and this is not in the Qwest disclosure document. Liz Balvin with MCI said we would want to assure that 

clarifications don’t get lost in the flow of the next release. Phyllis will provide examples of clarification questions and answers. Randy Owen said 

that Qwest had been considering a single Q&A log with all CLEC questions and clarifications. Liz added that the while Qwest might think 

clarification, it may be CLEC code impacting to have the update in the addendum especially from the EDI standpoint. 

Qwest will provide an update to the open action items at the Product Process CMP. 

_____________________ 


Connie Winston with Qwest said that this issue has been worked through oversight and in the emergency meetings. Qwest can initiate a quick 

meeting and CLECs are also able to initiate meetings. Carla Pardee with AT&T said that there had been a meeting held on loss and completion. 

Connie also said there are potential CMP language changes being proposed. Qwest will have an updated response in February. This CR will 

remain in Evaluation status. 

_________________________________ 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC062603-03 


Attachment D


Connie Winston with Qwest said this CR has been discussed in the Global Action Item meetings and expects that the Global Action Item meetings 

will be wrapping up in the January timeframe. This was also discussed at the Oversight meeting and whether the new process will meet the intent 

of this CR. 

_________________________________ 

11/19/03 November CMP Meeting 

Kit Thomte with Qwest said that this CR was being discussed with the Global Action Item meeting 11/18/03. This CR will remain in Evaluation 

status. 

_________________________________ 

10/15/03 October CMP Meeting 

Kit Thomte with Qwest said that this CR was discussed at the 10/14/03 Global Action item meeting. It was agreed this CR would remain in 

Evaluation status. 

_________________________________ 

09/17/03 September CMP Meeting 

Connie Winston with Qwest provided an update and said that Qwest is reviewing what we can do better. Qwest has implemented calls to 

appropriate CLECs. When faxing becomes only solution Qwest is raising the severity level because there is no way for the CLEC to Communicate 

with Qwest. Liz Balvin said that a severity level 1 or 2 is fine and that 3 or 4 is not acceptable. Bonnie Johnson said there is a difference in the 

definition of immediately. Connie said that at Event Notification closure Qwest is providing clearer information about what we did and what we are 

doing. Monica Avila with VarTec provided an example that when Qwest end user fields went from optional to conditional, it required coding outside 

of the release. Liz Balvin said that because the fields were optional, had Qwest lifted the edits as emergency patch, then CLEC coding wouldn’t 

have to change. Connie said there was concern not knowing documentation was wrong CLECs didn’t know the CR made it into the release. Liz 

said by TN and SANO didn’t know back end changes were taking place. Liz said that address information needs to match SAV response. SAV 

needs to be in disclosure and in addendum for optional to conditional. Connie said that we are reviewing when it makes sense to reference the 

PCAT. Liz said that if it impacts coding then is should be in disclosure. Connie would like to roll this CR into the discussion of the Global Action 

item. It was determined that 10/14 from 10 a.m. –5 p.m. would be a good timeframe to discuss the CRs. This CR will remain in Evaluation Status. 

_________________________________ 

Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes 

PC062603-03 

Business Rules Clarification calls and event notification updates through the Addendum processs 


September 9, 2003 

1-877-572-8687, Conference ID 3393947# 

8:00 a.m. - 8:45 a.m. Mountain Time 

PURPOSE 

At the August CMP Meeting, participants agreed to hold a conference call to provide additional clarity and explain Phyllis Burt’s series of questions 

and statements about intent and meaning of the change request. The following is the write-up of the discussion. 


Julie Pikar - U S Link 

Jen Arnold - U S Link 

Kim Issaacs - Eschelon 




Tom Hyde - Cbeyond 

Byron Dowding - Alltel 

Stephanie Prull - McLeod 

Randy Owen - Qwest 




The meeting began with Qwest making introductions and welcoming all attendees. 

Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss and get further clarification about the AT&T CR 

PC062603-03. At the August CMP meeting, Qwest provided the draft denial response and Phyllis Burt with AT&T provided a counter proposal at 

the CMP meeting and asked that Qwest provide an updated response at the September meeting. 

Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T provided the denial response red-lined with a series of questions and statements written by Phyllis Burt. Kyle 

Kirves with Qwest had received the questions/statements. Phyllis Burt with AT&T said that the purpose of the CR was to provide clearer 

information in event notifications. Phyllis said that when event notifications are not clear, AT&T goes to their implementation manager and then 

calls the help desk and try to get answers, but production problems are not clear. Phyllis said that with the SBC process there is a clarification call 

where questions can be asked. The issue is, if workarounds conflict with other business rules, then something else can fail. When AT&T 

Consumer converts from IMA 12 to 13 Phyllis will have to go back through the event notifications for the 13.0 release and look at to see if there is 

anything they would need to consider. 

Phyllis said that the purpose behind the CR is to make sure there are not long gaps in time on production impacts. 

AT&T suggests that there is a need for good clarification and AT&T has hundreds of questions in their Q&A log, and weeks go by and questions 

linger and wait. AT&T wants to find other avenues to head off production problems. 

Stephanie Prull with McLeod will not go back and look at Event Notifications for releases. McLeod will only do what is documented in the 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC062603-03 


Attachment D

Disclosure and try to code to the business rules. McLeod stated that they should not have to implement to anything other than the business 

rules. If McLeod has a CR or UR when going in then will code to it. 

Phyllis reiterated that there are two big things in the red-lined response: 1) AT&T wants to make sure that they understand the work around and 

that it is not conflicting with other rules so they don’t have to re-word the workaround. 2) AT&T would like clarification around the current impact 

and if they will receive rejects or jeopardies based on that impact. 

Kim Issacs said that Eschelon uses EDI and GUI (used for resale & UNE-P) and if they receive a work around notice and it conflicts with business 

rules Kim will call the help desk. Kim sometimes can wait up to two days to get an answer on what the product impact and issues are. In addition, 

they get communication of workarounds and then get rejects from the centers. 

Phyllis and Stephanie both have concerns with the PCRM ticket 167601 (LNUM) and still can’t explain what the impacts are to their companies. 

Randy Owen with Qwest said that he didn’t have specifics, and knows that the issue is discussed every day trying to get to a solution. 

U S Link said they are not on EDI, but share frustrations with process and support the AT&T CR. Randy said that we would take this information 

back and look at it further. Randy said that the CLECs should call the technical escalations if they are waiting too long on open trouble tickets that 

are severity level 3 and should escalate to severity level 2. 

Phyllis said that she suggests Qwest look at the proposal of having CLEC calls because questions and problems will be brought up as a group and 

would trigger discussions. With the technical escalation process, McLeod may raise an issue and AT&T may raise another issue, but discussion 

as a group would help. 

Randy said that he would like to know the rules and timing of the potential CLEC call. Kim said that having all CLECs on a call (for LNUM issue) 

would have helped. Stephanie Prull said that a call would not be needed on every event notice, but suggested that on event notices that the 

CLECs send an e-mail saying they want a call and if several CLECs sent an e-mail then Qwest should have a call. 

Phyllis said that AT&T just requests calls on workarounds event notifications that change a business rules and documentation appears not to be 

working the way Qwest says it is working. 

Phyllis also said that the second part of the red-lined document that with IMA 11 have Q&A log with major gaps. The next major release these will 

be worked into the addendum process. 

Randy said that we will take that back also and that if there is a bug identified or is this enhancement which would have to be in the next major 

release. 

Phyllis discussed the documentation for service address validation when look at Qwest Documentation it appears copied from pre-order, order and 

SANO populated. Phyllis said that what needs to be done is a documentation change. 

Linda asked if there were any other questions or additional information to provide. There were no additional comments or questions. 

_______________________________________ 

08/20/03 - August CMP Meeting 

Connie Winston with Qwest reviewed the draft response for this CR. Connie said that the information provided in the Event Notification Closure 

should include additional information that identifies the change, what was changed and what it was changed to. CLECs can also use the Technical 

Escalations to get more clarity in Event Notification. Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T said that Phyllis Burt has provided documentation to the 

CLEC Community on Event Notifications and Donna will e-mail to Linda Sanchez-Steinke. Discussion continued when Connie Winston came into 

the CMP meeting. What AT&T would like is to hold an Ad Hoc meeting and provide additional clarity and explain Phyllis Burt’s counter proposal’s 

intent and meaning. Liz said that CLECs see the addendum as changes to EDI / GUI and want the ability to comment on the addendum. This CR 

will be moved to Evaluation status and Qwest will provide a revised response at the September meeting. 

_______________________________________ 

8/20/03 4:53 p.m. 

Sent by: "Osborne-Miller, Donna, NKLAM" 

To: Linda.Sanchezsteinke@qwest.com> 

cc: cmpcr@qwest.com> 

Subject: Phyllis's counterproposal to documentation CR 

Linda, 

Here is the redline document Phyllis composed that I 

spoke with Connie about this morning. 

Thank you, 

Donna 

ATTACHMENT - PC062603-03 Response - FEEBACK.doc 

AT&T is seeking a clear understanding of the problem via a clarification call so all CLECs have a clear understanding of the problem/issue and the 

impact to their business so that they can make the appropriate business decisions. 

Currently, the event notification issued today are very vague as to the actually QWEST problem and the impact to the CLEC business. How can I 

identify this problem in production today? Is QWEST currently rejecting these orders, sending jeopardies or are the orders completing successfully 

but not being provisioned correctly? 

AT&T is requesting whenever a workaround is document that a clarification call to clearly communicate 

(1) the workaround in detail 

(2) the current impact to the CLECs order or service in production 

Example: 

(a) A notification for PCRM Ticket Number: 167601 has been issued several times. Initially it was not clear which Products were impacted. The 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC062603-03 


Attachment D

extent of the change required and what happens to our orders when this occurs is still unknown. I’ve personally tried getting an answer via the 

contact number provided on the notification. A QWEST TT has been open since Friday August 15. 

AT&T is not requesting that the entire CLEC Q&A log be provided. QWEST has requested that AT&T provide the exact disclosure document 

update in the Q&A log. AT&T is requesting that CLECs that request documentation of clarifications provided in the Q&A and provide the exact 

wording required for the update to the Disclosure Document should be able to get these worked into the next Addendum update issued. 

AT&T Consumer disagrees that the current process is working effectively. If this were the case, I would not be making this request. The current 

notification process only provides confusion due to the lack of in depth analysis 

_______________________________________ 


PC062603-03 Business Rules Clarification calls and event notification update through the Addendum process 


July 31, 2003 

1-877-572-8687, Conference ID 3393947# 


PURPOSE 

At the July CMP Meeting, participants agreed to hold a conference call to discuss and gain input from CLECs on this CR. The following is the writeup 

of the discussions, action items, and decisions made in the working session. 


Liz Balvin - MCI 

Stephanie Prull - McLeod USA 







Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest read the change request description: AT&T requests that the Business Rules be opened up for clarification 

and that event notification updates be incorporated into the Addendum process. We seek Qwest adoption of SBC's process of a standard 

conference be established to address issues or concerns with the event notification and addendum updates. This SBC process includes 

conference call logistics: date, time and bridge number. They also send out a notification capturing the questions and answers provided during the 

conference call. 

Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T said there were copies of the e-mail handout provided at the July CMP meeting and asked if CLECs on the call 

had the opportunity to look at the documentation. Liz Balvin asked if AT&T would give an overview. Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest said the 

handout is also included in the body of the CR in the interactive report. 

Phyllis Burt with AT&T provided an overview of the handout. Phyllis explained how the SBC process of event notification is different from the 

Qwest process. In the Qwest event notifications there is an e-mail address to send questions to. SBC’s process for appending business rules 

documentation includes a set conference call within 3-5 days of the notification. This set conference call time is convenient because it allows 

everyone to have an hour free on their calendar and the opportunity, during event notification, to discuss issues or questions and understand how 

business rules are impacted. The meeting minutes from the conference calls are included in the final notification and that allows everyone unable 

to attend the conference call ability to read the minutes for additional information. AT&T is looking for Qwest to provide this type of process. 

Phyllis also said that if Qwest had this type of conference call it would provide the opportunity to discuss the change and the impact. That way 

everyone would understand how to communicate and what the business rule is. In addition, sometimes CLECs get different answers from different 

people at Qwest and we are all trying to understand and seek clarity to the blocking issues. 

Liz Balvin with MCI said the SBC process seems to be a more expeditious approach. 

Kyle Kirves with Qwest asked if CLECs were talking about providing PCAT and LSOG updates or addendum and disclosure document impacts. 

Phyllis Burt with AT&T said the Qwest notification explains that something is happening but there is no addendum. Kyle Kirves asked if CLECs 

were looking for information in the disclosure notification and if they want the notification to provide what the documentation change will be. Phyllis 

said yes. 

Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest asked if there were any additional questions. There were no questions. 

_______________________________ 

07/16/03 July CMP Meeting 

Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T presented this CR. Donna stated that AT&T would like Qwest to adopt the SBC process to address issues and 

concerns with event notifications and addendum updates. Donna said that they receive many event notifications from Qwest and the SBC process 

includes a clarification call 1-3 days after the notification to understand impacts. In addition, meeting notes are posted with a question and answer 

log. With EDI implementation 250-300 questions have been asked and some of the questions are not answered. Today, CLECs share their logs 

with other CLECs, MCI shares their log and McLeod shares their log. Judy Schultz with Qwest asked if the clarification call would take place 

during the production support timeframe. Donna said she is not sure if there is commonality between this CR and the CR for System Defects. Liz 

Balvin with MCI commented that if the Q& A logs were made public then they may not have to go to EDI teams which would be less work for 

Qwest. The CLEC community agreed to hold an ad hoc meeting to discuss this CR and Donna Osborne-Miller will provide the dates available for 

AT&T SMEs to Linda Sanchez-Steinke. 

_______________________________ 




Report Name: 



CR # 

PC062603-03 


Attachment D

2:00 p.m. (MDT) / Friday, July 11, 2003 

1-877-260-8255 

7616533# 

PC062603-03 Business Rules Clarification calls and event notification updates through the Addendum processs 

Name/Company: 

Donna Osborne-Miller, AT&T 

Carla Pardee, AT&T 

Phyllis Burt, AT&T 

Regina Mosley, AT&T 

Kyle Kirves, Qwest 

Dan Busetti, Qwest 

Wendy Thurnau, Qwest 





AT&T’s CR requests that Qwest adopt SBC’s process of a standard conference to address issues or concerns with event notification and 

addendum updates. Phyllis Burt with AT&T read the e-mail below at the Clarification Meeting for participants on the call: 

(1) Several Event Notifications have come out that required discussion (see below). This CR is requesting that QWEST provide a clarification call 

for notifications that impact CLECS. The call should be held within 1-3 business days after the announcement at a set standard time for example 

(11am Mountain/12pm Central/1pm Eastern). 

(a) The initial notification should include the addendum summary if impacts the disclosure documents. 

(b) The appropriate SMEs should attend the clarification call to answer any issues/concerns and a walkthrough of the appropriate documentation 

should be completed. 

(c) The closure notifications should include meeting minutes from the clarification call and the new addendum version should be posted on the 

Disclosure document website with a reference to the closure notification #. 

Event Notification: 85434 IMA EDI GUI Initial Closure 061803 

"Description of Trouble: CLECs may be experiencing difficulty processing POTS and UNE-P POTS orders on the Resale form when attempting to 

change a line level USOC and a non-line level USOC on the same order. Business Impact: CLECs may not be able to process POTS or UNE-P 

POTS orders on a single form when a line level and a non-line level USOC is changing. Qwest Proposed Work Around: CLECs should send the 

requests for line and non-line level USOCs separately. Alternatively, CLECs may submit their orders, mark the request for manual handling, and 

provide instructions in the REMARKS." 

Event Notification: 75800 IMA EDI GUI 060503 Initial-Closure 

Description of Trouble: CLECs may be experiencing difficulty processing conversion LSRs with a Block Activity (BA) = N (no change to existing 

blocking). Business Impact: CLECs may be experiencing difficulties retaining existing blocks during conversion. Qwest Proposed Work Around: 

CLECs should use the Feature Activity (FA) = V to recap blocking USOCs. 

(2) QWEST/CLEC Q&A log clarification should be captured in the Addendum. There should be a monthly process to submit clarification updates. 

Followed by a standard monthly event notification and review as discussed above. 

Phyllis also said that MCI had quite a few questions when migrations were done and it would have been helpful to have Q & A logs for other 

CLECs to refer to. SBC identifies a timeline when the answers to questions will be given and includes center personnel and OSS personnel in 

their clarification calls for notifications that impact CLECS. 

Phyllis said that it would have been helpful for the April release to have included a Qwest/CLEC Q&A log because code wasn’t in the business 

rules. In addition, Phyllis has a concern that if IMA 10 or 11 had a clarification log then they could refer back to it for IMA 12 and 13. Whatever 

other CLECS have learned has not been documented in the disclosure document. 

Donna asked Kyle to provide an overview of the addendum process Qwest currently practices. Using the example above ( event 85434), Kyle 

described how this notification would justify an addendum. Specifically, he stated that, in this case, if the system were not functioning as 

documented, and the issue compromised the CLEC’s ability to process transactions, then a notification would be issued, and an addendum 

published. Situations that Qwest finds worthy of an addendum are those instances where the system is not functioning as documented. 

Clarification types of issues do not necessitate an addendum. 


The area of this Change Request impacts addendum notifications. 


Qwest confirmed the correct personnel were on the call to resolve the CR. 


AT&T’s expectation is that Qwest adopt the SBC process relative to Business Rules Clarification and even notification updates through the 

addendum process. 


No systems change requests. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC062603-03 


Attachment D


AT&T will present this CR at the July CMP meeting. 

________________________________ 

To: Sanchez Steinke, Linda, Donna Osborne-Miller 

From: Burt, Phyllis S, CSCIO [phyllissburt@att.com] 

Sent: Fri 7/11/03 1:56 PM 

Subject: RE: Clarification call for the documentation CR 

Here's some additional information for our call today. 

(1) Several Event Notifications have come out that required discussion (see below). This CR is requesting that QWEST provide a clarification call 

for notifications that impact CLECS. The call should be held within 1-3 business days after the announcement at a set standard time for example 

(11am Mountain/12pm Central/1pm Eastern). 

(a) The initial notification should include the addendum summary if impacts the disclosure documents. 

(b) The appropriate SMEs should attend the clarification call to answer any issues/concerns and a walkthrough of the appropriate documentation 

should be completed. 

(c) The closure notifications should include meeting minutes from the clarification call and the new addendum version should be posted on the 

Disclosure document website with a reference to the closure notification #. 

Event Notification: 85434 IMA EDI GUI Initial Closure 061803 

"Description of Trouble: CLECs may be experiencing difficulty processing POTS and UNE-P POTS orders on the Resale form when attempting to 

change a line level USOC and a non-line level USOC on the same order. Business Impact: CLECs may not be able to process POTS or UNE-P 

POTS orders on a single form when a line level and a non-line level USOC is changing. Qwest Proposed Work Around: CLECs should send the 

requests for line and non-line level USOCs separately. Alternatively, CLECs may submit their orders, mark the request for manual handling, and 

provide instructions in the REMARKS." 

Event Notification: 75800 IMA EDI GUI 060503 Initial-Closure 

Description of Trouble: CLECs may be experiencing difficulty processing conversion LSRs with a Block Activity (BA) = N (no change to existing 

blocking). Business Impact: CLECs may be experiencing difficulties retaining existing blocks during conversion. Qwest Proposed Work Around: 

CLECs should use the Feature Activity (FA) = V to recap blocking USOCs. 

(2) QWEST/CLEC Q&A log clarification should be captured in the Addendum. There should be a monthly process to submit clarification updates. 

Followed by a standard monthly event notification and review as discussed above. 

Thanks, 

Phyllis 




For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the March 2004 CMP Meeting 

Donna Osborne-Miller 

AT&T 

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Revised Response - PC062603-03 

"Business Rules Clarification calls and event notification updates through the Addendum process" 

This response is a supplementary response to AT&T’s CR PC062603-03. Originally, Qwest denied this CR at the August CMP meeting. In 

response to a series of questions and statements provided by AT&T, and as a result of an ad hoc call held on 09/09/03, Qwest reviewed the points 

raised by the CLECs. 

As a result of the discussions held at the Global Action Items Meetings (held on September 12, 2003; October 14, 2003; November 4, 2003; 

November 18, 2003; December 16, 2003), Qwest believes that the spirit of the original request has been met. 

Qwest is using this document to supplement its response to the request dated February 11, 2004. Subsequent to the February 11 response, a 

meeting was held to discuss any gaps between Qwest’s understanding of the request, and the request’s intent. During that meeting, two gaps were 

discussed. They were: 

- AT&T requested that meeting minutes from any discussion around “Addendum to Disclosure Documentation” notifications be provided to the 

CLECs. Qwest committed to provide meeting minutes for these sessions no later than three (3) business days after the meeting. As the notification 

form itself is not designed to capture meeting minutes from the discussion, Qwest will record minutes from the meetings and publish them to the 

Production Support web site under the notification number. CLECs will have an opportunity to provide redlined edits to the minutes back to Qwest. 

- If any updates to the notification itself are required, Qwest will make those changes and republish the notification within one (1) day. 

- Regarding clarification to business rules, Qwest stated that it will continue to observe its established process for addendums and clarifications. 

Where “bugs” are identified, Qwest will publish a notification, documenting the bug, to be followed up by an addendum. For clarifications that do 

not constitute bugs, Qwest will capture the clarification in its Question/Answer log. Further, Qwest will start a single Q&A log with the15.0 release 

and provide the log on the wholesale website where the EDI Documentation FAQ pages currently reside. This single Q&A log will provide needed 

clarification to documentation, a way to see documentation before the addendum is posted, and, will allow everyone to see what questions other 

CLECs have had and how Qwest has responded. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC062603-03 


Attachment D

It was agreed that the process trial could begin with 15.0, and once the documentation was posted, the CR could move into CLEC test for AT&T 

feedback. 

Qwest maintains that the original request has been satisfied. 

Sincerely, 

Connie Winston 

Director, Information Technology 

Qwest 

____________________________ 



For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the February 2004 CMP Meeting 


AT&T 

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Revised Response - PC062603-03 

"Business Rules Clarification calls and event notification updates through the Addendum process" 

This response is a supplementary response to AT&T’s CR PC062603-03. Originally, Qwest denied this CR at the August CMP meeting. In 

response to a series of questions and statements provided by AT&T, and as a result of an ad hoc call held on 09/09/03, Qwest reviewed the points 

raised by the CLECs. 

As a result of the discussions held at the Global Action Items Meetings (held on September 12, 2003; October 14, 2003; November 4, 2003; 

November 18, 2003; December 16, 2003), Qwest believes that the spirit of the original request has been met. 

Qwest responds to these items by stating that, since the implementation of IMA EDI Release 14.0 on December 8, 2003, Qwest has made best 

efforts to invigorate the notification process. Qwest maintains that by revisiting its process, providing training to notifications authors, and revising 

the notification template itself. Qwest itemizes its actions taken to address this CR as follows: 

- Qwest is endeavoring to provide clearer information in the event notifications; and positive feedback from the CLECs indicates that Qwest has 

made significant progress on this front. 

- Qwest has a contingency plan in place to initiate calls with CLECs for high-profile, major impact event notifications and announce the conference 

calls in the body of the event notification. Qwest does not recognize the feasibility of initiating calls for every event, but will comply with major 

impact events, as stated. 

- As always, Qwest has worked to mitigate issues quickly; however, some production gaps will always exist due to prioritization of issues for 

resolution. 

- Qwest’s new internal process allows for event notification authors to work with the Interconnect Service Centers to generate appropriate, working 

workarounds that are approved by both Qwest and the CLEC. 

- Qwest now provides complete descriptions of impacts and error messages resultant from the issue, and has a separate place on the event 

notification form for capturing the error message verbatim. 

- Qwest now captures changes in documentation resulting in the body of the notification itself, in a “Change From:” and “Change To:” format. 

- As part of change request PC010704-1CM, Qwest is working toward language changes in the CMP document. The language change describes 

process improvements regarding notifications and documentation changes that cover some of the requests in this CR. Specifically, Qwest has 

updated the CMP document to demonstrate the following commitment regarding notifications, workarounds, and conference calls to CLECs: 

Qwest will attempt to make a software patch when the system is not working as defined in the technical specifications and/or the GUI systems 

documentation, and issue an event notification clearly defining the change. 

If Qwest determines that a software patch is not feasible, and/or Qwest or any CLEC identifies a Patch Release of software or related systems 

documentation changes that may impact CLEC production coding, Qwest will issue an event notification, initiate a Technical Escalation, and 

request a joint meeting between Qwest and the CLECs in order to discuss the particular Patch Release. Qwest will notify CLECs of the joint 

meeting in which Qwest will review the Patch Release, the proposed solution, and the variables which affect the resolution. In all instances, these 

joint meetings are exempt from the five (5) business day advance notification requirement described in Section 3.0. At this joint meeting, Qwest 

and the impacted CLECs will discuss how the pending Patch Release will affect their code. Qwest and the impacted CLECs will discuss any 

potential resolution options and implementation timeframes. In the event that agreement cannot be reached between Qwest and the impacted 

CLECs regarding the type of Patch Release to be implemented, the parties will attempt to negotiate an appropriate workaround. 

Qwest maintains that the original request has been satisfied. 

Sincerely, 



Qwest 

______________________ 



Report Name: 



CR # 

PC062603-03 


Attachment D


For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the September 2003 CMP Meeting 


AT&T 

CC: 

Lynn Notarianni 

Beth Foster 

Kit Thomte 

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC062603-03 

This response is a supplementary response to AT&T’s CR PC 062603-03. Originally, Qwest denied this CR at the August CMP meeting. In 

response to a series of questions and statements provide by AT&T, and as a result of an ad hoc call held on 09/09/03, Qwest is currently reviewing 

the points raised by the CLECs. 

Qwest proposes moving this Change Request into Evaluation Status while we continue to investigate to provide workable solutions. Qwest would 

like to add this item as a topic for discussion for the meeting on September 19th. Qwest will then provide an updated response no later than the 

October CMP Meeting. 

Sincerely, 



Qwest 

___________________________ 

August 12, 2003 


For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the August 20, 2003 CMP Meeting 


AT&T 

CC: 


Beth Foster 

Kit Thomte 


CR Description: 

AT&T’s original change request states: 

AT&T requests that the Business Rules be opened up for clarification and that event notification updates be incorporated into the Addendum 

process. We seek Qwest adoption of SBC's process of a standard conference be established to address issues or concerns with the event 

notification and addendum updates. This SBC process includes conference call logistics: date, time and bridge number. They also send out a 

notification capturing the questions and answers provided during the conference call. 

Qwest Response: 

AT&T requests that Qwest adopt a regular call to address notifications issues that pertain to documentation changes or addenda to the Disclosure 

Documentation, and provide SMEs to answer the questions on the calls. In many cases, Qwest has not identified specific, word-for-word 

documentation impacts with the publication of the initial notification. Nor is that information available with the publication of the closure in all cases 

(in some cases, we are able to insert the Disclosure Documentation change into the closure, but this is typically a “documentation only” change 

notification). This is due to the fact that all documentation changes are reviewed by our System Requirements team. This System Requirements 

review is thorough and time consuming and would not be able to be completed during the timelines required by the notifications process in the 

CMP Document, Section 12.7. It involves research into field impacts, review of every instance to the field, cross-document impacts, systems and 

code impacts, and more. It is conducted over a period of time far greater than those involved in the notifications process. 

Qwest maintains that both a.) the initial notification cannot include the documentation impacts and b.) the clarification call would not be able to 

clarify the documentation changes, as there would be insufficient detail available at the time of the proposed call. Moreover, the Qwest resources 

who would be needed on the calls are those who would be working to remedy the issue. Having them on the calls removes them from working to 

effectively solve the problem, and would lengthen the time to resolve. 

If AT&T is requesting that all, or individual CLEC QA logs be provided as a part of the addendum process, this is not a logistically feasible business 

practice, because publishing these logs would require edits to every QA log for confidentiality. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC062603-03 


Attachment D

Qwest's existing process of providing notifications with workarounds, business impacts, and channels for escalation works effectively, and allows 

for targeted responses to customer concerns. Publishing the clarifications made to each individual CLEC to all other CLECs does not add a 

demonstrable business benefit to the process, to the CLECs, and would require Qwest to assume an additional two to three resources to 

implement the solution AT&T is proposing. Qwest will, however, endeavor to enhance its notifications pertaining to Disclosure Documentation by 

including the change in the body of the closure notification. For Disclosure Documentation changes that would constitute an addendum, Qwest will 

include the documentation change in a “Change From—Change To” format similar to the change summaries in the addenda themselves. 

Qwest respectfully denies this change request because the change does not result in a reasonably demonstrable business benefit and is 

economically not feasible. 

Sincerely, 

Connie Winston, 


Qwest 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC062603-03 


Attachment D


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC102803-1 Improve Search Functionality of the Qwest 

Wholesale Website to minimize selections 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Wholesale ProdProc Qwest 

Wholesale 

Website 

Eschelon asks Qwest to improve the efficiency of the Qwest Wholesale Website search function. The CLEC community depends on the 

information Qwest provides on the Qwest Wholesale Website to obtain information on Qwest’s process, products, SGATs and OSS. The current 

search functionality of the Qwest Wholesale Website provides too many results and impedes a CLEC’s ability to quickly obtain important 

information. For example, on 10-14-03 Qwest sent a CMP notice regarding the grandparenting of Single Service in AZ. To fully understand the 

impact of this product retirement, Eschelon wanted to review the product information for Single Service on the Qwest Wholesale Website. Using 

the search function on the Qwest Wholesale Website, we received 12,300 results. A handful of these results did not pertain to wholesale but were 

Qwest retail information and Qwest corporate information. It is a burden to expect the CLECs to search through 12,300 results to find the 

information pertinent to a product. The above is one example of the struggles a CLEC faces when attempting to find specific information on the 

Qwest Wholesale Website. Improving the search functionality and CMP notice process is critical to a CLECs ability to find the information 

necessary for a CLEC to do business with Qwest. Qwest will also benefit if CLECs have better access to information on the Qwest Wholesale 

Website. Easy access to information may decrease the number of calls to the ISC, Qwest Service managers, WSHD and the Qwest CMP team. 


1. Allow a CLEC an option to search the Qwest Wholesale Website only. 

2. Allow a CLEC the option to search each subsection (Product & Process, Resources, OSS, Network, Training, Notices and Forums, Customer 

Service) on the Qwest Wholesale Website. 

3. Qwest will start including a link to the Product on the Qwest Website on all CMP notifications that are grandparenting products. 


McNa, Sue 



11/05/03 Held Clarification Call 

11/11/03 Meeting minutes sent 


11/19/03 - Status changed to presented 

12/10/03 - Draft response issued 

12/17/03 -December CMP Meeting - Meeting minutes will be posted to this CR's Project Meetings section. 

12/17/03 - Status changed to Evaluation 


1/21/04 - Status will remain in Evaluation 



Isaacs, Kim 

Blackmun, Jarby 

Andreen, Doug 

Evaluation 

12/17/03 


Eschelon 



Impacted 



------------------------------------------------------------------------ 



------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Jarby Blackmun, Qwest reviewed the draft response. Kathy Stichter of Eschelon said she had looked over the response and tried the 

recommendations and still often was getting over 1,000 responses. Jarby agreed that if the type is Wholesale with other key words the system will 

look for any of the words making our best response to put more information in the notifications. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon asked who would head 

up the effort to make sure the notification has current links. Jarby advised that this would be the Product Managers' and Process Managers via the 

documentation process. These managers have been advised. Bonnie also questioned what status this CR would be in. It was agreed to move 

the status to Evaluation. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

11/19/03 Nov CMP Meeting 

Kim Isaacs - Eschelon, presented the CR to improve the search capabilities of the Wholesale web site to be able to search only Wholesale, and to 

be able to search each category separately. She said Eschelon is encouraging the use of the web site and that many responses to searches is 

discouraging use. Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon, added that on a recent search for a grandfathered product, 12,300 results were returned. She 

further said that on the Clarification call Jarby Blackmun - Qwest, had indicated that changes to this site was in the works on a global level and that 

in the interim Jarby is investigating if more information can be added to the grandfather notices. Jarby added that the Wholesale search engine is 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC102803-1 


Attachment D 

7

the same engine driving the entire Qwest.com website. She also added that the capabilities described in the CR would be input to the Qwest effort 

to revamp Qwest.com. This CR will move to Presented status. Kim Issacs/Eschelon added that Eschelon asked Qwest to add links to notices to 

locate information contained in either the PCATS or Retail information. Qwest said it would work with the notice group to accomplish. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------- 


11:30 p.m. (MDT) / Wednesday November 5, 2003 

1-877-521-8688 

1456160# 

PC102803-1 Improve Search Functionality of the Qwest Wholesale Website to minimize selections 

Attendees: 

Name/Company: 



Jarby Blackmun, Qwest 






Doug read the description of the CR as follows: Eschelon asks Qwest to improve the efficiency of the Qwest Wholesale Website search function. 

The CLEC community depends on the information Qwest provides on the Qwest Wholesale Website to obtain information on Qwest’s process, 

products, SGATs and OSS. The current search functionality of the Qwest Wholesale Website provides too many results and impedes a CLEC’s 

ability to quickly obtain important information. For example, on 10-14-03 Qwest sent a CMP notice regarding the grandparenting of Single Service 

in AZ. To fully understand the impact of this product retirement, Eschelon wanted to review the product information for Single Service on the 

Qwest Wholesale Website. Using the search function on the Qwest Wholesale Website, we received 12,300 results. A handful of these results 

did not pertain to wholesale but were Qwest retail information and Qwest corporate information. It is a burden to expect the CLECs to search 

through 12,300 results to find the information pertinent to a product. The above is one example of the struggles a CLEC faces when attempting to 

find specific information on the Qwest Wholesale Website. Improving the search functionality and CMP notice process is critical to a CLECs ability 

to find the information necessary for a CLEC to do business with Qwest. Qwest will also benefit if CLECs have better access to information on the 

Qwest Wholesale Website. Easy access to information may decrease the number of calls to the ISC, Qwest Service managers, WSHD and the 

Qwest CMP team. 

Bonnie and Kim had nothing to add to the description or expected deliverables. 

Jarby stated that the request was clear to her. 

Kim mentioned that Eschelon is trying to encourage use of the website in her company and that the current search abilities are a hindrance. 

Jarby said that Qwest.com has one search engine that covers the entire website and that there is recognition with Qwest as to the need to improve 

the search engine. 

Bonnie stated that when the redesign architecture is done the needs of Wholesale and the CLECs need to be included. 

Jarby said that those concerns were and will be included and that she believes this could be on the books for next year. 

Doug explained the next steps including presenting the CR at the November CMP meeting and then having the response during the December 

cycle. 

Kim thought that in the interim if there could be a link established to the grandparented USOCS or a better description given in the notifications that 

this would help. 

Jarby said she would check with Susan Lorence and Mark Coyne on what could be done with the grandparenting issue. Jarby said she would also 

explore ways to do better searches on the existing engine since they are all a bit different this could make a good degree of difference. 

Kim and Bonnie agreed this could help. 


Qwest Wholesale Website 




These expectations were confirmed. 

1. Allow a CLEC an option to search the Qwest Wholesale Website only. 

2. Allow a CLEC the option to search each subsection (Product & Process, Resources, OSS, Network, Training, Notices and Forums, Customer 

Service) on the Qwest Wholesale Website. 

3. Qwest will start including a link to the Product on the Qwest Website on all CMP notifications that are grandparenting products. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC102803-1 


Attachment D




Kim will present the CR at the November 19 CMP Meeting. Response will be made during the December cycle. 


December 3, 2003 

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the December 17, 2003 CMP Meeting 

Kim Isaacs 

ILEC Relations Process Analyst 

Eschelon Telecom 

SUBJECT: Qwest Change Request Response - CR # PC102803-1 Improve Search Functionality of the Qwest Wholesale Website to 

minimize selections 

This letter is in response to Eschelon Communications Change Request CR # PC102803-1. This CR requests that Qwest provide improved 

search capabilities on the wholesale public web site and that Qwest include a link to the product on the Qwest Website on all CMP notifications 

regarding grandparented products. The request also include the need to refine searches to subsections within the Wholesale site, e.g. Product & 

Process, Resources, OSS, Network, Training, Notices and Forums, Customer Service. 

The current web search engine covers all content associated with the qwest.com site architecture. This includes all html sites and associated 

documents found within the qwest.com/wholesale. To narrow a search to content found only within the wholesale site architecture, a user must 

enter the word wholesale in the search prompt box and any other specific word or phrase description. When the search returns its results, only 

look at results that contain the word wholesale and the other words or phrases, e.g. wholesale, poles, ducts, right of way. As an example, if a 

result shows the phrase poles, but does not show wholesale, the search pulled results from outside the wholesale architecture. 

To further narrow a search, click on the advanced link (next to the search button), which should aid in refining a search. Choosing words or 

phrases that are specific to an inquiry can narrow a search. Example: searching for poles, ducts and right away will narrow the search and 

provide fewer responses than poles. 

Browsers (Explorer, Netscape, AOL) generally contain an option to search within an HTML web page. As an example, in Explorer, look under the 

Edit Menu and select the Find on this Page tool. This will allow a user to search only within that page. 

Qwest will include links to the appropriate product PCAT or will include the product manager contact information. 

Sincerely, 

Jarby Blackmun 

Senior Manager Wholesale Communications Initiatives 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC102803-1 


Attachment D


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC110403-1 Update accuracy of FAM records Evaluation Wholesale ProdProc Pre-ordering, 

12/17/03 

Ordering 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Currently AT&T is experiencing difficulties with Qwest maintained FAM “Feature Availability Matrix” file being up to date. AT&T has been 

experiencing problems with the FAM file showing inaccurate USOCs or feature availability within NPA/NXX’s when a CSR shows that an existing 

Qwest customer has the features. AT&T believes this FAM file should be updated, at a minimum, weekly and that CLECs should be aware of 

updates to the FAM. This information must be readily available to Qwest as its own customers have the availability to obtain some features that 

CLECs are shown, via the FAM File, are unavailable. All CLECs will obtain valuable data from current, accurate and thoroughly updated 

information within the FAM file. AT&T therefore requests that these updates be made immediately and continually. 


December 2003 




11/10/03 - Contacted CLEC to schedule clarification call 

11/10/03 - Scheduled clarification call for 11/14 

11/14/03 - Held Clarification Call 

11/19/03 - Nov meeting minutes will be posted to the database 

12/10/03 - Emailed response to CLEC 

12/15/03 - Held CLEC ad hoc call to further discuss the FAM file 

12/17/03 - Dec meeting notes will be posted to the database 

12/22/03 - Emailed notes to CLECs 

1/21/03 - Jan CMP meeting minutes will be posted to the database 

2/18/04 -Feb CMP Meeting notes will be posted to the project meeting section 


Pardee, Carla 

February 18, 2004 CMP Meeting 

Connie Winston – Qwest advised that we have not gotten approval as of yet for this CR. We are still waiting for approval. Carla Pardee – ATT 

advised that ATT is disappointed that this did not get approved as it is a critical issue and it doesn’t seem as if this CR requires a lot of resources, 

so we do not understand the lack of approval. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked is this one is like the ICON database? Connie advised she is not 

sure. Bonnie advised that her Service Manager (Jean Novak) told her that the fix would take place on March 1, 2004. Connie advised that maybe 

an update is scheduled but not the entire fix. Cindy Macy – Qwest agreed to check with Jean Novak. This CR will remain in Evaluation Status. 

___________________________________________________ 

Janaury 21, 2004 CMP Meeting 

Connie Winston – Qwest advised that this CR is in the same situation as some of the others. We are waiting to schedule and we hope to have a 

date in February. Carla Pardee – ATT asked what is the current process for updating the FAM file? Connie advised it is not being updated in a 

timely fashion. It has to be done manually and it is a huge manual effort. The way that we update FAM is that SONAR tracks availability by switch 

via tables in SONAR. This information is downloaded to a server and it becomes available to Qwest. This data should be published to FAM. We 

are working to get this update done in a mechanized fashion and looking at SONAR going away. Liz Balvin – MCI asked about the BPL edit that 

will reject the LSR if the feature is not available, that is part of 15.0. Connie Winston said this edit goes against the SAQ, not the FAM. Bonnie 

Johnson asked is there a need for the FAM file? Connie advised her understanding is that ATT wants to use it as a sales tool up front. Bonnie 

asked can it be used just from IMA so we don’t have to maintain two sources. Connie advised FAM is downloadable and in a bulk format, while 

IMA is an individual selection. The intent is both tools will use the same source in the future. Bonnie advised this is critical to our business as we 

use this information to offer products. Bonnie advised this is so critical that we will take another route if we don’t get it from CMP. 

________________________________________________________ 

December 17, 2003 CMP Meeting 

Connie Winston – Qwest reported that we are still evaluating this CR. We are having a difficult time getting a process built for the updates and 

determining what that looks like. We are still looking at this CR and will change the status to Evaluation. 

__________________________________________________________________ 

December 15, 2003 Ad hoc meeting 

PC110403-1 FAM File 

Ad Hoc Meeting 

In attendance: 

Nicole James – Qwest 



Macy, Cindy 


Report Name: 


AT&T 




CR # 

UNE-P 

8 


Impacted 

PC110403-1 


Attachment D

Dave Fane - ATT 

Liz Balvin – MCI 

Phyllis Burt – ATT 

John Gallegos – Qwest 

Lydell Peterson – Qwest 

Carla Pardee – ATT 


Randy Owen – Qwest 

Kim Chambers – Qwest 

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and explained that the purpose of the call is to review the issues associated with the FAM file and how the 

CLEC community uses the file. ATT requested this additional meeting with Qwest. 

Carla – ATT advised that ATT uses the file to figure out which features are available prior to submitting orders. Qwest doesn’t hard reject the 

LSRs when the data is not accurate. We may or may not get the feature provisioned. We do not know until our customer calls and tells us the 

feature is not working. Dave Fane – ATT advised that every other ILEC they work with sends and error report back that identifies the feature is not 

available. Then we update our file and don’t request the feature again. ATT would like Qwest to reject the order when we don’t detect the feature. 

John Gallegos – Qwest explained that this feature will be available in 15.0 EDI. This functionality is available today via SAQ in EDI. The CLECs 

said they do not have that EDI transaction built and they were told to use the FAM file as an alternative until 15.0 is available. 

ATT advised they assumed they would get rejects if the feature was not available. Qwest advised we are not billing the CLECs for features they 

are not getting. ATT advised we are billing our end users as we believed the feature did get provisioned. 

John Gallegos – Qwest advised he understands there is a gap in the FAM file data, and that the feature is available via the SAQ in EDI and that 

15.0 will reject upfront if features are not available. 

Liz Balvin – MCI asked if out of sync conditions are identified in the file so the CLECs can avoid those areas. John Gallegos- Qwest advised the 

file is too large as there are many switches and features and NPAs available in each state. 

Liz Balvin – MCI asked if Qwest is eliminating the FAM file after 15.0. John Gallegos – Qwest advised we are looking at all options. The concern 

that Qwest has is being able to support the FAM file going forward. We are doing everything we can to update the file. Qwest has manually 

updated the file. The last update was the end of September. This takes a considerable amount of time and manual effort. 

Carla – ATT advised they just wanted to reconfirm their need to access the FAM file. Liz Balvin – MCI advised that it is important to make sure the 

FAM file is updated. Phyllis Burt – ATT asked what is the correct process if we have trouble using the FAM file? Do we submit a trouble ticket to 

the Help Desk? John Gallegos advised it would probably be considered a Sev 3 ticket. John advised he can not give a timeframe as to when the 

trouble ticket / problem would be corrected. John assured the CLECs that Qwest is working on this issue and trying to determine the best action to 

take. 

_____________________________________________________________ 

November 19, 2003 CMP Meeting 

Carla Pardee – ATT reviewed and presented this CR. Carla advised that ATT uses the FAM file to look at usoc availability by switch. Carla 

advised the data is not always accurate and ATT attempts to provide these features to their customers. ATT does not find out the feature is not 

available until their customer contacts them to report the feature is not working. This creates billing errors also. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon 

asked if this was the ICON database. Carla advised you can access ICON and FAM on the web. Liz Balvin – MCI advised that MCI has also 

experienced situations when the SOC notice says the feature was provisioned, when it really isn’t available. 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

PC110403-1 Clarification Call 

Update Accuracy of FAM file 

November 14, 2003 


Monica Manning – Qwest Gary Berroa – Qwest 

Leo Demitriadis – ATT Nicole James – Qwest 

Doug Andrean – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest 

Carla Pardee – ATT Michael Whitt – Qwest 

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call, introduced attendees and reviewed the agenda. 

Carla Pardee – ATT reviewed the CR. Carla advised ATT has had problems with the FAM file not being up to date. The file shows inaccurate 

USOC feature availability information. ATT uses this file often. We order a feature and if Qwest doesn’t support the feature we don’t receive a 

reject on the LSR. Qwest continues to provision service. The order completion occurs and billing occurs but we don’t really provision the feature 

as it is not available. This causes billing errors to our end users. Leo Demitriadis – ATT explained ATT would like to have a change control log file 

we they know what has changed, or to have the file updated when ever the data changes, or to have it updated on a regular schedule. 

The team reviewed how to access the file to make sure we are all talking about the same file. The URL for instructions on how to access the file is; 

Doug Andrean – Qwest asked how often is the file updated. ATT advised they do not know. 

Micheal Whitt – Qwest asked if UNE –P was the product that ATT is concerned with. ATT advised yes. 

Nicole James – Qwest asked if ATT has an example of errors that you have found? Carla advised she will send Qwest an example. She believes 

she has an example in Minnesota. 

Mallory Paxton – Qwest asked how does ATT know when it is not accurate. Carla advised they do not know until their customer calls them back to 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC110403-1 


Attachment D

advise they did not get the feature provisioned. 

The team agreed they understand the request. Cindy Macy – Qwest advised this CR will be on the agenda for the November CMP meeting and 

ATT will present the CR. Qwest will provide a response at the December meeting. 




AT&T 

Carla Dickinson Pardee 

LSAM Manager 

SUBJECT: CR # PC110403-1 Update accuracy of FAM records 

This letter is in response to AT&T’s Change Request (CR) PC110403-1. This CR requests that: 

- Qwest update the accuracy of FAM records 

Qwest is currently reviewing the processing and functionality provided by the FAM file. Qwest requests that this CR be placed in Evaluation 

status. AT&T has also requested an additional meeting be held to discuss the FAM file in more detail. Qwest will schedule the additional 

meeting. 

Sincerely, 




Report Name: 



CR # 

PC110403-1 


Attachment D


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC111303-1 Allow multiple Billing Account Numbers Per 

Product Per State 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Wholesale ProdProc UNE - P 

Qwest currently only supports a single BAN per product per state. MCI requests the ability to designate multiple BANs per product, per state. In 

doing so, the CLECs would have the ability to track orders submitted by different divisions of their company. 


Determine whether a process change only is necessary whereby the CLECs would be required to populate differing BANs on each order. 

Otherwise, what system enhancements would need to be made to support. 


11/13/03: CR Received 

11/14/03: CR Acknowledged 


11/25/03: Status Changed to Clarification 



01/14/04 - Response posted 


1/21/04 - Status changed to Development 

2/2/04 - Qwest generated notice CMPR.02.02.04.F.01317.AdHocBillingMtg 




Burson, Sue 

Balvin, Liz 

Kriebel, Sue 

Andreen, Doug 

Sue Kriebel reviewed the action item concerning the examples from Cbeyond that carried non-active BAN numbers. Sue clarified the issue by 

stating that not all orders are assigned BANs automatically but only those that go through flow through. It was uncovered that orders manually 

typed were having BANs assigned incorrectly in some cases. She is working with the centers to correct. Stephen Calhoun, Cbeyond asked about 

the issue of the CLECs being able to use the alternate BAN field as they wished. Doug Andreen, Qwest said that was still being researched. 

Connie Winston, Qwest is looking into dropping existing edits of a formatting nature that now exist in the system. The CR will remain in 

development. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


PC111303-1 

Allow multiple Billing Account Numbers Per Product Per State 



1-877-521-8688, Conference ID 1456160 

9 a.m. – 10a.m. Mountain Time 

PURPOSE 

This meeting was to discuss action items from the January CMP Product and Process meeting, specifically: 

1. Cbeyond examples were old BANs have been populated 

2. Cost backup to the denial so CLECs can pursue other avenues 

3. Can CLECs use optional BAN field as they wish 


Kathy Stichter, Eschelon 

T.J. Koller, Priority 1 




Jan Arnold, U S Link 


Stephan Calhoun, Cbeyond 

John Gallegos, Qwest 

Connie Winston, Qwest 


Report Name: 

Development 

12/17/03 


MCI 




CR # 

9 


Impacted 

PC111303-1 


Attachment D

Lydell Peterson, Qwest 

Sue Kriebel, Qwest 



The meeting was called to discuss three outstanding items from the last CMP meeting: 

1. Cbeyond examples where old BANs have been populated (Sue Kriebel) 

2. Cost backup to the denial so CLEC can pursue other avenues (John Gallegos) 

3. Can CLECs use optional BAN field as they wish (Connie Winston) 

Issue 1. 

Sue Kriebel, Qwest stated that on the list from Cbeyond that not all products go through the FTS (flow through system) and have BANs 

automatically assigned. On the Cbeyond list several orders had been marked for manual handling and it was found that the control point not in 

place was to ensure that the person manually handling the order assigned the correct – active BAN. 

Stephan Calhoun, Cbeyond said that this more clearly explained why some orders were assigned BANs that were not expected. He feels that 

responses should initially carry this level of detail and thanked Qwest for the research 

Liz Balvin, MCI asked what audits were in place to ensure manually handled orders carry the correct BAN. Sue said the process organization had 

sent a reminder to the order typists reminding them that they need to look up the correct BAN in CPS. She also said that Qwest is looking for 

other methods to tighten this up. 

Issue 2: 

John Gallegos, Qwest explained the impacts of the LOE. He stated that numerous systems (7) were affected downstream. 

Connie Winston, Qwest added that CPS would have to be re-architect and then several changes to other impacted systems. 

Liz asked how the functionality had existed before when the burden for entering BANs fell to the CLECs. Connie answered that even then only one 

active BAN per product per state was permitted. Liz asked for more detail since the CLECs need to truly understand what is impacted rather than 

just saying multiple systems. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon agreed saying that CLECs did not necessarily have to know the system names but need 

the hours breakdown. Connie suggested this be taken off line and thought through to determine the format and structure this might take. She 

added specific to this CR that the min impact was to CPS and other highly impacted systems would be IMA and CRM. Bonnie stated that this was 

more information than the CLECs have had before and Stephan added that it truly helps to understand the reasons behind the denial. Connie said 

she would take an action item to see what kind of language can be appended to the denial. 

Issue 3 

Connie said she was still checking if the CLECs could use the optional BAN field. Qwest does some formatting validation but is looking at what it 

would take to remove these edits. Liz asked if the editing was limited to things like A/N characters and not if the BAN was a “good BAN”. Connie 

said yes that it is formatting only. Liz asked what the timeframe was and Connie answered hopefully by the CMP meeting. 

-------------------------------------------------------------- 


Sue Kriebel, Qwest reviewed the response denying the request based on it being economically not feasible. Sue stated to allow multiple BANs per 

product per state would remove some automation and would require several front and back end system changes. Liz Balvin, MCI stated she had 

sent Cbeyond examples where old BANs had been populated and would like these to be investigated. Sue agreed to do so and also stated that 

when BANs are closed orders in queue will flow to the old BAN. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon stated that it was also possible that the Cbeyond 

orders were handled on a manual basis. Steven Calhoun, Cbeyond said that the examples were new orders so this should not have been the 

case. Liz also wanted some cost backup to the denial citing that if it was important enough to the CLEC that they can pursue other avenues. Judy 

Schultz, Qwest said that a meeting was held a week ago explaining that detail needs to be provided on an economically not feasible denial. 

Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon did verify that if an incorrect BAN is placed on an order that it will be corrected automatically by Qwest. Bonnie added 

that the denial is based on “we can’t do this” when that very thing is happening today. Liz stated that the main thrust of the three multiple BAN 

CRs is to give the CLECs the ability to control the billing of their customers. She stated she didn’t know the trigger for changing BANs. Connie 

Winston, Qwest said the process is managed by the CPS system and is handled by specific centers. Connie verified that a CLEC could be notified 

when a BAN is at 6,000 and potentially could not be exhausted until 9,000 because of orders during the interim and that Qwest is trying to keep the 

BANs at an acceptable level to avoid processing problems. Connie mentioned that the process is the same for all CLECs. Liz asked if the CLECs 

could use the optional BAN field as they wished. Connie said she would check. It was verified that the FOC would provide the same information 

as it does today but CLECs could track to the outbound order. Kathy Stichter, Eschelon asked about BAN consolidation. Sue explained the 

process and that this was done manually with the center. It was agreed that there are multiple action items to research and that a conference call 

would be held when new information is available. The CR will remain open in Development status. (Comment from Stephanie Prull) Stephanie 

Prull – Eschelon stated she is interested in the economic breakdown as well due to the economic price discrepancies quoted between her CR and 

the MCI CR. (end comment). 

-------------------------------------------------------------- 


Liz Balvin of MCI presented the CR and stated that a clarification meeting had already been held. Doug said that per the clarification call that two 

BANs per product per state would solve the MCI specific situation since they are trying to separate divisions. Sue Kriebel, Qwest clarified that 

today there is one active BAN and possibly many inactive. This CR calls for multiple active BANs. Liz said they were willing to assign BANs from 

MCI’s end if this would help although at the present time both Liz and Bonnie Johnson of Eschelon were sure that any BAN assigned by the CLEC 

was overrode when passing through Qwest systems. Bonnie pointed out that Eschelon has well over 100 bills to look at for disputes and 

discrepancies and that this presents an administrative nightmare. The CR was changed to Presented status. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC111303-1 


Attachment D


11:00 a.m. (MDT) / Tuesday November 25, 2003 

1-877-521-8688 

1456160# 

PC111303-1 Allow multiple Billing Account Numbers Per Product Per State 

Attendees: 

Name/Company: 



John Gallegos, Qwest 





Doug Andreen -Qwest read the description of the CR: Qwest currently only supports a single BAN per product per state. MCI requests the ability 

to designate multiple BANs per product, per state. In doing so, the CLECs would have the ability to track orders submitted by different divisions of 

their company. 

Doug also covered the expected deliverables of the CR: Determine whether a process change only is necessary whereby the CLECs would be 

required to populate differing BANs on each order. Otherwise, what system enhancements would need to be made to support. 

Liz Balvin MCI stated that she has confirmed with her service manager that MCI is only allowed one BAN per product per state. She said that 

there is a field on the LSR to populate the BAN and she was hoping this would be able to be used to solve the request. 

Sue Kriebel Qwest said that there are numerous customers that do not populate this field and that it is populated when it hits Qwest. She also 

clarified that there may be multiple BANs per product per state but only one is live. 

Liz said what she is trying to do is enable segregation of the two divisions in MCI that handle the same products. Two BANs per state per product 

would be sufficient for MCI. She also thought there was another CR in existence that was similar. John agreed. 

John gave some historical perspective on population of the BAN field on the LSR. While it was done by the CLECs for some time this became a 

problem and now this field is populated by Qwest. John stated that implementing this CR would possibly put the responsibility back on the CLECs 

for ensuring the right BAN was on the order. 

Liz said MCI would be willing to do this and is open to any way to support implementation of the CR. 

Liz found the CR that is very similar. SCR100903-02. 

Sue questioned if this CR could still be worked as only a process change. 

John said no that there would have to be changes to internal systems to accommodate the change. 

Liz mentioned that she thought the customer profile drove BAN assignment. 

John answered yes, but only in part 

Liz expressed the concern that if this requires systems changes especially to IMA that a time line of presenting the CR at the December Product 

and Process meeting and having a response in January would conflict with the prioritization of 16.0 CRs in IMA for system changes. 

John responded that he would consider the expectations of her CR along with SCR100903-02 to ensure that the timeframes did not adversely 

impact prioritization. 

It was agreed to leave the CR in Product and Process for now. 

Doug agreed to relate to two CRs. 


Billing and Wholesale Billing Interface 




The following expectations were identified/confirmed: 

1. Determine whether a process change only is necessary whereby the CLECs would be required to populate differing BANs on each order. 

2. Otherwise, what system enhancements would need to be made to support 

3. Relate this CR and SCR100903-02 in order to accelerate possible resolution of the CR. 


Related system change SCR100903-02 is related but not dependent 


As it now stands, Liz will present the CR at the December 17 CMP Meeting. Response will be made during the January cycle. 


January 5, 2004 


For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the January 2004 CMP Meeting 

Liz Balvin 

MCI Carrier Management - Qwest Region 

MCI 

SUBJECT: Qwest Change Request Response – CR PC111303-1 

Allow Multiple Billing Account Numbers Per Product Per Sta 

Qwest currently supports a single BAN per product per state. MCI requests the ability to designate multiple BANs per product, per state. In doing 

so, the CLECs would have the ability to track orders submitted by different divisions of their company. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC111303-1 


Attachment D

A clarification meeting was held on November 25, 2003 with MCI and Qwest representation. At this meeting, Qwest clarified with MCI there may be 

multiple BANs per state but only one is ‘live/active.’ MCI explained they would like the ability to segregate the two divisions of MCI that handle the 

same products and therefore would only need two active BANs per state. 

Qwest has completed an analysis for PC111303-1, Allow Multiple Billing Account Numbers, per Product, per State, and has determined that this 

change is economically not feasible. Qwest currently provides active BANs on a state by state basis. Qwest auto-populates these BANs to 

ensure ordering and billing accuracy. This change would require Qwest to remove this automation, which would require Qwest and CLEC manual 

intervention likely leading to additional errors or an increase in rejects. Additionally, several of Qwest’s front and back end systems would require 

changes in order to remove automation, modify existing accounts to allow the manipulation of BANs. Through Qwest’s analysis it was determined 

that the estimate for the initial implementation of this change would be at least $1 million. Qwest believes that to implement such a change to 

Qwest systems would be cost prohibitive. 

Therefore, Qwest respectfully denies your request for PC111303-01, Allow Multiple Bans per Product, per State, due to economic infeasibility. 

Sincerely, 

Sue Kriebel 

Manager Process Management 

Qwest 

CC: 



Loretta Huff 

Beth Foster 

Kit Thomte 

Judy Schultz 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC111303-1 


Attachment D


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC111903-1 Website for Event Notifiers Evaluation Wholesale ProdProc pre-ordering 

1/21/04 

provisioning 

ordering billing 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


AT&T and other CLECs desire Qwest to provide a website listing all Event Notifiers that have been submitted by Qwest for the past 90 days. This 

website will provide, at a minimum, the event number, description of event, date submitted, system used with version number, status (i.e. pending 

analysis, closed, initial, etc), severity level, and region effected. AT&T further requests that the description be complete enough to enable a CLEC 

to search any field by product, date, and trouble type. AT&T also requests that the website would have the functionality so that CLECs could sort 

by column, however, internal analysis management would be up to each individual CLEC. 


By January 2004, AT&T expects the following deliverable: A website listing all Event Notifiers sent by Qwest for the past 90 days. The website will 

provide, at a minimum: 1) event number; 2) complete description of event; 3) date submitted; 4) system type with Version number; 5) status; 6) 

severity level; and 7) region effected. 


____________________________________________________ 


Kit Thomte – Qwest advised that this CR was talked about Tuesday during the Global Action Item meeting. This CR was updated with the new 

title and description. Carla Pardee – ATT advised they would like to keep the old CR open and use the new CR description and title to open a 

different/new CR. Cindy Macy – Qwest asked if ATT would like to have the new CR clarified or had this happened during the Global Action Item 

meeting. Carla advised she would like Qwest to hold a Clarification Call for the new CR. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________ 

11/19/03: CR Received (CR came in on 11/12 but ATT was not sure if they wanted to update existing CR PC022703-9 or create new one. During 

Nov 19 CMP meeting ATT advised they would like to open new CR and agreed for Qwest to accept CR and schedule clarification call. 

11/21/03: Acknowledge CR 

11/24/03: Scheduled Clarification Call for 12/4 

12/4/03: Held clarification call 

12/17/03 - December CMP notes will be posted to the database 




Pardee, Carla 


Connie Winston – Qwest advised this CR also did not get approved as of yet. We are working on this and should have an update soon. This CR 

will remain in Evaluation Status. 

_______________________________________________________________ 

January 21, 2004 CMP Meeting 

Connie Winston – Qwest advised this is the CR that was opened as part of the Global Action Item meetings. The work is not scheduled as of yet. 

Carla Pardee-ATT asked when is this planned for scheduling. Connie advised she does not have a definite date as of yet but hopes to have a 

schedule in February. Liz confirmed that this report would look like a spreadsheet of the Event Notification Report. Connie agreed. Liz asked 

about the additional details and root cause analysis information that was discussed. Connie advised we did not agree to provide that information. 

That information would be very labor intensive to provide. Liz advised it would be helpful to know what the problem was. Carla agreed that more 

detail is better. Bonnie said they want to know what made it break, how did we stop it (work around), and what is going to fix it going forward. 

Connie said that it takes a lot of over head to put together that level of detailed information on the event notification. The CLECs asked if Qwest 

looks at the reject code to find out if multiple CLECs are impacted. Connie advised Qwest does this, and looks at the global picture and 

sometimes the data does show a different perspective. This CR will move to Evaluation Status. 

__________________________________________________________________ 

December 17 CMP Meeting 

Carla Pardee – ATT presented this CR. Connie Winston – Qwest advised that this CR is related to the Global Action Item meetings and was 

opened as a result of PC022703-9X. This CR will move to Presented Status. 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

Clarification Call 

PC111903-1 Website for Event Notifiers 


11: 00 – 11:30 a.m. MT 


Owen, Randy 

Macy, Cindy 


Report Name: 


AT&T 




CR # 

10 


Impacted 

PC111903-1 


Attachment D

Attendees: 

Jim Recker – Qwest 

Kim Isaacs – Eschelon 

Kyle Kirves – Qwest 

Steph Prull – Eschelon 

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon 


Randy Owen – Qwest 

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and clarified for the users that this CR was opened as a result of decisions made at the Global Action Item 

meeting. PC022703-9X originally requested similar functionality, but through the Global Action Item meetings agreement was reached that a new 

CR would be opened (PC111903-1). 

Carla Pardee - ATT reviewed the CR. Carla described the functionality that ATT is looking for. A website that displays all event notification, with 

event number, complete description of event, date submitted, system type and version number, status, severity level and region affected. 

The CR also states that this website would display event notifications that have been submitted in the past 90 days. The team clarified the better 

way to display event notifications is to make them available for 30 days after they have been implemented. The clock would start when they are 

implemented. 

Kim Isaacs – Eschelon asked if the description included the work around information. Randy Owen said they should be able to include this in the 

description, or include it as a field on the report. The plan is to use the event notification form. There may be an issue to the amount of space 

available on the web site. The original event notification is always available to view the work around information. 

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon suggested we show a field work around ‘yes or no’ and then if yes is populated you could view the work around 

information on the original event notification. 

Discussion took place regarding sorting by system. Randy Owen – Qwest advised that system is a separate field on the event notification, so you 

should be able to sort by that field on the report. Sort functionality would be provided so users could sort by any specific field. 

The CLECs asked on average how many event notifications are there in a 30 day period? Randy estimated at less than 30 and greater than 10. 

Steph Prull – Eschelon requested the ability to sort by ‘individual version’. For example, if an event impacted multiple versions, to list the versions 

individually so the CLECs could view events by version. If a CLECs wanted to see all events that affect V13, they could sort by individual version. 

The team agreed the right personnel were involved and that Qwest understood the CLECs expectations. This CR impacts all products and any 

area that an event notification could be issued on. 

Next steps are for this CR to be presented by ATT at the December CMP meeting. Qwest will prepare a response at the January CMP meeting. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________ 


Kit Thomte – Qwest advised that this CR was talked about Tuesday during the Global Action Item meeting. This CR was updated with the new 

title and description. Carla Pardee – ATT advised they would like to keep the old CR open and use the new CR description and title to open a 

different/new CR. Cindy Macy – Qwest asked if ATT would like to have the new CR clarified or had this happened during the Global Action Item 

meeting. Carla advised she would like Qwest to hold a Clarification Call for the new CR. 


For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the January 21, 2003 CMP Meeting 

January 14, 2003 

AT&T 

Carla Dickinson Pardee 

LSAM Manager 

SUBJECT: CR # PC111903-1 Web site for Event Notifier 

This letter is in response to AT&T’s Change Request (CR) PC111903-1. This CR requests that 

Qwest provide a web site for Event Notifiers. 

Qwest understands the requested change and the enhancements are under evaluation. Qwest will move this CR to Evaluation status. 

Sincerely, 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC111903-1 


Attachment D




Report Name: 



CR # 

PC111903-1 


Attachment D


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC112003-1 Differentiate between Loop-MUX combos 

and EELs due to different FCC treatment 

(TRO Order) 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Seperately identify LMCs and EELs on bills 


Wholesale ProdProc Billing, EEL (UNE-C), Loop 

MUX Combo 



11/24/03 - Spoke with Morgan Halliday, he will call back & schedule clarification meeting 

12/01/03 - Clarification Meeting scheduled 12/4 




02/17/04 - Qwest issued PROD.02.17.04.F.01369.EEL_V25, Level 1 effective 2/18/04, provides download in billing section w/ EEL/LMC Class of 

Service and EEL USOCs 

02/17/04 - Qwest issued PROD.02.17.04.F.01371.LMC_V21, Level 1 effective 2/18/04, provides download in billing section w/ EEL/LMC Class of 

Service and LMC USOCs 




Finley, Pat 



PC112003-1 


1-877-572-8687, Conference ID 3393947# 



Tom Hyde - Cbeyond 

Kathy Stichter - Eschelon 

Kim Isaacs - Eschelon 

Rodney Johnson - SBC 

Pat Finley - Qwest 

Robyn Libadia - Qwest 

Gayla Samarripa - Qwest 

Sami Hooper - Qwest 

Jennifer Fisher - Qwest 

Susie Johnson - Qwest 

Sue Kriebel - Qwest 

Peggy Esquibel-Reed - Qwest 

Lynn Stecklein - Qwest 


Evaluation 

1/21/04 


The meeting began with Qwest making introductions and welcoming all attendees. Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest explained that the purpose 

of the meeting was to discuss CR PC112003-1 agenda topics: 

- Qwest will not establish separate Class of Service for EEL & LMC 

- Qwest assigning interstate Classes of Service on new EEL/LMC requests 

- Determine if EEL/LMC services established as new connect or conversion 

- Jurisdiction of EEL/LMC 

- EEL/LMC XUMAX Interstate, UBNWN Intrastate Rates 

- PCAT updates 

The following is the write-up of the discussions and action items from the working session. 


Cbeyond Communications 


Impacted 

- Qwest will not establish separate Class of Service for EEL & LMC. Pat Finley with Qwest explained that separate classes of service will not be 

provided for EEL and LMC. Qwest has developed the TRAK FID on the CSR which identifies EELs and LMC circuits. Pat added that Qwest will 

not count LMCs in the calculation of LIS trunking to EEL ratio. 

- Qwest assigning interstate Classes of Service on new EEL/LMC requests. Pat Finley said that Qwest did have a deviation from the process and 


Report Name: 



CR # 

11 

PC112003-1 


Attachment D

orders for the conversion were issued with Interstate classes of service. Additional training has been provided to the center and the center is in the 

process or writing orders to correct. Tom Hyde with Cbeyond said that he is concerned that UNE billing deviates from Telcordia standards with 

respect to USOCs. Pat said the EEL and LMC PCATs have been updated to include a download of USOCs for interstate and intrastate. Tom said 

that he has not reviewed the PCAT. Sami Hooper with Qwest said that the Chan Term is the same as special access but has a unique class of 

service and ZCID. Tom Hyde said that the rate is driven by the ZCID. Sami said that the rate is driven by class of service, USOC and the 

company code or ZSID makes the rate unique. Tom said he is concerned that class of service is irrelevant to billing of basic Chan Term which is 

a finished service. Pat said that the company code makes rating unique and several UNEs borrow retail USOCs. The interconnection agreement 

provides rates. Tom said he was concerned that the PCAT will be ambiguous, an audit of billing will provide different information and the only 

method to audit is a manual method. The interoffice mileage and fixed charges are charged incorrectly. Pat said the USOC definitions will be the 

same and this is not unique to LMC and EEL. The rating is done per the interconnection agreement. Susie Johnson said that Gia is correcting the 

incorrectly billed multiple fixed mileage charges. 

- Determine if EEL/LMC services established as new connect or conversion. Tom said that Qwest has asked him to identify which were new 

connect circuits and which were converted circuits and that everything was being assigned Interstate. Pat said that Qwest knows how the services 

were established, either new connect or conversion. 

- Jurisdiction of EEL/LMC. Pat Finley said that 14 circuits have the incorrect circuit ID and are being corrected via record orders. 

- EEL/LMC XUMAX Interstate, UBNWN Intrastate Rates. Pat Finley said that Qwest has no plans to charge a higher rate for interstate vs. 

intrastate and UNE’s are billed at TELRIC. Tom Hyde said he doesn’t care for CRIS billing for UNE-P, that it was probably ok a couple years ago 

and is causing grief because of the lack of consistency and manual work involved to audit bills. CRIS billing is not part of CMP CR PC112003-1 

and was not discussed further. 

- PCAT updates. Pat Finley said the PCAT was updated and provides a download to map USOCs and class of service. Tom said he has not 

reviewed the changes made to the PCAT. Pat said that the combination of USOCs are unique. Sami said that is correct and the PCAT identifies 

the nonrecurring USOCs and the FID identifies if EEL or LMC. LMC has no mileage. Tom said that the bill will subtract LMC mileage and it was 

billed in error, identified in manual audit. Pat said that if orders are issued correctly the ZCID, etc. drives billing. Pat explained that establishing a 

new unique classes of service for LMC is cost prohibitive due to the conversion required to the embedded base. Tom said that a new USOC can’t 

be cost prohibitive. Tom added that the circuit ID is being corrected and has helped. 

There were no additional questions and Linda said that meeting minutes would be provided in the body of the change request. 

_______________________ 


Pat Finley with Qwest said the examples Cbeyond provided following the January meeting were examples of circuits with jurisdiction based on the 

class of service. There were hundreds of circuits converted correctly via record orders and the 10 circuits provided as examples were issued 

incorrectly, and required record orders to fix. Pat explained that the PCATs for EEL and LMC were updated and now contains a downloadable list 

of USOCs for interstate and intrastate. The USOC list, combined with the TRAK FID on the CSR differentiates LMC and EEL and there is no need 

to establish separate classes of service. The work associated with establishing separate classes of service is prohibitive because of the 

conversion to the embedded base. 

Pat said that the e-mail received from Stephan Calhoun on 1/22/04, confuses the request with other CRs requesting billing changes and believe 

that this CR can be closed. 

Stephan Calhoun with Cbeyond said the PCAT updates are appreciated and that he was only able to review the Qwest response on this CR 

yesterday. Stephan said he has concerns with the 2/3/04 Qwest response and asked that Pat read through the response. 

Pat read the draft response. Stephan said that his understanding is that usually classes of service define the product but not the jurisdiction. Pat 

disagreed saying that the jurisdiction of many Qwest products is identified by class of service. 

Stephan also said that interstate class of service was assigned to conversion orders that were issued last year, are also being assigned on new 

requests for EEL and LMCE. Pat said that the interstate EEL and LMC classes of service are only used to convert to Special Access circuits. 

Stephan said that he doesn’t understand the reason UMX was changed to new EEL and LMC. Cbeyond has not made any changes in the way the 

services were ordered. Pat Finley said that interstate was only used for conversion orders only. 

Stephan said that Cbeyond is concerned that billing doesn’t support the Qwest response. The billing department was not able to identify what was 

converted and what was a new order. There seems to be a disconnect with the policy and what is actually done. Pat explained that the Billing 

Center is able to access history information on the services, and to tell what is new and what was converted. Stephen said that the billing 

manager, service manager and process manager were unable to determine and planned to contact the product manager. Stephan has provided 

examples to their service manager. 

Stephan is also concerned that the recurring interstate and intrastate EEL do not bill the same as UNE. Pat said that PLT has different rates and 

is a finished service. Interstate and intrastate EEL and LMC are billed the same recurring rates. Stephan said LMC jurisdiction is based on FCC 

definition and doesn’t seem to fit. Stephan said the concern is not the rate itself, but the rate elements, and asked what would keep Qwest from 

applying different rates to interstate and intrastate. Pat asked if the concern is that Qwest may raise UNE rates that are interstate. Pat explained 

that Qwest is obligated to make these UNEs available to CLECs at TELRIC rates. 

Judy Schultz with Qwest said there are many concerns with this CR and suggested that an ad hoc meeting be scheduled to discuss. This CR will 

remain in Evaluation status. 

___________________________ 

Thu 1/22/04 3:41 PM 

From; Stephan Calhoun [Stephan.Calhoun@cbeyond.net] 

To: Sanchez Steinke, Linda, Finley, Pat J 

cc; Morgan Halliday, Tom Hyde 

Subject; RE: Qwest Draft Response PC112003-1 (Differentiate LMC from EEL) - Cbeyond Response 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC112003-1 


Attachment D

Linda/Pat, 

I apologize for not getting this to you prior to yesterday's call. I got 

wrapped up in some other Qwest CRs that we received responses to at the 

same time. It appears that Qwest has addressed the regulatory concerns 

raised by the TRO in its response to this CR. Unfortunately, the billing 

implications on this CR appear to have been forgotten. Cbeyond has 3 

specific concerns to Qwest's response: 

1. Providing fields on the CSR for services that are billed in CRIS is 

not the same as for services billed in IABS. In the CRIS system, the 

CSR is not part of the bill. The CSR is provided as a separate file 

that is not in the same format as the invoice and is also not an 

OBF/industry standard format. Even this is a bit of a misnomer, the CSR 

is actually a collection of files per subaccount on an invoice. If an 

invoice has 2,000, the CSR is actually comprised of 2,000+ files. This 

is a partial explanation of why Cbeyond considers the delivery of 

information on the CSR as insufficient in addressing the billing concern 

of this CR. 

2. Qwest has demonstrated through reports from the billing group 

(because Qwest doesn't actually put the class of service on the bill), 

that it uses or appears to use 2 different classes of service and thus 2 

different sets of USOCs for the same bandwidth level, product, and 

jurisdiction as it applies to EELs and LMCs. Please find the attached 

examples. 

3. An even broader concern, and perhaps the subject of another CR, is 

that Qwest has failed to map the USOCs & Classes of Service that it 

bills for LMCs & EELs to a product. Conversely, the PCATs for LMCs and 

EELs do not define the classes of service or USOCs to be applied to the 

elements that define each product. Obviously, Qwest has this defined 

somewhere in their system, but has failed to publish it to the CLEC 

community. 

Again, I apologize if my comments caught you off guard as that was truly 

not my intent. I only saw the Qwest response the morning of the call and 

grew very concerned about what the response did not address. 

Sincerely, 

Stephan 

___________________ 


Pat Finley with Qwest said that Qwest held the Clarification meeting on 12/4/03 and that Qwest had sent an e-mail to Morgan Halliday stating that 

Qwest does not count EELs in the LMC ratio to LIS trunking. Pat reviewed the Qwest response and said that we will not establish unique classes 

of service for EELs and LMCs and that Qwest has created a way to distinguish EEL and LMC for the TRO by using TRAK FID. The TRAK FID 

information is available for CLECs on the CSR. Pat said that Qwest needed to distinguish between EELs and LMCs and has no intention of 

counting LMCs in the LIS trunking ratio. 

Stephen Calhoun with Cbeyond said he is confused by the response because in December he received one answer and then in January received 

another answer. The CSR is not part of the bill and is not populating the difference between EEL and LMC on the bill. It is a different process to 

view the CSR as opposed to looking at the bill. The Cbeyond concern is based on reports received from the billing team where LMCs and EELs 

have different classes of service and USOCs. LMCS or EELs could be either class of service. Stephen will provide examples. 

Pat Finley said there are 12 classes of service and they vary according to whether service is intrastate or interstate and the bandwidth requested. 

Stephen said these are brand new DS1 level, local installs and they have different classes of service assigned. In addition, when reviewing the 

PCAT there is a lack of documentation because LMC and EEL have no USOC mapping available to see the classes of service. Bonnie Johnson 

said that in reconciling bills, Qwest provides data is in so many different places, and there is a general concern that bills don’t provide enough 

detail to reconcile. (Begin comment from Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon) Bonnie said all of her personnel vendor bills contain the detail you need to 

know what you are paying for. (end comment). Carla Pardee with AT&T and Liz Balvin with MCI said they agree with Bonnie’s comments. This 

CR will move to Evaluation status. 

_____________________ 

Mon 1/5/04 1:12 PM 

From; Linda Sanchez-Steinke 

To; 'tom.hyde@cbeyond.net' 

cc: Pat Finley 

Subject; Change Request PC112003-1 

Tom - 

The attached e-mail was sent to Morgan Halliday 

a couple of weeks ago regarding 

change request PC112003-1, titled "Differentiate between 

Loop-MUX combos and EELs due to different FCC 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC112003-1 


Attachment D

treatment (TRO Order)". I realize 

that with the holidays Cbeyond may not have had 

an opportunity to respond. 

Would you please let me know if Pat Finley's attached e-mail 

provides the information needed to resolve the 

change request or if the change request is still needed. 

Thank you 


Change Request Project Manager 

Qwest 

303-382-5768 

-----Original Message----- 

From: Finley, Pat J 

Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 4:43 PM 

To: 'morgan.halliday@cbeyond.net' 

Cc: Sanchez Steinke, Linda; Libadia, Robyn; Romano, Anthony 

Subject: Qwest's response to PC112003 

Mr. Halliday, I wanted to provide you a formal response to the primary concerns you raised on the clarification call we had on December 4, 2003, 

for the Change Request titled "Differentiate between Loop-MUX combos and EELs due to different FCC treatment (TRO Order)." 

You asked that Qwest provide you in writing, assurances that we will not count Loop-MUX combinations (LMCs) in the calculation of LIS trunking to 

EEL ratio, to determine service eligibility. Please consider this written confirmation, that Qwest has no intention of counting LMCs in the 

calculation of the LIS trunking to EEL ratio as specified in the service eligibility criteria of the Triennial Review Order. 

We hope this satisfies your request. Please contact me at 303 896-8466, if you have any questions. 

_____________________________ 


Cbeyond presented this CR and said Cbeyond would like to be able to differentiate LMX and EELs class of service on billing invoices. Liz Balvin 

with MCI asked how they come on the bills today. Stephen Calhoun said that Qwest provides Cbeyond additional information on a spreadsheet to 

help differentiate, and Qwest does not have the ability to separate LMX and EEL class of service. Jamal Boudhaouia with Qwest asked if Cbeyond 

orders LMX by itself, or if it is part of the whole circuit being provisioned. Stephen Calhoun said there are definite differences and if look at two 

DS1’s there is no differentiation between LMX and EEL and there are many implications, TRO order, Performance Management Plan, Regulatory 

side and billing. Jamal asked if the CR is based on the TRO order and if Cbeyond is asking for differentiation between the classes of service 

because of TRO implications. Judy Schultz with Qwest said that we may need another clarification meeting to get clear what the CR is 

requesting. Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon said that she was at the clarification meeting and felt that the CR request was clear. Kit Thomte said 

that Pat Finley the SME was not on the call and Kit felt that the discussion wasn’t helpful if she was not involved in the discussion. This CR will 

move to Presented status. 

_____________________________ 

Tue 12/16/03 4:43 PM 

From; Pat Finley 

To; 'morgan.halliday@cbeyond.net' 

cc: Sanchez Steinke, Linda; Libadia, Robyn; Romano, Anthony 

Subject; Qwest's response to PC112003 

Mr. Halliday, I wanted to provide you a formal response to the primary concerns you raised on the clarification call we had on December 4, 2003, 

for the Change Request titled "Differentiate between Loop-MUX combos and EELs due to different FCC treatment (TRO Order)." 

You asked that Qwest provide you in writing, assurances that we will not count Loop-MUX combinations (LMCs) in the calculation of LIS trunking to 

EEL ratio, to determine service eligibility. Please consider this written confirmation, that Qwest has no intention of counting LMCs in the 

calculation of the LIS trunking to EEL ratio as specified in the service eligibility criteria of the Triennial Review Order. 

We hope this satisfies your request. Please contact me at 303 896-8466, if you have any questions. 

_____________________________ 



2:00 p.m. (MDT) / Thursday December 4, 2003 

1-877-572-8687 

3393947# 

PC112003-1 Differentiate between Loop-MUX combos and EELs due to different FCC treatment (TRO Order) 

Name/Company: 

Morgan Halliday, Cbeyond 

Tom Hyde, Cbeyond 

Stephen Calhoun, Cbeyond 

Kim Isaccs, Eschelon 


Pat Finley, Qwest 

Carl Sear, Qwest 

Tony Romano, Qwest 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC112003-1 


Attachment D

Paul Johnson, Qwest 




Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest read the description of change from the submitted change request; Seperately identify LMCs and EELs on 

bills. 

Tom Hyde with Cbeyond said that the primary part of the TRO is the ratio of, or test for EELs (high cap) to LIS trunking with the new service 

eligibility criteria. Since Qwest uses the same classes of services and USOCs for EELs and LMCs as are used for PLTS. Pat Finley with Qwest 

clarified that the TRO ratio is the number of interconnection trunks to EELs, however LMCs (Loop Mux Combinations) are excluded from the ratio 

requirement. Tom answered that Cbeyond would be satisfied if Qwest will acknowledge in writing that LMC is to be excluded from the service 

eligibility criteria (safe harbor), and therefore would be excluded from the LIS trunking to EEL ratio, that would satisfy Cbeyond’s concern. 

In the CPAP Qwest is lumping EELs and LMCs together. Tom said that Qwest is the only ILEC that has EELs and LMCs under the same class of 

service. 


Loop Mux Combo and EEL billing 


Correct Qwest personnel were involved in the clarification meeting 


Extablish different class of service for LMCs and EELs 




Cbeyond will present this CR at the December CMP meeting. Qwest will provide a response in January 2004. 




For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the February 2004 CMP Meeting 

Morgan Halliday 

Cbeyond Communications, LLC 

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Draft Response - PC112003-1 

"Differentiate between Loop-MUX combos and EELs due to different FCC treatment (TRO Order)" 

This letter is in response to the CLEC Change Request PC112003-1, that requests LMC (Loop Mux Combination) be assigned a unique class of 

service, to separately identify LMC from EEL (Enhanced Extended Loop) due to requirements in the Triennial Review Order (the Order). 

Qwest will not establish a separate class of service for LMC. Qwest will provide a link to a downloadable document in both the EEL and LMC 

PCATs that will identify USOCs that are utilized with XUMAX and UBNWN classes of service. This action will enable our customers to map 

EEL/LMC classes of service to USOCs for billing. The estimated costs to establish a separate class of service for LMC and convert the embedded 

base are considerable. Establishing a separate LMC class of service will not solve all of the billing issues Cbeyond has raised in subsequent 

meetings on this Change Request. 

In the email Mr. Calhoun sent to Qwest dated 1-22-2004, he listed examples of EEL and LMC circuits that have two different classes of service 

(interstate and intrastate) with two different sets of USOCs for the same bandwidth, product and jurisdiction. When Cbeyond’s PLT (Private Line 

Transport) circuits were converted to either EEL or LMC, the jurisdiction, circuit id, and billing USOCs remained the same as when billed and 

provisioned as PLT circuits. To prevent service interruptions during the conversion, the class of service on the PLT record is converted to the 

EEL/LMC equivalent. There is no difference in recurring billing between the inter- and intrastate EEL/LMC classes of service and USOCs. The 

use of both retail and EEL/LMC product specific USOCs is explained in detail in the LMC and EEL PCATs. 

In addition to the downloadable spreadsheet we will make available in the PCATs, we have established the TRAK FID and datasets that allow you 

and Qwest to differentiate between LMC and EEL. With this differentiation, Qwest will not include LMC circuits in your LIS to EEL ratio 

requirements per the Order service eligibility requirements. We believe these actions will address your specific concerns with billing associated 

with EEL and LMC. Your other pending change requests will help resolve the other issues you have raised with Qwest’s bills. 

Sincerely, 

Pat Finley 

Product Manager 

_____________________ 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC112003-1 


Attachment D



For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the January 2004 CMP Meeting 

Morgan Halliday 

Cbeyond Communications, LLC 


"Differentiate between Loop-MUX combos and EELs due to different FCC treatment (TRO Order)" 

This letter is in response to the CLEC Change Request PC 112003-1, that requests EELs (Enhanced Extended Loops) and LMCs (Loop Mux 

Combinations) be assigned unique classes of service, to separately identify the services due to requirements of the Triennial Review Order (the 

Order). 

Qwest has researched this issue, and we will not be establishing separate classes of service and USOCs (Universal Service Order Codes) for 

EELs and LMCs. We have however, provided a method for you to validate, or identify EEL from LMC circuits, by using a FID (Field Identifier) 

called TRAK, which is a tracking code. If the circuit is an EEL, the dataset, or entry following TRAK FID on the CSR (Customer Service Record) 

will be IEEL. This entry will be shown following the class of service on the CSR. LMC circuits will be identified by the dataset ILMC after the TRAK 

FID. This information has been added to all EEL and LMC accounts in our embedded base, and it is a required service order entry on new EEL 

and LMC requests. We are able to produce reports that display the information, and we are working on producing reports from our order 

processing system to ensure the entries are appropriately made, when required. We are confident that this will allow us to validate the 24-to-1 

EEL to interconnection trunk ratio specified in the Order (paragraph 608). Please recall that the Order provides for tests based on the service 

eligibility criteria conducted by an independent auditor to insure that high capacity combinations such as DS1 and DS3 EELs are used for local 

voice service. 

As noted in the Order, if Qwest requests an audit, the independent auditor will evaluate compliance with the service eligibility criteria. The 

compliance testing will be designed by the independent auditor, and Qwest will provide all documentation requested to satisfy standard auditing 

principles. The independent auditor will perform an "examination engagement", and issue an opinion regarding Qwest’s and the CLECs 

compliance with the service eligibility criteria (paragraph 626). 

Sincerely, 

Patricia J. Finley 


Qwest Communications, Inc. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC112003-1 


Attachment D


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC120803-1 Associated Move Orders Evaluation Wholesale ProdProc Billing, 

2/18/04 

Maintenance/Rep 

air, Provisioning 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Revised Description of Change 02-03-04 

UNE, UNE-P, 

Resale, Unbundled 

Loops, Products 

When a CLEC submits a move order (M) Qwest creates two orders, a to (T) and from (F) order. The problem resides in the fact that these orders 

are associated with each other but no action is taken when the T order is placed in jeopardy and the F order is not stopped. Clarification calls with 

Qwest has indicated that the F order is "always" worked prior to the T order. This process is a guarantee that the customer will be taken out of 

service prior to the T order being completed regardless of jeopardy, and the jeopardy will cause the the customer to be out of service for a longer 

period of time. When Qwest works the T order and the technician determines that the order cannot be completed as expected (either jeopardized 

for some reason or there is no access to the new site) there is no electronic/mechanical means of associating the T order to the F order. Some 

scenarios are: 

1) customer has X number of TN's and is moving within a building and retaining the same TN's. 

2) customer has X number of TN's is moving to another building within the same rate center and retaining the same TN's. 

3) Customer has X number of TN's and is moving within the same rate center but does not want to keep all of the TN's. 

4) customer has X number of TN's and is moving and wants to change TN's and have a forwarding message on the old TN's. 

In each of these instances the customer is taken out of service with the creation of the two orders and the F order being worked, or batched, prior 

to the T order being completed. Since it is a Qwest process to create two orders it would be Qwest responsibility to ensure a process that would 

prevent taking the customer out of service. 

Revised Expected Deliverable (02-03-04): 

That no customer would be taken out of service on any move order. 

Original Description of Change (12-08-03): 

When a CLEC submits a move order (M) Qwest creates two orders, a to (T) and from (F) order. The problem resides in the fact that these orders 

are not associated as related orders. It is an industry standard that related orders be associated in the RORD field in an effort to ensure that 

service is not interrupted. When Qwest works the T order and the technician determines that the order cannot be completed as expected (either 

jeopardized for some reason or there is no access to the new site) there is not electronic/mechanical means of associating the T order to the F 

order. Since these orders are not associated as RORD the F order is completed and the customer is taken out of service resulting in a disconnect 

in error. 

Original Expected Deliverable (12-08-03): 

Expected Deliverable: Processes be changed to associate all T&F orders to each other. That systems be modified to ensure that if a related T 

order is jeopardized that the F order is automatically placed in a jep status and the work to disconnect the order is stopped. Expected result will 

reduce, if not eliminate, disconnects in error because of a jeopardized T order. In the month of November AT&T had 10 disconnects in error 

because of jeopardized T orders. In the event the F order is completed before the T order on the due date and the T order is jepped, Qwest should 

immediately re-instate the service in an effort to prevent an out of service condition . 






12/26/03 - Changed title of CR to Associated Move Orders 


01/28/04 - Held second Clarification Meeting 

02/03/04 - Change request revised by AT&T, see description of change and expected deliverable 



03/05/04 - Qwest sent PROS.03.05.04.F.01462.NetCommCallCustRec.doc 


Schultz, Judy 

Adkisson, Ann B. 

Davis, Qiana 



Report Name: 


AT&T 




CR # 

12 


Impacted 

PC120803-1 


Attachment D


Qiana Davis with Qwest reviewed the draft response and said that AT&T had revised the CR on 2/3/04 and that Qwest is evaluating the 

modifications and require additional time to respond to the CR. Qiana added that Qwest would provide an update in March. Carla Pardee with 

AT&T said AT&T had determined that a process does exist, however AT&T has had several examples where the orders are disconnected. Carla 

also said they have been working with their service management team on this issue as well. Qwest will provide an update in March. This CR will 

be moved to Evaluation status. 

_______________________ 



2:30 p.m. (MDT) / Friday February 6, 2004 

1-877-572-8687 

3393947# 


Name/Company: 

Ann Adkisson, AT&T 


Ervin Rea, AT&T 

Cheryl Peterson, AT&T 

David Belanger, AT&T 

Joyce Perry, AT&T 


Mike Lanoue, Qwest 

Jerry Jenson, Qwest 

Qiana Davis, Qwest 

Pat Torkelson, Qwest 

Brenda DeFilippo, Qwest 

Doug Slominski, Qwest 

Lydell Peterson, Qwest 

Danelle Haynes, Qwest 




Review Requested Change 

Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest said that we are holding this clarification call to discuss the revisions AT&T made to the CR on 2/3/04. 

Linda read the description of change; When a CLEC submits a move order (M) Qwest creates two orders, a to (T) and from (F) order. The 

problem resides in the fact that these orders are associated with each other but no action is taken when the T order is placed in jeopardy and the F 

order is not stopped. Clarification calls with Qwest has indicated that the F order is "always" worked prior to the T order. This process is a 

guarantee that the customer will be taken out of service prior to the T order being completed regardless of jeopardy, and the jeopardy will cause 

the the customer to be out of service for a longer period of time. When Qwest works the T order and the technician determines that the order 

cannot be completed as expected (either jeopardized for some reason or there is no access to the new site) there is no electronic/mechanical 

means of associating the T order to the F order. Some scenarios are: 

1) customer has X number of TN's and is moving within a building and retaining the same TN's. 

2) customer has X number of TN's is moving to another building within the same rate center and retaining the same TN's. 

3) Customer has X number of TN's and is moving within the same rate center but does not want to keep all of the TN's. 

4) customer has X number of TN's and is moving and wants to change TN's and have a forwarding message on the old TN's. 

In each of these instances the customer is taken out of service with the creation of the two orders and the F order being worked, or batched, prior 

to the T order being completed. Since it is a Qwest process to create two orders it would be Qwest responsibility to ensure a process that would 

prevent taking the customer out of service. 

Expected Deliverable: That no customer would be taken out of service on any move order. 

Ervin Rea with AT&T said that this CR was revised as a result of the CMP clarification meeting 1/28/04 and the CMP meeting 1/21/04. If Qwest 

always works the F order first and if the F order is in a batch that is disconnected shortly after midnight on the due date then the business 

customer is always going to be out of service. Additionally, if there is a jep on the T order, then the business customer will be out of service for an 

extended amount of time. 

Cheryl Peterson with AT&T said that when she did a search on the Qwest web site, searching for “Move” she found three processes that say the F 

order is due the day after the due date of the T. The port within process 

http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/downloads/2003/030513/DNLD_PortWithin_Process10_05-13-03.doc 

Cheryl asked if there is an existing ordering process in place, would there be a need for a CR. Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest said that she 

was not sure if a CR would be required for adherence of the process and would take the question back. 

Ervin said that he would still want to have adherence to the process through Service Management. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC120803-1 


Attachment D

Jim Recker with Qwest asked if we find the process is correct would that satisfy the request. Ervin said no it would not satisfy the request. The 

process should say that there should not be a disconnect of the F location. 


Primarily UNE-P and POTS Residence and Business. Other products include Resale, Unbundled Loops and any products T&F orders are issued 

for when there is a move and there is a jeopardy situation. 




Expected Deliverable: That no customer would be taken out of service on any move order. 



Establish Action Plan 

This CR will be discussed at the February 18, 2004 CMP Meeting 

_______________________ 

Tue 2/3/04 11:46 AM 

From: Pardee, Carla D, NKLAM [cdickinson@att.com] 


cc: Rea, Ervin E, NKLAM, Adkisson, Ann B, NKLAM, Perry, Joyce M, NKLAM, Peterson, Cheryl J, NKLAM, Peterson, Lydell 

Subject: Amended PC 120803-1 

Linda - per the Audix I left you a few minutes ago, please find the amended language to PC 120803-1. AT&T would like to set up another meeting 

to discuss this, at your earliest convenience - if possible this Friday, or early next week. I know we discussed submitting a new CR, but AT&T 

prefers to amend the language so that we don't lose any additional time resolving and implementing this CR. Please feel free to call me at 303- 

647-2234 if we need to discuss further. As usual, thanks for your assistance and help with this change request! 

_______________________ 



8:30 a.m. (MDT) / Wednesday January 28, 2004 

1-877-572-8687 

3393947# 


Name/Company: 



Irvin Rea, AT&T 

Sheryl Peterson, AT&T 

David Belanger, AT&T 



Mike Lanoue, Qwest 

Jerry Jenson, Qwest 

Jeanette Barns, Qwest 

Qiana Davis, Qwest 

Kit Thomte, Qwest 

Pat Torkelson, Qwest 

Brenda DeFilippo, Qwest 





Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest said that we are holding a second clarification call to discuss this CR and the CR may be amended as a result 

of this clarification meeting. 

Linda read the description of change; When a CLEC submits a move order (M) Qwest creates two orders, a to (T) and from (F) order. The 

problem resides in the fact that these orders are not associated as related orders. It is an industry standard that related orders be associated in 

the RORD field in an effort to ensure that service is not interrupted. When Qwest works the T order and the technician determines that the order 

cannot be completed as expected (either jeopardized for some reason or there is no access to the new site) there is not electronic/mechanical 

means of associating the T order to the F order. Since these orders are not associated as RORD the F order is completed and the customer is 

taken out of service resulting in a disconnect in error. 

Expected Deliverable: Processes be changed to associate all T&F orders to each other. That systems be modified to ensure that if a related T 

order is jeopardized that the F order is automatically placed in a jep status and the work to disconnect the order is stopped. Expected result will 

reduce, if not eliminate, disconnects in error because of a jeopardized T order. In the month of November AT&T had 10 disconnects in error 

because of jeopardized T orders. In the event the F order is completed before the T order on the due date and the T order is jepped, Qwest should 

immediately re-instate the service in an effort to prevent an out of service condition. 

David Belanger with AT&T said the description of change sounds like what the UNE-P group is looking for and if Qwest relates the T&F orders the 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC120803-1 


Attachment D

issue will be resolved. 

Irvin Rea with AT&T said that the problem is the two orders are not related beyond creation of the orders. Joyce Perry with AT&T said the problem 

is that Qwest works the F order around mid-might before the T order is worked. AT&T wants the T order worked first, then if the T is jeoped the F 

be jeoped at the same time. Irvin clarified that AT&T doesn’t want the F order worked until the T order is completed. 

Brenda DeFilippo with Qwest asked if the T & F orders have different phone numbers. AT&T said that in some cases there would be different 

phone numbers. 

David Belanger said the T order must complete when worked before the F order and then the F order should have 24 hours to complete. 

Sheryl Peterson with AT&T asked her group if they really understand the process. 

Mike Lanoue with Qwest gave examples of different types of orders 1) if in same central office, same telephone number same wire center 2) in 

different central office, different telephone number 

Irvin said if the CLEC issues a move order, RORD has to be filled out by Qwest 

Qiana Davis with Qwest asked if the only type of orders that we would be concerned with were move orders and the activity of T. Irvin answered 

yes. 

Qiana asked if the orders are residence or business accounts and if the business is still located at the from address. Irvin said both Business and 

Residence. David Belanger said that the business is not always still located at the old address and sometimes someone goes back to the old 

address to answer phones. Qiana asked if the T order is jeoped would remote call forwarding help the situation. Irvin answered that partial remote 

call forwarding and David added that the disconnect recording is played. 

Sheryl Peterson with AT&T asked if the normal Qwest process was to batch down stream the orders worked at night. Sheryl clarified her question 

and said not batch as CLEC sending volumes, but talking about on due date working in the appropriate central offices. Jim Recker said that if 

frame due time is not requested, the F will be worked shortly after midnight on the due date. 

Brenda DeFilippo with Qwest said if T&F and the same TN, those are worked together. If T&F with different TN then the F comes through as 

disconnect. 

Irvin said that when issuing a move order with action of T, then create 2 orders, the F order should have a disconnect date of the day after the T is 

due. 

Brenda asked if same TN at different location. Jeanette Barns asked if the customer has vacated the location. 

AT&T had further discussion on whether or not all the products with scenarios were captured in the CMP CR submitted; same TN, different TN, 

customer has already moved from location and intercept message. 

As a result of this clarification meeting, AT&T will meet internally and determine what exact change they are requesting; and identify products and 

scenarios for this change request. AT&T will either submit revisions and scenarios to this change request or submit a new change request. 


Currently CR reads: UNE-P, All POTS, Resale, Unbundled Loops and any products T&F orders are issued for when there is a move and there is a 

jeopardy situation. 







AT&T will meet internally meet determine what revisions are needed to the current CR or submit a new CR. 

_________________________ 


Ervin Rea with AT&T presented this CR and said when a CLEC submits a move order, Qwest creates two orders, an install and a disconnect. 

These two orders should be associated so that if something goes wrong with the install then the disconnect does not get worked. Ervin asked if 

the F order is worked first thing in the morning. Qiana Davis with Qwest said yes, Qwest works the disconnect order first. Ervin said that if the T is 

jeoped then AT&T wants to put the customer back in service. Qiana said that the F is worked to release the facilities. Ervin asked why the TN 

can’t be working in both locations. Qiana said that Qwest does offer Dual Service. 

Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon said that she sent an e-mail concerning when a dispatch is required on T&F orders, a technician working on the T 

order that is jeoped and the F is worked in the switch. Bonnie’s concern is connected to this CR and her service manager had called about the 

question. Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest said she did not understand that the question was related to the CR. Bonnie also said that Dual 

Service requires two different due dates (Begin comment from Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon) and that is not what we are asking for. Bonnie said 

that for example, if the ”F” side of the T&F is flow through the customers service would be disconnected at the old location after midnight on the 

due date because of the way Qwest service orders flow through the system (D’s and F’s or disconnects go first) and Qwest agreed. Then if the “T” 

side required a dispatch and the tech could not instal until 5PM on the due date, the customer could be out of service for serveral hours. (end 

comment). Jim Recker with Qwest asked if AT&T requests frame due time on their orders. Ervin said that the orders may not be designed 

services. Liz Balvin with MCI added that DFDT is desired, and is not guaranteed that disconnect will be completed at the desired time. Qiana 

asked AT&T to identify the products. Ervin said that the products are Resale, UNE-P, Unbundled Loops. 

Qwest will arrange an additional clarification meeting for additional questions and the CR may need to be modified based on the clarification 

meeting output. Mike Zulevic with Covad said that when he worked on UNE-P orders if they resided in the same central office the same person did 

the work. If there was an F in another central office, the F was worked at midnight on the due date. Bonnie said there are two pieces to the CR; 

What should be done when the T order goes into jeopardy status and what needs to be done to relate the two orders. This CR will move to 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC120803-1 


Attachment D

Presented status. 

_________________________ 

Wed 12/24/03 9:01 AM 


From: Pardee, Carla D, NKLAM [cdickinson@att.com] 

cc: Rea, Ervin E, NKLAM 

Subject: RE: PC120803-1 Move Orders Associated 

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you Linda - been getting kicked off of my computer. I believe we agreed to change it to "Associated Move 

Orders." Thanks for taking care of this. Happy Holidays 

_________________________ 


Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:15 PM 

To: Pardee, Carla D, NKLAM 

Subject: PC120803-1 Move Orders Associated 

Carla - 

During the CMP meeting did AT&T agree to change 

the name of this CR to "Associated Move Orders" 

or something different than currently titled? 

Would you let me know the title and I will 

change in the database. 

Thank you 


CRPM 

Qwest 

303-382-5768 

________________________ 

Tue 12/16/03 9:24 AM 

From; Johnson, Bonnie J. [bjjohnson@eschelon.com] 


cc: 

Subject; Question for AT&T CR 

Linda, 

Here is my question: 

As it relates to a T&F order, excluding a jeopardy on the "T" order, does 

Qwest always keep the "F" side of the order (customers service at the old 

location) working until the "T" side is installed. I would like the answer 

for tech dispatch and flow through orders that do not require a dispatch. 

It was always my understanding that the Qwest tech had the "F" order worked 

(switch) after he installed the new line at the prem Can you confirm and 

tell me how it works when there is no tech? 

I am asking the question because I hear the CLECs continue to talk about 

their customers being impacted and out of service with moves even if a 

jeopardy condition does not exist. Perhaps we could address both issues if 

there is one. 

Thanks! 

Bonnie J. Johnson 

Director Carrier Relations 

Eschelon Telecom, Inc. 

Phone 612 436-6218 

Fax 612 436-6318 

Cell 612 743-6724 

bjjohnson@eschelon.com 

________________________ 


Ervin Rea with AT&T discussed this CR and said when a CLEC submits a move order, Qwest creates a T&F order. The T order is to install at the 

new location and the F order is to disconnect at the old location. If something happens to the T order, the F order completes. When the F order 

completes, then the CLEC has to scramble to get the service back up at one of the locations. AT&T would like the T & F orders linked so that if 

anything happens to the T order then the F order is jep’d at the same time. Carla thinks there are system implications and wants this addressed 

as soon as possible to identify. Connie Winston will work with the business to see how systems are effected. _________________________ 



8:30 a.m. (MDT) / Monday December 15, 2003 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC120803-1 


Attachment D

1-877-572-8687 

3393947# 

PC120803-1 Move Orders Associated 

Name/Company: 


Patty Garnier, AT&T 


Colleen Forbes, AT&T 

Kim Isaccs, Eschelon 


P.J. Koller, Priority One Telecommunications 

Shon Higer, Qwest 





Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest read the description of change from the submitted change request; When a CLEC submits a move order (M) 

Qwest creates two orders, a to (T) and from (F) order. The problem resides in the fact that these orders are not associated as related orders. It is 

an industry standard that related orders be associated in the RORD field in an effort to ensure that service is not interrupted. When Qwest works 

the T order and the technician determines that the order cannot be completed as expected (either jeopardized for some reason or there is no 

access to the new site) there is not electronic/mechanical means of associating the T order to the F order. Since these orders are not associated 

as RORD the F order is completed and the customer is taken out of service resulting in a disconnect in error. 

Carla Pardee with AT&T & P.J. Koller with Priority One Telecommunications, discussed the products impacted would include; UNE-P, All POTS, 

Resale, Unbundled Loops and, any products where T&F orders are issued when there is a move and there is a jeopardy situation. 

Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon had a question regarding jeopardy conditions, related to dispatch of technician on T & F orders. Bonnie will e-mail 

the question to Linda Sanchez-Steinke. 


UNE-P, All POTS, Resale, Unbundled Loops and any products T&F orders are issued for when there is a move and there is a jeopardy situation. 




Linda Sanchez-Steinke read the Expected Deliverable; Processes be changed to associate all T&F orders to each other. That systems be 

modified to ensure that if a related T order is jeopardized that the F order is automatically placed in a jep status and the work to disconnect the 

order is stopped. Expected result will reduce, if not eliminate, disconnects in error because of a jeopardized T order. In the month of November, 

AT&T had 10 disconnects in error because of jeopardized T orders. In the event the F order is completed before the T order on the due date and 

the T order is jepped, Qwest should immediately re-instate the service in an effort to prevent an out of service condition. 


Carla Pardee said there may be a systems change request and she would check on any systems change requests issued. 


AT&T will walk on this CR at the December CMP Meeting. Qwest will provide a response in February. 




For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the March 2004 CMP Meeting 

Ann Adkisson 

AT&T 


Associated Move Orders 

Description of request (partial): (Revised Description of Change 02-03-04) When a CLEC submits a move order (M) Qwest creates two orders, a 

(T) and from (F) order. The problem resides in the fact that these orders are associated with each other but no action is taken when the T order is 

placed in jeopardy and the F order is not stopped. Clarification calls with Qwest has indicated that the F order is "always" worked prior to the T 

order. This process is a guarantee that the customer will be taken out of service prior to the T order being completed regardless of jeopardy, and 

the jeopardy will cause the customer to be out of service for a longer period of time. When Qwest works the T order and the technician determines 

that the order cannot be completed as expected (either jeopardized for some reason or there is no access to the new site) there is no 

electronic/mechanical means of associating the T order to the F order. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC120803-1 


Attachment D

Response: Qwest and CLECs acknowledge the long-standing process for outside moves is a two order process for all non-designed services 

(e.g., Resale and UNE_P POTS) and some designed services (e.g., Unbundled Loops). For non-designed services, the association of the two 

orders is inherent within the process in that there is always a T order associated with an F order. Designed services utilize "critically related order" 

(e.g., CRO) entries to relate two orders, (e.g., N and D order types). These order and process designs are used for both Qwest Retail and 

Wholesale accounts and are an integral part of both Qwest systems and processes. To change these would require a complete redesign of 

multiple systems, internal processes/documentation and training at an extraneous cost to Qwest without real benefit. Instead, Qwest has reviewed 

and analyzed the existing process for outside moves and has summarized the processes and findings as follows. 

T & F orders in the same central office with no change to the telephone numbers are automatically sequenced and the provisioning is coordinated 

in the Qwest systems for both dispatched and non dispatched orders. If the T & F are located in different wire centers with same day due date, 

sequencing does not occur and the F order is worked on due date after 12:01 A. M. 

There are two basic reasons for "jeopardizing" the T & F orders; Qwest reasons or Customer reasons. When an order is jeopardized for Qwest 

reasons (e.g., CF - Qwest Facilities are not available), the T order is delayed until Qwest facilities become available. At the point Qwest 

determines the T order is going to be delayed, the customer of record is contacted to determine if the F order should continue through the process 

to disconnect the existing service. Qwest makes every attempt to contact the customer of record to determine the disposition of the "F" order. If 

the T portion of the order is CF'd (held for no facilities), and the customer of record is not contacted the F order will be put on hold until the 

customer of record is contacted. 

The Designed service process generates various order types within Qwest and is dependent upon the product type. If a designed service order is 

jeopardized, Qwest will contact the customer to determine if the customer wants to continue forward with disconnect activity. The orders are 

critically related and are worked together. 

Additionally, in response to Cheryl Peterson’s finding within the PortWithin process document 

(http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/downloads/2003/030513/DNLD_PortWithin_Process10_05-13-03.doc), which states "On a full conversion, Qwest 

will issue the disconnect of the trunks and facility at the old location, due one business day after the port order DD". This process acts as a 

product process guide specifically for the DID product. 

Findings: In reviewing/analyzing the processes and associated examples, Qwest determined: 

- Qwest technicians, on rare occasions, were not adhering to the process of contacting the customer of record a jeopardy situation. 

- the "can be reached" information provided by the CLEC does not provide the technician with a "live person" with whom the technician can work 

the issue of the pending disconnect. 

Conclusion: Qwest accepts this CMP CR and has identified the following activities to enable closure: 

- We are in the process of enhancing the CLEC documentation (PCAT) for T&F orders to reinforce the importance of supplying a can be reached 

number which allows Qwest to contact the customer of record. 

- We have issued a Communicator to selected Network groups to reinforce the process of contacting the customer in jeopardy situations to 

determine the disposition of the F orders (disconnect). 

- Qwest currently offers specific optional services to the CLECs that may remedy some of the unique requirements of some move activities, e.g., 

dual service, overlapping service, etc. Qwest’s PCAT(s) will be updated by 4/19/04 to provide CLECs with more detailed information about these 

options. 

- Qwest will continue to review its current processes and seek opportunities for improvement. 

Sincerely, 

Qiana Davis - Sr. Process Analyst, Wholesale Service and Delivery 

Jim Recker - Staff Advocate, Qwest 

_________________________ 



For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the February 2004 CMP Meeting 

Ann Adkisson 

AT&T 

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC120803-1 Associated Move Orders 

AT&T is requesting process and system changes related to T and F orders. "The problem resides in the fact that these orders are associated with 

each other but no action is taken when the T order is placed in jeopardy and the F order is not stopped". 

On January 28, 2003, a second clarification meeting was held to review the description of the requested change. As a result of this meeting, AT&T 

decided to meet internally and amend the initial CMP CR to now include the exact change requested along with detailed scenarios. 

On February 3, 2004, Qwest received the amended version of CMP CR PC-120803-1 and are currently evaluating the change request. Therefore, 

we require additional time to investigate and will provide a response at the March CMP meeting. 

Sincerely, 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC120803-1 


Attachment D

Qiana M. Davis 

FTS Process Specialist 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC120803-1 


Attachment D


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC120903-1 Qwest will track "access required" 

information in its systems when Qwest 

installs new service, or when Qwest 

dispatches on the repair of an existing 

line/circuit. Qwest will make the information 

available to CLECs for use when a CLEC 

opens arepair ticket 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 



Title: Qwest will track "access required" information in its systems when Qwest installs new service, or when Qwest dispatches on the repair of an 

existing line/circuit. Qwest will make the information available to CLECs for use when a CLEC opens a repair ticket for a CLEC end user customer. 

Eschelon requests that Qwest develop and train a process that tracks if Qwest will require access to the customer premise to perform repair and 

maintenance work. Qwest does not track this data for lines/circuits it installs/repairs. As a result Qwest is causing an unnecessary delay for CLECs 

customers repair interval. For Qwest to complete its work to repair a line, Qwest process always requires a CLEC to communicate access hours 

for access to the customer premise, however, Qwest does not always need access from the customer/building owner for Qwest to complete the 

required repair and maintenance work to repair the Qwest caused trouble. For example, if a CLEC opens a ticket at 4 PM because a customer is 

out of service, and the CLEC designates access hours of 8 AM to 5 PM for the customer and Qwest cannot dispatch by 5 PM that day, Qwest 

could put the ticket in a "No Access" status until 8 AM the next morning. Eschelon has provided examples to its Service Management team where 

Qwest put tickets in a "No Access" status after access hours , the trouble was in the Qwest network and Qwest did not require the customer end 

user or building owner to provide access. If Qwest tracked "Access required" information in its systems and made that information available to the 

CLECs when opening a ticket, the CLEC could set clear expectations for repair intervals with its own customers and Qwest could set clear 

expectations and interval with the CLECs. Because Qwest does not track this information, the decision is left to Qwest personnel to make a 

decision on whether Qwest needs access to its equipment. In addition, if Qwest and a CLEC knew when access was required, the number of 

unnecessary dispatches and associated charges to the CLEC could be reduced. 





12/26/03- Clarification Minutes sent 

01/07/04 - Updated Clarification Call minutes sent to CLECs 




2/18/04 - Status changed to evaluation 



Don Tolman, Qwest stated that Qwest is currently reviewing the request and will provide a complete response in the March meeting. He requested 

the CR be moved to Evaluation status. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon presented this CR. It is designed to provide information regarding if the end user customer or building manager is 

needed to access the demarc. Late in the day some tickets are put in “no access” status by Qwest when the customer was not needed to access 

the demarc. She is asking that Qwest note in their systems if the customer has to give access to the demarc when Qwest does an install or repair 

on a going forward basis. (She also stated to Doug Andreen later in the meeting that DS1 and above are the biggest concern because of 

customer impact). The CR will move to Presented status. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1/7/04 Clarification to statement made in Clarification Meeting 12/18 (see Below) additional information is in parentheeses. 

Roszan Jarman-Konkel, Qwest said that in the design world, there is an ability to enter three days worth of premise ( and circuit) access(hours via 

CEMR.) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 


8:00 a.m. (MDT) / Thursday 12/18, 2003 

1-877-521-8688 1456160# 

PC120903-1 Qwest will track access required information in it’s systems 

Attendees 

Diebel, Diane 


Tolman, Don 

Andreen, Doug 


Report Name: 

Evaluation 

2/18/04 


Eschelon 




CR # 

13 


Impacted 

PC120903-1 


Attachment D



Julie Pickar, U S Link 


Roszan Jarman-Konkel 

Paul Hanser, Eschelon 

Curt Anderson, Qwest 

Tom McAldine, Eschelon 


Jean Novak, Qwest 

Doug Andreen read the full title of the CR as follows: Qwest will track access required information in its systems when Qwest installs new service, 

or when Qwest dispatches on the repair of an existing line/circuit. Qwest will make the information available to CLECs for use when a CLEC opens 

a repair ticket for a CLEC end user customer. 

Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon explained the reason for the request is that a few months ago Eschelon noticed on POTS and Design that numerous 

tickets were going to a no access status. Through analysis Eschelon found that on certain tickets Qwest did not need access to the premise to 

clear the ticket. Eschelon then asked Qwest if they track access needs for the Demarc or circuit. The answer was no. The CR therefore is for 

Qwest to develop a tracking mechanism to track access information in its systems when installing new service or on the repair of an existing 

line/circuit. 

Doug asked if this would be on a going forward basis and Eschelon answered yes. 

Tom McAldine, Eschelon gave an example where a ticket is opened at 3 p.m., Qwest troubleshoots till 6 p.m. and finds the trouble to be outside 

the serving central office. Eschelon cannot contact the customer and the ticket is then put off till 6 a.m. the next day. Tom said in many cases 

Qwest will find that in order to fix the problem no premise access was required. Tom further stated that Qwest’s policy is to troubleshoot all the 

way to customer premise. 

Curt Anderson, Qwest clarified that what is asked for is to first ensure that Qwest is following process that is now in place and second, to begin 

tracking access requirements. 

Bonnie answered yes, but the CR is not designed for the compliance issue as this is being addressed by other means. 

Jim Recker, Qwest asked if Eschelon was asking for the location of the NIU? Bonnie answered yes. 

Roszan Jarman-Konkel, Qwest said that in the design world, there is an ability to enter three days worth of premise access. 

Jim asked if this were for design or POTS since different systems are used. 

Bonnie answered both. 

Doug asked of it was fair to say most of the existing problems are on the design side. Bonnie answered yes DS1 and above are the main areas. 

Tom added that the main point was looking beyond the end office to the fiber hut etc. i.e. the equipment between the end office and equipment 

needing premise access. 

Bonnie added that some of the existing information on the Qwest work docs is incomplete and Tom agreed. 


All new service and all lines and circuits that require Qwest repair. 


Cathy Garcia needs to be added. Doug will ensure this happens as she is on vacation now. 


These expectations were confirmed. 

1. Qwest will develop and train a process that will track whether access is required for future repairs for all new installs and repairs to existing lines 

circuits. 

2. Qwest will make the information available to CLECs when a CLEC opens a repair ticket. 

3. Qwest will complete any systems work required to implement the process. 




Bonnie will present the CR at the January CMP meeting with a response being in the February timeframe. 



For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the March 2004 CMP Meeting 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC120903-1 


Attachment D


Senior Manager, ILEC Relations 

Eschelon Communications 

SUBJECT: Qwest Change Request Response CR # PC120903-1 

Description of CR: Qwest will track access required information in its systems when Qwest installs new service, or when Qwest dispatches on 

the repair of an existing line/circuit. Qwest will make the information available to CLECs for use when a CLEC opens a repair ticket for a CLEC 

end user customer. 

For example, if a CLEC opens a ticket at 4 PM because a customer is out of service, and the CLEC designates access hours of 8 AM to 5 PM for 

the customer and Qwest cannot dispatch by 5 PM that day, Qwest could put the ticket in a No Access status until 8 AM the next morning. 

Eschelon has provided examples to its Service Management team where Qwest put tickets in a No Access status after access hours, the trouble 

was in the Qwest network and Qwest did not require the customer end user or building owner to provide access. If Qwest tracked Access required 

information in its systems and made that information available to the CLECs when opening a ticket, the CLEC could set clear expectations for 

repair intervals with its own customers and Qwest could set clear expectations and interval with the CLECs. Because Qwest does not track this 

information, the decision is left to Qwest personnel to make a decision on whether Qwest needs access to its equipment. In addition, if Qwest and 

a CLEC knew when access was required, the number of unnecessary dispatches and associated charges to the CLEC could be reduced. 

The Qwest Operations Staff has reviewed the problem described above and have covered this issue with the repair managers of the maintenance 

centers. The repair managers are covering all technicians on the requirement to test to the last access point in the circuit that is available. When 

premise access is needed, Qwest technicians will call or send an electronic message to the CLEC to validate access to the network interface 

devise before establishing No Access time. 

Also, the CEMR user online help provides the following information to the CLEC for inputting of their trouble tickets and access information. 

The online help is available to the customers at: 

http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/systems/WebHelp/Introduction.htm 

This is CEMR version 2.0 and is supported by Netscape Communicator version 7.0 and Internet Explorer version 5.5. 

Access Hours (00:00-23:59 Local Time) 

Location 

The location of the premises where the trouble ticket is submitted, for a Qwest technician to access, if 

required. Enter the earliest and latest times that a Qwest technician can access the premises for three 

days, starting on the day the trouble report is entered. You must enter the time in the military format, 

and the earliest time must be prior to the latest time. For example, 8:00 a.m. must be entered as 

08:00, and 1:00 p.m. must be entered as 13:00. You cannot use 24:00 to indicate 12:00 a.m. Enter 

23:59 instead. 

If premises access is not available on these dates, enter normal business hours for both the earliest 

and latest times. Then, in the Description field, enter No prem access until (specific date). 

Circuit 

The location of the circuit, for a Qwest technician to access, if required. Enter the earliest and latest 

times that a Qwest technician can access the circuit for three days, starting on the day the trouble 

report is entered. You must enter the time in the military format, and the earliest time must be prior to 

the latest time. For example, 8:00 a.m. must be entered as 08:00, and 1:00 p.m. must be entered as 

13:00. You cannot use 24:00 to indicate 12:00 a.m. Enter 23:59 instead. 

If circuit access is not available on these dates, please enter normal business hours for both the 

earliest and latest times. Then, in the Description field, enter No prem access until (specific date). 

Additionally, in an effort to strengthen obtaining correct access, Qwest has made it mandatory for the repair answering centers to obtain all access 

information, circuit, premise and local contacts as they enter the trouble ticket. 

Again all technicians will be required to test to the last access point in the circuit that is available. When premise access is needed, Qwest 

technicians will call or send an electronic message to the CLEC to validate access to the network interface device before establishing No Access 

time. 

Sincerely, 

Don Tolman 



Report Name: 



CR # 

PC120903-1 


Attachment D


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC031103-1 Convert Common Area Splitter Collocation 

to Cageless Shelf at a time Collocation 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Revised Description of Change (07-14-03): 

To facilitate the CLEC’s option to perform maintenance, Covad requests the following changes. 

Wholesale ProdProc Maintenance, 

Repair 

Collocation - 

Physical, Virtual 

1. Qwest allow the CLEC to access the front of the splitter shelf for testing thereby permitting test of a splitter card by the CLEC (Diagram A). 

2. Qwest will allow the CLEC to perform maintenance on the splitter cards including replacement as necessary. 

3. Qwest will continue to provision the CAS and will control the engineering configuration database for CAS. For new circuits, Qwest will install and 

provision the new splitter cards as necessary. 

4. Qwest will continue to maintain the splitter shelves and Common Area Splitter bays. 

5. CLEC’s will have the option to perform maintenance on the splitter cards or continue to have Qwest control all maintenance. 

6. If the CLEC impairs a Qwest voice customer during the maintenance of the splitter cards Qwest may temporarily remove the data portion of the 

circuit. 

7. The monthly recurring fees will be adjusted to remove the maintenance cost for those CLECs electing to perform the CAS splitter card 

maintenance. 

8. The CAS shelves will be clearly designated to identify those shelves maintained by Qwest or the CLEC. 

Original Description of Change (03-11-03): 

Covad requests to be allowed to convert any or all existing Common Area Splitter Collocation arrangements to Cageless Shelf at a time 

Collocation. The current arrangement, being a type of Virtual Collocation, requires Qwest technicians to perform all maintenance associated with 

the splitters and splitter cards. While this process has worked in some central offices, Covad continues to experience problems related to 

improperly performed maintenance including splitter cards removed in error, splitter cards not installed properly, splitter cards replaced 

unnecessarily and cards removed as defective which cannot be located. Further, Covad and Qwest have not been able to jointly develop and 

document a workable process for the replacement of defective splitter cards. Covad has been trying to resolve these problems for over three 

years but continues to have the same experiences. These problems, coupled with the high non-recurring costs, have caused Covad to begin 

placing splitters in its own collocation arrangements, as additional capacity is required. It is Covad’s hope that by converting the existing splitter 

capacity from Common Area Splitter Collocation to some form of Cageless Shelf at a time Collocation, most of the maintenance problems will be 

resolved. This proposal would remove the splitter maintenance responsibility from Qwest and place it with Covad. This conversion may also 

require adjustments to existing monthly recurring charges applicable to the current product. 


As Soon As Possible 


03-12-03 - CR Acknowledged 

03-26-03 - Clarification Meeting held 

04-16-03 - Presented at CMP Meeting 

05/21/03 - Qwest response presented at CMP Meeting 

06/11/03 - Qwest response posted and distributed 

06/18/03 - Discussed at CMP Meeting 

07/16/03 - CR Discussed at CMP Monthly Meeting 






01/12/04 - Qwest sent PROD.01.12.04.F.01237.ComAreaSplitColloV11 proposed effective date 2/26/04 


02/11/04 - Qwest issued Final notification PROD.02.11.04.F.01324.FNL_Common_Area_Splitter effective date 2/26/04 




Berard, John 

Williams, David 


Development 

6/18/03 




Impacted 


Dave Williams with Qwest said that the PCAT changes will be effective on 2/26/04 and a contract amendment will be available at the same time. 

This CR will remain in Development status. 


Report Name: 

Covad 



CR # 

14 

PC031103-1 


Attachment D

__________________________________ 


Dave Williams with Qwest provided an update to this CR and said changes for the PCAT were released 1/12/04 and the proposed effective date is 

2/26/04. Mike Zulevic asked if the change would be available across the board on 2/26/04. Dave said yes. This CR will remain in Development 

status. 

__________________________________ 


Dave Williams with Qwest provided an update to this CR which allow the CLEC to maintain POTS splitter cards. Dave said changes for the PCAT 

should be out soon. This CR will remain in Development status. 

__________________________________ 


Dave Williams with Qwest provided an update to this CR and said we will be submitting level 3 changes for the PCAT and plan to have available in 

the December timeframe. Dave will send a copy to Mike Zulevic and John Berard for comments. This CR will remain in Development status. 

__________________________________ 


Dave Williams with Qwest provided an update to this CR which provides CLECs the option to do maintenance or have Qwest do the maintenance 

on splitter cards. There will be changes made to the PCAT in November. This CR will remain in Development status. 

__________________________________ 


Dave Williams provided an update to this CR and said that we have moved forward with a trial beginning 8/25 in Seattle areas and the trial has 

been well received by both Qwest and Covad. There will be a process change written in the next few weeks. This CR will remain in 

Development status. 

__________________________________ 

CMP Meeting 

08-13-03 

White-Qwest presented the Qwest acceptance of the revised Covad Description of Change. Zulevic-Covad stated that Qwest and Covad were 

testing the process in 15 Central Offices in Washington state. He stated that it looked as if the process was progressing very well. 

============================================ 


07-16-03 

White-Qwest presented the status and stated that Covad had submitted a revised description of change that Qwest was working on. Williams- 

Qwest stated that Qwest would probably start a trial with Covad on August 1. Berard-Covad stated that this was good progress. CR remains in 

Development. 

============================================== 


06-18-03 

Williams-Qwest presented the Qwest response. Zulevic-Covad stated that he had reviewed the response and that the Qwest recommended 

solution addressed a majority of his concerns. He asked how to proceed. White-Qwest recommended that Covad revise their description of 

change to align with the Qwest recommendation. He stated that he could forward a suggestion to Zulevic for approval. Zulevic-Covad agreed. 

White-Qwest stated that the change request would move into Development. 

========================================================== 


05-21-03 

White-Qwest presented the Qwest response and suggested the CR be moved to Evaluation status. 

========================================== 

04-16-03 - CMP Meeting 

Zulevic-Covad presented the CR. Williams-Qwest stated that another option would be to move the splitters to the cageless lineup. Zulevic-Covad 

stated that this was to difficult logistically. Williams-Qwest asked if Covad expected Qwest to develop a per shelf collocation cost. Zulevic-Covad 

stated that he expected a monthly recurring rental rate. Williams-Qwest asked if Covad had discussed this issue with any other CLECs. Zulevic- 

Covad stated that he had not and that this would probably create a bifurcated process for Qwest. Williams-Qwest stated that he would query other 

DLECs for interest. Van Meter-AT&T stated that AT&T would like to be involved in any development calls for this CR. 

========================================================== 


Wednesday, March 26, 2003 

1-877-550-8686 

2213337# 

Attendees 

Matt White – CRPM 

Dave Williams – Qwest 

Jeff Cook – Qwest 

Mike Zulevic – Covad 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC031103-1 


Attachment D

John Berard – Covad 

Becky Neesen - Covad 


White-Qwest welcomed all attendees and reviewed the request. 


Berard-Covad reviewed the CR. Zulevic-Covad this has been a tough issue for both companies and that Covad was just looking for a possible 

solution. 

Williams-Qwest asked if Covad was intending to physically move splitters. Zulevic-Covad stated that there was no move necessary; Covad would 

just take over maintenance of splitters. Williams-Qwest stated that the issue was that when Covad provisions loops Qwest sometimes makes 

mistakes. 

Cook and Williams had no further questions. 

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted 

White-Qwest confirmed that the attendees were comfortable that the request appropriately identified all areas and products impacted. 


White-Qwest confirmed with the attendees that the appropriate Qwest personnel were involved. He stated that Lillian Robertson would also be 

involved in analyzing this CR. Williams-Qwest stated that he would work with Robertson on this CR. 


White-Qwest reviewed the request to confirm Covad’s expectation. 

Identify and Dependant Systems Change Requests 

White-Qwest asked the attendees if they knew of any related change requests. 


White-Qwest asked attendees if there were any further questions. There were none. White-Qwest stated that the next step was for Covad to 

present the CR at the April Monthly Product/Process Meeting and thanked all attendees for attending the meeting. 


August 12, 2003 

REVISED RESPONSE 

For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the August 20, 2003, 

CMP Product/Process Meeting 

John Berard 

Covad Communications 

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR #PC031103-1 

Qwest accepts this revised CR and proposes offering an optional maintenance program for Common Area Splitter configurations. 

Diagram A, attached, depicts a typical configuration for a CAS 

In this configuration Qwest maintains the common area splitter configuration and all provisioning of loops. Presently Qwest also performs all 

maintenance on the splitter shelf including splitter card installation and replacement. Qwest also keeps records of CAS in the 

administrative/engineering system SWITCH/FOMS. 

The current DMARC separating the CLEC controlled cabling from the Qwest network is the rear of the splitter shelf as shown in Diagram A. The 

CLEC also has access to the ICDF frame and specifically the voice block for testing purposes (Diagram A). 

Under this revised plan, the CLEC would have the option to have Qwest perform the maintenance, as is currently the practice, or the CLEC could 

perform the splitter card maintenance. 

To facilitate the CLEC’s option to perform maintenance, Qwest proposes the following changes. 

1. Qwest will allow the CLEC to access the front of the splitter shelf for testing thereby permitting test of a splitter card by the CLEC (Diagram A). 







circuit. 



Report Name: 



CR # 

PC031103-1 


Attachment D

maintenance. 


This solution addresses Covad’s primary concern of maintenance of the CAS and enables Covad and other CLECs to dispatch their technicians to 

correct a defective splitter card without having to generate a trouble/maintenance ticket through Qwest. 

For Qwest, the proposed solution will require training and process updates but will not require the introduction of an entirely new product that would 

be cost prohibitive. 

The CLECs also have the option to place the splitters in their collocation site eliminating any maintenance issues. 

Sincerely, 

David Williams 

Qwest Wholesale Product Manager 

303-896-8166 

================================================ 

June 11, 2003 


For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the June 18, 2003, 


John Berard 



Covad has requested a change to the common area splitter product as follows: “Covad requests to be allowed to convert any or all existing 

Common Area Splitter Collocation arrangements to Cageless Shelf at a time Collocation.” 

In response to this CR Qwest provides the following response. 

1. Issue 1. Covad requested to convert all existing Common Area Splitter Collocation arrangements to Cageless Shelf at a time Collocation. In 

order to change what now is a virtual collocation product to a cageless product, Qwest would require the development of a brand new product. 

Qwest's cageless collocation process is based on a per bay basis so this would not follow as a simple variation to the existing cageless collocation 

process. The Common Area Splitters are currently provisioned and maintained by Qwest. In a proposed conversion to a cageless product, a new 

provisioning process would be required in addition to a reconfiguration of the network to redefine the DEMARC. Qwest billing software changes 

would also be required. All of these changes would require significant funding from Qwest and none are practical when Common Area Splitter 

collocation is an optional process and experiences low ordering volumes. The CLEC always has the option to locate the splitters into their 

collocation space. The chart below summarizes the required effort to implement a new common area splitter (CAS) proposed by Covad. 

Task Person Months 

Define New Product 4 

Create M&P 1 

Define Provisioning Process 4 

Create M&P 1 

Implement software changes for billing system 3 

Update PCAT and documentation 2 

Create Amendment Language 2 

Total 17 

Qwest rejects this portion of the request because it is not economically feasible. 

2. From Qwest’s further evaluation of this change request, it appears that Covad’s primary issue is maintenance of the splitter and, specifically, the 

splitter cards. While there was no documentation provided with this CR to indicate that any maintenance issues exist, Qwest proposes offering an 

optional maintenance program for Common Area Splitter configurations to address Covad's apparent concern. 

Diagram A, attached, depicts a typical configuration for a CAS 

In this configuration Qwest maintains the common area splitter configuration and all provisioning of loops. Presently Qwest also performs all 

maintenance on the splitter shelf including splitter card installation and replacement. Qwest also keeps records of CAS in the 

administrative/engineering system SWITCH/FOMS. 

The current DMARC separating the CLEC controlled cabling from the Qwest network is the rear of the splitter shelf as shown in Diagram A. The 

CLEC also has access to the ICDF frame and specifically the voice block for testing purposes (Diagram A). 

Under this revised plan, the CLEC would have the option to have Qwest perform the maintenance, as is currently the practice, or the CLEC could 

perform the splitter card maintenance. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC031103-1 


Attachment D

To facilitate the CLEC’s option to perform maintenance, Qwest proposes the following changes. 

1. Qwest will change the DMARC for CAS and allow the CLEC to access the front of the splitter shelf for testing thereby permitting test of a splitter 

card by the CLEC (Diagram A). 







circuit. 


maintenance. 


This solution addresses Covad’s primary concern of maintenance of the CAS and enables Covad and other CLECs to dispatch their technicians to 

correct a defective splitter card without having to generate a trouble/maintenance ticket through Qwest. 

For Qwest, the proposed solution will require training and process updates but will not require the introduction of an entirely new product that would 

be cost prohibitive. 

The CLECs also have the option to place the splitters in their collocation site eliminating any maintenance issues. 

Sincerely, 

David Williams 

Qwest Wholesale Product Manager 

303-896-8166 

====================================== 

May 14, 2003 


For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the May 21, 2003, 


John Berard 



This is a preliminary response regarding Covad CR PC031103-1. This CR requests that CLECs be allowed to convert any or all existing Common 

Area Splitter Collocation arrangements to Cageless Shelf at a time collocation. 

Qwest is currently working internally to identify a solution to this request. Because there are a large number of issues Qwest must analyze, Qwest 

proposes moving this Change Request into Evaluation Status while Qwest prepares a complete answer to this request. 

Qwest will provide a status update at the June CMP meeting. 

Sincerely, 

Dave Williams 


Qwest Corporation 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC031103-1 


Attachment D

ATTACHMENT A 

CLEC DSLAM 

New Proposed 

Demarcation Point 

Splitter Shelf 

Front 

Voice 

Data 

Voice and Data 

Hardwire 

Back 

Existing Demarcation 

Point 

ICDF 

Jumper Qwest 

V 

e 

r 

t 

i 

c 

a 

l 

H 

o 

r 

i 

z 

o 

n 

t 

a 

l 

CLEC Test 

Access Points 

Switch 

MDF/COSMIC 

OE CP 

To End 

User


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC042103-1 Tracking process for FBDL order issues. Development Wholesale ProdProc Escalations, 

7/19/03 

Customer 

Service 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


McLeod requests a process established for the listing operations center that is consistent with the CSIE center. 

LNP, Unbundled Loop 


McLeod expects that a ticket be opened with the Directory Listing Operation center as is the process with the CSIE center today. Mcleod expects 

that these are tracked and available to any reporting that is available to the CSIE center tickets. Mcleod would accept a process where the ticket is 

initiated with the CSIE center then a warm transfer to the Directory Listing Operations Center is given. Again the ticket would need to be 

maintained and tracked as all other customer service tickets are today. 


4/21/03 CR Received 


5/8/03 Clarification Meeting 

05/21/03 - Presented at CMP Meeting 



07/09/03 - Revised response posted and distributed 







01/09/04 - Qwest sent CMPR.01.09.04.F.01241.Ad_Hoc_Mtg_SchldRESEND for ad hoc meeting scheduled 1/19/04 



03/05/04 - Qwest sent PROD.03.05.04.F.01446.WPDL_V23_DL_UserGuide Level 4 proposed effective date 4/19/04 



Lee Gomez with Qwest gave the update and advised that the CR is on track for implementation in April and will be sending a notification updating 

the listing document. The first report will be available in May and the CLECs should contact the Listing Account Manager to receive the report. 

Stephanie Prull with Eschelon asked if multiple ACNAs will all be on the same report. Lee Gomez said there would be a separate report for each 

ACNA. This CR will remain Development status. 

_______________________ 

Fri 2/13/04 8:29 AM 

From; Sanchez Steinke, Linda 

To: bjjohnson@eschelon.com 

Subject: FW: Action Items Ad Hoc 1/19/04 PC042103-1 Tracking process for FBDL order issues 

Bonnie - 

As a follow up to your request in the January CMP meeting 

minutes, attached are the take back items that Lee Gomez 

had for PC042103-1. I also posted to the body of the CR 

under Project Meetings. 

Thank you 


303-382-5768 

Townley, Robin 

Prull, Stephanie 

Gomez, Lee 



McLeodUSA 



Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 12:43 PM 

To: 'bjjohnson@eschelon.com' 

Subject: FW: Action Items Ad Hoc 1/19/04 PC042103-1 Tracking process for FBDL order issues 


Report Name: 




CR # 

15 


Impacted 

PC042103-1 


Attachment D

Bonnie - 

Forwarding to you -- I have your e-mail address 

incorrect in the first e-mail. 


CRPM 

Qwest 

303-382-5768 



Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 12:41 PM 

To: 'bjjohnson@escehlon.com'; 'kdisaacs@eschelon.com'; 'saprull@eschelon.com'; 'dosborne@att.com'; 'cdickinson@att.com' 

Subject: Action Items Ad Hoc 1/19/04 PC042103-1 Tracking process for FBDL order issues 

All, 

As a follow up to the ad hoc meeting held 1/19/04, regarding PC042103-1, the following are answers to 

questions asked during the meeting that Lee Gomez took as action items: 

Q) Bonnie said there are time when calls are referred to directory listings by CSIE and would like to know 

which report those would show on. 

A) CSIE opens a ticket for every call received. If they determine that a call should be referred to the LOC, CSIE will close that ticket. 

With the implementation of this report, when a call is referred from the CSIE, the LOC will open a Help Ticket and follow the new process. 

Q) Stephanie asked if tickets can be broken down by what tier closed. 

A) FBDL does not have tiers. The LOC representative is the primary point of contact for listing related questions and they 

will be responsible for opening the Tickets. If the CLEC is not satisfied with the status of a ticket, they may chose to 

escalate the issue to their Listing Resource Services (LRS) Account Manager (AM). The LRS AM will investigate 

the situation and may work with the LOC regarding a Ticket, but the LOC representative is responsible for opening, 

updating and closing Tickets. 

Thank you 


CRPM 

Qwest 

303-382-5768 

______________________ 

Mon 1/26/04 12:41 PM 

From; Sanchez Steinke, Linda 

To: 'bjjohnson@escehlon.com', 'kdisaacs@eschelon.com' 'saprull@eschelon.com' 'dosborne@att.com' 'cdickinson@att.com' 

Subject: Action Items Ad Hoc 1/19/04 PC042103-1 Tracking process for FBDL order issues 

All, 

As a follow up to the ad hoc meeting held 1/19/04, regarding PC042103-1, the following are answers to 

questions asked during the meeting that Lee Gomez took as action items: 

Q) Bonnie said there are time when calls are referred to directory listings by CSIE and would like to know 

which report those would show on. 

A) CSIE opens a ticket for every call received. If they determine that a call should be referred to the LOC, CSIE will close that ticket. 

With the implementation of this report, when a call is referred from the CSIE, the LOC will open a Help Ticket and follow the new process. 

Q) Stephanie asked if tickets can be broken down by what tier closed. 

A) FBDL does not have tiers. The LOC representative is the primary point of contact for listing related questions and they 

will be responsible for opening the Tickets. If the CLEC is not satisfied with the status of a ticket, they may chose to 

escalate the issue to their Listing Resource Services (LRS) Account Manager (AM). The LRS AM will investigate 

the situation and may work with the LOC regarding a Ticket, but the LOC representative is responsible for opening, 

updating and closing Tickets. 

Thank you 


CRPM 

Qwest 

303-382-5768 

_________________________________ 



Report Name: 



CR # 

PC042103-1 


Attachment D

Lee Gomez with Qwest gave an update that an ad hoc meeting was held to present the prototype report for FBDL tickets and that the targeted 

implementation is April. Stephanie Prull with Eschelon asked for the implementation date. Lee said it would be coincident with IMA 15.0. This CR 

will remain in Development status. (Begin comment from Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon) (Can you provide the answers to the take backs that Lee 

Gomez provided at the meeting?) (end comment). 

________________________________ 

Ad Hoc 


PC042103-1 


1-877-572-8687, Conference ID 3393947# 



Carla Pardee - AT&T 


Kim Isaacs - Eschelon 

Stephanie Prull - Eschelon 

Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon 

Lee Gomez - Qwest 



of the meeting was to gain input on the draft format of the report providing information on FBDL tickets opened by CLECs. 

Lee Gomez with Qwest explained that the reports would be similar to the CSIE reports provided monthly. The data will be reported for the entire 

month and will include calls made to the Listing Operations Center (LOC) regarding FBDL. The report will give the total number of calls per month, 

broken down by day and 8 categories of the tickets opened. Lee explained how the categories are defined: 

Account Ownership - account does not belong to Provider 

DLIS - question regarding information displayed in DLIS 

Ordering - question regarding how to complete an order. 

DSRED - question regarding data returned on a DSRED. 

Migration - question related to migration/conversion orders 

Missing Listing - question regarding listing not found 

Other - miscellaneous question. 

These categories will be defined in the Facility-Based CLECs and Reseller/Unbundled Network CLECS Directory Listing User Document. 

Stephanie Prull with Eschelon asked what category a ticket would go into when getting ready to do a conversion and DLIS is not correct. Lee said 

that it would fit into the account ownership if the order has already been issued. 

Stephanie asked where a ticket would be categorized if Eschelon has a customer and the information on CSR doesn’t match DLIS. Lee said that 

would be under DLIS because of what is being displayed in DLIS, however, the Provider may request a specific reason code if necessary. 

Stephanie asked if there is a trouble ticket opened with DLIS where would that be classified. Lee said that is would go under DLIS. The reason 

code can be negotiated between the CLEC and the Qwest LOC representative whenever the CLEC feels it is necessary. 

Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon asked if the FBDL report would be separate from the CSIE report. Lee answered yes. Bonnie said there are time 

when calls are referred to directory listings by CSIE and would like to know which report those would show on. Lee will get back with Bonnie after 

checking. Bonnie stated that the preference would be that CSIE would close their ticket and it would appear on the FBDL report. Lee will verify. 

Donna Osborne-Miller asked the if the number associated with the category is the total number. Lee said that was correct. 

Stephanie asked if tickets can be broken down by what tier closed. Lee will find out the answer. 

Linda will e-mail answers out to the group and will put the minutes in the body of this change request. There were no additional questions. 

__________________________________ 


Linda Sanchez-Steinke gave status that this CR is targeted for the April timeframe and will arrange an ad hoc meeting to review draft format with 

Stephanie Prull. This CR will remain in Development status. 

___________________________________ 


Lee Gomez with Qwest gave the update on this CR. Qwest is planning to provide a report prototype at the next meeting. There is a help ticket 

generated today and there will be updates made in the applicable PCAT. This CR will remain in Development Status. 

____________________________________ 


Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest gave the update on this CR. Qwest is planning to provide a report in the April 2004 timeframe. Linda will 

contact Stephanie Prull to arrange a meeting to discuss the report format. This CR will remain in Development Status. 

____________________________________ 


Lee Gomez provided an update on this CR. Lee said that Qwest is actively working on providing a report in the April timeframe. This CR will 

remain in Development Status. ____________________________________ 


08-20-03 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC042103-1 


Attachment D

White-Qwest stated that the proposed implementation date for the change was April 2004. The CR was left in Development status. 

======================================= 


07-16-03 

White-Qwest presented the Qwest acceptance and recommended the CR be moved in to Development. 

==================================== 


06-18-03 

White-Qwest presented the Qwest response. He stated that Qwest is currently working internally to identify a solution to this request. Because 

this request involves the creation of a complex and wide-reaching process, there are a large number of issues Qwest must analyze. He asked that 

the change move to Evaluation. 

========================================================== 


05-21-03 

Prull-McLeod presented the CR. Johnson-Eschelon stated that Eschelon was interested in this CR as well. 

========================================== 


Wednesday, May 07, 2003 

1-877-550-8686 

2213337# 

Attendees 

Matt White – Qwest 

Lee Gomez – Qwest 

Michelle Thacker – Qwest 

Stephanie Prull – McLeod 

Jennifer Arnold – USLink 




Prull-McLeod reviewed the CR. She stated that McLeod has a hard time keeping track of their FBDL issues because they go to a different center 

once the order has been processed. Gomez-Qwest stated that the CLECs are now calling into the CSIE center for system related issues. She 

explained that they should be able to take calls and open tickets for DLIS issues. She asked McLeod what the wanted to track. Prull-McLeod 

stated that McLeod wanted visibility on ordering issues. Gomez-Qwest asked if McLeod was currently experiencing problems with the center. 

Prull-McLeod stated that they weren’t but that McLeod is doing more internal reporting. She stated that this is a gap in this reporting because they 

don’t have a good way to track it. Gomez-Qwest asked if this CR was related to DLIS issues. Prull-McLeod stated that it was not. She stated that 

McLeod wanted to have a ticket number and tracking capabilities. Thacker-Qwest asked if USLink had the same concern. Arnold-USLink stated 

that USLink did not have the same issue and needed to submit a separate CR 




White-Qwest confirmed with the attendees that the appropriate Qwest personnel were involved. 


White-Qwest reviewed the request to confirm McLeod’s expectation. 




White-Qwest asked attendees if there were any further questions. There were none. White-Qwest stated that the next step was for McLeod to 

present the CR at the May Monthly Product/Process Meeting and thanked all attendees for attending the meeting. 


July 9, 2003 


For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the July 16, 2003, 



Report Name: 



CR # 

PC042103-1 


Attachment D

Stephanie Prull 

McLeod USA 


This is a revised response regarding McLeod CR PC042103-2. This CR requests a process be established for the listing operations center that is 

consistent with the CSIE center. 

Qwest accepts this CR. Qwest will create a system to track each incoming CLEC call to the Listing 

Operations Center. Similarly, this system will allow Qwest to provide the CLEC with a ticket number and reports that identify all CLEC calls/help 

tickets/status. These systems and processes will be completely separate from those within the CSIE. 

Qwest will provide a status update of the work to implement this CR at the August CMP meeting. 

Sincerely, 

Lee Gomez 

Lead Process Analyst 


=========================================== 

June 11, 2003 




Stephanie Prull 

McLeod USA 


This is a preliminary response regarding McLeod CR PC042103-2. This CR requests a process be established for the listing operations center 

that is consistent with the CSIE center. 

Qwest is currently working internally to identify a solution to this request. Because this request involves the creation of a complex and widereaching 

process, there are a large number of issues Qwest must analyze. Qwest proposes moving this Change Request into Evaluation Status 

while Qwest prepares a complete answer to this request. 

Qwest will provide a status update at the July CMP meeting. 

Sincerely, 

Lee Gomez 




Report Name: 



CR # 

PC042103-1 


Attachment D


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC050703-1 Change Qwest Wholesale CMP Website to 

make it easier to search, retrieve and view 

CRs. 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Wholesale ProdProc Operations 

AT&T is asking Qwest to make it easier to search, retrieve, and view a specific CR document on the Qwest Wholesale CMP Website. Although 

anyone can sort by CR, Originator Company, Current Status, Most Recently Updated, CR Project Manager, and CR Title - once the sort is 

completed, the CR cannot be accessed to read the document. AT&T is requesting that once the sort is completed, we can click on the CR number 

and it will bring up that specific CR. Another option might be to have a "search" field and by typing in the CR number, the CR would be retrieved 

and the document could be read. If these are not viable options, AT&T is asking Qwest to come up with suggestions/solutions. 



05/07/03 - Acknowledged CR 

05/12/03 - Clarification Meeting 





09/17/18 - CMP Meeting Thomte indicated that Qwest is continuing to pursue improvements to this web site. 

02/25/04 - Qwest originated notice PROS.02.25.04.F.01418.CMP_WEBSite_ProcessOpt 



Kit Thomte and Doug Andreen, Qwest said the prototype will be available 3/25 and will be located next to the existing Interactive Report on the 

Qwest Web Site. It will contain six different sorts for the data. The format is somewhat changed although the content remains the same. Kit 

asked if the CLECs would agree to move this CR to test since the prototype will be available in a week. The CLECs agreed to move the CR to test. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Thomte Qwest indicated that hopefully we might have a prototype for the meeting next month. The issue is continuing to be worked. 

The CR will remain in Development status. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 


Thomte Qwest indicated that hopefully we might have a prototype for the meeting in January. The issue is continuing to be worked. 

The CR will remain in Development status. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Thomte Qwest indicated that this CR is still being worked. Qwest is trying to find the appropriate vendor to handle these updates. This CR will 

reamin in Development status. 

___________________________________________________ 


Thomte indicated that Qwest is continuing to pursue improvements to this web site. 


08-20-03 

Van Meter-AT&T stated that she liked the new report format but she would still like to be able to search by CR number. Balvin-MCI stated that she 

would like the ability to copy from the report and paste into other applications. White-Qwest stated that Qwest was still working on developing a 

more robust report format. 

============================================== 


07-16-03 

Schultz, Judy 

Van Meter, Sharon 

Thomte, Kit 

Thomte, Kit 

Development 

5/7/03 




Impacted 

White-Qwest stated that the new report format would be posted on 7/16. He recommended that the CR be left in Development status because 

Qwest was developing a more robust solution. Van Meter-AT&T agreed. 


Report Name: 

AT&T 



CR # 

16 

PC050703-1 


Attachment D

================================================== 


06-18-03 

White-Qwest presented the response. Van Meter-AT&T and Hines-MCI stated that they were fine with the proposed change. Van Meter-AT&T 

asked that Qwest distribute a notice when the change became effective. White-Qwest agreed and asked to move the CR into Development. 

========================================================== 


05-21-03 

Van Meter-AT&T presented the CR. White-Qwest confirmed that the CLECs used the “sort by originator” option in the interactive report the most. 

All attendees agreed. 

============================================ 


Monday, May 12, 2003 

1-877-550-8686 

2213337# 

Attendees 


Sharon Van Meter – AT&T 



Mike Zulevic – Covad 




Osborne-Miller-AT&T reviewed the CR. She stated that she most frequently used the Sort by Originator button to find a CR when she didn’t know 

the number. She stated that it would be helpful if the buttons to link to the CR details were contained within that report. White-Qwest asked the 

other CLEC representatives if they also used the Sort by Originator function most frequently. All attendees responded that the most frequently 

used sort was the Sort by Originator. Van Meter-AT&T suggested that Qwest implement some sort of GUI front end that allows users to find a 

specific CR by inputting the number or to sort the CRs by originator/CRMP/status/title/etc. White-Qwest stated that he would query the attendees 

at the upcoming meeting to find out if all the CLECs used Sort by Originator most frequently. 




White-Qwest confirmed with the attendees that the appropriate Qwest personnel were involved. 


White-Qwest reviewed the request to confirm AT&T’s expectation. 




White-Qwest asked attendees if there were any further questions. There were none. White-Qwest stated that the next step was for AT&T to 

present the CR at the May Monthly Product/Process Meeting and thanked all attendees for attending the meeting. 


June 11, 2003 




Sharon Van Meter 

AT&T 


This is an initial response to AT&T CR PC050703-1. This CR requests that Qwest Change Qwest Wholesale CMP Website to make it easier to 

search, retrieve and view CRs. 

Qwest accepts this Change Request. Qwest recommends that the changes to implement this request be implemented in with a phased approach. 

Qwest is still researching an appropriate means of providing more comprehensive linking in the current report and the possibility of providing a GUI 

front-end to the report. However, to meet the CLECs’ stated need, Qwest is prepared to immediately modify the existing Interactive Report as 

attached. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC050703-1 


Attachment D

Sincerely, 

Matt White 

Qwest 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC050703-1 


Attachment D

C:\WINNT\Profiles\dandree\Desktop\Screen prints Interactive.doc



Product/Process Change Request Status 

(Source: CMP Database Issued and Maintained by Wholesale Change Management) 

Information Current as of 

Monday, June 02, 2003 

Introduction Click to view explanation of this Status File 

Originator Company Listing Sorted by Originator Company

Report 

Line 

Number 

Summary - Change Management Process (CMP) - Product/Process 

CR Number 


Report Sorted by Originator Company, by CR Number 

Last 

Originator Company 

Update Title 

Organization 

Originator 

1 PC021903-1CM 5/27/03 Change to Section 8.0 of the CMP 

Document 

Presented 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

AT&T 

Note: There is supplemental information pertaining to this CR. A copy of the supplemental information immediately follows the the detail report for this CR. 

2 PC022703-1 5/28/03 Seeking to reduce the interval of a 

FOC for the ASR associated with 

Development 

Dark Fiber from day thirteen (13) 

to day two (2) where Dark Fiber is 

reserved through the IRI process. 

3 PC022703-3 5/23/03 Request for Medical Expedite 

Process 

Development 

4 PC022703-5 5/28/03 Subject line for PTA email 

notification changed. 

CLEC Test 


Report Name: 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

08 Summary of qry_DetailedReport_ProdProc Sorted by Submitter 

AT&T 

AT&T 

AT&T 

Owner 

Director 

CR PM 

Buhler, Dean 

Buhler, Dean 

White, Matt 

Rein, Kathy 

Bliss, Susie 

Macy, Cindy 

Sunins, Phyllis 

Burson, Sue 

White, Matt 

Toye, Deni 

Diebel, Diane 

Macy, Cindy 

Monday, June 02, 2003 Page 1 of 13

Report 

Line 

Number 

CR Number 


Last 


Update Title 

Organization 

Originator 

5 PC022703-6 5/28/03 UNE-P to UNE-L Bulk Conversion Wholesale 

AT&T 

ProdProc 

Evaluation 

6 PC022703-9X 5/23/03 Support Production Defect Report 

(crossed over from SCR022703- 

Development 

09) 

7 PC032603-1 5/30/03 Standardization of USOCs across 

regions 

Presented 

8 PC042303-1 5/27/03 AT&T requests that Vendor Meet 

(coordinated dispatch) requests 

Presented 

for non-design POTS service be at 

specific times. 


Report Name: 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 


AT&T 

AT&T 

AT&T 

Owner 

Director 

CR PM 

Urevig, Russell 

Bliss, Susie 

Macy, Cindy 

Paxton, Mallory 

Bliss, Susie 

White, Matt 


Bliss, Susie 

Macy, Cindy 

Suellentrop, Craig 

Retka, Mary 

White, Matt 


Report 

Line 

Number 

CR Number 


Last 


Update Title 

Organization 

Originator 

9 PC042303-2 5/27/03 AT&T requests that pre-dispatch 

calls be limited to specific 

Presented 

scenarios, primarily address 

mismatches, no access situations 

and/or vendor meets requests. 

10 PC050503-4CM 5/28/03 Allow Originating CLEC to invite 

other CLECs to its Clarification 

Presented 

Meeting for a System CR 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

AT&T 

AT&T 


11 PC050703-1 5/23/03 Change Qwest Wholesale CMP 

Website to make it easier to 

Presented 

search, retrieve and view CRs. 

12 PC011502-1 5/28/03 Joint testing of Qwest installed 

transmission cables 

CLEC Test 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

AT&T 

Covad 



Report Name: 


Owner 

Director 

CR PM 


Retka, Mary 

White, Matt 

Macy, Cindy 

Schultz, Judy 

Macy, Cindy 

White, Matt 

Schultz, Judy 

White, Matt 

Campbell, Ben 

Campbell, William 

Macy, Cindy 


Report 

Line 

Number 

CR Number 


Last 


Update Title 

Organization 

Originator 

13 PC012703-2 5/28/03 DATA Migration Process Wholesale 

Covad 

ProdProc 

Development 

14 PC031103-1 5/23/03 Convert Common Area Splitter 

Collocation to Cageless Shelf at a 

Evaluation 

time Collocation 

15 PC051403-1 5/29/03 Sync Test for Line share, Loop 

Splitting, and Line Splitting on 

Clarification 

Maintenance Trouble Tickets and 

Sync Testing for provisioning of 

Line and Loop Splitting. 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Covad 

Covad 

16 PC051403-2 5/28/03 Adding Zone information to Bills Wholesale 

Covad 

ProdProc 

Clarification 


Report Name: 


Owner 

Director 

CR PM 

Soderlund, Crystal 

Bliss, Susie 

Macy, Cindy 

Williams, David 


White, Matt 


Retka, Mary 

Sanchez-Steinke, Lind 

Kilker, Terri 

Bliss, Susie 

White, Matt 


Report 

Line 

Number 

CR Number 


Last 


Update Title 

Organization 

Originator 

17 PC051403-3 5/28/03 Request for By-Weekly Technical 

Meetings on Pre-Qual Issues 

Clarification 

18 PC051903-1 5/30/03 Real Time API Connection to Raw 

Loop Data 

Clarification 

19 PC010603-1 5/28/03 MEL (market expansion line) LSR 

process documented on Qwest 

CLEC Test 

Wholesale web site. 

20 PC030603-1 5/28/03 Documentation process to allow 

CLECs to request documentation 

Development 

of existing processes, including 

documentation on the Qwest 

Wholesale web site. 


Report Name: 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 


Covad 

Covad 

Eschelon 

Eschelon 

Owner 

Director 

CR PM 


Retka, Mary 

Macy, Cindy 

To Be Determined 

To Be Determined 

Macy, Cindy 

Kilker, Terri 

Bliss, Susie 

Macy, Cindy 

Coyne, Mark 

McNa, Sue 

Macy, Cindy 


Report 

Line 

Number 

CR Number 


Last 


Update Title 

Organization 

Originator 

21 PC070202-2X 5/28/03 Time & Material Repair Charges 

Invoice Process 

Development 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Eschelon 


22 PC100401-1XMN 5/21/03 LNP Port In/Port Within 

Completion Call (Crossover 

CLEC Test 

SCR100401-1X) 

23 PC031703-1 5/28/03 Make MDS/MDSI/MWI Document 

Available in Excel Format 

CLEC Test 

24 PC041503-1CM 5/23/03 Add to section 4.0 TYPES OF 

CHANGE CLEC impacting defect 

Presented 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Eschelon 



Report Name: 


MCI 

MCI 

Owner 

Director 

CR PM 


Retka, Mary 

Macy, Cindy 

Wells, Joan 

Bliss, Susie 



Bliss, Susie 

Macy, Cindy 

White, Matt 

Schultz, Judy 

White, Matt 


Report 

Line 

Number 

CR Number 


Last 


Update Title 

Organization 

Originator 

25 PC050503-3 5/23/03 CEMR requests processed via the 

proper channels 

Presented 

26 PC042103-1 5/23/03 Tracking process for FBDL order 

issues. 

Clarification 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

MCI 

McLeodUSA 

27 PC042103-2 5/23/03 Escalation Ticket Reporting Wholesale 

ProdProc 

McLeodUSA 

Clarification 

28 PC051203-1 5/29/03 Versioning Process Change Wholesale McLeodUSA 

ProdProc 

Clarification 


Report Name: 


Owner 

Director 

CR PM 

McBride, Kathy 

Burson, Sue 

White, Matt 

Gomez, Lee 

Townley, Robin 

White, Matt 

Thacker, Michelle 

Burson, Sue 

White, Matt 

Manning, Monica 

Burson, Sue 

Macy, Cindy 


Report 

Line 

Number 

CR Number 


Last 


Update Title 

Organization 

Originator 

29 PC012103-1 5/21/03 Update Operator 

Services/Directory Assistance 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

CLEC Test 

(OS/DA) Questionnaire on Website 

Qwest 

Communications 


30 PC022403-2 5/29/03 Conditioning for DSL Services in 

Line Sharing Products at no 

CLEC Test 

charge to the CLEC/DLEC 

31 PC022403-3 5/23/03 Conditioning for Qwest DSL 

Services in UNE-P and Resale 

CLEC Test 

Products at no charge to the 

CLEC/DLEC 

32 PC030503-1 5/28/03 Grandfathering of Consumer 

Packages 

CLEC Test 


Report Name: 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 


Qwest 


Christofferson, Aelea 

Qwest 



Qwest 


Owner 

Director 

CR PM 

Bruggeman, Kathy 

Hooks, Perry 




White, Matt 



White, Matt 

Van Dusen, Janean 


Macy, Cindy 


Report 

Line 

Number 

CR Number 


Last 


Update Title 

Organization 

Originator 

33 PC031203-1 5/23/03 CLEC access to MLT information 

in WFA 

Development 

34 PC032703-2 5/23/03 Modifications to existing 

requirement to have Voice Circuit 

Development 

in-place before DSL can be added 

on Line Sharing Product Family 

35 PC032703-3 5/23/03 Modifications to existing 

requirement to have Voice Circuit 

Development 

in-place before Qwest DSL can be 

added on Resale and UNE-P 

Services 

36 PC032803-3 5/23/03 Grandfather Centrex , Centrex 

Plus and Centron service in 

Development 

Colorado, New Mexico, North 

Dakota and South Dakota 


Report Name: 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 


Qwest 


Qwest 



Qwest 



Qwest 


Owner 

Director 

CR PM 


Retka, Mary 

White, Matt 



White, Matt 



White, Matt 


Bliss, Susie 

White, Matt 


Report 

Line 

Number 

CR Number 


Last 


Update Title 

Organization 

Originator 

37 PC040103-2 5/23/03 Grandfather Nebraska and Iowa 

Measured Service offerings. 

Development 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Qwest 


38 PC042303-4 5/28/03 Implement New USOC PGO2N Wholesale 

Qwest 

ProdProc Communications 

Presented 

39 PC050503-1 6/02/03 Grandparent Switchnet 56. Wholesale 

Qwest 


Presented 

40 PC050503-2 6/02/03 Grandfather SVDS in all state 

tariffs including FCC tariff. 

Presented 


Report Name: 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 


Qwest 


Owner 

Director 

CR PM 


Bliss, Susie 

White, Matt 


Bliss, Susie 

Macy, Cindy 



White, Matt 



White, Matt 


Report 

Line 

Number 

CR Number 


Last 


Update Title 

Organization 

Originator 

41 PC050703-3 5/23/03 Release of microduct technology. Wholesale 

Qwest 


Presented 

42 PC050703-4 5/28/03 DC Power Changes Wholesale 

Qwest 


Presented 

43 PC050703-6 5/28/03 Grandfather Measured Service 

plans in CO, ID North, NM, ND 

Presented 

44 PC081302-1 5/28/03 Qwest to establish a standard 

business day minimum DD on Port 

CLEC Test 

In to Resale/UNE-P, 1 + Lines. 


Report Name: 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 


Qwest 


Qwest 


Lacy, Jane 

Owner 

Director 

CR PM 


White, Matt 

Campbell, Ben 


Macy, Cindy 



Macy, Cindy 

Wells, Joan 

Bliss, Susie 

Macy, Cindy 


Report 

Line 

Number 

CR Number 


Last 


Update Title 

Organization 

Originator 

45 PC112202-1 5/28/03 Held Order Processes when 

Qwest does not have Facilities 

CLEC Test 

46 PC032803-1ES 5/30/03 Qwest to halt the implementation 

of CLEC impacting process 

Denied 

changes with no notice. 

47 PC042303-5 5/23/03 Local Carrier Freeze: ensure 

effective when freeze placed by a 

Presented 

CLEC for a customer. 

48 PC050703-5 5/23/03 Service Manager Transition: 

Qwest to create a documented 

Presented 

and adhered to process for the 

transition of Service Managers 

and review and revise its Service 

Manager staffing practices for 

quality improvement. 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Qwest 


Tel West 

Tel West 

Tel West 



Report Name: 


Owner 

Director 

CR PM 

Carlson, Barbara 

Burson, Sue 

Macy, Cindy 

Schultz, Judy 

Schultz, Judy 

Macy, Cindy 

White, Matt 

Schultz, Judy 

White, Matt 

White, Matt 

Schultz, Judy 

White, Matt 


Report 

Line 

Number 

CR Number 


Last 


Update Title 

Organization 

Originator 

49 PC041603-1 5/28/03 Document ASR process for 

ordering EICT to and from 

Presented 

Collocations; with LOA, to and 

from MUXs 

50 PC050703-2 5/28/03 Supplimental Routing Form 

Process 

Presented 


Report Name: 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 

Wholesale 

ProdProc 


USLink 

XO Communication 

Owner 

Director 

CR PM 

Campbell, Ben 


Macy, Cindy 

Moffatt, Connee 

Retka, Mary 

Macy, Cindy 



Status Date 

Impacted 

PC051403-4 Sync Test for Loop Splitting on Maintenance 

Trouble Tickets and Sync Testing for 

provisioning of Loop Splitting 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Wholesale ProdProc Provisioning / 

Maintenance & 

Repaire 

Loop Splitting 

Covad requests that Qwest extend their existing process of sync testing on provisioning of line share orders to include Sync Testing for Trouble 

Tickets on Loop Splitting. In addition, Covad requests that the current process of provisioning for line sharing be expanded to include Loop 

Splitting. 

Expected Deliverable 

As soon as possible 


06/30/03 - Opened CR for Loop Splitting product on behalf of Covad, Loop Splitting product removed from CR PC051403-1 







01/14/04 - Qwest issued PROD.01.14.04.F.01233.LoopSplittingV16 proposed effective date 2/28/04 


02/12/04 - Qwest issued Final notice PROD.02.12.04.F.01321.FNL_Loop_Split_V16 will become operational 2/27/04 




Heidi Moreland with Qwest gave an update that the Loop Splitting V16 PCAT adding sync testing for provisioning and repair requests will become 

effective on 2/27/04. This CR will remain in Development status. 

_____________________________ 


Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest gave an update that the Loop Splitting V16 PCAT adding sync testing for provisioning and repair requests was 

posted on 1/14/04 as a Level 3 notification. The comment cycle will close on 1/29/04 and the proposed effective date is 2/28/04. This CR will 

remain in Development status. 

______________________________ 


Heidi Moreland with Qwest said the PCAT changes will be out in the January timeframe for review. This CR will remain in Development status. 

______________________________ 


Heidi Moreland with Qwest reviewed the revised response and said that the process is under development. At the December meeting there will be 

a status update. This CR will remain in Development status. 

______________________________ 


Heidi Moreland with Qwest reviewed the revised response and said that Qwest will implement this change request. Carla Pardee asked what date 

this would be implemented. Heidi Moreland said that we do not have an implementation date. This CR will move to Development status. 

______________________________ 


Heidi Moreland with Qwest gave an updated response that Qwest is evaluating this request. Covad agreed this CR remain in Evaluation status. 

______________________________ 

08/20/03 August CMP Meeting 

Heidi Moreland with Qwest provided an update that Qwest is investigating providing Sync testing for Loop Splitting. Loop Splitting follows the 

design flow using TIRKS and the two databases, TIRKS and Switch/FOMS do not communicate with each other. Qwest would like to keep this CR 

in evaluation status while during further investigation and will provide an update at the September meeting. 

______________________________ 


Craig Suellentrop with Qwest explained that this CR was opened to address Sync testing for Loop Splitting. Craig presented the response for this 

CR saying that Qwest needs more time to evaluate sync testing for the Loop Splitting product. This CR will move to Evaluation status. 


Retka, Mary 

Berard, John 

Moreland, Heidi 



Report Name: 

Development 

11/19/03 


Covad 




CR # 

17 


Impacted 

PC051403-4 


Attachment D


For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the November 19, 2003 CMP Meeting 

John Berard 

Director - Operations Support 


SUBJECT:Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC051403-4 

Sync Test for Loop Splitting on Maintenance Trouble Tickets and Sync Testing for provisioning of Loop Splitting 

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request PC051403-4. This CR is a request by Covad for Qwest to extend the existing process of 

Synchronization Testing on Line Sharing requests to include the Loop Splitting product. Covad also requests that Sync Testing be implemented 

for repair tickets on Loop Splitting. 

This CR has been accepted and is currently under development. Qwest will expand the current provisioning process to include Sync Testing on 

Loop Splitting. For Loop Splitting repair, Qwest will perform Sync Testing upon CLEC request.. 

Sincerely, 

Heidi Moreland 

Staff Advocate Policy and Law 

Qwest 

Craig Suellentrop 


Qwest 

---------------------------------------------------------------- 

October 1, 2003 

REVISED DRAFT RESPONSE 

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the October 15, 2003 CMP Meeting 

John Berard 




"Sync Test for Loop Splitting on Maintenance Trouble Tickets and Sync Testing for provisioning of Loop Splitting" 




Qwest is accepting this CR for Sync Testing on Loop Splitting provisioning and repair and ask that it be moved into the development stage. 

Sincerely, 



Qwest 



Qwest 

___________________________ 



For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the September 17, 2003 CMP Meeting 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC051403-4 


Attachment D

John Berard 








Qwest is requesting an additional extension of the evaluation period for this CR for Sync Testing on Loop Splitting provisioning and repair. 

Today, for central office based Shared Loop DSLAMS, Qwest populates the Synchronization Testing protocol (i.e., DMT, etc.) into our 

Switch/FOMS database. This works well for central office based Line Sharing and Line Splitting products since they follow the POTS process flow 

and Switch/FOMS is utilized for POTS services. The Loop Splitting product follows Qwest’s designed service process and as such uses the 

TIRKS database. Switch/FOMS and TIRKS are not compatible systems nor are they linked to transfer information. Qwest is requesting this CR 

remain in evaluation status to enable further systems capability analysis. The complexity of the systems issues requires deep analysis from many 

departments and Qwest continues to explore possible options. Qwest will provide a revised response at the October CMP meeting. 

Sincerely, 



Qwest 



Qwest 

_____________________ 

August 13, 2003 



John Berard 








Qwest is requesting an extension of the evaluation period for this CR for Sync Testing on Loop Splitting provisioning and repair. 

Today, for central office based Shared Loop DSLAMS, Qwest populates the Synchronization Testing protocol (i.e., DMT, etc.) into our 

Switch/FOMS database. This works well for central office based Line Sharing and Line Splitting products since they follow the POTS process flow 

and Switch/FOMS is utilized for POTS services. The Loop Splitting product follows Qwest’s designed service process and as such uses the 

TIRKS database. Switch/FOMS and TIRKS are not compatible systems nor are they linked to transfer information. Qwest is requesting this CR 

remain in evaluation status to enable further systems capability analysis. Qwest will provide a revised response at the September CMP meeting. 

Sincerely, 



Qwest 



Qwest 

________________________________ 

July 2, 2003 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC051403-4 


Attachment D


For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the July 16, 2003 CMP Meeting 

John Berard 

Director Operations Support 

Covad 

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR 051403-4 


This CR requests that Qwest extend the existing process of Sync Testing on Line Sharing requests to include the Loop Splitting product. Covad 

also requests that Sync Testing be implemented for repair tickets on Loop Splitting. 

Since the Loop Splitting product follows Qwest’s designed services process while Line Sharing and Line Splitting follow the non-designed process, 

this request is much more complex than PC051403-1. Different systems are used for designed products and a different process would be 

required. Because of this complexity, Qwest needs additional time to evaluate this request. This change request should be placed in evaluation 

status. 

Sincerely, 

Craig Suellentrop, Staff Advocate-Policy & Law, Qwest 

Heidi Moreland, Staff Advocate-Policy & Law, Qwest 

Cc: Mary Retka, Director, Legal Issues 

Jamal Boudhaouia, Staff Advocate-Policy & Law, Qwest 

Debra S. Smith, Product Manager, Qwest 


Michael Lanoue, Lead Process Analyst, Qwest 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC051403-4 


Attachment D


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC061103- 

1ES 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Intercept CLEC customer calls to Qwest 

Repair Center 

Wholesale ProdProc Maintenance 

repair 

Currently, when an AT&T UNE-P end-user customer calls the Qwest repair line (800-573-1311), the call is routed to a Qwest representative, who 

then provides the customer with an AT&T 800 number. AT&T requests that Qwest change this procedure so that the call is intercepted when the 

customer enters their TN, and the customer should hear a branded message to the AT&T 1-800 repair number (800-288-2747). 

There are several reasons for this request: AT&T customers should not be speaking to a Qwest representative; it would be much more efficient to 

route the call directly to AT&T; it eliminates potential representative errors, and; it reduces the number of calls to the Qwest center. 


August 2003 


06/11/03 - CR Received 


06/18/03 - June CMP Meeting - Meeting minutes will be posted to this CR's Project Meetings section. 






10/21/03 - Qwest received escalation from AT&T 

10/21/03 - Qwest issued notificaiton, CMPR.10.21.03.F.01597.EscalationNotification 






Retka, Mary 

Pardee, Carla 



Development 

9/17/03 




Jamal Boudhaouia with Qwest said that funding for the project has been approved and will provide a date for implementation as soon as available. 

Bonnie Johnson said that she has asked several times and has not received an answer about the Qwest retail VRU project and when that is 

scheduled for implementation or has it been implemented. Jamal said that the project hasn’t been implemented and all changes will be 

incorporated and will include the CR requested changes. Bonnie said that Qwest hasn’t made clear what the implementation date will be. Carla 

Pardee with AT&T said that the changes were supposed to be effective in April. Jamal said there is currently no date for implementation. Carla 

said that the CR is important to AT&T and would like to see solid dates next month adding that the CR was escalated previously and did not do any 

good. Judy Schultz with Qwest said that we had just received word that funding was approved on Friday and IT will determine the dates as soon 

as possible. The dates will be provided, if available, before the March meeting. Bonnie said that Qwest had already provided the implementation 

date of April, (comment begin from Eschelon) 2004 but now states that this was just approved. Judy said all changes had to be reevaluated by 

Noteabart. (comment end from Eschelon). This CR will remain in Development status. 

____________________________________ 


Jamal Boudhaouia with Qwest provided an update that there is no date for implementation. Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon thought this was going 

to be worked in conjunction with a Qwest retail project. Judy Schultz with Qwest said that this is one of the projects subject to the funding approval 

process. Even projects that had previously been approved are subject to the new approval process. Qwest will find out when the internal project 

for the VRU will be worked and how these two projects are connected. This CR will remain in Development status. (Begin comment from Bonnie 

Johnson - Eschelon) Qwest took an action to review this CR. Bonnie said this CR was waiting for an update already underway for the VRU. That 

was the delay after this was opened in June 2003. (end comment). 

_____________________________________ 


Jamal Boudhaouia with Qwest said that the CR is in development status and have no update on timeframe for implementation. Carla Pardee with 

AT&T said they would like to see progress on this CR by next month or AT&T will escalate the CR. This CR will remain in Development status. 

_____________________________________ 


Craig Suellentrop said that Qwest has accepted this CR and will make changes to the VRU. Work will be going on in the Qwest VRU and will 

provide implementation dates as soon as available. Carla Pardee with AT&T said that this CR has been open since June and AT&T would like a 

formal commitment on the timeframe. This CR will remain in Development Status. 


Report Name: 

AT&T 



CR # 

UNE-P 

18 


Impacted 

PC061103-1ES 


Attachment D

_____________________________________ 


Craig Suellentrop said that Qwest is looking at redesigning the repair VRU and plan to include changes for this CR at the same time. Carla Pardee 

with AT&T said AT&T is anxious to get the changes in place and asked for the implementation date. Craig said he hopes to have implementation 

dates for the November CMP meeting. Carla asked if the changes Qwest is looking at to make to the VRU should be included in a Qwest initiated 

CMP CR. Craig said it is still being looked at and determination has not been made if a CR will be required. This CR will remain in Development 

Status. 

_____________________________________ 


Craig Suellentrop said that Qwest accepts this CR with an implementation expected in 90 - 120 days. When a customer calls into the repair VRU 

between 11:30 p.m. - 5 a.m. the system accessed by the VRU to perform the ownership check may be down and the caller will automatically be 

transferred to a repair agent. However, during this time the system used by Qwest’s repair agents can still identify if a line is owned by a CLEC 

and will be able to direct the end-user to their local carrier. This CR will be moved to Development status. 

_____________________________________ 


Craig Suellentrop with Qwest reviewed the draft response to this CR. Craig said that Qwest has mapped the different ways that end users can get 

into repair VRU and now need the LOE. Qwest will have an update at the September meeting. This CR will be moved to Evaluation status. 

______________________________________ 


Carla Pardee with AT&T presented this CR. Craig Suellentrop with Qwest explained the current repair VRU process. When an end user calls into 

repair they enter the telephone number they are calling about. If the end user presses 1 for a repair agent the VRU does no ownership check and 

the repair agent inputs the telephone and if the telephone number is CLEC owned the repair agent refers the end user to their alternate provider. If 

the end user presses 2 for automatic ticket entry and the number is CLEC owned, the VRU will respond that the number is not serviced by Qwest. 

Then the end user can press 1, if they are the customer for the account. If it is a TN owned by an alternate service provider, the VRU reads the 

repair number for end user to call for repair services. If the VRU does not recognize the TN, it reads contact your service provider for assistance. 

Carla with AT&T would like the VRU to respond when the end user enters a telephone number owned by alternate provider, by intercepting the call 

and routing it to the correct company. Craig will provide the VRU process to the CLEC Community for input on changes. 

______________________________________ 



2:00 p.m. (MT) / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 

1-877-572-8687 

PIN 3393947 # 

PC061103-1 Intercept CLEC customer calls to Qwest Repair Center 

Name/Company: 


Dave Fane, AT&T 

Lydia Braze, AT&T 

Cathy Garcia, Qwest 

Craig Suellentrop, Qwest 

Michael Whitt, Qwest 





The description of the change requested in the CR was reviewed. Currently, when an AT&T UNE-P end-user customer calls the Qwest repair line 

(800-573-1311), the call is routed to a Qwest representative, who then provides the customer with an AT&T 800 number. AT&T requests that 

Qwest change this procedure so that the call is intercepted when the customer enters their TN, and the customer should hear a branded message 

to the AT&T 1-800 repair number (800-288-2747). There are several reasons for this request: AT&T customers should not be speaking to a 

Qwest representative; it would be much more efficient to route the call directly to AT&T; it eliminates potential representative errors, and; it reduces 

the number of calls to the Qwest center. 

Dave Fane clarified that the intercept should be implemented for all CLEC customers, not just AT&T customers, and that the end user should be 

routed to the correct CLEC branding. In the testing, Dave used an AT&T test number and called into repair 6 or 8 times with different results. 


Product impacted UNE-P 


Qwest confirmed that Craig Suellentrop & Cathy Garcia are correct personnel to resolve the CR. 


AT&T would like this change to be effective in August 2003 . 


No dependent change requests were identified. 


AT&T will present this CR at the July CMP Meeting and Qwest will provide response at the August CMP. Donna Osborne-Miller requested that 

Qwest provide a response or an update if available at the July CMP. 

_____________________________________ 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC061103-1ES 


Attachment D

06/18/03 June CMP Meeting 

Carla Pardee, Lydia Braze and Dave Fane with AT&T reviewed the walk on CR PC061103-1. Dave said that customers within the Qwest territory 

without Qwest local service call Qwest repair and AT&T would like the IVR to have the ability to route customers to AT&T and identify that the TN 

does not belong to Qwest. Other ILECs have this ability and it reduces calls to the repair center, mistakes made by repair representatives, and 

reduces call time for end users, who sometimes are involved in a call taking up to 3-4 minutes before the repair representative recognizes that the 

customer is not a Qwest customer. Eschelon, U S Link and McLeod all said they support this change request. Lynne Powers with TelWest asked 

if the end user would be inputting their telephone number and Dave said that is what occurs in the PacBell region. There will be a clarification call 

on this change request. 



For Review by the CLEC community and discussion at the September 17, 2003 CMP Meeting 

Carla Pardee 

AT&T 


"Intercept CLEC customer calls to the Qwest Repair Center" 

This CR requests that when a CLEC end-user calls into Qwest repair “the call is intercepted when the end-user enters their TN, and the customer 

should hear a branded message to the [CLEC] 1-800 repair number. 

The August response illustrated Qwest’s current Voice Response Unit (VRU) scripting when an end-user calls into Qwest repair. For this CR 

Qwest investigated the possibility of performing the ownership check and replaying the same scripts for Option 2 as are performed for Option 1. 

Qwest accepts this CR and will make the changes indicated above. The systems accessed for this ownership check may be down for 

maintenance nightly between 11:30 pm and 5:00 am Mountain Time. Therefore, during this period, it may not be possible to perform the 

ownership check. However, the system used by Qwest’s repair agents will still detect if a line is owned by a CLEC and the agent will direct the enduser 

to call his or her local carrier. 

Sincerely, 



Qwest 




_____________________________ 

August 13, 2003 



Carla Pardee 

AT&T 


"Intercept CLEC customer calls to the Qwest Repair Center" 

AT&T’s CR requests that when a CLEC end-user calls into Qwest repair "the call is intercepted when the end-user enters their TN, and the 

customer should hear a branded message to the [CLEC] 1-800 repair number." 

The attached document illustrates Qwest’s current Voice Response Unit (VRU) scripting when an end-user calls into Qwest repair. For this CR, 

Qwest investigated the possibility of performing the ownership check and replaying the same scripts for Option 2 as are performed for Option 1. 

The direct number to get into repair for all 14 states in Qwest’s local service region is 1-800-573-1311. However, other Qwest VRU systems have 

options allowing the caller to transfer to Local Network repair. Callers coming from these other systems do not always input their TN into the repair 

VRU. Because of this, Qwest has to map all of the various methods of getting into the repair VRU and determine how/if an ownership check can 

be conducted. Qwest is now in the process of getting an estimate for feasibility to perform the ownership check. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC061103-1ES 


Attachment D

Qwest will provide a revised response at the September CMP meeting with the findings of this research. 

Sincerely, 



Qwest 





Report Name: 



CR # 

PC061103-1ES 


Attachment D

Qwest Repair VRU 

When an end user calls into repair they enter the telephone number they are calling about. 

• Option 1: allows the caller to enter an automated trouble ticket using a touch tone phone. An ownership 

check is performed on the number. If the TN is not served by Qwest the following message is returned, 

“The number you have entered is not serviced by Qwest. If you’re the customer for this account, Press 1. 

If you are the alternate service provider, Press 2. 

• Option 1: If Qwest recognizes who the alternate service provider is on the account and has a TN 

for that providers repair, the following message is returned. “The number for their repair service 

is (Alternate Providers TN). To repeat this information Press *. Or, if you are in the process of 

establishing your service with Qwest, press 1 now to speak with a Qwest Representative. 

Otherwise, Thank you for calling Qwest.” 

If Qwest does not recognize who the alternate service provider is on the account or does not have 

a TN for that providers repair bureau, then the following message is returned. “Since your 

telephone number is serviced by a company other than Qwest, you must contact that provider for 

assistance. If you would like to speak to a Qwest representative, Press 1. Otherwise, Thank you 

for calling Qwest.” 

• Option 2: Transfers call to Qwest Repair Agent. 

• Option 2: allows the caller to speak immediately to a Qwest Repair Agent. No ownership check is made 

by the VRU. When the Repair Agent enters the number into the Qwest system, a message is returned 

advising that this number is for an alternate provider. If the caller is not the alternate provider, the agent 

advises the caller to call their service provider and will provide that alternate service providers TN, if 

available.


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC070103-1 Provide "Lines In Service Report" to CLECs Development Wholesale ProdProc Resale, UNE P 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


MCI is requesting that Qwest implement a "Lines In Service Report". This report would result in what Qwest reflects as active UNE-P and Resale 

lines in service that belong to a given CLEC on the date the report is generated. MCI is requesting that the report be provided on a monthly basis 

via CD-ROM or equivalent media type. This report would provide needed insight to any discrepancies between CLEC customer data and Qwest 

data and assist with reconciliation efforts. 

Information MCI requests on the report: 

- CLEC Name 

- ACNA - Access Customer Name Abbreviation 

- BTN - Billing Telephone Number 

- WTN - Working Telephone Number 

- Service Delivery Method 

- Original Migrate/Completion Date 

- Date of snapshot extract 

- Type of Service (Bus/Res) 

- State 


That Qwest provide a "lines in service report" for UNE-P and Resale lines on a monthly basis via CD-ROM or equivalent media type. 


Balvin, Liz 








10/29/03 - Held Ad Hoc Meeting - Meeting minutes will be posted to this CR's Project Meetings section. 





02/27/04 - Qwest issued PROS.02.27.04.F.01409.LinesInServiceReport effective immediately 


Staebell, Todd D. 

Mcghghy, Laua 


9/17/03 




Impacted 


Laura McGhghy with Qwest gave an update that 2/27/04 is targeted to provide the January data. In addition to the report, there will be a product 

code explanation file that provides a product code definition. Jennifer Arnold with U S Link asked how to get the report. Laura explained they 

should contact their service manager to request. This CR will remain in Development status. 

_______________________ 


Laura McGhghy with Qwest gave an update that January data will be provided at the end of February and that a notification will be sent. This CR 

will remain in Development status. 

_________________________ 


Laura McGhghy with Qwest gave an update on the CR. Laura said that during the ad hoc meeting she had an action item to determine if BTN 

would be available for non-design services. BTN will not be available for non-design services and will be available for design services. Laura 

added that the reports will be provided by state and each state will have one report for design services and one report for non-design services. Liz 

Balvin with MCI clarified that the reports will be state specific and will be broken down by design and non-design reports. This CR will remain in 


_________________________ 


Laura McGhghy with Qwest provided an update on this CR and said that Qwest is continuing development and expects to provide January results 


Report Name: 

MCI 



CR # 

19 

PC070103-1 


Attachment D

in the February timeframe. Liz Balvin with MCI asked how the CLECs would get the data. Laura said that the data will be available where the PID 

results are located. This CR will remain in Development Status. 

_________________________ 


PC070103-1 

Provide "Lines In Service Report" to CLECs 



1-877-572-8687, Conference ID 3393947# 


PURPOSE 

At the October CMP Meeting, participants agreed to hold a conference call to review the format for the report. 

The following is the write-up of the discussion. 




Kim Issaacs, Eschelon 

Kathy Stitcher, Eschelon 

Cedric Cox, MCI 

Ed Boehme, MCI 

Laura McGhghy, Qwest 

Dave Phillips, Qwest 

Jon Boisseau, Qwest 




Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest explained that the purpose of the meeting was to review the draft report format. Laura McGhghy with Qwest 

reviewed the draft reports. Resale design products and non-design products will be available in two files. Design Products report will include; 

CLEC ID, ACNA, BTN, Circuit ID, Product Code, Extract date, and State. Non-Design Products report will include; CLEC ID, WTN, Product Code, 

Extract Date and State. 

Liz Balvin with MCI asked for further definition of the product code. Laura McGhghy said that the product name, i.e., DS1 would mean resale 

DS1. Liz asked if the CLEC ID would be the RSID. Laura said yes. 

Laura continued explaining the report and said that the original migration date is not something that is in our system and is unavailable for the 

reports. 

Cedric Cox with MCI asked if the BTN is available on non-design and added that most ILECs normally want the BTN with the WTN for disputes. 

Dave Phillips said that BTN is not available in the data that will be provided with the current report design. Cedric asked if the customer has 

multiple lines, will the WTNs show on the report as belonging to the CLEC. Dave answered yes. Laura took an action item to find out if BTN is 

available on the non-design data. 

Liz Balvin asked if the report was derived from PREMIS or CRIS, as PREMIS only has WTN data. Dave said that the non-design data is coming 

from LMOS, and the design data is from TIRKS. 

Cedric asked if there was a dispute on a WTN would the CLEC have to provide the BTN. Dave Phillips answered that we would have to work 

through disputes with the data available. 

Liz asked if the extract date is the date the data is pulled from LMOS. Dave and Laura responded that it is the date the data is pulled from either 

LMOS or TIRKS. 

Cedric asked if there will be indication of Residence or Business. Laura said that Res or Bus will be in the product code. Laura and Dave 

committed to provide a list of the prod_cd’s and their English names to MCI. 

Liz asked if they could get valid values populated and what date the reports would be available. Laura said that when the data is pulled the extract 

date is a snapshot of the date it occurs. Dave will find out when the data will be pulled and get back to MCI. 

Cedrick asked what the dispute process is if they have 1000 ANI’s that they believe do not belong to them. Jon Boisseau said there is the informal 

reconciliation process, the formal process through the PAP and Service Management can also take the dispute to regulatory reporting. 

Kathy Stitcher with Eschelon asked if unbundled loop would be in the design file. Laura said that resale and any other design type products would 

be in the design file. 

Linda asked if there were any questions. No questions were asked. 

_______________________________ 


Laura McGhghy with Qwest provided an update on this CR. Qwest plans to have January data available in the month of February. Laura would 

like to hold an ad hoc meeting to discuss the draft format of the report. Linda Sanchez-Steinke will e-mail Liz with possible dates for the meeting. 



Report Name: 



CR # 

PC070103-1 


Attachment D

__________________________________________ 


Laura McGhghy with Qwest provided the Qwest draft response. Qwest will provide the report requested and target January 2004 for the data to be 

available. Liz Balvin said would like to see the data in a draft form as soon as available. Other CLECs would like to get the report as well and 

Laura said they should request the report through their service manager. This CR will move to Development Status. 

__________________________________________ 


Laura McGhghy with Qwest reviewed the draft response and said Qwest is investigating possible solutions for this CR and will have an updated 

response at the September meeting. This CR will be moved to Evaluation status. 

__________________________________________ 


Liz Balvin with MCI presented this CR. MCI would like a monthly report of UNE-P and Resale lines in service. This report would give the ability to 

sync up the lines in service with the CLEC and Qwest. Sue Kriebel asked for the name of the report provided for access lines and Liz will provide 

the information to Linda Sanchez-Steinke. Dusti Bastian asked what additional data fields would be included in the monthly report vs. the daily 

loss and completion report. Liz said this report will be on a specific month timeframe and will include lines in service Qwest identifies and tie back 

to losses, helping to track and resolve issues. Sue Kriebel asked how the monthly report would be different from the CSR report that identifies 

lines in service. Liz said they have to access the CSR. Sue said the CSR is received along with the bill, and when the bill is received you can see 

the TN that is being billed. Liz said that billing isn’t what Qwest identifies as the lines in service and there would also be timing issues with the 

CSR report. Sue asked if the monthly report would be pulled on a different day than the bill and Liz said MCI wants the report pulled on the 1st or 

the 31st of the month. Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon said that the loss and completion report received daily only identifies service order activity 

and not total lines in service. Liz would like to understand why the CR was unilaterally changed to a Product / Process CR and Kit Thomte with 

Qwest apologized that the CR was acknowledged as Product and Process without an explanation when MCI had requested it be a Systems CR. 

____________________________________________ 



3:00 p.m. (MDT) / Friday, July 11, 2003 

1-877-572-8687 

3393947# 

PC070103-1 Provide "Lines In Service Report" to CLECs 

Name/Company: 


Cedric Cox, MCI 

Donna Lucio, Qwest 

Fred Howard, Qwest 

Kerri Waldner, Qwest 

Luke Von Hagen, Qwest 

Don Kerschner, Qwest 

Laurel Nolan, Qwest 





MCI’s CR requests that Qwest implement a "Lines In Service Report". This report would result in what Qwest reflects as active UNE-P and Resale 

lines in service that belong to a given CLEC on the date the report is generated. MCI is requesting that the report be provided on a monthly basis 

via CD-ROM or equivalent media type. This report would provide needed insight to any discrepancies between CLEC customer data and Qwest 

data and assist with reconciliation efforts. 

Information MCI requests on the report: 

- CLEC Name 

- ACNA - Access Customer Name Abbreviation 

- BTN - Billing Telephone Number 

- WTN - Working Telephone Number 

- Service Delivery Method 

- Original Migrate/Completion Date 

- Date of snapshot extract 

- Type of Service (Bus/Res) 

- State 

Liz Balvin with MCI said that Qwest has a similar lines in service report on the Access side and this report allows a sync up with installed services 

and allows them to catch discrepancies sooner. Kerri Waldner with Qwest asked if the items requested are being provided in any other report. Liz 

said that she is not aware of any other report providing this information. Dusti Bastian asked for a definition of Service Delivery Method. Cedric 

said that is the product type, resale or UNE-P. Fred Howard asked if the report was requesting data for MCI only. Cedric answered yes, MCI only 

is what is requested. Dusti asked if this report would be for services billed or for services provisioned. Cedric said for those services provisioned. 

Kerri asked if the report would be a snapshot in time with no accumulation. Cedric said that the report would be a snapshot in time. 

Donna Lucio asked about the timing of the report and if MCI would want the report at the first or the last of the month. Liz and Cedric said it didn’t 

matter what date the report is pulled and that they are looking for a monthly report. 

Cedric said that MCI would take the TN’s and bounce them against a database for telco billing and traffic data. This would give them line loses 

that they hadn’t been made aware of previously. Kerri asked if MCI wants to get this monthly, would it be a snap shot in time or a monthly 

compilation. Liz and Cedric answered they would like a snapshot in time and don’t need a cumulative report. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC070103-1 


Attachment D

Liz said that she is concerned with the unilateral conversion process that this CR was moved to Product and process and would like an explanation 

why the CR was handled in this way. 


Products impacted with this CR are UNE and Resale Lines. 


Qwest confirmed the correct personnel were on the call to resolve the CR. 


MCI’s expectation is a monthly report for active UNE-P and Resale lines in service. 


No systems change requests. 


MCI will present this CR at the July CMP meeting. 



Liz Balvin 

MCI 


"Provide 'Lines in Service Report' to CLECs". 

As a follow up to the August 20, 2003 CMP Meeting, Qwest is willing to provide a monthly report of all MCI lines in service for all products currently 

reported in 271 reporting. 

This report will be available to MCI from the secure website where MCI obtains all other PID reporting data. 

Qwest is beginning investigation and coding work at this time and expects to have the data available to MCI in January 2004. 

Sincerely, 

Laura McGhghy 


Qwest 

___________________________ 

August 13, 2003 



Liz Balvin 

MCI 


Provide "Lines In Service Report" to CLECs 

MCI’s CR requests that Qwest provide a report reflecting active UNE-P and Resale lines in service that belong to a given CLEC on the date the 

report is generated. 

Qwest is investigating possible solutions to this change request and will provide an updated response at the September CMP meeting. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC070103-1 


Attachment D

Sincerely, 

Donna Lucio 

Sr. Process Analyst 

Qwest 

Cc: Sue Burson, Qwest 



Report Name: 



CR # 

PC070103-1 


Attachment D


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC070103-3 DSL Volume provider and data migration 

process to prevent extended DSL outage 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 





Wholesale ProdProc Ordering, 

Provisioning 

line/loop splitting and 

sharing, 

UNE LOOP, UNE P 

Eschelon and Covad jointly submit this request. This request applies to all types of DSL (Qwest Retail, Qwest resold DSL, volume provider DSL, 

CLEC DSL, etc.). Any migration of voice, data or voice/data should be handled by Qwest with a single Local Service Request (“LSR”) with only 

minimal interruption to service. 

An end user customer should be able to obtain one due date for installation/functioning of both voice and data. Carriers should be able to place a 

single LSR to convert physical DSL service (regardless of the identity of the ISP) to any provider without undue service interruption. Regardless of 

the ISP (or of the sharing scenario, if any), customer switches that involve both voice and data should be performed with (1) one LSR, and (2) no 

extended service disruption. With this request, we seek, for example, to: (1) ensure that the use/presence of a DSL Volume provider does not 

adversely impact conversions/conversion intervals when switching providers. (If a conversion would not result in an extended outage or longer 

intervals if a non-volume DSL provider is involved, then the same conversion should not result in an extended outage or longer intervals if a volume 

DSL provider is involved); and (2) to convert (using a single LSR) a customer’s existing DSL service regardless of how service is provided 

[including various sharing scenarios (e.g., line sharing/splitting; loop sharing/splitting)] without extended service interruption to data or voice 

providers. 

#1 

There should be no exception to the process for volume providers. Currently, when a customer switches from Qwest Retail DSL and Qwest ISP 

service to a CLEC, Qwest processes allow a CLEC/DLEC, using one LSR, to (a) convert the DSL and change the ISP (for resale/UNE-P), or (b) 

perform a partial conversion (such as leaving the line and DSL with Qwest Retail for one line and converting the remaining lines in the account to 

CLEC) – both without disconnecting the DSL. In contrast, when the customer has DSL service from a volume provider, Qwest will disconnect the 

DSL in both of these scenarios. The disconnect is not momentary. It results in a DSL outage for the customer for the length of the entire interval 

required to add the DSL again (5 days or more). Such outages are harmful to competition, because customers are reluctant to switch carriers 

when faced with such an extended DSL outage. The presence or absence of a volume provider should not affect the result. In any case, such an 

extended DSL outage should not occur. CLECs should be able to request these conversions using one LSR. 

#2 

The current process that does not require DSL disconnects (see #1a and #1b) should be expanded to include the types of conversions that 

currently result in DSL disconnects/outages, cannot be ordered using one LSR, or both. When switching carriers, an end user customer should be 

able to obtain one due date for installation/functioning of both voice and data and should not experience extended DSL outages. This result should 

not depend on the product that the customer currently uses or to which it is switching. Currently, the result does vary by product. For example, if a 

customer is on line sharing (with Qwest Retail voice and Covad data) and wants to switch to a UNE-P line splitting product (with CLEC voice and 

Covad data), Qwest will disconnect the DSL. Again, the disconnect is not momentary and results in an extended DSL outage. Even though the 

data is staying with Covad in this example, Qwest requires disconnection of the line sharing product and re-establishment of the UNE-P line 

splitting product as a physical matter. In reality, however, this should just be a pure records change for data and should not affect the customer’s 

service. CLECs should be able to request these conversions using one LSR. 


Qwest will develop, document and train a process(es) that meets the needs described in the above Description of Change. The process will 

expand the current one to avoid DSL disconnects/outages in situations that currently result in disconnects/outages; it will allow use of a single LSR 

for ordering these conversions; and it will not include any exception for volume providers. If different parts of this CR can be done earlier than 

others, please describe the options to CLECs. Also, if different methods would be used to provide these conversions (such as a coordinated hot 

cut type elective option), please describe. Eschelon and Covad bring these issues together in one CR so that portions of the request do not fall 

between the cracks. 

Text of e-mail message from Bonnie Johnson: 

Development 

11/19/03 


Eschelon 



Impacted 

“Scenario #1 

Qwest Retail customer is converting to Eschelon (Resale or UNE-P) and hasQwest DSL with the DVDP FID. Eschelon sends conversion request 

and retains Qwest DSL but changes the ISP host (we do these today when the customer does not have volume provider arrangement). 

Scenario #2 

Qwest Retail customer is converting to Eschelon (Resale or UNE-P) and has Qwest DSL with the DVDP FID. Eschelon sends conversion request 

and requests the line with Qwest DSL with volume provider stay with Qwest and Eschelon converts all or a part of the remaining account (we do 

these today when the customer does not have volume provider arrangement). 

Scenario #3 

Qwest Retail customer is converting to Eschelon (Facility based) and has Qwest DSL with or without a volume provider. Eschelon converts the line 


Report Name: 



CR # 

20 

PC070103-3 


Attachment D

with DSL to a DSL (XDSL-I) capable loop.” 





08/04/03 - Sent e-mail question to Bonnie Johnson re: Scenario #2, rec'd e-mail response from Bonnie Johnson re: Scenario #2 

08/06/03 - Sent e-mail question to Bonnie Johnson re: Scenario #3 

08/08/03 - Rec'd e-mail response from Bonnie Johnson re: Scenario #3 



09/30/03 - Held clarification meting with Bonnie Johnson re: Scenario #1 





01/26/04 - Qwest Issued PROS.01.26.04.F.01274.MigrationsV14 Level 1 effective 1/27/04 




Anthony Washington with Qwest provided an update that we have received funding approval and are waiting for an implementation date. This CR 

will remain in Development status. 

____________________________ 


Russ Urevig with Qwest gave an update that the Migration/Conversion PCAT will contain a link for unbundled loop scenarios and will explain if a 

single or a combination of LSRs is required. The documentation will be available in the late January timeframe and will be located at the end of the 

ordering section in the Migration/Conversion PCAT. This CR will remain in Development status. 

____________________________ 


Russ Urevig with Qwest said that there were questions submitting orders and the scenarios for migrations and conversions. Bonnie Johnson with 

Eschelon added they need to know how to submit the LSRs. Russ asked if the CR should be left open for this documentation change. Linda 

Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest said that the CR should remain open due to systems changes needed. This CR will remain in Development status. 

____________________________ 


Anthony Washington with Qwest gave an update on Scenario #1 and said that Qwest accepts this CR and the process changes will be initiated. 

Updates will be provided as the project moves forward. Jamal Boudhaouia with Qwest added that the CLECs should understand that the CLEC 

should provide the end user a modem and a profile should be ready and built in the new ISP to additionally minimize downtime. Bonnie Johnson 

with Eschelon said she did understand. Bonnie added that Qwest had announced PCAT changes associated with scenario #3 and needs to 

provide additional information on how to submit an LSR when ordering four voice retail lines to convert to an unbundled loop and one data line is 

converting to an unbundled loop with DSL service. Russ Urevig said that he is doing research and will determine if a PCAT update is needed. 

This CR will move to Development status. 

____________________________ 


Deb Smith with Qwest gave an update on Scenario #3 and #4. Updates have been made to PCATS for Line Sharing, Loop Splitting, Line Splitting, 

Unbundled Loops and Migrations and Procedures. The procedure identifies if 1 or more LSRs are needed and explains that downtime will not 

exceed 45 minutes. Kim Isaacs with Eschelon asked if the DSL notices were in the UNE loop PCAT. Deb Smith said the unbundled loop PCAT 

went out as a level 2 on 10/1/03. Kim said that she will review the changes and added that she didn’t know that the CR was associated with the 

PCAT. 

Anthony Washington with Qwest gave an update on Scenario #1. Qwest SME’s held a meeting with Bonnie Johnson to discuss looking at 

separate service orders to resolve the CR. Qwest is re-evaluating and will have an update at the November meeting. This CR will remain in 

Evaluation status. 

____________________________ 


PC070103-3 


1-877-572-8687, Conference ID 3393947# 

1:00 p.m. - 1:45 p.m. Mountain Time 



Janean Van Dusen - Qwest 

Cindy Schwartze - Qwest 

Anthony Washington - Qwest 

Michael Whitt - Qwest 



of the meeting was to discuss CR PC070103-3 and Bonnie’s request at the September CMP meeting to review whether the process could be 

accomplished by Qwest initiating two service orders. 

Bonnie said at the September CMP meeting, Qwest denied this CR because it was economically unfeasible due to changes to systems that would 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC070103-3 


Attachment D

have to be done. Eschelon would like to convert customers with no downtime on DSL when a customer has a volume service provider. From a 

process perspective, issue an order to disconnect DSL volume service provider and ISP then consecutively issue an order to install Qwest DSL 

ISP of choice. This process would re-install the service order so the customer is not without DSL service. 

Cindy Schwartze asked if Eschelon wants Qwest to take the LSR and if it has VISP remove that and keep the same speed, change the host and 

there will no outage of DSL. Bonnie agreed. 

Bonnie said the response at September CMP didn’t make sense because systems would not need to be changed to accomplish, when it can be 

done by changing a process. An order could be issued with Qwest DSL staying or changing and another order, with one due date, the date of 

conversion, getting rid of the host and getting a new one. The request is not to have any downtime. 

Anthony Washington asked how much downtime, Bonnie said that we have discussed this and Linda said that 45 minutes downtime had been 

identified as acceptable in the change request. 

Janean Van Dusen said that we have legal and contractual obligations with the volume ISP. 

Bonnie said that when the LSR is sent in, Qwest allows the disconnect of the volume ISP. Bonnie suggested that if we look at this as a process 

solution, we could use 2 service orders to accomplish the same thing, the volume ISP would go away, and the customer would not have the 5 day 

lag time without DSL. It is not logical that system changes would be required to accomplish the change request. 

Cindy asked if this example would be accurate: Eschelon wants to issue 1 LSR to convert the account, remove the VISP, add or change what is 

existing for Qwest DSL with the same due date. Cindy further explained that today Eschelon issues 1 LSR to convert and remove the VISP and 1 

LSR to add Qwest DSL and host. Bonnie said that the second LSR can’t be submitted until the VISP order is completed. 

Michael Whitt asked if Eschelon would be willing to send more than 1 LSR. Bonnie said it is not Eschelon’s preference and it would leave more 

room for gaps and rejects in error. Bonnie asked if they would get IMA up front errors. 

Cindy asked if there was a question about different modems for the end user and new I-host. Anthony said he did not believe that has anything to 

do with Qwest. 

Cindy asked if the VCI/VPI would be an issue. Bonnie said that Qwest resale or Qwest retail change, VCI/VPI, on Qwest Q host on the same day. 

Cindy said the CLEC gets the VCI/VPI within 1 hour and Integrator does translations. 

Bonnie said that Eschelon is currently using this process with customers on Qwest retail DSL with Qwest ISP. Volume ISP is a contractual 

agreement. If it is not a Volume ISP and the costs are $1 M, what systems need to be changed and why does the process work currently when 

there is not a volume ISP. 

Cindy Schwartze said that the VISP isn’t a resale-able product. Originally we rejected LSR’s because it wasn’t a resale-able product. Cindy said 

that Qwest needs to get everyone together for an estimate of what it would take. 

Michael Whitt said that we can’t promise that the response will be different and said that we have been working on a way to provide the change 

requested. Bonnie said that the CMP process states that if the CR is denied that Qwest should provide details. 

Linda asked if there were any additional questions. No questions were asked and Linda said that we would discuss this CR at the October CMP 

meeting. 

___________________________ 


Deb Smith with Qwest explained this CR was submitted jointly by Eschelon and Covad and was divided into Scenarios 1 through 4. 

Deb read the draft response for Scenario 3, a Qwest Retail customer is converting to Eschelon (Facility based) and has Qwest DSL with or without 

a volume provider. Eschelon converts the line with DSL to a DSL (xDSL-I) Capable Loop. Qwest and Eschelon agreed that downtime will not 

exceed 45 minutes on these type of requests and will update the Unbundled Loop PCAT with this information. 

Deb read the draft response for Scenario 4, Line Sharing, Line Splitting and Loop Splitting, has been addressed in a CR PC012703-2 and Qwest 

has updated the Migration and Conversion PCAT addressing the need for more than 1 LSR for each migration or conversion possible. The PCAT 

will be updated to reflect the 45 minute timeframe and will get the information to the documentation team by Friday. Notification of updated PCAT 

will be provided to the CLEC Community. 

Anthony Washington read the draft response for Scenario #1. Liz Balvin with MCI said that the CMP document says that if a CR is denied as 

economically not feasible, then Qwest should provide some details around the costs in excess of one million dollars. Bonnie Johnson with 

Eschelon stated she wants Qwest to go back to the drawing board and determine if this can be done by issuing separate service orders. Eschelon 

wants to have Qwest DSL that same day and not 5 days later. A separate call will be held to discuss alternate process solutions to implement this 

scenario. 

Anthony read the response for Scenario #2, Qwest is currently providing this capability. This CR will remain in Evaluation status. 

_______________________________ 


08-20-03 

Smith-Qwest presented the response; Qwest is still evaluating the request. The request was moved to Evaluation status. 

=========================================== 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC070103-3 


Attachment D

Sent: Fri 8/8/03 5:48 AM 

From: Bonnie Johnson 

To: Linda Sanchez-Steinke 

RE: Question Scenario #3 PC070103-3 

Hi Linda, 

The customer in this scenario would be converting both voice and data to the 

CLEC. No services would be left with Qwest. 

Let me know if this helps! 

Have a good day! 


Sr. Manager ILEC Relations 


Phone 612 436-6218 

Fax 612 436-6318 

Cell 612 743-6724 

__________________________________ 

Sent: Wed 8/6/03 1:31 PM 

To: Bonnie Johnson 

From: Linda Sanchez-Steinke 

Subject: Question Scenario #3 PC070103-3 

Bonnie - 

Below is a question from Deb Smith, on CR PC070103-3. Would you respond back to 

me and I'll e-mail on to Deb. 

Thank you 


CRPM 

Qwest 

303-965-0972 

Scenario #3 


with DSL to a DSL (XDSL-I) capable loop. 

Bonnie, 

We need a bit more clarification on scenario #3. Our understanding of scenario #3 is that a Qwest Retail customer is converting both voice and 

data to Eschelon. Is that correct? If so, this would be a conversion to an Unbundled Loop xDSL-I reusing existing facilities (if facilities qualify). 

If the voice portion is remaining with Qwest, this is not a conversion and would require a new Unbundled Loop to the premise. 

Any additional clarification would be greatly appreciated. 

Thank you, 

Deb Smith 

___________________________________ 

Mon 8/4/03 11:48 A 

From: Bonnie Johnson 

To: Linda Sanchez-Steinke 

RE: PC070103-3 Scenario #2 

Linda, 

I clarified all of this on the clarification call, however, if Qwest needs 

further information then we need a call. Yes Qwest currently offers partial 

conversions but the DSL is disconnected at the time of conversion when they 

have a volume provider. 




Phone 612 436-6218 

Fax 612 436-6318 

Cell 612 743-6724 

__________________________________ 

From: Linda Sanchez-Steinke 

To: Bonnie Johnson 

Sent 8/4/03 8:36 

Bonnie - 

I am backfilling for Matt White and Anthony Washington had a question about PC070103-3, scenario #2. 

The following is Anthony's question: 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC070103-3 


Attachment D

Scenario #2 appears to be a partial conversion, which Qwest already makes available to CLECs. Therefore, explain how the 

scenario differs from a partial conversion, and or, revise the scenario in a manner that differs from scenario #1 and #3. 

Bonnie, I've attached the scenarios and would you e-mail me back, if needed we can get Anthony on a conference call. 

Thank you 


CRPM 

Qwest 

303-965-0972 

___________________________________ 

Clarification Meeting - 07-21-03 

Attendees 

Matt White 

Deb Smith 

Crystal Soderlund 

Cindy Schwartze 

Janean Van Dusen 

Karen McClemic 


John Berard 

(NOTE: Prior to this meeting, Johnson-Eschelon forwarded three scenarios that involved the change requested in this CR. The text of this e-mail 

is included at the end of these minutes.) 

White-Qwest described the purpose of the meeting and asked the Qwest attendees if they could articulate their questions to Bonnie. 

Smith-Qwest thanked Johnson for the scenarios she provided by e-mail. She stated that there is mention in the CR of line splitting and line 

sharing. Johnson-Eschelon stated that Berard should send Qwest examples of these scenarios. Berard-Covad stated that he would send those 

examples. He stated that what he wanted to address is the down time that is involved with a conversion. Smith-Qwest asked if Covad was 

seeking to issue only one LSR. Berard-Covad stated that he was interested in only one LSR and the issue of the 5 days of down time. 

Johnson-Eschelon stated that whatever process Qwest develops, even if it involves that CLECs need to send a separate LSR that piggybacks on 

the first one one, the due dates should match. Soderlund-Qwest asked what product Johnson was referring to. Johnson-Eschelon stated that she 

was interested in Resale, UNP-P, UNE loop, line sharing and line splitting. Soderlund-Qwest asked what the conversion would be from. Johnson- 

Eschelon stated that this was a very large CR that may have to be done in pieces. She emphasized that she wanted to ensure that no piece 

slipped through the cracks. 

Schwartze-Qwest stated that she had reviewed the scenarios Johnson had send and that she wanted to better understand scenario 1. She 

explained that the CR included information about converting to resale or UNE. She asked if Johnson understood, that with 13.0, Qwest would 

remove the DVDP FID and then the CLECs would need to submit another LSR. She stated that he understanding was the Eschelon did not want 

to submit the additional LSR or be subjected to the 5-day due date. Johnson-Eschelon stated that all the work happens on the due date. 

Schwartze-Qwest asked if Eschelon wanted to be able to provide the new I-host to Qwest rather than disconnecting the DSL and having to order 

the feature on the line. 

Van Dusen-Qwest asked what the difference was between scenarios 1 and 2. Johnson-Eschelon stated that scenario 2 is where the customer 

wants to keep DSL with MSN and Eschelon wants to opportunity to leave it behind. She stated that was doing a partial conversion where Eschelon 

leaves the line and DSL as they are. She explained that she was asking for a partial conversion but that she wanted the line and DSL to stay as a 

Qwest retail account. She stated that this would occur if a customer has 5 lines wherein one is 1FB with Qwest DSL with MSN and Eschelon 

wants to convert the other 4 lines. Smith-Qwest asked of the 3rd scenario referred only to unbundled capable XDSL-I. She confirmed that 

Eschelon wanted Qwest only to be validating that the line was DSL capable, not validating the dial tone. Johnson-Eschelon stated that Eschelon 

wants to reuse the facilities and turn it into a DSL capable loop. 

Berard–Covad stated that he could prioritize the scenarios that have already been identified. He stated that Covad could not live with a 5-day 

disconnect. He explained that Covad wanted voice and DSL to have same due date. Soderlund-Qwest asked Berard and Johnson could provide 

Qwest with a prioritized list of all the examples that fell under this change. Johnson-Eschelon stated that she had provided her examples and that 

numbers 1 and 2 were her top priority. She explained that every example left the customer without service. She stated that she did not want 

Qwest to work these examples in series. She stated that she expected to work on these examples in parallel. Soderlund-Qwest stated that she 

wanted to ensure that Eschelon and Covad were on the same page when it came to the examples. She explained that Qwest needed to be sure 

that Eschelon’s and Covad’s priorities are the same. Berard-Covad stated that he would take Johnson’s examples and add any additional ones 

that he felt were appropriate. Johnson-Eschelon stated that Eschelon and Covad were jointly submitting the CR and that the big scope of the CR 

is that we don’t want our customers to be without DSL service. She stated that the intent of the CR is to have Qwest develop a process to avoid a 

situation where customers are making decisions to change to Eschelon or Covad and then changing their minds because they will be without 

service for 5 days. She explained that she want processes to stop this impact on the customers and that she did not want to have to prioritize her 

examples. She stated that Eschelon wanted them all to have top priority. She explained that she understood that each product might have a 

different timeframe depending on the scope of the change, but that she did not want to send a prioritized list because the CR is asking for Qwest to 

develop processes. Soderlund-Qwest thanked he for her input. 

White-Qwest asked if there were any additional examples needed. Smith-Qwest asked if Covad was going to provide more examples. Berard- 

Covad stated that he would go through existing documentation and send any additional examples to White-Qwest. Berard-Covad asked if there 

were any instances when the DSL does not go down. Schwartze-Qwest stated that with the DVDP arrangement, DSL goes down on all sides. She 

stated that she was concerned about line sharing/splitting and loop sharing and asked if Berard could send outage examples for these products. 

Berard-Covad stated that the big examples for Covad are line sharing and line spliting. Johnson-Eschelon stated that she understand that there 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC070103-3 


Attachment D

would be some outage time on the dure date because work must occur. Smith-Qwest stated that Berard had said that 45 minutes would be an 

acceptable amount of down time. Berard-Covad stated that he was fine with that. He understood that Qwest needed time to move and test the 

cross connects. 

Johnson-Eschelon stated that she agreed. She also stated that her biggest challenge is getting the DVPIVCI info off Q-host. Schwartze-Qwest 

stated that she had been told that the integrator refreshes every hour. Johnson-Eschelon stated that her problem was with it getting translated. 

White-Qwest confirmed that there were no more questions. Johnson-Eschelon asked that if Qwest had any questions that they contact her for an 

impromptu meeting or call. 

Text of e-mail message from Bonnie Johnson: 

Scenario #1 

Qwest Retail customer is converting to Eschelon (Resale or UNE-P) and hasQwest DSL with the DVDP FID. Eschelon sends conversion request 

and retains Qwest DSL but changes the ISP host (we do these today when the customer does not have volume provider arrangement). 

Scenario #2 

Qwest Retail customer is converting to Eschelon (Resale or UNE-P) and has Qwest DSL with the DVDP FID. Eschelon sends conversion request 

and requests the line with Qwest DSL with volume provider stay with Qwest and Eschelon converts all or a part of the remaining account (we do 

these today when the customer does not have volume provider arrangement). 

Scenario #3 


with DSL to a DSL (XDSL-I) capable loop. 

______________________________________ 

07-17-03 Clarification Meeting 

Attendees 

Matt White - Qwest 

Deb Smith – Qwest 

Heidi Moreland - Qwest 

Crystal Soderlund - Qwest 

Monica Manning - Qwest 

Karen McClimek - Qwest 

Janean Van Dusen - Qwest 

Cindy Schwartze - Qwest 

Terry Kilker - Qwest 

Anthony Washington - Qwest 

John Berard - Covad 

White-Qwest welcomed the attendees and explained the purpose of the call. He asked Berard-Covad to review the change. Berard-Covad 

reviewed the change. On any data migration CLECs should submit a single LSR for both voice and data. Similarly, the migration should get one 

due date for voice and data and there should be no more than 30-45 minutes of down time instead of five days. Soderlund-Qwest asked if Berard 

was talking about all of the shared products for this CR. Berard-Covad stated that he was. Smith-Qwest what UNE-P products the CR was 

referring to. Berard-Covad stated that the CR sought that the existing UNE P migration process now be linked to the data product. He stated that 

it encompasses many different scenarios and that Covad was looking for no down time for customers who ask for no down time. There was 

further discussion of different scenarios that this CR may apply to. Various Qwest SME’s asked that Berard and Johnson create a list of all 

possible scenarios that this CR would apply to so they could more appropriately respond to the request. Berard-Covad stated that he would like to 

have another clarification call with Johnson-Eschelon on the line. He stated that Covad and Eschelon would produce a list of all possible 

scenarios. White-Qwest stated that he would schedule another clarification call. He thanked the attendees and adjourned the meeting. 

============================================ 


07-16-03 

White-Qwest stated that this CR will have the clarification meeting on 7/17. Johnson-Eschelon presented the CR. CR to Presented status. 





Director 

Eschelon Telecom Inc. 

720 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1200 

Minneapolis, MN 55402 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC070103-3 


Attachment D

SUBJECT:Qwest’s Change Request Revised Response PC070103-3 

DSL Volume provider and data migration process to prevent extended DSL outage 

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request PC070103-3, scenario number one, re-evaluation. This CR is a request by Eschelon for Qwest 

to reduce its current provisioning interval for VISP conversions from the standard 5 days to a much more reasonable timeframe. 

Qwest will accept this request. The following provides details surrounding this decision. 

Qwest will allow CLECs to submit one LSR to convert VISP end users. The conversion process involves changing the host through a C & T action 

on the service order; therefore, Qwest will remove the VISP arrangement while not taking down the DSL service. This will alleviate the need for 

CLECs to submit two LSRs, one to remove the VISP and another to add the DSL service five days later. 

The conversion process will maintain the DSL service but the host change will require the standard five day interval. 

The new conversion process will impact several systems. After an analysis of the impact, Qwest has determined that more then 350 hours is 

required to complete systems changes, and develop and document the new process. Therefore, Qwest will schedule and complete the system 

changes, and develop the new process as soon as possible, and will provide updates as they become available. 

Sincerely, 

Anthony Washington 

Product Management 

Qwest 

----------------------------------------------------- 



For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the October 2003 CMP Meeting 


Eschelon 

John Berard 

Covad 


Scenario #1 

"Qwest Retail customer is converting to Eschelon (Resale or UNE-P) and has Qwest DSL with the DVDP FID. Eschelon sends conversion request 

and retains Qwest DSL but changes the ISP host." 

During the September 17th CMP meeting Qwest denied Scenario #1 of CR PC070103-3 based on it being economically unfeasible. At that time, 

we were asked if it would be possible to accept the CR if Qwest Wholesale changed the process to allow one LSR and two services orders. 

Currently we are re-evaluating this process change and identifying all the of the necessary process and systems changes that would be impacted. 

Therefore, we require more time to verify if it is possible to provide a minimal outage situation when a CLEC wishes to change the ISP host. 

Sincerely, 



__________________________________ 



For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion 

at the September 17, 2003 CMP Meeting 


Eschelon 

Mike Zulevic 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC070103-3 


Attachment D

Covad 


This letter is in response to CLEC CR PC070103-3. This CR is a joint request from Covad and Eschelon to request that migrations (voice, data or 

voice/data) are obtained with a single LSR and minimal interruption of service. Clarification calls were held on July 17 and 21 to further identify the 

migration scenarios. Eschelon provided Qwest four scenarios. In this response, Qwest will provide responses to each of the scenarios separately. 

Scenario #1 

"Qwest Retail customer is converting to Eschelon (Resale or UNE-P) and has Qwest DSL with the DVDP FID. Eschelon sends conversion request 

and retains Qwest DSL but changes the ISP host." 

Qwest response: 

The proposed change to the existing retail DSL product and processes would require resource allocation and expenditures associated with legacy 

systems and software specifications in excess of one million dollars. Information Technology redesigns would include systems changes to the 

electronic business to business system for each VISP provider, which would require considerable funding and a redirection of scarce technology 

resources. This would also include, to a significant extent, additional expense for producing and implementing changes to system performance 

and functionality of the Qwest VISP Graphical User Interface (GUI) and XML Interface, as well as require manual interaction to allow for 

communications with respect to Qwest retail customer changes and current status. Additional changes likely include significant modifications to 

existing ordering and processing systems and functionality, which would be a considerable burden at a great expense to Qwest. 

Qwest respectfully denies Scenario #1 of this CR based on economic unfeasibility. 

Scenario #2 

"Qwest Retail customer is converting to Eschelon (Resale or UNE-P) and has Qwest DSL with the DVDP FID. Eschelon sends conversion 

requests and requests the line with Qwest DSL with volume provider stay with Qwest and Eschelon converts all or a part of the remaining account." 


Qwest allows partial conversions of existing Qwest retail end user accounts to UNE-P or Resale services. In the instance where an existing retail 

end user account has more than one (1) line and one (1) or more of those lines has Qwest DSL Host Volume Discount Program arrangements 

(indicated by the presence of a DSL USOC followed by a ‘DVDP’ FID), CLEC may convert the entire account or specify certain lines for 

conversion. 

If CLEC chooses to convert lines with DSL Host Volume Discount Program arrangements, as noted in the UNE-P with Qwest DSL PCAT, the 

(http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unepqdsl.html) and similarly in the Resale DSL PCAT 

(http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/resaledsl.html), "Qwest will remove the DSL USOC and the DVDP FID from the account. This activity will 

remove end-user DSL functionality". 

If CLEC chooses to convert only lines without DSL Host Volume Discount Program arrangements, the remaining retail lines with the DSL Host 

Volume Discount Program arrangements will remain in service. 

Because Qwest currently offers this capability, Qwest accepts this Scenario of the CR. 

Scenario #3 

"Qwest Retail customer is converting to Eschelon (Facility based) and has Qwest DSL with or without a volume provider. Eschelon converts the 

line with DSL to a DSL (xDSL-I) Capable Loop." 


Unbundled Loop 

Scenario #3 is a conversion of Qwest Retail customer’s service to the CLEC requested xDSL-I Unbundled Loop. The CLEC would submit 1 LSR 

to convert the Qwest Retail customer to the requested xDSL-I Unbundled Loop service with or without number portability. A disconnect will be 

performed on the end customer’s Qwest Retail service at the time of the migration activities. 

During the PC070103-3 clarification meeting held on July 21, 2003, Covad, Eschelon and Qwest agreed that their request required that the 

activities of the migration not exceed 45 minutes. The migration activities would include the termination at the ICDF and any associated tests. For 

the Unbundled Loop services the migration work activities won’t exceed the 45-minute time frame. 

Qwest accepts Scenario #3 of this CR. Qwest will update the Unbundled Loop General PCAT to reflect the migration activities will not exceed 45 

minutes. 

Scenario #4 

Line Sharing, Line Splitting and Loop Splitting 


In accordance with the Qwest response to PC012703-2, Data Migrations, the Migrations and Conversions Procedural PCAT 

(http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/clecs/migrateconvert.html) has been updated (in accordance with CMP timelines) with CLEC input on 

identification of the Data Migration scenarios for Line Sharing, Line Splitting and Loop Splitting. In that documentation, Qwest identifies, by 

scenario, whether a specific migration would require 1 LSR or multiple LSR’s. If the migration request currently requires more that 1 LSR, Qwest 

has provided the IMA (15.0) release that effects the change to 1 LSR. 

During the PC070103-3 clarification meeting held on July 21, 2003, Covad, Eschelon and Qwest agreed that the activities of the migration will not 

exceed 45 minutes. The migration activities would include the ‘lift and lay’ of the cross connects and any associated tests. For the Line Sharing, 

Line Splitting, and Loop Splitting services the migration work activities won’t exceed the 45-minute time frame. 

Qwest accepts Scenario #4 of this CR. We have responded, identified and documented the Line Sharing, Line Splitting and Loop scenarios as a 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC070103-3 


Attachment D

esult of PC012703-2, Data Migrations. Qwest will update the Data Migration scenarios for Line Sharing, Line Splitting and Loop Splitting 

(downloadable links) to reflect the 1 LSR vs. multiple and the IMA (15.0) release that effects the change to 1 LSR. Qwest will update the Line 

Sharing, Line Splitting, and Loop Splitting PCATs to reflect the migration activities will not exceed 45 minutes. 

Sincerely, 

Deb Smith 




_______________________ 

August 12, 2003 


For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the August 20, 2003 CMP Meeting 


Eschelon 

Mike Zulevic 

Covad 


This is a preliminary response regarding the Eschelon/Covad CR PC070103-3. This CR requests a DSL Volume provider and data migration 

process to prevent extended DSL outage. 

Qwest is currently evaluating this request. Because this request involves the creation of a complex and wide-reaching process, there are a large 

number of issues Qwest must analyze. Qwest proposes moving this Change Request into Evaluation Status and while we continue to investigate 

and provide an updated response. 

Qwest will provide a status update at the September CMP meeting. 

Sincerely, 

Deb Smith 



Report Name: 



CR # 

PC070103-3 


Attachment D


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC081403-1 Jeopardy Notification Process Changes (new 

title). Delayed order process modifed to 

allow theCLEC a designated time frame to 

respond to a released delayed order after 

Qwest sends an updated FOC (old title). 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Wholesale ProdProc Provisioning Private Line, Resale, 

Unbundled Loop, 

EEL (UNE-C), UNE-P 

Changed the description of this CR as a result of synergies with PC072303-1. During the October 15 CMP meeting we discussed whether we 

should close/leave open/ or update CR PC081403-1 'Delayed order process modified to allow the CLEC a designated time frame to respond to a 

released delayed order'. The reason we wanted to close/leave open or update PC081403-1 is because PC072303-1 is meeting many of the 

needs. Bonnie Johnson agreed to change this CR, as long as we retained the original CR description. 

******************************************************************************** 

Change Jeopardy Notices sent on DVA and PTD for Designed Services 

After analysis of Due Dates that are being missed when jeopard 

notices are sent prior to the Due Date, Qwest is proposing that only 

specific jeopardy conditions be sent to the CLEC on the critical date of DVA 

and PTD. On DVA, Qwest would prefer to only send jeopardy notices for 

facility and plug-in issues. The jeopardy codes would be those that start 

with a "K" (facility reasons) or on a jeopardy code of V25 (PICS/BRI 

plug-ins required.) For the critical date of PTD, Qwest would continue to 

send all jeopardy notices except those that end in "33" (work force issues) 

i.e., B33, E33, P33. The reason for eliminating the "33" jeopardy code is 

due to the fact that Qwest is not missing Due Dates for this reason and is 

causing unnecessary jeopardy notices being sent to the CLEC. Along with these proposed changes, Qwest would also like to hear suggestions 

from the CLEC community any changes they feel would benefit the overall jeopardy notification process. Changes being implemented with 

PC072303-01, Expanding the Jeopardy Notifications to 6 p.m. Mountain Time are also helping the overall jeopardy process. 


Change the jeopardy notification process to reduce unnecessar 

jeopardy notices being sent to the CLEC when the Due Date is not in jeopardy 

and to improve the overall jeopardy notification process. 

*********************************************************************************** 

Qwest will contact the CLEC to test and accept only after the updated FOC has been sent and a designated time frame has passed. Qwest will not 

put the order in a CNR (customer not ready) jeopardy status until this time frame has passed and the CLEC is not ready. 

When Qwest puts a CLECs request in delayed for facilities jeopardy status, Qwest should be required to send the CLEC an updated FOC when 

the delayed order is released and allow the CLEC a reasonable time frame to prepare to accept the circuit. Qwest releases orders form a held 

status (in some cases the CLEC has not even received an updated FOC) and immediately contacts the CLEC to accept the circuit. Because 

Qwest does not allow the CLEC a reasonable amount of time to prepare for the release of the delayed order, the CLEC may not be ready when 

Qwest calls to test with the CLEC. Qwest then places the request in a CNR jeopardy status. Qwest should modify the Delayed order process, to 

require Qwest to send an updated FOC and then allow a reasonable amount of time for the CLEC to react and prepare to accept the circuit before 

contacting the CLEC for testing. 


Qwest will modify, document and train a process, that requires Qwest to send an updated FOC and allow a CLEC a reasonable amount of time 

(from the time the updated FOC is sent) to prepare for testing before Qwest contacts the CLEC to test and accept the circuit. Qwest should cease 

applying a jeopardy status of CNR to delayed orders that are released and the CLEC has not been provided a reasonable amount of time to 

prepare to test/accept the circuit. 

This should apply to all orders where the delayed order process is followed and testing is required. 


Schultz, Judy 


Sunins, Phyllis 

Macy, Cindy 

Development 

10/15/03 


Eschelon 



8/19/03 - LWTC for Bonnie regarding Clarification Meeting 


9/17/03 - Sep CMP meeting minutes will be posted to the database 

Information Current as of: Friday, March 12, 2004 

Report Name: 004 Detailed CLEC Initiated ProdProc OF FINAL ATTACH D 


CR # 

21 


Impacted 

PC081403-1 


Attachment D

10/6/03 - Held CLEC Ad Hoc call to discuss synergys between this CR and PC072303-1 

10/8/03 - Sent response to CLEC 

10/10/03 - Sent email to Bonnie to request change of statusto withdraw due to syncergy's with other CR PC072303-1 

10/13/03 - Bonnie advised she would like to keep open and reference PC072303-1 and Jill's new CR when it is issued 

10/15/03 - Oct CMP meeting minutes will be posted to the project meeting section 

10/30/03 - Changed the description of this CR as a result of synergies with PC072303-1. During the October 15 CMP meeting we discussed 

whether we should close/leave open/ or update CR PC081403-1 'Delayed order process modified to allow the CLEC a designated time frame to 

respond to a released delayed order'. The reason we wanted to close/leave open or update PC081403-1 is because PC072303-1 is meeting many 

of the needs. Bonnie Johnson agreed to change this CR, as long as we retained the original CR description. 

11/19/03 - Nov CMP meeting minutes will be posted to the database 

12/1/03 - Scheduled CLEC ad hoc meeting for 12/8/03 to review jep codes/content 

12/5/03 - CMPR.12.05.03.F.01144.JeopardyProcessHandout 

12/8/03 - Held ad hoc meeting to review jep codes / content 

12/17/03 - Dec CMP Meeting notes will be posted to the database 





Phyllis Sunins – Qwest advised that she is working with Kim Isaacs – Eschelon and analyzing some examples that were sent in. Qwest did find a 

few process compliance examples that are being addressed. Cindy Macy – Qwest will provide a document to address Eschelon’s examples and 

this will be reviewed during the ad hoc meeting the first week in March. This CR will remain in Development Status. 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

Ad Hoc Call 


PC081403-1 Jeopardy Process 


Liz Balvin – MCI Karen Severson – Telephone Associates 

Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Phyllis Sunins – Qwest 

Jill Martain – Qwest Stephanie Prull – Eschelon 

Trudy Hughs – Idea One Shirley Richard – Idea One 

Rosie Glastell – Idea One Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon 

Colleen Sponseller – MCI Mary Hunt – MCI 

Carla Pardee – ATT Linda Sanchez-Steinke – Qwest 

Cindy Macy – Qwest Nancy Sanders – Comcast 

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and reviewed the agenda. Cindy advised that we will discuss providing more detail on Jep Notices, review 

the improvements as a result of the CNR 6pm Jep CR, and discuss examples that were sent in regarding subsequent FOC not sent. 

Jill Martain reviewed the agenda and advised that Phyllis Sunins will provide additional details regarding the work that has been completed. Phyllis 

will share where we have been, where we are and where we want to go with this CR. 

Phyllis began the discussion and asked the CLECs how the jeopardy notification process change to 6pm is going? Kim Isaacs – Eschelon advised 

she had gathered a couple weeks worth of data. It does appear there has been an effect. The impact is not as great as she thought it would be, 

but they will continue to monitor the change. Kim explained she noticed an interesting situation and Eschelon saw that quite a few sups of due 

date, then FOC on due date and then Jep on sup. Kim will send examples to Phyllis to investigate. 

Rosemary – Idea One asked why is Qwest holding the jep until 6 PM. Phyllis explained a CR was issued to implement a new process. Effective 

with the new process a jeopardy notification is not sent when a jeopardy condition is cleared the same day by 6 PM. Kim Isaacs – Eschelon 

advised this process is only on mechanized jeps, not manual jeps. 

Phyllis said the next topic to discuss is the request for additional wording on jeps. Phyllis explained that we can provide more detail on subsequent 

jeps. The first jep that goes out is considered a preliminary jep, with a preliminary view of the issue. Qwest does not know additional details until 

the engineer does investigation and finds out more. Our target is that within 72 hrs Qwest would either send an FOC or another jeopardy 

notification with additional detail. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised the mechanical jeps are not detailed enough. 

Phyllis advised another idea that may be possible is to use HEET, which is used on the ASR side. This is a web tool to check status on delayed 

orders. It may be possible to implement for LSRs. Rosemary – Idea One asked what is RTT. Phyllis advised RTT is a Referral Tracking Tool that 

tracks facility shortages. RTT is Engineering’s database for resolving facility situations referred to them. Bonnie advised she would like to review 

other alternatives if HEET is not a viable solution. 

Today Qwest sends jeopardy notifications for both Critical Date Jeopardies and Due Date Jeopardies. Phyllis discussed the idea of sending 

jeopardy notifications that would impact the Due Date only. Qwest would discontinue sending jeopardy notifications for jeopardies on Critical Dates 

that are cleared the same day or the next day and the Due Date is still met. As an example; Qwest sends jeopardy notifications for PICs – V25 

(plug in network cards) problems. This jeopardy situation is resolved so that the Due Date is met. Another example is Jeopardy Notifications for 

Work Force Issues (33’s). Qwest works with our Work Forces to readjust their loads so that the Due Date is met. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon 

agreed they do not want to see jeps for ‘interim date’ issues. If the end due date is impacted, then they need to know. Idea One and MCI 

supported Bonnie’s comment. Phyllis confirmed that the due date jep would still happen, (Qwest could discontinue the Critical Date jeopardies 

which are cleared by Due Date) . If the Due Date will be missed, it is part of Qwest’s Network Processes to call the CLEC on the Due Date. In 

addition, the CLECs will receive their jeopardy notification after 6 PM. MCI verified when the jep is sent it comes as an 865 EDI transaction, and 

the FOC is an 855 EDI transaction. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC081403-1 


Attachment D

Bonnie advised they do want more detail on what the jep’d problem is. They need to know if it is a F1 pair, or the street needs to be dug up. She 

would like more detail on one jep in particular: ‘Local Facility not available’. Bonnie asked when does this jep occur. What situation causes this 

jep to be assigned? 

Phyllis discussed the two examples that Eschelon sent in. 

1) One was a jeopardy notification sent for a PICs issue, no FOC was sent & then CNR. – This was an example of a Critical Date Jeopardy that 

would be addressed by the proposal of not sending Critical Date Jeopardy Notifications as the situation is cleared so that the Due Date can be 

met, thus the CLEC would expect Qwest to deliver on the Due Date. 

2) The other example is a Network compliance issue, which Phyllis is working with Network to correct. 

Bonnie thanked Phyllis for reviewing the examples. Bonnie advised that if they receive a CNR jep, and the CLEC has not received the FOC, they 

would escalate the situation. Bonnie advised they want the order worked without having to sup the order and they would like the jep lifted. Bonnie 

advised she would like to develop a process of how we will handle this situation when we get a CNR and didn’t get the FOC. 

Phyllis summarized our next steps: 

Kim Isaacs will send examples to Phyllis of orders sup’d on due date 

CLECs will continue to monitor 6pm jeps 

Jill / Phyllis will review wording of jeps to add more detail 

Bonnie brought up a concern on the time required for getting funding to implement the “Due Date only” Jeopardy notifications (from a mechanical 

perspective). She proposed having Qwest furnish a list of “Critical Date” jeopardy notifications which could be “disregarded on an interim basis. 

Phyllis will research this request. This information will be worked via the CMP process and additional meetings. 

________________________________________________________________________ 


Jill Martain – Qwest advised that we met with the CLECs last month and agreed to monitor the JEP process and then meet again in January to 

review additional information that can be put on the Jeopardy notice. We have a meeting scheduled for January 23 to discuss this further. Bonnie 

sent in two examples where they did not get a subsequent FOC and the order was jep’d for CNR. Bonnie advised that Qwest needs to find a way 

to get the FOC to the CLEC. The impact to our business is that we are forced to supp the order and take a new due date. Qwest no longer takes 

the hit on the held order in this situation too. Bonnie advised that Qwest needs to aggressively tackle this issue as it impacts our business, end 

users and held orders. It is high profile and critical and it needs to be fixed. Jill Martain – Qwest advised we have the examples and we are 

prepared to talk in more detail at the Friday meeting. This CR will remain in Development Status. 

_______________________________________________________________________- 


Jill Martain – Qwest advised we had an ad hoc meeting to review the updated Jeopardy matrix. Jill is working with the centers to provide additional 

information on the Jeopardy notices. The team agreed to monitor the impact of the change to 6pm jep notices and meet again next month to 

review any additional changes needed and to review enhanced jeopardy description information. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised she will 

monitor internally the impact to the change in jeopardy time frames and provide feedback at our next meeting. (Included comment from Bonnie 

Johnson in the following sentence). Bonnie said this CR is not related to CR to change the jeopardy to 6pm). This CR will remain in Development 

Status. 

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Clarification Call 

PC081403-1 Jeopardy Notification Process 


3:00 – 4:00 


Valerie Estorga – Qwest Valerie Star – NoaNet Oregon 

Marty Petrowski – WAN Tel Oregon Kim Isaacs – Eschelon 

Anne Atkinson – ATT Jill Martain – Qwest 

Phyllis Burt – ATT James McClusky – Accenture 

Donna Osborne Miller – ATT Steph Prull – Eschelon 

Ray Smith – Eschelon Cheryl Peterson – ATT 

Carla Pardee – ATT Wayne Hart – Idaho PUC 

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Cindy Macy – Qwest 

Cindy Macy – Qwest introduced the attendees and reviewed the purpose of the call. Cindy verified the attendees had the Jeopardy Notification 

matrix. 

Jill Martain – Qwest explained we have held discussions with the CLECs in hopes of improving the jeopardy process. Jill would like to review the 

matrix and allow the CLECs to ask questions and voice their concerns. 

Jill explained the change to send jeopardy notification at 6pm was effective over the weekend. This applies to all mechanized jeopardy codes. 

The intent of this change should reduce the number of jeopardies sent, as Qwest clears many jeopardies through out the day. 

Jill explained there are some manual jeopardies that are not part of this process, such as C)% and SX. Based on investigation, we are looking at 

sending jeopardies on Facility and Plug in equipment issues. These would be K and V25 – PICS jeps. Possibility exists to eliminate all _33 work 

force jeps. This will allow us to reduce the number of jeps sent on certain phases of the order. 

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon said she would be glad to try this process and see what improvement it makes. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC081403-1 


Attachment D

Marty – WAN Tel asked if Qwest could send more information on the jep notification. If the description / content / reason why Qwest is placing the 

order in jep, would help the CLEC understand and address the problem. For example, if Qwest says there are local facility issues but does not say 

what kind of issue, the CLEC can not take action on the issue. It is very difficult for the CLEC to find more out about the issue too. Jill agreed she 

would see if we could provide more detail on why the order was placed in jeopardy. Jill said if more information can be included she would try to 

get that implemented as soon as possible. 

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon agreed that providing adequate information on jeopardy notices is critical for the CLEC to look at alternative solutions. 

Steph Prull – Eschelon asked if the process could be revised to include the correlation between the ‘reason code’ and the ‘jeopardy detail code’ on 

the jeopardy notice. The Disclosure document has the reason code but does not have a correlation to the jeopardy detail code. Jill advised she 

would look into this. 

Kim Isaacs – Eschelon asked about C09 as this code seems in conflict with the held order process. Jill advised C09 would not occur on a held 

order situation. Jill advised jeps are per order, not per LSR. 

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked about the CR request regarding when the CLEC gets a jep, and then Qwest does not allow the CLEC time to 

react to the FOC (4 hour minimum). Jill asked Bonnie if we could wait and determine the impact of the 6pm jep time change as this change should 

reduce the number of jeps and reduce this issue. Bonnie agreed we could discuss this later if it is still an issue. 

Bonnie also asked if there was a CLEC forum planned for January. Cindy advised she did not know but would check on. Bonnie suggested we 

talk about it at the December CMP meeting, and that possibly a better time for the Forum would be in February. 

Jill agreed to check on the following items: 

1 – adding content to the jeopardy description to make it more informative 

2 – check how reason codes match to jep codes in the Disclosure document 

Next Steps: 

The team agreed to meet again around the week of January 13 to review how the 6pm jeopardy change has impacted the process and to 

determine our next steps 

____________________________________________________________________ 

Novmeber 19, 2003 CMP Meeting 

Jill Martain- Qwest advised this CR was revised to say that the CR was going to revisit the existing Jeopardy process, including what notices 

should be sent to the customer and then also discuss the content of those notices. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon agreed updating the CR was 

okay. Jill Martain-Qwest advised the next step is to schedule an ad hoc meeting to review information and gather input. John Berard – Covad 

advised he has a jeopardy request item to be included in this CR. 

_______________________________________________________________________________ 

Oct 15, 2003 CMP Meeting 

Phyllis Sunins – Qwest reported that she is doing a study of the August data and that there are synergies with this CR and PC072303-1. Jill 

Martain will also open a new CR to address the overall Jeopardy Process. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised she would like to keep this CR 

open and reference it to PC072303-1 and Jill’s new CR. Discussion took place regarding maybe the scope of this CR should be changed, instead 

of Jill creating a new CR. Cindy agreed she would talk to Jill about this. Liz Balvin – MCI advised she has some questions about what certain jep 

codes mean. A documentation CR has been issued to request definition of jep codes. The team advised that Liz should respond during the 

comment cycle and ask about the jep codes she is interested in (C31 and C34). John Berard – Covad asked how many jeps are resolved the 

same day? Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon said she did not know numbers but Jill implied the majority of jeps are resolved the same day. This CR 

will move to Development Status. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________ 

10/6/03 Ad Hoc Meeting 

Lori Mendoza Allegiance 

Russ Urevig Qwest 

Deni Toye Qwest 

Phyllis Burt ATT 

Julie Pickar US Link 

Dave Hahn Qwest 

Jeanne Whisnet Qwest 

Laurie Dalton Qwest 

Ann Adkinson ATT 

Jill Martain Qwest 

Phyllis Sunins Qwest 

Carla Pardee ATT 

Jen Arnold US Link 

Kim Issacs Eschelon 

Bonnie Johnson Eschelon 

Donna Osborne Miller ATT 

Regina Mosely ATT 

Jill Martain discussed the synergy's between PC072303-1 and this CR and the issue that came up in the CLEC Forum about FOCs not being sent 

after a delayed order is released. Jill explained she would like to implement changing the jep timeframe to 6 pm as identified in PC072303-1. As a 

result of this change it will address many of the issues with not enough time to respond to a jep. Jill referred to this as Phase 1. Jill will issue a 

Qwest CR to modify the Jep Process and make additional changes as needed. Changes such as define jep codes, determine when to send jeps, 

and for what conditions. Jill said she certainly can accommodate some time frames in between FOC and Jep. Jill referred to this as Phase 2. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC081403-1 


Attachment D

Bonnie agreed that Jill's new CR and implementing the changes for PC072303-1 will take care of this CR. Changing the jep times will take care of 

most of these issues. 

__________________________________________________________________________________- 


Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon presented the CR to the CLEC Community. Bonnie advised this continues to be a problem. Eschelon does not 

normally get an FOC after a delayed order gets released. Sometimes we get the FOC and we do not have time to react. Qwest needs to make 

certain that if we release an order from delayed status that the CLEC gets an FOC, and has time to react before the order is put in a CNR jep. 

This happens often. Our service delivery personnel escalate with the tester and the FOC group. Jill Martain is working on the issue with not 

receiving an FOC. This was brought up at the CLEC forum. Cindy Macy-Qwest asked if the changes associated to PC072303-1 – changing the 

time when Qwest jeps for CNR, would meet this CR. Bonnie advised no, because in this case the order is being released from delayed status and 

the original FOC has already occurred. 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

CLEC Change Request – PC081403-1 


Tuesday August 26, 2003 

1-877-552-8688 

7146042# 

Attendees 

Cindy Macy – CRPM 

Russ Urevig – Qwest 

Phyllis Sunins – Qwest 

Laurie Dalton – Qwesst 


Deni Toye – Qwest 

Stephanie Prull – McLeod 

Julie Picker - US Link 


Cindy Macy-Qwest welcomed all attendees and reviewed the request. 


Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon reviewed the CR. Bonnie explained that ½ the time they do not get an FOC after the order is released. This problem is 

being addressed by Jill Martain and is not part of this CR but it is an issue that impacts this CR. The CLEC needs time to react to the released 

LSR and to accept the circuit. 

Phyllis explained the jep could be placed early in the morning and the tech working on the it may get a solution the same day. This creates a 

timing difficulty. The current process is for the order to be jep’d, Qwest would send an FOC when they find out the issue has been taken care of, 

and then if the customer is not ready the LSR is put in CNR. 

Bonnie advised they would like a 2-4 business hour time frame to respond to the FOC before Qwest puts the LSR in CNR. 

The process today does not give a time frame on the FOC, it gives a date but no time frame. 


Macy - Qwest confirmed that the attendees were comfortable that the request appropriately identified all areas and products impacted. 


Macy - Qwest confirmed with the attendees that the appropriate Qwest personnel were involved. 


Macy-Qwest reviewed the request to confirm Eschelon’s expectation. 


Macy-Qwest asked the attendees if they knew of any related change requests. 


Macy-Qwest asked attendees if there were any further questions. There were none. Macy-Qwest stated that the next step was for Eschelon to 

present the CR at the September Monthly Product/Process Meeting and thanked all attendees for attending the meeting. 



For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the October 15, 2003, 



Eschelon 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC081403-1 


Attachment D

SUBJECT: CLEC Change Request Response - CR # PC081403-1 

This is a preliminary response regarding the Eschelon CR PC081403-1. This CR requests that the ‘Delayed order process be modified to allow the 

CLEC a designated time frame to respond to a released delayed order after Qwest sends and updated FOC. Qwest will contact the CLEC to test 

and accept only after the updated FOC has been sent and a designated time frame has passed. Qwest will not put the order in a CNR (customer 

not ready) jeopardy status until this time frame has passed and the CLEC is not ready’. 

Qwest believes this CR has synergies with the Eschelon CR PC072303-1 ‘Customer Not Ready (CNR) jeopardy notice should not be sent by 

Qwest to CLEC before 5 PM’. Qwest proposes moving this Change Request into Evaluation Status while we investigate the commonalities further 

and will provide a status update at the November CMP meeting. 

An Ad Hoc Meeting is scheduled for Monday, October 6, 2003 from 10:00 – 11:30 a.m. MST to discuss CR# PC072303-1 and PC081403-1. 

Sincerely, 

Phyllis Sunins 

Wholesale Markets Process Organization 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC081403-1 


Attachment D


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC081403-2 Workback process/products expanded to 

include additional products and allow partial 

workbacks. Qwest will post the process and 

products included in the Business Procedure 


Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Wholesale ProdProc Products to be 

defined through a 

collaborative effort 

Qwest should expand the current work back process to include additional products and partial workbacks. Qwest currently allows workbacks for 

only LNP (Local number portability) orders and requires the entire LSR to be worked back. CLECs sometimes have a need to request a workback 

on only a portion of an LSR or for products outside of the current products this process applies to (LNP). The current Qwest documentation for the 

workback process is located in the Qwest LNP PCAT (titled end user out of service) and does not define that a CLEC is required to do the 

workback on an entire LSR. Qwest documentation should not leave this to interpretation. Qwest should provide clear documentation of the entire 

process in the Business Procedure section of the web site. This should include a detailed process and the products the workback process applies 

to. 


Qwest will develop, document and train an expanded "workback" process to include additional products and partial workbacks. Qwest should allow 

the CLEC to do workbacks on partial LSRs and include additional products. Qwest should post this as a "process" under the business procedure 

section of the Qwest Wholesale web site. 


Bliss, Susie 



8/19/03 - LWTC for Bonnie regarding Clarification meeting date 



10/8/03 - Sent response to CLEC 



12/17/03 - Dec CMP meeting minutes will be posted to the database 

1/2/04 - Notification distributed to review draft process on 1/12/03 

1/8/03 - PROD.01.08.04.F.01226.LNP_V25 

1/12/03 - Held CLEC ad hoc meeting to review draft process 





Wells, Joan 

Macy, Cindy 


Cindy Macy – Qwest provided status for Joan Wells. The first part of this process was published and implemented. Joan is working on the 

process for the additional products. Joan is working with Retail to identify impacts. This CR will remain in Development Status. 

_______________________________________________________________ 


Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that Joan Wells – Qwest held an ad hoc meeting on January 12 and reviewed the draft process. Joan took some 

points to incorporate into the process and review. The documentation is in progress. This CR will remain in Development Status. 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Ad-hoc Meeting 

1:00 p.m. (MDT) / Monday January 12, 2004 

1-877-552-8688 7146042 

PC 081403-2 

*** Attended Conference Call Name/Company: 


Donna Osborn-Miller, AT&T 

Cheryl Miller, AT&T 

Andrea Niles, AT&T 

David Bellinger, AT&T 




Report Name: 

Development 

10/15/03 


Eschelon 




CR # 

22 


Impacted 

PC081403-2 


Attachment D


Kim Sutton, Cox Communication 

Carol Roland, Cox Communication 

Carla Cox, 180 Communication 

Janet Harper, 180 Communication 

Joan Wells, Qwest 

Susie Wells, Qwest 

Terri Kilker, Qwest 

Linda Harmon, Qwest 

Meeting Agenda: Action 


Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed 


Joan Wells, Qwest reviewed the Draft Proposal process and scenarios. This is for Part II Workback Expansion Proposal to include additional 

products. 

The following were questions or clarifications made during the meeting: 

David Bellinger, AT&T asked what the intervals would be for getting the customer back in service. Joan said she would have to check but in any 

case they would mirror the existing timeframes. 

Joan verified that this process is to cover when orders have completed and has nothing to do with LNP or number portability in general. 

Cheryl Peterson, AT&T asked what time orders are completed. Joan answered that it often depends on the type of order. 

Kim Isaacs, Eschelon ask if process steps 6-10 is for when the account is UNE-P with another CLEC. Joan answered yes and that she will clarify 

in document. 

Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon asked if Restriction 4 was also the practice in Retail as well. Joan said yes that there are no parity issues. 

Bonnie commented that process steps 11 through 13 are where most of these cases fall and customers are impacted. She stated the purpose of 

the CR was to have a different process from going through the Retail front door since the area between Wholesale and Retail is often painful to the 

customer and CLEC. Bonnie is not asking that Retail not be involved but to have a process where someone knowledgeable handles the situation 

and where the customer or CLEC does not have to start at the Retail front door. Joan stated that Wholesale couldn’t handle Retail involvement 

she agreed to look into what could be done. Bonnie said if we could get resolution to the front door issue that she is fine with the process. AT&T 

and 180 Communication agreed 

Joan stated that Part 1 of the documentation should be out in a few weeks. She also said she will try to have an update for the January CMP 

meeting and will continue to evaluate the need for another meeting. 

________________________________________________________________ 


Joan Wells – Qwest advised she has sent the documentation for Partial Work backs on LNP to the documentation team. She also has a draft 

proposal available for the other products that she would like to review with the CLECs. A meeting will be scheduled the week of January 5 to 

review the draft proposal. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon requested to have the process sent out in advance so it could be reviewed prior to the 

meeting. Joan agreed and advised it would be included in the meeting notification ahead of the meeting date. This CR will remain in 

Development Status. 

_________________________________________________________________________ 


Joan Wells reviewed Qwest’s response and identified the products that will be addressed with this CR. Joan explained she would like to call this 

process the ‘Restoral Request’ process. Ervin Rea-ATT asked what are the requirements to get the customer back in service? Joan advised they 

are developing those requirements as part of this CR. Basically the process would consist of the customer contacting the Call Center to advise of 

the problem. A ticket is issued. A supplement may need to be issued to the LSR depending on if the work or LSR is completed. The service 

would follow an expedite process to restore. Qwest is looking into the criteria to determine when a restoral request is allowed and when charges 

would be incurred to reinstate the service. 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

Oct 15, 2003 CMP Meeting 

Cindy Macy – Qwest advised she would page Joan to the call as she is on vacation. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon said she has reviewed the 

response and understands Qwest will begin working on the partial workback process for LNP and the other products are under review. Bonnie 

advised we did not need to page Joan to the meeting. This CR will move to Development Status. 

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

Sept 17, 2003 CMP Meeting 

Bonnie Johnson advised we had a good clarification call. There were attempts made a reeling in the scope of this CR. Bonnie advised she would 

like the process expanded on product where it is workable. Today, Workback is on LNP and it is all or nothing. Bonnie requested for Qwest to 

expand where this can be done and also to be able to do a partial Workback. Joan asked if another ad hoc meeting may be appropriate to gather 

additional issues, on a product by product basis from other CLECs. Any product that is can be included on should be included. This request is 

clearly asking for these product and when a CLEC can do a Workback. Judy Schultz asked if it was appropriate for Qwest to prepare a 

recommendation. Bonnie agreed for Qwest to review scenarios and do this on a case by case basis. Bonnie advised this request is a result of an 

escalation. Escalations usually drive process improvements. Susie Bliss advised Qwest would also look at volumes and costs. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

CLEC Change Request – PC081403-2 


Tuesday, August 26, 2003 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC081403-2 


Attachment D

1-877-552-8688 

7146042# 

Attendees 

Cindy Macy – CRPM 

Dusti Bastian – Qwest 

Mallory Paxton – Qwest 

Joan Wells – Qwest 

Sharon Van Meter – ATT 



Macy-Qwest welcomed all attendees and reviewed the request. 


Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon reviewed the CR. Bonnie explained the PCAT defines a work back process, however it is for LNP only and does not 

include partial work backs. Eschelon had a situation where they were trying to work back the DSL portion of a cut and could not do a partial work 

back. Qwest did do this but it was very difficult. 

Joan Wells asked if Bonnie wanted work backs available to new products or products associated to LNP? Bonnie advised there are multiple 

situations when this may be needed. For example, when we are converting a customer from Qwest Retail to Eschelon UNE-P. 

Joan Wells advised the work back process was put in place when Qwest was disconnecting customers and the CLECs were having trouble 

getting the customer installed on the same due date. This is not occurring very much any more. On a conversion there is usually no facility 

change that occurs so there wouldn’t be a work back situation. Bonnie advised there can be circumstances that cause facility changes and thus 

the need for a work back; such as Qwest record issues that show the DSL on the wrong line, or PBX that causes trouble on the line, credit card 

machines etc. Bonnie agreed it is not a high percentage of times that this happens, but it is important when it does happen. 

The group discussed that there are many variables and it could be a different process based on each circumstance. The group tried to determine 

the scope of the CR as the process may be different based on each product or situation. Joan Wells advised she can not document what the 

CLEC needs to do for their part of the work back. 

Joan asked if the CLECs would be willing to pay for this service. Bonnie advised under certain circumstances it makes sense. Mallory Paxton – 

Qwest advised in some cased it would involve Qwest doing a New Connect. Joan Wells advised there should be parameters around how much 

time can go by to determine if a work back is a valid option. 

Bonnie advised she would like this in the Business Process section of the PCAT, and not be product specific. Cindy Macy-Qwest advised this 

would imply the process would be a high level process about work backs in general and not be specific to each product. Mallory advised the 

process would be different for different products so a general process may not provide a lot of value. Some things to consider are the time 

constraints, charges, process by product, identify the limitations of the process versus all the conditions that it could apply to. 

Bonnie advised UNE-P and Resale are the most commonly ordered products so it would make sense to document it for those two products. 

Additionally, adding information to the LNP product to include partial work backs is needed. Bonnie advised she would lke the process defined and 

documented so we have a process to follow. It doesn’t have to cover the universe. 


Cindy Macy-Qwest reviewed the scope of the CR. 


Cindy Macy-Qwest confirmed with the attendees that the appropriate Qwest personnel were involved. 


Cindy Macy-Qwest reviewed the request to confirm Eschelon’s expectation. 


Cindy Macy-Qwest asked the attendees if they knew of any related change requests. 


Macy-Qwest asked attendees if there were any further questions. There were none. Macy-Qwest stated that the next step was for Eschelon to 

present the CR at the September Monthly Product/Process Meeting and thanked all attendees for attending the meeting. 


Response Update 



Eschelon 



SUBJECT: CR # PC081403-2 Workback process/products expanded to include additional products and 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC081403-2 


Attachment D

allow partial workbacks. Qwest will post the process and products included in the Business Procedure 


This letter is being issued to provide an updated response on the development of Eschelon’s Change Request 

(CR) PC081403-2. This CR requests that: 

· Qwest expand the existing LNP workback process to allow partial workbacks 

· Qwest expand the workback process to include additional products 

Qwest is currently in the development stages of both a new “Workback”(WB) process for LNP that will 

include partial restorals and a new expanded Workback process that will be identified as a “Restoral 

Request” (RR) for the Resale / UNE-P POTS and Resale / UNE-P Centrex 21 products. 

Qwest will provide an updated status on the process development at the December CMP meeting. 

Sincerely, 

Joan Wells 



_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the October 15, 2003 CMP Meeting 


Eschelon 



SUBJECT: CR # PC081403-2 Workback process/products expanded to include additional products and allow partial workbacks. Qwest will post 

the process and products included in the Business Procedure section of the web site. 

This letter is in response to Eschelon’s Change Request (CR) PC081403-2. This CR requests that: 

? Qwest expand the existing LNP workback process to allow partial workbacks 

? Qwest expand the workback process to include additional products 

Qwest accepts this request. Qwest will change the workback process for Local Number Portability and Loop Service with Local Number Portability 

to include partial workbacks. This change will be identified and documented within the current workback process located in the existing LNP PCAT. 

Qwest is currently reviewing the workback process expansion request and its applicability to other products and processes that it will apply to. 

Qwest requests that this CR be placed in development status. Qwest will provide an update at the November CMP meeting. 

Sincerely, 

Joan Wells 




Report Name: 



CR # 

PC081403-2 


Attachment D


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC092903-1 Joint Inventory Process (previous name: 

New Collocation Process) 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Wholesale ProdProc Collocation 

AT&T requests that Qwest, with the input of AT&T and other CLECs, develop a process where Qwest dispatches a person to verify information 

related to a Collocation site. For example, if AT&T needs information related to the APOT/CFA or power terminations or any other element 

associated with the Collocation site, Qwest will dispatch an employee to the specific Collocation site and verify existing information or provide 

additional information back to AT&T. The new process should include the application, intervals, RFS (ready for service date) and any other 

components relevant to the new process. 

Expected Deliverable 

Qwest and CLECs develop a process to verify existing information or provide additional information associated with a specific Collocation site. 

This new process should be available by the end of 2003. 




10/3/03 - Contacted customer to schedule clarification call 




12/1/03 - Scheduled CLEC input meeting on 12-9 to review process 

12/9/03 - Reviewed the process with CLEC community 

12/16/03 - Posted meeting notes 

12/17/03 - Dec CMP Meeting notes will be posted to the database 

12/19/03 - Held ad hoc meeting 


2/4/04 - Held Ad Hoc Meeting to review process udpates 




Nelson, Steve 

Macy, Cindy 


Cindy Macy – Qwest provided status for Steve Nelson. Cindy advised that the team met with the CLECs on February 4, 2004. The process and 

forms were reviewed. Qwest advised a Joint Inventory process trial would be held with some of the CLECs. Qwest will use the trial to work out 

any gaps in the process. This CR will remain in Development Status. 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

Joint Inventory Process 

February 4, 2004 - 1:00 – 2:30 p.m. MST 


Steve Nelson – Qwest Steve Kast – Qwest 

Bill Fellman – Qwest Rene Lerma – Eschelon 

Mary Ann Wiborg – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest 

Lillian Robertson – Qwest Teresa McKenzie – Qwest 

John Waltrip – Qwest Kathy Battles – Qwest 

Cheryl McCombe – ATT Peggy Englert – Qwest 

Development 

11/17/03 




Impacted 

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and reviewed the agenda. Steve Nelson – Qwest reviewed the four documents at a high level and asked if 

there were any questions or concerns with the forms or process. Eschelon and ATT advised they are okay with the forms and process. 

Steve Nelson – Qwest explained we would like to start the trial and perform a joint inventory on 2 sites per CLEC. Qwest would like to do this on a 

mix of locations and a mix of types of collocation sites (virtual, cageless, caged, etc). The trial will be done at no cost, as it will help Qwest with our 

cost pricing study. Our draft cost estimate is approximately 19.25 hours at $1500.00. 

Steve reviewed each section of the Joint Inventory form; service level, virtual equipment, grounding, synchronization, power, administrative lines, 

space, and notes. Rene – Eschelon asked if we included CLEC to CLEC direct collocation sites? Qwest advised no, we don’t keep records of 

CLEC to CLEC facilities. 


Report Name: 

AT&T 



CR # 

23 

PC092903-1 


Attachment D

Steve reviewed the process flow diagram. This process is a 60-day process. Qwest has tried to be responsive to the CLECs needs. The CLECs 

advised they are okay with the flow and intervals and the process looks good. Steve Nelson advised that we would update the process if needed 

after the trial. 

Steve reviewed the PCAT. Steve advised an amendment would be required. Steve reminded the team that there is not any time to repair or test 

during the inventory. Steve reviewed the description, terms, ordering , and procedures. Steve advised that if the CLECs have more than one site 

per location and they want them both inventoried, it would be best to schedule them together, however each site would require a separate 

application. 

Steve advised that Qwest will be using Telric based pricing, instead of market based pricing. This allows Qwest to bill a set amount and get the 

process completed faster and at the lowest cost to the CLEC customer. 

Bill Fellman – Qwest asked Steve to clarify what the ‘maximum of two scheduled visits’ means. The team advised this is regarding the reschedule 

/ cancellation / charge policy if the CLEC has to reschedules a joint inventory two times. The CLECs on the call stated this seemed fair. 

Steve Nelson – Qwest advised if there are discrepancies between billing and actual equipment located at the site, the billing will be corrected. 

Steve Nelson and Peggy Englert – Qwest discussed the trial. Peggy’s team will contact the four CLECs that expressed and interest (180, ATT, 

Sprint, Eschelon) to obtain a proposed and prioritized list of sites to inventory. Qwest would like a mix of locations and types of sites to inventory. 

Next Steps: 

Collocation Service Managers will contact and work with CLECs to obtain a proposed and prioritized list of sites to inventory 

CLECs will have a target date of February 13 to submit an application form to Qwest (this would start the process) 

Steve Nelson will prepare Amendment by February 20 

Steve Nelson will start the documentation process by February 20 

Qwest will work with the CLECs during the trial 

The team will get back together after the trial to discuss results 

Final pricing studies will be prepared. 

____________________________________________________________ 


Steve Nelson – Qwest advised they have developed the preliminary price structure. Qwest will do a trial with four CLECs and two Collocation sites 

each to help determine the correct pricing. The Amendment is in progress and it will be posted to the web site soon. The Application form, 

Inventory form, processes, and Product description will be available for the meeting that is scheduled next week on January 30. This CR will 

remain in Development Status. 

_____________________________________________________________________ 




In Attendance: 

Bob Alex – Qwest John Waltrip – Qwest 

Steve Nelson – Qwest Stacy Meisenhiemer – Sprint 

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Lillian Robertson – Qwest 

Kathy Battles – Qwest Rene Lerma – Eschelon 

Cindy Macy – Qwest Peggy Englert – Qwest 

Mary Simon – 180 Communications 

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and reviewed the agenda for the meeting. We will be reviewing the Application form, the Inventory form, and 

the high level flow and critical intervals. 

Steve Nelson – Qwest began by reviewing the draft intervals: 

Day 2 Quote 

Day 20 Identify Inventory participants 

Day 35 Perform Joint Inventory 

Day 55 Distribute the results of the Joint Inventory 

Day 60 Hold follow up call to review the results 

Steve advised the pricing study is not completed as of yet. The preliminary cost is $1250.00. Steve would like to conduct Beta tests with CLECs 

to get a better judge of time and effort. Steve advised next steps are to finalize the forms and cost. The team will meet again the 3rd week in 

January. 

John Waltrip – Qwest reviewed the Inventory and Application forms. John explained the engineer fills out the Inventory form and gives it to the 

SICM. Rene – Eschelon asked if Qwest could mirror what is on the APOT sheets. John advised Qwest will review the APOT form, if inventory 

differs than what is on the current APOT, we will then update the APOT. Kathy Battles – Qwest advised for ATT some jobs are old or they bought 

out another customer, so ATT may not have current APOT forms. 

Rene – Eschelon asked if this process applies to a CLEC to CLEC connection. John advised no, as Qwest does not inventory that equipment. 

Rene – Eschelon commented about the price and asked why managers will be gathering all the information. If managers are gathering the 

information the cost would be higher, and that is basically administrative work. Steve Nelson reviewed how the work is broken out between groups 

and explained that is how we have the work assigned. Steve would like to do a Beta trial for free with 3-4 of the CLECs, on 1-2 Collocation sites 

each. The trial will allow us to refine our time, cost and forms. Steve would like to do the trial in the January time frame. Steve advised he would 

work with Peggy Englert’s team to contact the CLECs to arrange the Beta trial. The CLECs participating in the calls advised they would be 

interested in the Beta test. That would include ATT, Eschelon, 180 and Sprint. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC092903-1 


Attachment D

Cindy Macy – Qwest asked Steve to consider that the timing of the trial and the release of the documented process can occur at the same time. 

Steve advised they would target publishing the document so it can be reviewed in the February time frame. 

_______________________________________________________________ 


Steve Nelson – Qwest reported that the team held a meeting on December 9 to review the process. There was a lot of participation and good 

discussion took place. The team agreed to meet again on December 19 to review the Application form and Inventory form. Steve explained the 

process will include a joint inventory of collocation sites that look at everything that is at the site. Liz Balvin – MCI asked if we made any progress 

on the cost analysis? Steve reported that the cost estimate is available but the final cost study will take 3-4 weeks to complete. The team will 

meet again in January to discuss the cost study more. This CR will stay in Development status. 

___________________________________________________________________ 





Eric Yohe – Qwest Peggy Englert – Qwest 

Carla Pardee – ATT Cindy Roni – Eschelon 

Rene Lerma – Eschelon Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon 

Liz Balvin – MCI Cheryl McCombs – ATT 

Michelle Brandt – ATT John Waltrip – Qwest 

John Lawrence – Qwest Bob Alex – Qwest 

Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Steve Nelson – Qwest 

Kathy Battles – Qwest Louis Ruiloba – ATG 

Paul Hansen - Eschelon 

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and advised the purpose of today’s meeting is to review the draft Joint Inventory Process and gather input 

from the CLECS and make sure we are on track with expectations. 

Steve Nelson – Qwest reviewed in detail the Process Flow, which was distributed as part of the notification of the meeting. Steve advised the 

Application and Inventory form are under development and will be reviewed at our next meeting. Steve advised Qwest would offer a Joint 

Inventory application for virtual sites also. 

Steve Nelson – Qwest asked if the CLECs would like to identify what inventory they think they have at each site, or if the CLECs would like Qwest 

to identify what is actually at the site. Rene Lerma – Eschelon advised Qwest should identify what inventory is at each site. The CLECs agreed. 

Rene Lerma – Eschelon asked for timeframes and intervals to accomplish the different steps in the process. Steve Nelson – Qwest advised the 

draft timelines are expected to be as follows: 

Application submitted by CLEC 

Up front work that Qwest needs to do to schedule the Joint Visit: 15–20 days after receipt of application 

Schedule and conduct the Joint Visit: 20-45 days 

Review results: 55-60 days 

Schedule and hold wrap up call: 7-10 days 

Other actions based on results of visit: 

Billing changes 

Database changes 

Augment work (if needed) 

Steve Nelson – Qwest discussed pricing. The plan is that pricing will not include a QPF. An amendment will be done. Steve will look at a Telric 

Pricing study to determine price and present this to the team. Qwest would like to charge one rate to have a Joint Inventory done. This simplifies 

the process and pricing and allows the CLECs to budget appropriately for the work. Billing would be done in BART. 

Rene Lerma – Eschelon asked what would the results of the inventory look like, what would be sent to the CLECs? Steve Nelson – Qwest advised 

there is an Inventory Form that will be used. We will review this at the next meeting. It is a 3-page form, that would include items such as 

termination feeds, power feeds, fused locations, BDFB locations, frame id, block locations, DSC bay panel, etc. 

Steve Nelson – Qwest advised that Qwest would not do testing at the same time of the Joint Inventory. No additional work would be done at the 

same time. This is to keep costs low for performing a Joint Inventory. 

The team also discussed that Qwest could accept the application form to begin the inventory process without advance payment. The request 

would be irrevocable. Payment should be made by good faith. If the process is requested, then the payment will be made. 

Liz Balvin – MCI asked if there would be time for additional questions. Cindy Macy – Qwest advised the team will meet again, and after the 

process is documented it will go out for review and comment. 

Next Steps: 

Meet again on December 19, 2003 

Review forms (application and inventory form) 

_________________________________________________________________ 


Steve Nelson – Qwest recapped the CR request from ATT. ATT would like Qwest to develop a process where Qwest dispatches a person to verify 

and inventory information related to a Collocation site. Steve reviewed Qwest’s response. Qwest accepts this CR and is working to develop the 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC092903-1 


Attachment D

process to perform a comprehensive inventory of an existing Collocation site. SICMs will be involved with performing the comprehensive 

inventory. Steve is calling this process a ‘Joint Inventory Process’. As a result of this process billing corrections may be needed. Steve advised 

he will work with Cindy to schedule another CLEC review meeting. Topics of discussion at the meeting include high-level process flow, 

deliverables, costing model and ordering process. The CLECs agreed that Qwest could change the title of the CR to ‘Joint Inventory Visit’. 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

October 15, 2003 CMP Meeting 

Michelle Brandt – ATT reviewed the CR and explaind ATT is looking for a joint survey process where Qwest would dispatch a person to a 

Collocation site to help provide information about the Collocation site, such as power information. Steve Nelson – Qwest advised a good 

clarification call was held and the Qwest team will be meeting internally to work out the details. The status will be moved to Presented. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________ 


1-877-552-8688 7146042# 

PC092903-1 New Collocation Process 

Attendees 

Steve Nelson – Qwest 

Lillian Robertson – Qwest 

Denise Martinez – Qwest 

Cheryl McCombs-ATT 

Rich Powers – ATT 

Peggy Englert – Qwest 

Janet Leonard – Qwest 

Ben Campbell – Qwest 

Bob Alex – Qwest 

Doug Andreen – Qwest 




Attendees introduce 


Rich Powers – ATT reviewed the Change Request. Rich explained ATT is looking for a mechanism to have a joint site survey done on particular 

Collocation sites. ATT needs to inventory some of their Collocation sites to determine type of space, size of space, and especially the power 

arrangement. ATT needs to update their inventory so they are ordering correctly, and to improve access planning. Rich explained there is a gap in 

their power inventory, at the assignment level. They are interested in the BDFB inventory, relay rack, fuse, etc. 

Cindy Macy – Qwest asked Rich if they need this on all Collocations or only certain sites and certain situations. Rich said they would like to be 

able to request this ‘as needed’. 

Steve Nelson – Qwest asked what level of detail is needed? Is this the circuit working level? Rich advised no, the total number of terminations is 

good. 

Lillian Robertson – Qwest asked Rich to clarify what was meant by ‘the new process should include the application intervals, RFS and any other 

components relevant to the new process’. Rich explained they would want to understand the intervals for ordering a site survey, for completing a 

site survey. Specifically, ATT is requesting A Joint Site Survey –1. The Terminations, 2 – Power Assignment of feeds needed and 3. How the 

Power is fused. 

Qwest asked what additional information is needed: Rich explained that for DS0 terminations, Qwest provides entire picture of CFA. If ATT orders 

power, Qwest only sends information about the power ordered, not the entire power inventory at the collocation. 

Cindy Macy-Qwest asked if the site survey would be requested before an order is placed? Rich advised normally yes, as they would like to have 

the records correct before an order is placed. 

Rich explained if he wanted to do a joint survey with Qwest, how would he go about ordering that? ATT would like Qwest to develop a process to 

perform a joint survey. Identify such things as intervals related to this request. 

Kathy Battles – Qwest advised that ATT bought several sites from another company that they do not have complete records on. The SICMs have 

done some survey of sites but additional help is needed. 

Ben Campbell – Qwest clarified that ATT is looking for power data first, and then other features are helpful, but the power components are critical. 

Rich advised power, then cross connects and then space information is needed. (In that order). 

Rich – ATT explained they are building a database to store this information; power inventory system. 


Collocation Site Surve 


Team agreed the right personnel are involved. Ben Campbell / Steve Nelson would be the lead on this CR. 


Process to request a Joint Sight Survey of Collocation Site 

Intervals for this process 


Non 


ATT will present the CR at the October CMP Meetin 

Qwest will provide our Response at the November CMP Meeting 



Report Name: 



CR # 

PC092903-1 

Page 100 of 105 

Attachment D


For Review by the CLEC community and discussion at the November 19, 2003 CMP Meeting 

Lydia Braze 

AT&T 


“New Collocation Process” 

This CR requests “Qwest, with the input of AT&T and other CLECs, develop a process where Qwest 

dispatches a person to verify information related to a Collocation site. For example, if AT&T needs 

information related to the APOT/CFA or power terminations or any other element associated with the 

Collocation site, Qwest will dispatch an employee to the specific Collocation site and verify existing 

information or provide additional information back to AT&T. The new process should include the 

application intervals, RFS and any other components relevant to the new process.” 

We have many collocation processes and procedures today which meet some of these needs. Qwest 

currently offers a comprehensive walk-through by a State Interconnect Manager (SICM) with the customer 

when the final 50% of the non recurring quote is paid. This procedure will still be offered. We provide 

APOT/CFA which includes a cumulative listing of all CLEC termination cables and entrance facilities. This 

will continue. Qwest offers a site visit associated with an Available Inventory request before order 

submission. Qwest offers up to three site visits after payment of the initial 50% on a collocation application. 

We plan to continue to provide these services. 

As per the CR, however, it was understood that AT&T wants a comprehensive process to ensure all aspects 

of the collocation site are accurate including terminations, power, space, type of collocation, APOT/CFA, 

and billing rate elements and quantities. This process relates to previously completed sites. 

Qwest accepts this CR and will work with the CLEC community to offer a new comprehensive process 

which can be submitted at the CLEC’s request. It will be priced out and offered as an amendment. The 

following is a high level overview of what services Qwest is prepared to offer to meet the CR request. 

A clarification call was held with AT&T on October 9, 2003. Subsequent to that call a cross-functional team 

was put together to start to frame what this added process would look like. 

The process being proposed looks like this in Qwest’s vision: 

· A separate application will be developed for these requests. 

· Every effort will be made to minimize the costs for this process. 

· Inventoried items will include space, power, and terminations. 

· A knowledgeable Qwest employee will be selected to conduct the joint visit such as a SICM or 

delegated employee. 

· Appointments will be jointly scheduled. 

· The timeframe from application to completion of the joint visit will be discussed and determined as 

part of the joint planning development of this CR. 

· Records and billing will be corrected upon completion of the joint visit. Any prior monthly recurring 

adjustments will be based on the CLEC’s ICA. 

· Detailed planning prior to the visit will include review of all engineering records. 

· CPMC will coordinate the overall end to end process. 

We will schedule calls to jointly develop this process as requested. Qwest will provide a format of the newly 

proposed process, intervals, deliverables, and pricing. The CLEC community will have the opportunity to 

partner with Qwest in the development and finalization of the process. An amendment will be prepared for 

CLEC to participate in this new process offering. 

Sincerely, 

Stephen C. Nelson 

Product Management 

Qwest 

Cc: Ben Campbell 

Bill Campbell 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC092903-1 

Page 101 of 105 

Attachment D


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC102303-1 10,000 lines billed on Summary BANs before 

opening a new Summary BAN. 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Wholesale ProdProc Resale, Unbundled 

Loop, UNE Loop, 

UNE-p, EEL (UNE-C) 

Currently, Qwest caps the number of lines billed on a Summary BAN at 2,500. Then it will close the existing BAN and open a new BAN. Eschelon 

processes each BAN separately for reconciliation, dispute and payment. For each Summary BAN Eschelon completes several tasks. Each new 

Summary BAN means we must duplicate these tasks, which is extremely time consuming. Eschelon asks Qwest to allow 10,000 lines per 

Summary BAN. Also Qwest needs to provide more than 30 days notice before opening a new Summary BAN. 

Expected deliverables. Qwest will add the maximum of 10,000 lines to each of our summary BANs before opening new ones. 


10/23/03 CR Recieved 

10/24/03 CR Acknowledge 


11/10/03 Minutes sent 


11/19/03 - Status changed to presented 

12/10/03 - Draft response issued 


12/17/03 - Status changed to Evaluation 



2/2/04 - Qwest initiated notice PROS.02.02.04.F.01294.CRIS_V24 


3/3/03 - Qwest initiated notice PROS.03.03.04.F.01425.FNL_CRIS_V24 


Burson, Sue 

Stichter, Kathy 

Kriebel, Sue 

Andreen, Doug 

Development 

12/17/03 


Eschelon 



Impacted 


Sue Kriebel, Qwest said that an MCC notice has been issued to the centers reinforcing the minimum three day notice that Qwest must give the 

CLECs before opening a new BAN. Further, the PCAT covering the 6,000 limit per BAN will be published 3/18. This CR will stay in Development. 

-------------------------------------------------------------- 


Sue Kriebel, Qwest answered three action items from the last meeting. First she explained that the 6,000 cap on BANs refers to sub-accounts and 

that there can be many lines under a sub-account. Second, there is only one active BAN at a time and that re-activating an account is a manual 

process. If a BAN is re-activated there will still be only one active BAN. Lastly, regarding the minimal time to notify a CLEC of a new BAN, she will 

send out notification to reinforce this standard. Sue also said PCAT changes would be forthcoming on the new 6,000 limit. Carla Pardee, AT&T 

said that she thought CLECs would be notified when they are getting close to exhausting a BAN. Sue agreed but said this is the notification of a 

new BAN being activated. Connie Winston, Qwest added that the BAN takes into account the RSID, product and state. The CR will move to 


------------------------------------------------------------------------ 


Sue Kriebel, Qwest reviewed the draft response increasing the lines per BAN to 6,000 from 2,000 without an increase to the current notification 

interval to open a new BAN. Liz Balvin, MCI clarified the existing process of when a BAN is close to the maximum that Qwest send a email to the 

CLEC with three days notice to open a new BAN. Carla Pardee, AT&T stated they have been getting one day notice. She further stated that 

6,000 is better than 2,000 and she would accept the response but that it is really not acceptable when dealing with large volumes. Sue said she 

would clarify the process to ensure three day notice. Sue explained that if we use the 6,000 limit by the time the BAN is closed we could have and 

have had 2,000 to 3,000 additions processed. Carla noted that AT&T has accounts that have exceeded the limit but have not been noticed. Sue 

explained that it depends on the type of product for instance UNE-L carries less processing risk than UNE-P because usage is on the UNE-P 

which makes it more complex. Kathy Stichter of Eschelon said she was ok with the 6,000 limit and that the time span was not an issue at 

Eschelon. Kathy asked what the difference was between a line and a sub-account? Sue took this as an action item. Later in the meeting Kathy 

asked if BANs previously closed that had less than 6000 lines could be re-opened. Sue Kriebel said she would investigate. The CR status was 

moved to Evaluation. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

11/19/03 Nov. CMP Meeting 

Kathy Stichter - Eschelon presented this CR to increase the lines billed on Summary BANs from 2,000 to 10,000. She stated that each time a new 

BAN is opened Eschelon reviews, reconciles and handles dispute resolutions separately. Carla Pardee AT&T added that AT&T supports this CR. 

Liz Balvin - MCI said that MCI had submitted a CR sometime ago for this and it was denied. Liz stated she would like to see no limit on BANs, but 

that 10,000 is better than 2,000. Also, she has just submitted a similar CR requesting multiple BANs per product per state. Doug said the same 


Report Name: 



CR # 

24 

PC102303-1 

Page 102 of 105 

Attachment D

SMEs will be looking at both CRs. Kathy stated she has 20 BANs in Minnesota for Resale alone and is trying to consolidate these. Carla added 

that the 2,000 restriction on BANs seems to be just recently enforced by Qwest. She has several that are over 2,000 lines and it never seemed to 

be a problem. Kathy agreed that it was not being enforced before. This CR will move to Presented status. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Clarification Meeting: 3:00 p.m. (MDT) / Monday November 3, 2003 

1-877-521-8688 

1456160# 

PC102303-1 10,000 lines billed on Summary BANs before opening a new Summary BAN. 

Attendees: 

Name/Company: 


Kathy Stichter, Eschelon 


Kerri Waldner, Qwest 

Brenda Kerr, Qwest 

Cindy Macy, Qwest 

Wendy Thurnau, Qwest 

Paul Johnson, Qwest 

Anne Robberson, Qwest 

Lynn Loftus, Qwest 


Review Requested Description of Change: 

Doug read the CR description: Currently, Qwest caps the number of lines billed on a Summary BAN at 2,500. Then it will close the existing BAN 

and open a new BAN. Eschelon processes each BAN separately for reconciliation, dispute and payment. For each Summary BAN Eschelon 

completes several tasks. Each new Summary BAN means we must duplicate these tasks, which is extremely time consuming. Eschelon asks 

Qwest to allow 10,000 lines per Summary BAN. Also Qwest needs to provide more than 30 days notice before opening a new Summary BAN. 

Kathy Stichter - Eschelon said that entire process is extremely time consuming on the Eschelon side each time a new BAN is utilized. 

Carla Pardee – AT&T added that AT&T had been informed on short notice that they would have to close the existing BAN and begin using a new 

BAN. 

Anne Robberson - Qwest said she believed that the limit on BANs was a system restriction. She also stated that the limit is 2000 lines per BAN. 

Kathy and Carla both stated that they did not believe this to be true since they both have existing BANs with many more lines than 2,500. 

Kathy said that the number of BANs that are opened directly multiplies the process. 

Carla stated she was notified a week ago by Qwest’s billing department that they were exhausting BAN numbers. 

Kathy said she has 69 BANs for CRIS alone. She said ideally she would like to see one BAN per state and that she would like to see 45 if not 60 

days notice given before opening new BANs. 

Kerri Waldner - Qwest asked Kathy if she had any trends on how fast BANs were being exhausted. Kathy responded that she did not. 

Kathy added that a third issue (along with 1. The 2000 limit and 2. Insufficient advanced notification) is that it seems Qwest is just starting to 

enforce the line limit on BANs 


Resale, Unbundled Loop, UNE Loop, UNE-P, EEL (UNE-C) 




Identified on initial CR: Allow 10,000 lines billed on Summary BANs before opening a new Summary BAN. Identified during call: Eschelon needs 

45 to 60 days’ notice before opening a new summary BAN. 


Eschelon would like the change applied to both CRIS and IABS. 


Kathy will present for Eschelon at the November CMP meeting. 



Report Name: 



CR # 

PC102303-1 

Page 103 of 105 

Attachment D



Kathy Stichter 

Senior Invoice Validation Analyst 

Eschelon Telecom 

SUBJECT: Qwest Change Request Response - CR # PC102303-1 

10,000 Lines billed on Summary BANs before opening a new Summary BAN 

After reviewing CR # PC102303-1, Qwest has determined that it will raise the current standard of 2,000 Sub Accounts per Summary BAN to 6,000 

Sub Accounts per Summary BAN. This is a business decision that was made that is sensitive to the request from the CLEC community to 

increase the size of the Sub Accounts per Summary BAN, but is also sensitive to the Qwest Billing SDC’s who have to manage the Summary 

Accounts. 

As to the second issue of requesting a 30 day notification prior to closing a Summary BAN cannot be accommodated. Once the Summary BAN 

has reached the 6,000 Sub Account limit, it will be closed and a new Summary BAN issued as is currently done. To continue to leave the 

Summary Account open for an additional 30 days to notify the CLEC after it has reached the Sub Account limit would continue to increase the 

number of Sub Accounts posting to the Summary BAN to an unacceptable level before it could be closed. 

Sincerely, 

Carl Sear 




Report Name: 



CR # 

PC102303-1 

Page 104 of 105 

Attachment D


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC030204-2 Qwest will red line and provide the changes 

made to the SGAT, Amendments and 

Negotiation Template in its Process notices. 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 



Eschelon requested and Qwest implemented a red line process to notify CLECs of changes to documents and/or PCATs. However, Qwest does 

not use this red line method or any method to identify changes it is making on SGAT, Amendment or Negotiation Template process notices. 

Eschelon asks that Qwest red line and provide CLECs with the changes being made in these documents. A CLEC should not have to do a 

comparison of documents to identify the process changes Qwest is making in the Qwest notices. A CLEC is required to do a comparison to 

determine the changes that have been made because Qwest does not provide a record of the changes. 


Qwest will send a red line attachment of changes along with the Process Notification for the SGAT, Amendment and Negotiation Template. 


Retka, Mary 


Houston, Neil 

Macy, Cindy 



3/5/04 Contacted CLEC to schedule Clarification call 


Report Name: 

Submitted 

3/2/04 


Eschelon 




CR # 

25 


Impacted 

PC030204-2 

Page 105 of 105 

Attachment D


Attachment E – Qwest CR Summary List 


Summary - Change Management Process (CMP) - Product & Process 

Qwest Initiated CRs 

Report Line 

Number 


1 PC021204-1 Port In and Add New Non Ported Tn(s) on same LSR Qwest 

Pending Wells, Susie Bliss, Susie Sanchez-Steinke, 

Communications Withdrawal 

Linda 

2 PC012604-1 LSR Rejects with RPON Qwest 

Presented Robberson, Huff, Loretta Macy, Cindy 


Anne 

3 PC090203-1 Define criteria for use of CFLAG/PIA field Qwest 


Development Martain, Jill Schultz, Judy Macy, Cindy 

4 PC103103-1 Buried service wire/placing/Conduit/Technician interface Qwest 

Development Tallman, Retka, Mary Andreen, Doug 

with end user 


Shirley 

5 PC103103-2 Binding Post information Qwest 

Development Tallman, Retka, Mary Andreen, Doug 


Shirley 

6 PC111003-1 Reserved TN Procedure Qwest 


Development Dimmitt, Jan Burson, Sue Andreen, Doug 

7 PC010604-1 Grandparent DSL Pro USOCs. Qwest 

Pending Van Dusen, Campbell, Bill Sanchez-Steinke, 

Communications Withdrawal Janean 

Linda 

8 PC010704-2 Eliminate Analog Private Line USOCs from Qwest’s offering Qwest 

Development Van Dusen, Campbell, Bill Andreen, Doug 


Janean 

9 PC010704-3 Eliminate certain Voice Feature USOCs from Qwest’s Qwest 

Development Van Dusen, Campbell, Bill Sanchez-Steinke, 

offering. 


Janean 

Linda 

10 PC010704-4 Eliminate Access Line USOCs from Qwest’s offering Qwest 

Development Van Dusen, Campbell, Bill Macy, Cindy 


Janean 

11 PC020404-1 Grandparent Measured Service Plans in South Dakota, Bus Qwest 

Development Van Dusen, Campbell, Bill Andreen, Doug 

and Res 


Janean 

12 PC020404-2 Grandparent Measured Service Plans in Minnesota, Bus Qwest 

Presented Van Dusen, Campbell, Bill Sanchez-Steinke, 

and Res 


Janean 

Linda 


Report Name: 005 Summary Qwest Initiated FINAL ATTACH E 

Attachment E

Report Line 

Number 


13 PC020404-3 Grandparent Measured Service Plans in Utah, Bus and Res Qwest 

Presented Van Dusen, Campbell, Bill Macy, Cindy 


Janean 

14 PC020404-4 Grandparent ValueChoice, 2-Line ValueChoice , and Qwest 

Presented Van Dusen, Campbell, Bill Andreen, Doug 

PrivacyPak 


Janean 

15 PC022604-1 Elimination of ATM USOCs Qwest 

Clarification Van Dusen, Campbell, Bill Sanchez-Steinke, 


Janean 

Linda 

16 PC050503-2 Grandfather SVDS in all state tariffs including FCC tariff. Qwest 

Development Van Dusen, Campbell, Bill Macy, Cindy 


Janean 

17 PC050703-6 Grandfather Measured Service plans in CO, ID North, NM, Qwest 

CLEC Test Van Dusen, Campbell, Macy, Cindy 

ND 


Janean William 

18 PC120303-3 Grandparent Interstate SHNS and SST USOCs Qwest 

CLEC Test Van Dusen, Campbell, Bill Macy, Cindy 


Janean 


Report Name: 005 Summary Qwest Initiated FINAL ATTACH E 

Attachment E


Attachment F – Qwest CR Detail Reports 




Status Date 

Impacted 

PC021204-1 Port In and Add New Non Ported Tn(s) on 

same LSR 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Wholesale ProdProc Ordering, 

Provisioning 

Resale, UNE-P 

This CR will streamline the Port In Process. Qwest will add a new scenario to existing Port In Processes which will allow the CLEC to place a Port 

In Request, and add additional new non ported tn(s) on the same LSR. The benefit to the CLECs is more timely and accurate completion of 

requests. The benefit to Qwest is more timely and accurate completion of a request. 


Revision to the current process of submitting two separate LSRs for porting in and adding new lines at the same time for the same end user. 

Would like April time frame. Update to Port In PCAT will be necessary to add scenario for new process. 


Bliss, Susie 

Wells, Susie 

Wells, Susie 





02/19/04 - CR status updated to Pending Withdrawal 


Report Name: 

Pending 

Withdrawal 

2/19/04 





006 Detailed Qwest Initiated ProdProc OF FINAL JUL 2002 ATTA 

CR # 

1 


Impacted 

PC021204-1 

Page 1 of 32 

Attachment F


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC012604-1 LSR Rejects with RPON Presented Wholesale ProdProc Ordering Resale, Unbundled 

2/18/04 

Loop, UNE-P 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Establish a process on how RPONs should be handled when a reject condition exists on one or more the related LSRs. 


Qwest currently does not have a documented process on how LSRs that are related with RPON should be handled when a reject condition exists 

on one or more of the LSRs. Qwest is proposing the following process: LSRs that are due dated the same day and are RPON’d, will reject all. 

LSRs submitted where processing one or more is dependent on processing the other(s) will all be rejected. Qwest will further define this statement 

with further research. 


Huff, Loretta 

Robberson, Anne 


Macy, Cindy 




1/30/03 - Contacted originator and discussed CR 

2/10/04 - Posted CLEC input meeting on calendar for March 2, 2004 





Impacted 



Anne Robberson – Qwest advised this is a new CR that is addressing a process that is not handled consistently and not currently documented. 

This CR was created as a result of a CLEC inquiry. Qwest is in the process of documenting the Draft Process and will review this with the CLECs 

the first week in March. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked if the process would be sent out prior to the meeting. Cindy Macy – Qwest advised 

that a meeting notification would go out with the process attached. The intent of the meeting is to review the process and gather input from the 

CLECs. This CR will move to Presented Status. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC012604-1 

Page 2 of 32 

Attachment F 

2


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC090203-1 Define criteria for use of CFLAG/PIA field Development Wholesale ProdProc Provisioning INP, Centrex, LNP, 

10/15/03 

Private Line, Resale, 


Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 

Schultz, Judy 

Martain, Jill 

Martain, Jill 

Macy, Cindy 


Per discussions held with the CLEC Community, Qwest is submitting this CR as a Level 4 Process Change to define the criteria when the 

CFLAG/PIA fields are most commonly used. The following list can be used as a starting point for discussions with the CLECs: 

Change Flags (CFLAG) 

The CFLAG is used to communicate changes Qwest made on the service order that are different from what was requested on the original LSR. 

These changes are a result of two different conditions: 

1. Changes that occurred as a result of a verbal directive from you. 

1. Changes due to processing requirements within Qwest. 


When the CFLAG is marked, the Remarks section of the FOC contains text indicating any deviations from the original request. Examples of some 

of the uses of CFLAG in each of the preceding areas are as follows: 

- Changes that occurred as a result of a verbal directive from you when no supplement is sent: 

- On the DD, you request a Connecting Facility Assignment (CFA) slot change when the assigned slot is unavailable. 

- On the DD, you called and requested a verbal DD change. 

- You called and requested a verbal supplement as a result of a non-fatal error. 

- You called and requested a verbal supplement because a SUP 1 (Cancel) or SUP 2 (Desired Due Date (DDD) change) cannot be submitted due 

to a system (either yours or Qwest's) outage or limitation. 

- Changes that occurred as a result of the processing requirements within Qwest include the following: 



- If special characters (i.e., a virgule "/" appears in specific fields such as the PON) that are not allowed in Qwest’s Service Order Processors 

(SOP) are included on the service request, they will be changed to dashes to allow the request to process. 

- Whenever Qwest cannot use the DDD on the LSR as the DD. Examples include a DDD that did not meet standard interval requirements or the 

LSR requested an invalid DD such as a Sunday or Holiday. 

- The Summary Billing Account Number (BAN) is incorrect on the LSR and Qwest provides the correct BAN information on the FOC. 

- For LSRs with Requisition Type and Status of CB (Local Number Portability (LNP)) and BB (Unbundled Local Loop/LNP) that have the ported TN 

in the Account Number (AN) field instead of the main AN, Qwest will process the order (porting the requested TN) using the main AN and will 

provide the correct AN of the FOC. 

- When the LSR is requesting a feature and an additional USOC/feature is also required in order to provision the service correctly, Qwest adds the 

appropriate USOC/feature on the service order. This change is only made if Qwest has not provided the ordering rules externally. As trends are 

identified, Qwest will either make process changes and/or update the PCAT, as appropriate. 

- When the Coordinated Hot Cut (CHC) field equal "N" (or blank) and the Appointment Time (APPTIME) and Desired Frame Due Time (DFDT) 

fields are populated, Qwest will ignore the information in the APPTIME and DFDT fields because they are not required. 

- If the LSR requests a dispatch, but dispatch is not required for provisioning and you have not requested the service be "tagged", Qwest will not 

dispatch a technician because it was not necessary. 

- If during processing of a LSR Qwest determines that the TN entered on the LSR is not available, Qwest will provide a new TN. 


Impacted 

- If the address entry is a minor deviation from Qwest PREMIS address data (e.g., LSR uses "suite" and PREMIS uses "unit"), Qwest will use the 

information in PREMIS. 

- If you set the Manual Indicator (IND) to "Y" and service order affecting information in the Remarks field causes a mismatch in field-to-field 

comparison, Qwest will use the information in the Remarks field to process the order. 


To create a mutually agreed upon list of reasons when the CFLAG/PIA field would be checked on the LSR and document that criteria in the 

Ordering PCAT located on the Qwest external web site. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC090203-1 

Page 3 of 32 

Attachment F 

3




9/8/03 - Contacted Jill Martain and held clarification call 

9/17/03 - Sep CMP meeting notes will be posted to the database 

9/18/03 - Sent Notification offering 3 options for CLEC Input Meeting 

9/23/03 - Selected Oct 1 9:00 - 11:00 meeting time for CLEC Input Meeting - notification distributed. 

10/1/03 - Held CLEC Input Meeting and agreed to schedule another Ad Hoc call the last week in October 

10/13/03 - Sent notification for CLEC Ad Hoc meeting scheduled on October 30 from 10:00 - 11:00 

10/15/03 - Oct CMP meeting minutes will be posted to the database 

10/30/03 - CLEC Ad Hoc meeting held to review CFLAG/PIA matrix 

11/6/03 - Received input from Eschelon on matrix 

11/7/03 - Received input from MCI on matrix 


12/5/03 - Schedule CLEC ad hoc meeting to review CFLAG/PIA codes and reasons (12/15) 

12/8/03 - CMPR.12.08.03.F.01149.CFLAG_PIA_MTG 

12/15/03 - Held CLEC ad hoc meeting to review PIA matrix 

1/2/04 - Notification distributed for next CLEC meeting on 1/9/03 

1/9/03 - Held CLEC ad hoc meeting to review PIA matrix 



2/26/04 - Held CLEC ad hoc meeting 


_________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

PC090203-1 CFLAG/PIA 

Ad Hoc Meeting PIA14 



Linda Miles – Qwest Kim Isaacs – Eschelon 

Cindy Schwartze – Qwest Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon 

Crystal Soderlund – Qwest Jill Martain – Qwest 


Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and reviewed the agenda. During this call Qwest will review the current process, as Qwest understands it, 

and gather input and concerns from the CLECs. 

Cindy Schwartze – Qwest explained the current process was effective August 2003 with the IMA release. This process is for N and T 1 LSR for 

voice and Qwest DSL. When you are ordering DSL with voice, the address has to pass Loop Qual for flow through. If the address qualifies, then 

we would accept the LSR, and issue the Service Order to provision the request. If the address does not qualify, then the LSR for voice and Qwest 

DSL would be rejected upfront by IMA. 

In the event the DSL line can’t be provisioned and the order issued is for DSL and voice, we then follow the Retail provisioning process. We go 

ahead and provision the voice, send an FOC with a CFLAG saying that the data portion can not be provisioned. Cindy Schwartze – Qwest 

explained the volume is very low, and that we only have knowledge of this occurring once. 

Crystal Soderlund – Qwest reviewed the Line and Loop Splitting process. This process was put in place in June 2001. The UNE P request is 

submitted, if the LSRs have the same due date and the DSL is available, Qwest will issue a pending order change to the UNE-P service to add 

the DSL. If the data portion cannot be provisioned, Qwest would allow the voice LSR to get provisioned. The Line Splitting LSR would follow the 

Held Order process. Crystal did not remember seeing this occur in production. With 15.0 IMA Qwest is offering the process to provision the 2 

requests on 1 LSR. The CLEC may need to issue another LSR to condition the line. Loop Splitting will mirror Line Splitting. 

Bonnie said we are not talking about a situation when you order line conditioning. We are talking about when you can’t provision DSL. In this case 

it should follow the standard process when you order a feature and it is not available. Qwest should reject the order, as that is what is done when 

a feature is not available. If we can’t have the DSL then we don’t want the voice. We have no use for just the voice line. This is in conflict with the 

Qwest reject process. Bonnie advised that the CLECs want to receive a Jeopardy notification and it should identify if DSL can’t be provisioned at 

all or if it needs to be conditioned. Qwest considers DSL a feature in other areas. It should be treated as a feature. 

Crystal Soderlund – Qwest thanked Bonnie for helping us understand the issues. Crystal explained when the LSR is received the centers process 

the order. At that time we don’t know if the facility is DSL compatable. Crystal asked for clarification that the CLEC’s are really asking for Qwest to 

notify the CLECs with a Jeopardy notice and give 4 hours to respond? Bonnie asked if the SDC does not check to see if DSL is available? Crystal 

advised no, it is assumed the CLEC has done that up front, before the LSR is sent in. Bonnie asked what point in time is it determined when the 

DSL is not available? Crystal advised that the downstream organization contacts the SDC to remove the DSL. Bonnie said that Qwest should 

jeopardy the order at that time. 

Crystal said the ILECs should check to make sure the line can handle DSL and IMA also does a check. For example, if CLEC doesn’t loop qualify, 

then IMA should do a check right away and reject the order. This is why we don’t think this happens very much. Bonnie said if the line doesn’t 

qualify then we do not order the line. If it required line conditioning we do a separate order after the line goes in. So, why do we have a PIA value 

to accommodate this, if it doesn’t happen very often? Bonnie said it should be rejected. 

Crystal advised that the reject reason isn’t always clear to the SDC, so she requested a PIA value to provide more details. Bonnie advised that the 

CLECs would like to be able to have a choice on whether to accept, reject or jeopardy the order. Otherwise, if Qwest just removes the data and 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC090203-1 

Page 4 of 32 

Attachment F

installs the voice, then the CLEC would be liable for Non Recurring charges and 30-day billing in situations where they may have chosen otherwise 

to cancel the request. Her preference was to receive the jeopardy notice and then make the appropriate decision. Bonnie understands if we do 

follow the jeopardy process a sup or new LSR may be required and the standard interval would be followed. 

Bonnie advised the CLEC community would prefer to have an option. They would like for Qwest to jeopardy the LSR and follow the current 

jeopardy process. The CLEC would have 4 hours to respond or the LSR would be cancelled. In this case there would not be a need for PIA 14. 

Bonnie advised she would check with the other CLECs to make sure this represents their needs. If there are concerns, Bonnie will send an email 

to Cindy Macy. 

Cindy Macy advised that the team will meet internally to review the request and determine the impacts to this process. Qwest will provide status or 

schedule another meeting to discuss the results. 

_______________________________________________________________ 


Jill Martain – Qwest advised the PCAT was published and comments were addressed. This closed January 28, 2004, effective March 3, 2004. 

Subsequent FOC was addressed. There will be a CLEC meeting to discuss PIA 14 on February 26, 2004. Stephanie Prull – Eschelon was in the 

15.0 walkthrough meeting yesterday and realized that there would be an Order Level PIA and an LSR Level PIA. Stephanie advised this was 

never discussed in any of the PIA meetings. Qwest was able to page Denise Martinez-Qwest to join the call. Denise and Jill explained this is the 

way PIA is being implemented, opposed to the content or meaning of the PIA value. Denise and Jill advised this would allow Qwest to be specific 

with the correct level of PIA. Some PIA values are related to a BAN so that would be at an LSR level, and some PIA values are related to a Due 

Date or TN change so that would be at an Order level. Stephanie advised she understand the functionality and she agrees that it makes sense to 

implement it this way, but she was not aware of how she missed the way this was going to be implemented. Her understanding is that there would 

be multiple values, but not multiple fields or segments. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked if the multiple PIA values are at different levels for the 

same PIA reason? This relates to PO20 impacts. Denise Martinez – Qwest advised it is a means for us to apply the value most accurately. It 

would not increase the amount of other PIAs. Jill Martain – Qwest advised that you might have LSR level PIA and then PIA values on the orders 

that are created from the LSR. Stephanie Prull – Eschelon advised our vendor does not support this so we will not be able to implement. Connie 

Winston – Qwest advised this is the CR in 15.0 for ‘Multiple PIA Values’. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon said we never discussed order versus LSR 

level. We were under the impression that PIA was PIA – no different between order and LSR levels. Connie Winston – Qwest asked if we can 

provide a comment on the draft Tech Specs and then we will provide a response the to comment. Stephanie Prull – Eschelon advised she already 

submitted it as a comment and that this would be fine to handle it this way, instead of holding an ad hoc meeting. This CR will stay in 


_____________________________________________________________ 


Jill Martain – Qwest advised that we had an ad hoc meeting with the CLEC and agreed to send the matrix documentation out. We agreed to omit 

PIA 14 from the matrix. The documentation will be distributed in two phases. The first phase will identify the PIA value definitions that are 

effective today. The second phase will be the additional PIA values added with 15.0 on April 19. Jill explained that we discussed PIA 14 and this 

was referred to the Product team. A CR should be issued this month to take care of this. Blocking will be discussed tomorrow in the systems 

meeting. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised that the problem is that Qwest requires CLECs to send in the end state, opposed to adds and 

deletes. This causes a recap, and recaps don’t appear on the PSON. Bonnie advised it wasn’t disclosed that there were going to be exceptions to 

the PSON. It is good that it is on the service order. The CLECs wanted to discuss tomorrow in the systems meeting whether the recap on all the 

listing information will also fix this problem. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Ad Hoc Meeting PC090203-1 



Phyliss Burt – ATT 

Jill Martain – Qwest 


Linda Harmon – Qwest 

Donna Osborne Miller – ATT 



Nancy Sanders – Comcast 

Ray Smith – Eschelon 


Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and advised the team will be reviewing the CFLAG/PIA matrix and the updates that were made based on 

previous meetings with the CLECs. 

Jill Martain – Qwest explained that because we have reviewed the matrix before, she would ask the CLECs if they have comments or questions on 

each item, opposed to reading each item. This way we will discuss only the items that the CLECs have questions about. 

Discussion occurred on the following items / topics: 

Adding a mini definition section to help clarify terms (subsequent FOC) 

PIA 5 – subsequent FOC 

PIA 8 – update to identify this will be used in 13/14.0. 

PIA 11 – Jill clarified #11 and Bonnie’s comments. Jill advised she agrees with Bonnie’s comment as both of them are saying the same thing. 

Phyllis Burt – ATT asked how would the customer get a PIA 11. Jill advised if the same reserved TN# was used mutiple times an we have to 

reassign a new TN. Work is going on to improve this process. Phyllis also clarified Bonnie’s comment. 

PIA 14 – Jill explained she understands Bonnie’s concern about needing to document the process. Jill explained this is Qwest’s existing process. 

Bonnie advised she is open to the process of sending a jep notice and to complete the voice part, but she would like to discuss how this process 

should work. Jill asked if she can explain the issue to the Product team and have them take care of this issue, as she is not the process person 

for this process. Bonnie agreed that would be okay. Bonnie explained her concern is that Qwest is trying to create a process with a PIA, opposed 

to creating the process first and using a PIA as part of the process. Jill agreed to omit PIA 14 from the matrix initially. Jill will issue the notice and 

matrix to publish this information and omit PIA 14. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC090203-1 

Page 5 of 32 

Attachment F

Jill discussed the blocking question. Jill explained that it is recapped on the service order but it is not visable to the CLECs. Jill advised a CR 

could be opened to change this. Bonnie advised that we can discuss this at CMP (systems meeting). 

Bonnie advised she appreciates Jill’s analysis of the PIA values and data. Bonnie still would prefer to have a more expanded PIA value list. 

Bonnie hopes that the use of PIA 4 decreases with this CR. Eschelon will continue to monitor the use of PIA. Liz Balvin – MCI agreed that we 

need to continue to review the information in remarks and create a new PIA value if necessary. 

Bonnie asked if the new PIA values will be effective with 15.0. Jill advised yes. 

Next Steps 

Publish documentation / matrix 

__________________________________________________________________ 


Jill Martain – Qwest advised that the team met and reviewed the PIA Matrix on December 15. Qwest agreed to make additional updates to the 

matrix. Liz Balvin – MCI verified that Qwest will clearly distinguish between LSR and Service Order activity and FOC and subsequent FOC in the 

document. Jill agreed those updates / clarifications would be made. Jill asked the CLECs if they would like to have another meeting or if the 

matrix is okay to be published. Liz Balvin – MCI and Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised they would like to have another meeting as they did 

request additional unique PIA values around Blocking. Jill advised she is working on the two issues that were brought up at the Ad Hoc Meeting 

(Blocking and PIA14 Data Portion not provisioned). The team will discuss these at the next meeting. Cindy Macy – Qwest agreed to schedule a 

meeting for January 5 or 9. Bonnie expressed her concern that the CLECs did request additional specific PIA values that were not included in the 

matrix. Jill explained that she has tried to include all the scenarios that were discussed and the concern with having too many PIA values is that it 

becomes unmanageable and the centers would not use all of the values. This CR will remain in Development Status. 

_______________________________________________________________ 

December 15, 2003 Ad hoc meeting 


Ad Hoc meeting 


Julie Pickar – US Link 



Stephanie Prull – Eschelon 




Colleen Sponseller – MCI 



Jill Martain – Qwest advised she has updated the matrix based on investigations and previous meetings. Jill advised there is a large list of PIA 

values and it is very hard for Qwest to manage so many different values. As an example, we have combined some PIA 4 reasons into one code. 

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked about 20% of training issues identified in the matrix? Was the PIA field used inaccurately? Jill Martain – 

Qwest advised some were unclear selections and training will help. This is an example of how too many PIA values become hard to manage. 

Liz Balvin – MCI asked about subsequent FOCs as there is no such notifier. Jill Martain – Qwest advised if there is something missing Qwest will 

send a jep after the FOC. If Qwest makes an error and there is nothing to correct than Qwest will send another FOC with the correct PIA 

information. This is done on a Qwest typo error. Steph Prull – Eschelon advised their systems don’t look at the second FOC. So any updates 

on second FOC are not updated. Jill explained this is not new, it has always been the process. The CLECs asked if this is in the PCATs. Jill 

advised CFLAG was created to accommodate these situations so that is the purpose of CFLAG. Jill advised PIA is an industry standard. The 

industry only has four values. 

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked about due date change by Qwest. Bonnie asked why can’t there be a different PIA value for each of these due 

date changes. Jill advised this created the possibility of error and the ‘reason change’ is the same. Jill is very concerned about the number of 

different values. 

The team agreed the next steps are to make changes to the document and then meet again to review. Liz wanted to make sure the changes 

would specify when Qwest felt it was appropriate to make changes. Specifically, Liz requested Qwest to identify if it was a change made from the 

CLEC LSR to Service Order or whether it was a change made to correct an error identified on the FOC notification . Jill agreed those changes 

would be included. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________ 


Jill Martain – Qwest advised that she received comments from the CLECs regarding the last matrix that was distributed. Jill is in the process of 

providing a response to those issues. In addition, as a result of those comments and internal discussions the list is growing and there is concern 

about the number of values Qwest could be requiring our centers to manually review and accurately select. Jill will take another look at the most 

commonly used reasons and the CLEC feedback and provide a final proposal to the CLEC community hopefully, within the next week. 

Lastly, there was discussion around retrofitting the multiple values and additional PIA values into the 13.0 and 14.0 releases. Since it has not been 

the practice to retrofit new changes into earlier EDI versions, Qwest does not plan to pursue retrofitting new PIA functionality into earlier EDI 

versions. However, Qwest is still looking into options of adding any new PIA values into the 15.0 release. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

CLEC Ad Hoc Meeting 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC090203-1 

Page 6 of 32 

Attachment F

PC090203-1 CFLAG / PIA 



Julie Pickar – US Link 


Kim Isaccs – Eschelon 



Jenn Arnold – US Link 

Jackie Debold – US Link 

Denise Martinez – Qwest 


Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and explained we will review the matrix, make updates and determine next steps. Cindy confirmed that the 

users had copies of the matrix. 

Jill Martain – Qwest reviewed the PIA numbers and reasons. Discussion took place on several of the PIA values and reasons. See below. 

PIA 4/15 – MCI requested that Qwest validate that this is in the disclosure document and this may create an out of sync condition. Liz advised she 

would like the business rules to be clear in the disclosure document. If the centers are using PIA 15 they would also notify the process specialist 

so we can be sure we review and correct the reason that we are using PIA 15. 

Address Validation –MCI advised that different address systems are used to validate different forms or requests. Please be specific on PIA 4 as to 

which address system is being checked. 

Remarks field can cause a mismatch. The request was that Qwest would monitor PIA 4 and Other to improve the reason that is causing us to use 

PIA 4. 

The CLECs advised they will need to review this matrix with their coworkers to gather input. Jill asked the CLECs to get back to Cindy Macy at 

cynthia.macy@qwest.com to confirm that the PIA reasons are acceptable. After that, Jill would pursue obtaining new PIA values. 

Jill explained that to implement these changes there are process and documentation changes, system changes are needed to assign new PIA 

values, and the request to retrofit the 15.0 changes into 13/14.0 releases require an exception meeting. 

__________-__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

October 15, 2003 CMP meeting minutes 

Cindy Macy – Qwest provided status for Jill as she is on vacation this week. Cindy advised the CLECs met October 1, 2003 to review the current 

use of CFLAG/PIA. During the Ad Hoc meeting Jill explained the reasons we use each CFLAG/PIA and the team began to further define 

acceptable reasons for ongoing use of CFLAG/PIA. Bonnie Johnson advised she made a request at the Long Term PID meeting that the 

CFLAG/PIA changes planned for Release 15.0 also be incorporated into 13, 14 and 15.0. Cindy advised she will discuss this with Jill when she 

returns from vacation. Stephanie Prull – McLeod advised they are on 13.0 and it seems like the use of CFLAG/PIA in the system is different with 

13.0. Every time a conversion order that goes through autoflow, a PIA 12 (cus code change) is assigned. Stephanie advised McLeod is aware of 

the cus code changing so a PIA of 12 is not needed. This CR will move to Development Status. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____ 

CLEC Ad Hoc Meeting 




Julie Pickar US Link 

James McClusky Accenture 

Liz Balvin MCI 

Steve Trana Launch Now 

Phyllis Burt ATT 

Mike Zulevic Covad 

Jill Martain Qwest 

Bonnie Johnson Eschelon 

Kim Issacs Eschelon 

Jennifer Arnold US Link 

Stephanie Prull McLeod 

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and advised the purpose of this call is to review the current use of CFLAG/PIA and to determine new uses for 

CFLAG/PIA. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon advised her goal is to create a finite list for use of PIA. Liz Balvin-MCI advised at a minimum the CLECs 

have to know how the field is being used. Jill Martain-Qwest advised she has concerns over loosing the ability to use PIA in an interim process or 

work around. Liz Balvin-MCI asked why wouldn’t Qwest reject the LSR instead of use PIA. Jill advised sometimes the better option is to use PIA, 

opposed to missing a due date. Liz said she understands as long as the CLEC is contacted and advised about the use of PIA. 

Jill explained CFLAG will be eliminated with 13.0 and PIA will be used 13.0 going forward. EDI 11 and 12 it is still valid. CFLAG and PIA terms 

are interchangeable. 

Bonnie advised CFLAG/PIA has direct impacts to PO20. If CFLAG is used it excluded the order from PO20. The use of CFLAG/PIA has to be 

limited. Bonnie wants to have an exhaustive list. If something is broken, then Qwest needs to fix the problem opposed to using CFLAG. 

Phyllis Burt ATT asked to explain the use of PIA 4 value of ‘other’. Bonnie explained this allows the CLEC to enter the LSR so it can be rejected. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC090203-1 

Page 7 of 32 

Attachment F

Qwest uses this field to notify CLECs of changes made to the order. It helps the order be processed. 

Jill Martain – Qwest went through the CR and discussed the current uses for PIA. Bonnie requested that we go through the information and ask 

that the CLECs have time to go back to their organizations to gather input, before we make final decisions on the use of PIA. The team agreed 

this was okay and that we would have another meeting to discuss our findings. Jill agreed she would create a matrix that identifies the reason to 

use PIA and identify which PIA would be used in each situation. This matrix should be available to review at the next CLEC Ad Hoc Meeting. 

The group discussed the PIA changes as a result of Verbal direction from CLECs, Changes due to processing requirements within Qwest, 

Changes for ‘other’ reasons and System limitations. 

Jill agreed to look at creating multiple PIAs for system limitations such as: 

DD change per CLEC 

DD changes per Qwest 

Cancel per CLEC 

Cancel per Qwest 

Verbal DD changes 

Delayed order condition causing DD change 

The CLECs expressed their concerns over system limitation PIAs. If Qwest talks to the CLECs and gets their approval it is more acceptable. 

Liz Balvin advised MCI does not subscribe to PSONs so the process can not be to notify via a PSON. Jill agreed to look at the Dispatch field and 

PIA 11 to make sure we understand how this is being used. 

Bonnie Johnson advised the address field is another area where we may want multiple PIA. Qwest should identify minor deviations on address 

data. Jill explained we need to create a manageable list of PIAs. Bonnie and Liz advised they would like to know what specifically changed on the 

address so they can fix it next time. Jill offered to create a PIA for address and include the specifics in the remarks. Liz was okay with this. 

Non fatal errors were discussed and agreed that these should be talked about further to identify situations when it would be used. 

PIA 15 Requested USOC was discussed. Jill advised PIA 15 is only used when the feature PCAT does not tell us what to do. 

Bonnie asked if PIA 3 could go away with 15.0. Jill agreed to check on. 

PIA 13 BAN change – optional field. What happens is we don’t populate it? Jill advised if BAN is populated with the incorrect BAN Qwest uses 

PIA to fix it. If BAN is blank we don’t use PIA. 

PIA 14 should be further defined. Jill will updated the matrix to further define PIA 14. 

PIA 8 goes away with Release 15. 

The CLECs will take PIA and review with their organizations. Jill will update the PIA matrix and we will discuss it during our next meeting. 

Bonnie sent in the following information as a result of CLEC discussions: 

The CLECs committed to hold a meeting and review 3 issues on this CR. 

1. Verbal sups on non fatal errors: 

* The CLECs collectively agree with Qwest (Char Mahs communicated 

Qwest will be sending a level 3 notice soon) that verbal sups should be 

allowed only when a sup is not possible due to a system or some other unique 

limitation. 

2. PIA #15 value to be implemented in 14.0 

* The CLEC community has a concern about this value. 

* How will the process for blocking and hunting impact this. Qwest 

process states that the USOC will no longer be required. Will every LSR with 

blocking requested (requiring a USOC) and hunting have a #15 value? 

* If so the CLECs would like a new value to apply to USOCs not 

required on the LSR and one for USOCs that are required. More discussion is 

needed on this. 

3. Can we eliminate the #4 "other" field? 

* The CLECs would like to develop the detailed value list and discuss 

at that point, however, the general consensus is that if we can create a 

total list we may be able to accomplish that. 

Some additional points: 

* CLECs want to ensure that the PIA field is not replacing any 

processes. The PIA field is merely Qwest defining the LSR/Service order 

mismatch and CLECs will not be required to use the PIA field will not 

communicate any data currently relayed to CLECs via other methods. For 

example, Qwest marks PIA value 12 because the customer code has changed. 

Qwest communicates the new customer code in remarks on the FOC. The CLEC 

will not need to now obtain the new customer code from the remarks field 

when they currently obtain the information through other means. 

* Will Qwest submit a special request to make all changes requested in 

this process in 15.0 and update 13.0 and 14.0 at that time? 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

September 17, 2003 CMP Meeting 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC090203-1 

Page 8 of 32 

Attachment F

Jill Martain presented this CR and asked if Qwest could hold a CLEC Input meeting on 9-29-03 from 9 – 11:00 a.m. Liz Balvin-MCI advised 

Monday’s do not work for her. Cindy agreed to send a notification to offer 3 meeting options and then reschedule. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

____________ 


Request to change Level 2 Notification PROS.07.28.03.F.01137.Provisioning_V27 to a Level 4 Change Request 

August 20, 2003 

CLEC-Qwest Conference Call 

Meeting Time: 1:00 – 2:00 PM MDT 

Purpose 

The purpose of the ad-hoc meeting was to determine how to move forward with implementing changes notified in 

PROS.07.28.03.F.01137.Provisioning_V27 and how to manage the CLEC requests that came in asking that this change be managed as a Level 4 

CR. 

Attendees 

Carla Pardee-ATT, Donna Osborne-Miller- ATT, Sharon Van Meter – AT&T, Mike Zulevic-Covad, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, 

Bill Littler-Integra, Stephanie Prull-McLeod, Liz Balvin-MCI, Jennifer Arnold-US Link, Susan Lorence-Qwest, Jim Maher-Qwest, Jill Martain-Qwest, 

Judy Schultz-Qwest, Kit Thomte-Qwest 


Jim Maher-Qwest opened the meeting and explained that Qwest had issued a Level 2 notification PROS.07.28.03.F.01137.Provisioning_V27 

updating information associated with CFLAG processes. The notification had been issued as Level 2 because it was an update that included 

documentation concerning existing processes/products not previously documented. Jim explained that comments had been received from 

Cbeyond, Covad, Eschelon and MCI requesting that the CLECs be involved in developing the procedures and that this could be accomplished by 

handling this as a Level 4 CR. 

Jill Martain-Qwest proposed that the Level 2 change be implemented based on a request from the CLECs that this process should be more clearly 

documented. Martain stated that having the processes documented through the Level 2 notification might be more advantageous to all involved 

with this process, and that a Level 4 CMP CR could be opened to modify the process. 

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that Eschelon had an issue with posting the information provided in the Level 2 notification because Eschelon did 

not think the information represented what was happening with CFLAG. She further explained that Eschelon had raised concerns regarding 

CFLAG for some time and that they had concerns with PID impacts. Mike Zulevic-Covad and Liz Balvin-MCI also stated they were uncomfortable 

with the Level 2 language being implemented and agreed that this should be managed as a CR. Jill Martain stated that the language provided in 

the Level 2 notification could be the starting point for the CR. Bonnie Johnson agreed with that approach. Martain agreed to proceed with th CR, 

and stated there may be a short term and longer term CR associated with this work. 

The meeting adjourned. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC090203-1 

Page 9 of 32 

Attachment F


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC103103-1 Buried service 

wire/placing/Conduit/Technician interface 

with end user 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Field Technician Process changes for Service drop wire and/or conduit Placement: 

1. Field Tech is dispatched out to perform installation on a Wholesale order. 

2. Field Tech determines that an initial or additional drop is required. 

Wholesale ProdProc Odering, 

Provisioning 

Residence premises: Placing is required for initial or additional drop. 

Business premises: The property owner may be required to place conduit with pull-string for initial or additional drop placement. 


UNE Loop, UNE-P, 

EEL (UNE-C) 

3. 

Non-design (ie, UNE-P)- Qwest Field Tech will contact CLEC to let them know about a jeopardy condition for placing of drop and/or conduit. The 

notification to CLEC is either direct to the CLEC contact or through a Voice Message. If the CLEC’s Voice Message is full, the Field Tech will 

make one more attempt to contact CLEC. The Field Tech will then place the order into jeopardy status. 

Internal process Authorization of charges will need to be approved through a SUP on the LSR. Appropriate USOC's will be applied to the service 

order after SUP is received (Placement of conduit and the cost associated with it is the responsibility of the property owner.) 

If conduit placement is required, Field Tech will advise property owner where the conduit should start and end. 

Design (ie, Unbundled)- Qwest Field Tech makes a call to the QCCC or DSC and the QCCC or DSC will contact the CLEC for jeopardy condition 

for placing of drop and/or conduit and order will be placed into jeopardy status. Authorization of charges will need to be approved through a SUP 

on the LSR. Appropriate USOC will be applied to the service order after SUP is received (Placement of conduit and the cost associated with it is 

the responsibility of the property owner.) 

If conduit placement is required, Field Tech will advise property owner where the conduit should start and end. 

(If the QCCC or DSC cannot reach the CLEC, they will leave a VM.) 

4. Property owner or end-user will contact CLEC to advise conduit placement is complete and order can be re-scheduled. 

5. CLEC updates Qwest through LSR notification. 

6. BSW group receives notification and schedules contractor to place Service Wire. 

7. Field Technician is then dispatched out to complete installation. 









11/19/03 - Qwest issued CLEC Input Meeting Notification CMPR.11.20.03.F.01085.CLECInputMeeting 

12/04/03 - Held ad-hoc CLEC imput call 

12/11/03 - Sent Minutes for CLEC input meeting 




1/21/04 - Status will remain in Devleopment 

1/30/04: Qwest initiated notification PROS.01.30.04.F.01311.Mtce_&_Rpr_Overview V25.0 

2/19/04: Qwest initiated notification PROS.02.19.04.F.01387.FNL_Prov_Overview_V34 



Retka, Mary 



Andreen, Doug 


Report Name: 

Development 

12/17/03 






CR # 

4 


Impacted 

PC103103-1 

Page 10 of 32 

Attachment F


Shirley Tallman, Qwest said the comment cycle completed with no comments being received. The PCAT will be published and operational on 

March 5. The CR will stay in Development status. 

----------------------------------------------------------------- 


Shirley Tallman, Qwest said the PCAT language has been developed and will be on line for CLEC comments by the end of the month. Lydell 

Peterson, Qwest asked if the escalation process would change. Shirley said no, that it would continue to flow through the delayed order desk. 

The CR will stay in Development. 

----------------------------------------------------------------- 


Jamal Boudhaouia, Qwest provided an update to this CR that Qwest is moving forward on the PCAT language to establish the process for when 

initial or additional drops are needed to complete an order. This CR was moved to Development. 

------------------------------------------------------------------ 


PC103103-1 

Buried service wire/placing/Conduit/Technician interface with end user 



1-877-521-8688, Conference ID 1456160 

10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. Mountain Time 

PURPOSE 

At the November CMP Meeting, participants agreed to hold a conference call to discuss Qwest initiated CR PC103103-1. The following is the 

write-up of the discussion. 





Patrick Hennesey, Eschelon 

Todd Miller, Eschelon 


Ann Atchison, AT&T 

Steve Kast, Qwest 

Cathy Augustson, Qwest 

Shirley Tallman, Qwest 

Allen Braeggar, Qwest 

Eric Yohe, Qwest 




Doug Andreen with Qwest explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss Qwest initiated CR PC103103-1. 

Shirley Tallman, Qwest explained the purpose of the CR is to establish a process for the Qwest on site technician and the CLECs concerning a 

situation where the technician finds that either an additional drop wire or conduit needs to be run. Shirley than described the proposed process. 

She pointed out that while Qwest does not usually talk to the CLEC customer that in the case where the building owner/manager and the customer 

are one in the same that Qwest would talk to them in their capacity as the building owner/manager. 

Bonnie Johnson, Echelon questioned if this was a new or existing process. 

Shirley said it is a little of both. The purpose was to clarify the process for both the Qwest technician and the CLECs. 

Todd Miller, Eschelon added that he felt some of this was existing but that this process clarifies some unknowns. 

Bonnie stated that her concerns is the benefit of supplying the building manager/customer with the information in the sense that they will want the 

CLEC to fix the problem. Therefore she wanted to make sure there was a method for the CLEC to get the information. 

Shirley stated that at the same time the technician is giving the building manager/customer the information it would also be called to the QCCC for 

entry into the database. She suggested that we add a narrative of what the situation is after the notation that the order will be put in jeopardy 

status. 

Bonnie asked if this could be built into process. 

Shirley answered yes. 

Bonnie further questioned if there could be information on how to contact the technician in case additional information was needed. 

A discussion ensued on how this could best be done. Patrick Hennesey, Eschelon suggested the request go through the Service Manager. Steve 

Kast, Qwest suggested that there is an existing group in Cheyenne that handles jeopardy orders and that this might be the logical place to go for 

information. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC103103-1 

Page 11 of 32 

Attachment F

Shirley agreed to investigate what would be the best way. 

Doug asked if the intent is to have a CLEC contact that is a consistent place to go for additional information. 

Bonnie agreed and added that there be a CLEC facing document that outlines the procedure. 

Doug pointed out that a PCAT would be issued covering this process and that this document would be available for CLEC review. 

Shirley mentioned that the PCAT might be delayed from the expected January 1 due date. 

Bonnie pointed out that it is difficult for the CLECs to know what is going on if Qwest implements a process without the PCAT being issued. 

Shirley asked if she wanted the process to not go into effect until the PCAT is finalized. 

Bonnie said yes and Liz Balvin, MCI and Carla Pardee, AT&T concurred. 

Doug said he would ensure that the CLECs were kept apprised of the PCAT status. 

There were no further comments and the meeting was concluded. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 


Shirley Tallman Qwest presented the CR, which details the process for field technicians to follow when the technician finds that an initial or 

additional drop is required or that conduit is required. She stated that the intent is to document the process so that technicians are clear on what 

to do. Shirley also pointed out that she wanted the CLECs to be clear that this change involves the technician discussing with the property owner 

what the situation is and what needs to be done. The technician would also do this if the CLEC customer is the property owner. Anticipated 

effective date is January 1. Bonnie Johnson Eschelon asked if this was a new process or a modification to an existing process. Shirley replied 

that it is a bit of both and the intention is to get clarity around the process. Bonnie asked if there would be an input meeting or comment cycle. 

Kim Isaacs pointed out that this needs to be in the PCAT. It was agreed that both a comment cycle and input meeting will be utilized. Doug 

Andreen Qwest said the CLEC Input meeting is tentatively set for December 4. This CR will move to Presented status. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC103103-1 

Page 12 of 32 

Attachment F


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC103103-2 Binding Post information Development Wholesale ProdProc Maintenance/Rep 

12/17/03 

air 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


UNE Loop, EEL 

(UNE-C) 

Qwest will provide dmarc Binding Post information for Unbundled Loop and EEL Products on CLEC orders through the Repair Department upon 

request, when information is available. If BP information is not available, the existing process for tagging the dmarc will apply. 

Information on dmarc BP on non-design orders is not retained in any database and is not available. 

Expected Deliverables: 



Retka, Mary 



Andreen, Doug 




10/31/03 - Submitted 

10/31/03 - Acknowledged 

11/18/03 - Held clarification call 



11/20/03 - Qwest issued Clec Input Meeting Notification CMPR.11.20.03.F.01086.CLECInputMtgBindingPost 

11/24/03 - Qwest issued CLEC Input Meeting Time Change Notification CMPR.11.24.03.F.01095.TimeChangeCLECInputMtg 

12/04/03 - Held ad-hoc CLEC input call 

12/11/03 - Issued minutes from ad hoc call 




1/21/04 - Status will remain in Development 

1/30/04: Qwest initiated notification PROS.01.30.04.F.01310.Prov_Overview_V34 

2/19/04: Qwest initiated notification PROS.02.19.04.F.01388.FNL_Mtce_&_Rpr_Ver25 



Impacted 



Shirley Tallman, Qwest said the comment cycle completed with no comments being received. The PCAT will be published and operational on 

March 5. The CR will stay in Development status. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 


Shirley Tallman, Qwest stated that the PCAT language has been developed and will be on line for CLEC comments by the end of the month. 

Bonnie wanted to be sure that her comments about what an RSB representative had said about not giving out binding post information was about 

the situation and not about the employee. Kit Thomte, Qwest assured her that was understood. It was agreed that Doug Andreen will open a 

global action item concerning how CLECs will obtain Binding Post (demarc) information on non-design orders since this process only addresses 

design orders. The CR will stay in Development status. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Jamal Boudhaouia, Qwest stated that the Qwest is moving forward on PCAT language to provide information for Binding Post. Bonnie Johnson, 

Eschelon questioned the status on the question of CLECs seeing proprietary information in CEMR. She stated that two or three days after the 

Clarification call Eschelon called Qwest for Binding Post information and was told that the information could not be given out. Bonnie said she had 

stated on the Clarification call that she was afraid that Qwest would discontinue a process without proper notice to the CLECs. Judy Schultz, 

Qwest stated that a memo had been issued to the effect that proper notice must be given before process changes can be implemented. Jamal 

stated he would take on the issue of CEMR and what is proprietary. Bonnie stated that Qwest has a major compliance problem with tagging and 

the Qwest is obligated to provide last point of termination and that Qwest needs to correct the tagging problem or provide the information. She 

said the result is the Eschelon customer’s service is delayed and both companies have to dispatch to the premise. John Berard, Covad said there 

is a process being implemented at SBC for a CLEC tech to send tone on a line and determine the demarc. The CR was moved to Design. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


PC103103-2 

Binding Post Information 



1-877-521-8688, Conference ID 1456160 

3:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. Mountain Time 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC103103-2 

Page 13 of 32 

Attachment F 

5

PURPOSE 

At the November CMP meeting, participants agreed to hold a conference call to discuss Qwest initiated CR PC103103-2. The following is the 

write-up of the discussion. 


Jeff Bellin, Eschelon 


Rhonda Knutson, Eschelon 

Allen Braeggar, Qwest 

Cathy Augustson, Qwest 

Shirley Tallman, Qwest 

Eric Yohe, Qwest 

Pat Finley, Qwest 

Don Deland, Qwest 



Doug Andreen with Qwest explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss Qwest initiated CR PC103103-2. 

Shirley Tallman, Qwest explained the purpose of the CR: Qwest will provide dmarc Binding Post information for Unbundled Loop and EEL 

Products on CLEC orders through the Repair Department upon request, when information is available. If BP information is not available, the 

existing process for tagging the dmarc will apply. 

Information on dmarc BP on non-design orders is not retained in any database and is not available. 

Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon asked if that meant Qwest would no longer tag. 

Shirley responded no that normal processes for tagging still apply. This is primarily for when there is not a truck roll. 

Bonnie said that on non-design orders she was surprised to hear that the information was not available. 

Shirley responded that terminal information like at multi-tenant buildings is actual terminal information and not binding post at the dmarc. 

Bonnie said Eschelon seems to be successful with data in CEMR and wondered on new orders if this process would prevent the CLECs from 

doing what they have done all along? 

Shirley answered it would not as this is not designed to replace any existing process. 

Bonnie asked if in the PCAT it would state that the information is not available? 

Shirley said no, it would state that Qwest would provide the information it has if available. 

Rhonda, Eschelon said that if an order is completed on non-design that Eschelon asks for binding post or F2 information. It may not be the last 

point but is close. 

Shirley stated that Qwest should not be providing F2 information since this is in our network. 

Rhonda stated that she was aware that cable and pair information should not be available but that F2 information was ok. 

Jeff, Eschelon pointed out that on record 651-466-0492 in CEMR he could see binding post 272. 

Shirley agreed to check out exactly what CLECs are seeing in CEMR. 

Rhonda said that sometimes binding post and F2 are used interchangeably and she wondered if this could be causing the problem. 

Bonnie stated that this information is critical especially when dealing with customer who has not paid their bill. 

Shirley stated that Qwest should never be providing terminal binding post information but rather just binding post. 

Bonnie stated that this would cause more dispatches for tagging. 

Rhonda wondered how the information would show up. Will it say dmarc? 

Shirley said at this point she was not sure. 

Cathy Augustson, Qwest added when tech calls in an order complete that the tech provides the information at that time. 

Rhonda asked if the last point of dmarc is where Qwest terminates the line. 

Don Deland, Qwest said could be RJ11 or a 66 block. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC103103-2 

Page 14 of 32 

Attachment F

Rhonda asked if F2 is where Qwest takes ownership. 

Don said that it is jumpered from the F2 to a dmarc box or jack where the CLEC takes ownership. 

Bonnie had two questions, first, is it called something else on a non-design and why doesn’t Qwest keep a record of it, and second isn’t Qwest 

obligated to provide information on where the dmarc is and where the CLEC takes ownership? 

Shirley stated that the dmarc is not always our block that it can be the building owners. 

Rhonda asked if beyond this point is the CLECs. 

Don said usually the jumper is tagged to where the alternate provider takes over. 

Bonnie asked if there would be a PCAT update and comment cycle. 

Doug answered that there would be however the original date for the PCAT of January 1 would be delayed. 

Doug asked Bonnie if her main concern is that these processes not supercede or replace anything in place today. 

Bonnie said that was correct 

Shirley added that this would not supercede or replace anything existing. 

Bonnie said she would check if other CLECs were interested in this CR. 

It was agreed there might be a need for another input meeting after the CMP meeting. 

There was no disagreement with the design part of this CR, making the goal to not hold up design implementation while resolving issues on the 

non-design side. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Shirley Tallman Qwest presented the CR for providing dmarc Binding Post information for Unbundled Loop and EEL Products on CLEC orders 

through the Qwest Repair Department upon request. She pointed out that this information on non-design orders is not available. Anticipated 

implementation is January 1. Bonnie Johnson Eschelon ask if the information was available through LMOS? Shirley responded that dmarc 

information is available but binding post is not. Bonnie questioned if the issue is a compliance issue since it is the existing process for the 

technician to tag at the dmarc. Shirley pointed out that there are times when a Qwest technician is not dispatched. Doug stated that a CLEC Input 

Meeting is tentatively set for December 4. This CR will move to Presented status. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC103103-2 

Page 15 of 32 

Attachment F


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC111003-1 Reserved TN Procedure Development Wholesale ProdProc PreOrdering, 

12/17/03 

Ordering, 

Provisioning, 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Implement procedure to either activate or cancel TNs reserved for 180 days or more to comply with December 2000 FCC Mandate. 


Burson, Sue 


Dimmitt, Jan 

Andreen, Doug 

11/10/03: CR Received 

11/11/03: CR Acknowledged 

11/18/03: Held Clarification meeting 

11/18/03: Status changed to clarification 

11/19/03: Qwest initiated notification CMPR.12.19.03.F.01201.Mtg_On_Reserve_TN_Process 



01/12/04 - Held CLEC Input Call 

01/15/04 - Sent CLEC Input Minutes 




Centrex, Resale 

POTS, UNE-P, any 

TN based product is 



Jan Dimmitt said she is currently working on the PCAT. No line ranges have been encountered that require contacting the CLECs. The CR will 

remain in Development. 

------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Jan Dimmitt said there was a CLEC Input meeting held January 12 and that the purpose of the CR is to establish a procedure where CLECs are 

notified when a line range has been reserved for over 180 days. She also said she is still looking into if a TN is part of a common block is it 

considered reserved or activated. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon asked about the re-reserve policy. Jan said this is strictly a courtesy with no 

additional fees. A CLEC can continue to reserve, cancel the reservation, activate the line range, or re-reserve only a portion of the original. The 

CR will be moved to Development status. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

CLEC Input Meeting 

9:00 a.m. (MDT) / Monday January 12, 2004 

1-877-521-8688 

1456160 

PC 111003-1-Reserve TN Procedure 

Attendees 


Phyllis Burt, AT&T 



Stephanie Prull, Eschelon 

James McCluskey, Accenture 

Cheryl Peterson, AT&T 

Anne Robberson, Qwest 

Jan Dimmitt, Qwest 










Impacted 

Doug Andreen, Qwest read the CR description: Implement a procedure to either activate or cancel TNs reserved for 180 days or more to comply 

with December 2000 FCC Mandate. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC111003-1 

Page 16 of 32 

Attachment F 

6

Jan Dimmitt, Qwest explained this process is not applicable to Resale Pre-Order TN Reservations through IMA and is applicable to numbers or 

number ranges that the CLEC has reserved and is paying a monthly fee to hold. This process is also not applicable to the 30 day reservations 

done through IMA. She said that Qwest gets a report of all reservations of over 150 days that have not been activated. They are compared with 

CNUM and the billing system for a match and to see if there are pending orders. The question is if the CLECs would like a courtesy call to inform 

them that they have a number or range of numbers that have been reserved for some time. 

Kim Isaacs, Eschelon asked what happens after the courtesy call. Jan answered that the CLEC can either activate, continue to hold or cancel. 

Kim then asked if the number is on the common block CSR is it activated or reserved. Jan said she would have to find out. 

Liz Balvin, MCI wanted to verify that it is the CLECs choice of what to do with the reservation after the courtesy call. 

Jan said yes and that some of these may take some research on the CLEC side. Qwest will continue to hold the number until advised by the 

CLEC what to do. 

Anne Robberson, Qwest added that this is more of an effort to ensure the CLECs get what they want. The re-reserve policy still needs to be 

worked out. 

Liz asked if Qwest was willing to hold another 180 days and Anne said yes. Anne then summarized that the process is to notify the CLECs of the 

choices they have. 

Stephanie Prull, Eschelon asked if the non recurring charge would be applicable on re-reserves. Jan said she would have to check. 

Cheryl Peterson, AT&T asked if only a portion of the original reservation could be re-reserved. Jan answered yes but it is now a verbal 

commitment. However, an email could verify the PON or service order. (The following was added after the meeting for further clarification: Qwest 

can initiate a service order without an LSR using PONS for specific order function. PON for cancel: CANRESRVTN180, PON for line range 

activation: ACTRESRVTN180, PON for cancel of portion of block and re-reserve portion of block: RERESRVTN180.) 

Cheryl then said she needed more information on how the process works today and what now happens at the 150th day. Anne said the entire 

process is out in the LSOG and this is simply an addition. 

Kim asked what the escalation process would look like iF something goes wrong. Jan said normal escalation procedures would apply. 

Anne added that the preliminary investigation is a manual process. 

Jan also added that the billing at the current time just continues on after 180 days without notifying the CLECs. 

No other CLEC input was offered. There will be an update given in the January CMP meeting. 


UNE-P, Centrex (not resale Centrex), any TN product is impacted including resold ISDN, DID, and Retail POTS 



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Jan Dimmitt presented this CR which asks if the CLECs would like to be notified when a TN or range of TNs have been reserved for longer than 

180 days. The CR was moved to Presented status. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC111003-1 

Page 17 of 32 

Attachment F


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC010604-1 Grandparent DSL Pro USOCs. Pending 

Withdrawal 

3/11/04 

Wholesale ProdProc Provisioning Resale, UNE-P 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 






The following USOCs will be grandparented effective 3/31/04: 

USOC Description 

G5L21 QDSL DMT Pro 640k Centrex PlusPrime 1 yr 



G5L2M QDSL DMT Pro 640k Centrex PlusPrime MTM 




G5L3M QDSL DMT Pro 960k Centrex PlusPrime MTM 

G5L41 QDSL DMT Pro 1 Meg Centrex PlusPrime 1 yr 



G5L4M QDSL DMT Pro 1 Meg Centrex PlusPrime MTM 









G5LB1 QDSL DMT Pro 640k Centrex 1 yr 



G5LBM QDSL DMT Pro 640k Centrex MTM 

G5LC1 QDSL DMT Pro 960k Centrex 1 yr 



G5LCM QDSL DMT Pro 960k Centrex MTM 

G5LD1 QDSL DMT Pro 1 Meg Centrex 1 yr 



G5LDM QDSL DMT Pro 1 Meg Centrex MTM 

G5LE1 QDSL DMT Pro 4 Meg Centrex 1 yr 



G5LEM QDSL DMT Pro 4 Meg Centrex MTM 

G5LF1 QDSL DMT Pro 7 Meg Centrex 1 yr 



G5LFM QDSL DMT Pro 7 Meg Centrex MTM 

G5LG1 QDSL DMT Pro 256k Centrex 21 1 yr 



G5LGM QDSL DMT Pro 256k Centrex 21 MTM 

G5LJ1 QDSL DMT Pro 256k Centrex PlusPrime 1 yr 



G5LJM QDSL DMT Pro 256k Centrex PlusPrime MTM 

GPRBM QDSL DMT Pro 640k Ctx Analog MTM 

GPRCM QDSL DMT Pro 960k Ctx Analog MTM 

GPRDM QDSL DMT Pro 1 Meg Ctx Analog MTM 

GPREM QDSL DMT Pro 4 Meg Ctx Analog MTM 


Report Name: 






CR # 

7 


Impacted 

PC010604-1 

Page 18 of 32 

Attachment F

GPRFM QDSL DMT Pro 7 Meg Ctx Analog MTM 

GPRNM QDSL DMT Pro 256k Ctx Analog MTM 

GRLB1 QDSL DMT Pro 640k dn/544 up 1 yr 



GRLBM QDSL DMT Pro 640k dn/544 up MTM 

GRLC1 QDSL DMT Pro 960k 1 yr 



GRLCM QDSL DMT Pro 960k MTM 

GRLD1 QDSL DMT Pro 1 Meg 1 yr 



GRLDM QDSL DMT Pro 1 Meg MTM 

GRLE1 QDSL DMT Pro 4 Meg 1 yr 



GRLEM QDSL DMT Pro 4 Meg MTM 

GRLF1 QDSL DMT Pro 7 Meg 1 yr 



GRLFM QDSL DMT Pro 7 Meg MTM 

GRLG1 QDSL DMT Pro 256-640k dn/272 up 1 yr 



GRLGM QDSL DMT Pro 256-640k dn/272 up MTM 


03/31/04 







03/11/04 - Status changed to Pending Withdrawal 



Janean Van Dusen with Qwest gave an update stating the effective date moved to 5/28/04 and some USOCs will be eliminated and some 

grandparented. A new list of USOCs will be provided. This CR will be moved to Development Status. 

________________________________ 


Janean Van Dusen with Qwest presented this CR and said that effective 3/31/04 all DSL Pro Line USOCs will be grandfathered. Bonnie Johnson 

asked if the DSL pro product would be going away. Janean said yes. This CR will be moved to Presented Status. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC010604-1 

Page 19 of 32 

Attachment F


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC010704-2 Eliminate Analog Private Line USOCs from 

Qwest’s offering 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Wholesale ProdProc Provisioning Resale 

Qwest will be eliminating attached Analog Private Line USOCs from it’s offerings. These USOCs have no end users. 





Andreen, Doug 

Development 

2/18/04 




01/08/04 - Held clarification call with Janean 




2/18/04 - Status changed to development 




Impacted 



Janean Van Dusen, Qwest stated that the new effective date for the CR is May 28. The USOC has also changed and will go out with the 

notification. The CR will move to development. 

----------------------------------------------------------------- 


Janean Van Dusen presented this CR. It is to eliminate certain USOCs from Analog Private Line. It is due to be implemented March 31st. There 

will be the standard notifications and a comment cycle in lieu of a CLEC Input meeting. This CR will be moved to Presented status. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC010704-2 

Page 20 of 32 

Attachment F 

8

ROUND 2 - AZ TIMCODE MATCH 

AS OF 11-18-03 

135 

USOC 

1U5Q6 

TUSA4 

TUSC2 

TUSC4 

TUSK2 

TUSO2 

TUSP2 

TUSR2 

TWTNB 

PJPAA 

PJPEA 

BGA 

6BN 

PJPA1 

PJPA2 

PJPA8 

PJPAD 

PJPAF 

PJPAG 

PJPAK 

PJPAT 

PJPDE 

PJPED 

PJPGA 

PJPGE 

PJPGG 

PJPGJ 

PJPGO 

PJPHA 

1LMBB 

1LMBD 

1LMBR 

1LMBY 

1LMDE 

1LME9 

1LMEQ 

1LMES 

1LMEY 

1LMFM 

1LMFQ 

1LMFY 

1LP94 

1LP9C 

1LP9D 

1LP9Q 

1LP9S 

1LP9Y 

1LPAY 

1LPDO 

1LPFJ 

1LPFO 

1LPG+ 

1LPH+ 

1LPQW 

Status 

Printed 1/22/04 8:26 AM CONFIDENTIAL: Not for Disclosure Outside of Qwest. 1 of 3


AS OF 11-18-03 

USOC 

1LPR4 

CDQ2X 

4GTAD 

PJPAB 

PJPDB 

1L314 

1L31C 

1L31K 

1L31M 

1L31S 

1L31Y 

1L374 

1L37C 

1L37D 

1L37Q 

1L37S 

1L37Y 

1L3A8 

1L3AC 

1L3AE 

1L3AG 

1L3AO 

1L3AT 

1L3AY 

1L3C4 

1L3CC 

1L3CS 

1L3CY 

1L3L8 

1L3QR 

1L6AC 

1L6AR 

1L6AS 

1L6AY 

1L6B4 

1L6BA 

1L6BJ 

1L6BN 

1L6BO 

1L6BP 

1L6BQ 

1L6BS 

1L6BY 

1L6CC 

1L6CY 

1L6D1 

1L6D2 

1L6D3 

1L6D4 

1L6DA 

1L6DB 

1L6DJ 

1L6DN 

1L6DP 

1L6DQ 

Status 


USOC Status 

1L6DR 

1L6DS 

1L6DY 

1L6FJ 

1L6FO 

1L6GC 

1L6GY 

1L6OC 

1L6OS 

1L6OY 

1L6WC 

1L6WS 

1L6WY 

1L7A4 

1L7B4 

1L7E4 

1L7F4 

1L7H4 

1SE1Q 

1SEHQ 

1SEHX 

1SES2 

1SESJ 

1SESM 

96H 

96L 


AS OF 11-18-03 


55 

USOC Status 

SA9 Keep - Scan Alert 

TJ5CX Keep - SVDS 

TJ5DX Keep - SVDS 

TJ5EX Keep - SVDS 

TJ5GX Keep - SVDS 

TJ5HX Keep - SVDS 

TJ5JX Keep - SVDS 

TJ5KX Keep - SVDS 

TJ5MX Keep - SVDS 

TJ5PX Keep - SVDS 

TZUVX 

CVS - not my product - belongs 

on Tom Wilson's team 

B5NAF Keep - SVDS 

B5NBF Keep - SVDS 

FQYV1 Keep - SVDS 



FQYW1 Keep - SVDS 



JZ3VA Keep - SVDS 

JZ3VB Keep - SVDS 

JZ3VD Keep - SVDS 

JZ3WA Keep - SVDS 

JZ3WB Keep - SVDS 

JZ3WC Keep - SVDS 

JZ3WD Keep - SVDS 

MXN2A Keep - SVDS 


MXN4B Keep - SVDS 


MXN9B Keep - SVDS 

PM25X Keep - SVDS 



PMW1X Keep - SVDS 






PMWJX Keep - SVDS 

PMWLX Keep - SVDS 

PMWMX Keep - SVDS 

PMWNX Keep - SVDS 

PMWOX Keep - SVDS 

PMWPX Keep - SVDS 

PMWSX Keep - SVDS 

PMWTX Keep - SVDS 

PMWUX Keep - SVDS 

PMWZX Keep - SVDS 

PCFCD Keep - Patrick Landry's GeoMax 


AS OF 11-18-03 


USOC Status 

PCFCE Keep - Patrick Landry's GeoMax 


AS OF 11-18-03 



Status Date 

Impacted 

PC010704-3 Eliminate certain Voice Feature USOCs 

from Qwest’s offering. 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Qwest will be eliminating attached Voice Feature USOCs from it’s offerings. These USOCs have no end users. 


03/31/04 






Development 

2/18/04 









Impacted 





Janean Van Dusen with Qwest gave an update that the effective date has moved to May 28 and an updated spreadsheet will be provided for the 

USOCs. This CR will be moved to Development Status. 

_____________________________ 


Janean Van Dusen with Qwest presented this CR and said on 3/31/04 Qwest will be eliminating certain USOCS from Voice Features. This CR will 

be moved to Presented Status. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC010704-3 

Page 21 of 32 

Attachment F 

9


RCFGA REMOTE CALL FORWARDING 

- BUS FLAT - INTRALATA 

MPU2X BUILDING OWNER/TENANT 

SOLUTION MAINTENANCE 

PLAN 1 - EACH GROUP OF 

LINES - 2ND LEVEL 




LINES - 3RD LEVEL 




LINES - 5TH LEVEL 





MPK1X BUILDING OWNER/TENANT 



LINES - 1ST LEVEL 




LINES - 2ND LEVEL 




LINES - 3RD LEVEL 
















LINES - 7TH LEVEL

US22X MAINTENANCE PLAN - 

ENHANCED - LEVEL 2; PER 

PBX TRUNK - QWEST REPAIR 

COORDINATING SERVICE 

E1NFP INTERCOM LINE CAPABILITY 

ON EXCHANGE LINE - 

FEATURE INCLUDED IN A 

PACKAGE; TELECHOICE - 

RES. 

ESXTC CALL WAITING - 

TERMINATING - TELECHOICE 

DISCOUNT 

ESXFP CALL WAITING - 

TERMINATING - FEATURE 

INCLUDED IN A PACKAGE; 

TELECHOICE/TEENLINK 

LCS LOCAL ACCESS TO SYSTEM 

FEATURES NO NETWORK 

ACCESS 

C19 CALLER ID DISPLAY UNIT 

R8TAC SELECT CALL ROUTING 

SERVICE - TIME OF DAY/DAY 

OF WEEK ROUTING - PER 

ACCOUNT - USED FOR 

ACCOUNTS WITH BUSINESS 

EXCHANGE LINES & NON DID 

PBX TRUNKS 

PGY1X PAGER NOTIFICATION - 1ST 

GROUP OF LINES 

PGY2X PAGER NOTIFICATION - 2ND 


PGY3X PAGER NOTIFICATION - 3RD 


PGY4X PAGER NOTIFICATION - 4TH 


PGZ1X PAGER NOTIFICATION WITH 

CALL CONNECTION - 1ST 



CALL CONNECTION - 2ND 



CALL CONNECTION - 3RD 



CALL CONNECTION - 4TH 

GROUP OF LINES

PML1X CALL FORWARDING - 

LOCATION SEQUENCING - 

MULTIPLE LOCATIONS & 

PAGER NOTIFICATION WITH 

CALL CONNECTION - 1ST 






CALL CONNECTION - 2ND 






CALL CONNECTION - 3RD 






CALL CONNECTION - 4TH 


PSF1X CALL FORWARDING - 


SINGLE LOCATION & PAGER 

NOTIFICATION - 1ST GROUP 

OF LINES 




NOTIFICATION - 2ND GROUP 

OF LINES 




NOTIFICATION - 3RD GROUP 

OF LINES 




NOTIFICATION - 4TH GROUP 

OF LINES 

PYZ1M CALL FORWARDING - 


MULTIPLE LOCATIONS - 1ST 


PYZ1S CALL FORWARDING - 


SINGLE LOCATION - 1ST 

GROUP OF LINES



MULTIPLE LOCATIONS - 2ND 




SINGLE LOCATION - 2ND 




MULTIPLE LOCATIONS - 3RD 




SINGLE LOCATION - 3RD 




MULTIPLE LOCATIONS - 4TH 




SINGLE LOCATION - 4TH 


ES3DX CUSTOM CALLING PACKAGE - 

CALL FORWARDING - CALL 

WAITING - SPEED CALLING - 8 

CODE & 3-WAY CALLING - 

2ND RATE LEVEL; IN 

CENTRAL, USED ON 

PACKAGED SERVICE 

ES3FP CUSTOM CALLING PACKAGE - 


WAITING - SPEED CALLING 8 


FEATURE INCLUDING A 


RESIDENCE 

ESADX CALL WAITING - SPEED 

CALLING - 8 CODE & CALL 

FORWARDING - 2ND RATE 

LEVEL 

ESRDX CUSTOM CALLING PACKAGE - 

CALL FORWARDING - SPEED 

CALLING 8 CODE - 3-WAY 

CALLING - 2ND RATE 

LEVEL;IN CENTRAL, USED ON 


ET8DX CALL WAITING - SPEED 

CALLING - 8 CODE - 3-WAY 

CALLING - 2ND RATE LEVEL; 

IN CENTRAL, USED ON 

PACKAGED SERVICE

EZTFP CALL WAITING - CALL 

FORWARDING - 3-WAY 

CALLING - SPEED CALLING - 8 

CODE & 30 CODE - FEATURE 


TELECHOICE PERCENT 

DISCOUNT 

N6SOX ROUTING THROUGH 

CONTROL OFF - NON- 

SELECTIVE ROUTING - 

OUTGOING TRUNK 

ARRANGEMENT - 

INDEPENDENT TERRITORY 

ES5FP CUSTOM CALLING PACKAGE - 


WAITING - SPEED CALLING 30 




RES 

ESMFP CALL FORWARDING - 

VARIABLE - FEATURE 


TELECHOICE - RESIDENCE 

EVDTC CALL FORWARDING - DON'T 

ANSWER; TELECHOICE 

DISCOUNT 

N6S1X ROUTING THROUGH 

CONTROL OFF - NON- 

SELECTIVE ROUTING - 

INCOMING TRUNK 

ARRANGEMENT - 

INDEPENDENT TERRITORY 

RCFGB REMOTE CALL FORWARDING 

- BUS FLAT - INTERLATA 

RCFHA REMOTE CALL FORWARDING 

- RES FLAT - INTRALATA 

RCFHB REMOTE CALL FORWARDING 

- RES FLAT - INTERLATA 

RCFRL REMOTE CALL FORWARDING 

- RESIDENCE - FIRST ACCESS 

PATH; FLAT LOCAL CALL 

FORWARDING; IN CENTRAL- 

NONSTANDARD-USED AS 

MESSAGE-USE 'H'SUFFIX 

RCFVL REMOTE CALL FORWARDING 

- BUSINESS - FIRST ACCESS 

PATH; FLAT LOCAL CALL 

FORWARDING; IN CENTRAL- 

NONSTANDARD-USED AS 

MESSAGE-USE 'H' SUFFIX

RCFW 

G 

REMOTE CALL FORWARDING 

- WATS - FIRST ACCESS 

PATH; INTERSTATE- 

INTRAEXCHANGE; MARKET 

EXPANSION LINE; IN 

CENTRAL-NONSTANDARD 

USE 'T' SUFFIX 

RDEXS REMOTE CALL FORWARDING 

RFA REMOTE CALL FORWARDING 

- ADDITIONAL ACCESS PATH - 

2ND RATE LEVEL - FOR NNX 

SPLITS 

ES6DX CALL WAITING - SPEED 

CALLING - 8 CODE - 2ND 

RATE LEVEL; IN CENTRAL, 

USED ON PACKAGED 

SERVICE 

HNE NON PUBLISHED LISTING; 

USED WITH PACKAGED 

SERVICE - TELECHOICE 

HU5 CALL WAITING & 3-WAY 

CALLING; USED ON 


HUK CALL WAITING - CALL 

FORWARDING; USED ON 


HUN CALL WAITING - CALL 

FORWARDING - 3-WAY 

CALLING - SPEED CALLING - 8 

CODE & 30 CODE; USED ON 


HUV CALL WAITING - SPEED 

CALLING - 30 CODE; USED ON 


NLTFP NON LIST - FEATURE 


TELECHOICE - RES. 

NPUFP NON PUBLISHED - FEATURE 


TELECHOICE - RES. 

NPUTR NON PUBLISHED - CHANGE 

FOR DURATION OF DIR WHEN 

CHANGED TO LISTED 

SERVICE 

RLTFP CHARGE - LISTING - RES - 



RES. 

R25 RESERVED NUMBER 

REQUEST - EACH 

TELEPHONE NUMBER 

RESERVED

V4DXB VOICE MAILBOX - WITH CALL 

FORWARDING - BUSY LINE - 

DON'T ANSWER, MESSAGE 

WAITING AUDIBLE & VISUAL 

INDICATOR - DISCOUNTED 

SERVICE 

V4DXX VOICE MAILBOX - 3RD RATE 

LEVEL - DISCOUNTED 

SERVICE 

V5D MAILBOX PARTITIONING - 

DISCOUNTED SERVICE 

V6D MESSAGE NOTIFICATION - 

WAITING NOTIFICATION TO 

DIFFERENT LOCATION - 

DISCOUNTED SERVICE 

VTMMX CUSTOM REPORT TRAFFIC 

STUDY - TRACKING MAILBOX 

- CALLS ROUTED TO MAILBOX 

- PER BUTTON ROUTED 

VTMNX CUSTOM REPORT TRAFFIC 

STUDY - TRACKING MAILBOX 

- CALLS ROUTED TO NUMBER 

- PER BUTTON ROUTED 

KDBLD INCOMING CALLS 

MANAGEMENT REPORT 

SERVICE - BASIC - BASED ON 

VOLUME - 1 PER CENT 

SAMPLE - DAILY 

KDBND INCOMING CALLS 


SERVICE - BASIC - BASED ON 

VOLUME - 10 PER CENT 


KDDLD INCOMING CALLS 


SERVICE - DID/PBX - BASED 

ON VOLUME - 1 PER CENT 


KDDND INCOMING CALLS 


SERVICE - DID/PBX - BASED 

ON VOLUME - 10 PER CENT 

OWMM 

X 


MAINTENANCE - OPTIONAL 

WIRE PLAN - MULTILINE SVC - 

RESIDENCE


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC010704-4 Eliminate Access Line USOCs from Qwest’s 

offering 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Wholesale ProdProc Provisioning Resale 

Qwest will be eliminating attached Access Line USOCs from it’s offerings. These USOCs have no end users. 





Macy, Cindy 

Development 

2/18/04 




1/9/04 - Contact originator to discuss CR 

1/19/03 - Discussed CR with originator 






Impacted 



Janean Van Dusen – Qwest provided status. This CR tentative implementation date is May 28. The USOCs have been updated and a new 

spreadsheet can be sent out. This CR will move to Development Status. 

________________________________________________________________________________ 


Janean Van Dusen – Qwest this CR is effective March 31, 2004. There are currently no end users. This list of USOCs is attached to the CR. 

This CR will move to Presented Status. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

10 

PC010704-4 

Page 22 of 32 

Attachment F


RSXC1 RATE STABILIZED SERVICE - 

COMPLEX BUS FLAT - PLAN 

1 - DOES NOT INCLUDE LINE 













RSXS1 RATE STABILIZED SERVICE - 

SIMPLE BUS FLAT - PLAN 1 - 

DOES NOT INCLUDE LINE 













1FBCN FLAT - TERMINATING AT 

CONC 

8SS 8 PARTY FLAT RESIDENCE - 

CONNECTED TO URBAN 

ZONE RATE AREA FACILITY 

AL6 FLAT - WITH FEATURE 

PACKAGE; TEENLINK 

AL62H FLAT - USAGE PACKAGE - 

TOLL RESTRICTION, THREE- 

WAY CALLING TEENLINK 

AL62J FLAT - USAGE PACKAGE - 

TOLL RESTRICTION, CALL 

WAITING TEENLINK 

AL62K FLAT - USAGE PACKAGE - 

TOLL RESTRICTION, THREE 

WAY CALLING, CALL 

WAITING TEENLINK

AL63B FLAT - WITH 3 FEATURE 

PACKAGE; TOLL 

RESTRICTION, TONE 

DIALING & 3-WAY CALLING; 

TEENLINK 

AL63C FLAT - WITH 3 FEATURE 

PACKAGE; CALL WAITING, 

TOLL RESTRICTION & TONE 

DIALING; TEENLINK 

AL63D FLAT - WITH 3 FEATURE 


TONE DIALING & 3-WAY 

CALLING; TEENLINK 

AL63E FLAT - WITH 3 FEATURE 

PACKAGE; DIRECTORY 

ASSISTANCE ALLOW, TONE 

DIALING, 3-WAY CALLING 

AL63F FLAT - WITH 3 FEATURE 


DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE 

ALLOW & TONE DIALING 

AL63G FLAT - WITH 3 FEATURE 

PACKAGE; DIRECTORY 

ASSISTANCE ALLOW, TOLL 

RESTRICTION & TONE 

DIALING


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC020404-1 Grandparent Measured Service Plans in 

South Dakota, Bus and Res 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Wholesale ProdProc Resale 

Residence - Eliminate USOCs R1M, AKR, RWG, AWJ, RWH & AWQ after convert to USOCs RWV & AWV 

Business - Eliminate USOC B1M after convert to new Measured USOC LMB 





Andreen, Doug 

Development 

2/18/04 







030904 - Qwest initiated notification PROD.03.09.04.F.01448.GrandparentMS_USOCs_SD 





Janean Van Dusen, Qwest stated that the USOCs would be grandparented and eliminated at the same time since new USOCs will be 

implemented. The effective date will be April 21. The new USOCs are provided on the CR. The CR will move to Development status. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

11 


Impacted 

PC020404-1 

Page 23 of 32 

Attachment F


Status Date 

Impacted 


Minnesota, Bus and Res 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Grandparent USOCs R1M, AKR & 1MR 


04-21-04 






Presented 

2/18/04 









03/09/04 - Qwest sent product notification PROD.03.09.04.F.01449.GrandparentMS_USOCsMN_Res Level 4 proposed effective 4/23/04 


Impacted 



Janean Van Dusen with Qwest presented this CR and said that the USOCs will be grandparented on 4/21/04. This CR will be moved to Presented 

Status. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

12 

PC020404-2 

Page 24 of 32 

Attachment F


Status Date 

Impacted 


Utah, Bus and Res 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


Residence - Grandparent USOCs 1MR, AHR & 2MR. 

Convert USOCs LW1 & AKN to new Measured USOCs RWV & AWV 

Eliminate USOCs LW1, AKN & 21M 

Business - Convert USOCs THB & THF to USOC TMB 

Eliminate USOCs THB & THF 





Macy, Cindy 

Presented 

2/18/04 




2/9/04 - Discussed and clarified CR with orginator 







Janean Van Dusen – Qwest provided status. The Business portion of this CR has been cancelled. Residence still applies with a target 

implementation date of April 21. This CR will move to Presented Status. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

13 


Impacted 

PC020404-3 

Page 25 of 32 

Attachment F


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC020404-4 Grandparent ValueChoice, 2-Line 

ValueChoice , and PrivacyPak 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 



ValueChoice (PCV6X), 2-Line ValueChoice (PGOVB), and PrivacyPak (FFKX2)will be grandparented and no longer offered for sale. 

2/11/04 This CR will not include Northern Idaho at this time. 





Andreen, Doug 

Presented 

2/18/04 






2/18/04- Status changed to Presented 




Impacted 



Janean Van Dusen, Qwest stated that this CR affects all states except northern Idaho. The effective date is May 17 and the USOC list is provided 

in the CR. The CR will move to development. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

14 

PC020404-4 

Page 26 of 32 

Attachment F


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC022604-1 Elimination of ATM USOCs Clarification Wholesale ProdProc Resale 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


The attached list of ATM USOCs will be eliminated 6/15/2004. There are no customers with these USOCs. 


6/15/04 









Report Name: 

2/26/04 






CR # 

15 


Impacted 

PC022604-1 

Page 27 of 32 

Attachment F

CTNH1 

CTNH2 

CTNH3 

CTNH4 

CTNH5 

CTNH6 

CTNH7 

CTNHM 

CTNJ1 

CTNJ2 

CTNJ4 

CTNJ6 

CTNJ7 

CTNK1 

CTNK2 

CTNK6 

CTNK7 

ATM CELL RELAY SERVICE - CELL TRANSFER - 1 YEAR - 

INCREMENTAL CELL TRANSFER - PER CONSTANT (PEAK)BIT 

RATE - PER 149 KBPS 












RATE - 149 KBPS 



RATE - 149 KBPS 




ATM CELL RELAY SERVICE - CELL TRANSFER - MONTH-TO- 

MONTH - INCREMENTAL CELL TRANSFER - PER 

CONSTANT(PEAK) BIT RATE - PER 149 KBPS 


















RATE - PER 1.787 MBPS 









RATE - PER 1.787 MBPS

ATM CELL RELAY SERVICE - CELL TRANSFER - MONTH TO 

CTNKM MONTH - INCREMENTAL CELL TRANSFER - PER CONSTANT 

(PEAK)BIT RATE - PER 1.787 MBPS 

ATM CELL RELAY SERVICE - CELL TRANSFER - VARIABLE 

CTNN1 INCREMENTAL BIT RATE - REAL TIME - 1.544 MBPS - 12 MONTH 

PLAN 



PLAN 



PLAN 



PLAN 



PLAN 



PLAN 



PLAN 

ATM CELL RELAY SERVICE - CELL TRANSFER -VARIABLE 

CTNNM INCREMENTAL BIT RATE - REAL TIME - 1.544 MBPS - MONTH-TO- 

MONTH


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC050503-2 Grandfather SVDS in all state tariffs 

including FCC tariff. 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


SVDS will be grandfathered in all states effective 8/15/03. 


Grandfather SVDS effective 8/15/03 



05/05/03 - Acknowledged CR 

05/13/03 - Claification Meeting 


06/03/03 - Input Meeting 







12/17/03 - Dec CMP meeting minutes will be posted to the database 





Janean Van Dusen – Qwest provided status. This CR is still pending FCC approval. 



_________________________________________________ 

CMP Meeting 1/21/04 

Janean Van Dusen – Qwest advised this CR is still waiting for a date. It is in front of the FCC pending approval. This CR will remain in 


_____________________________________________________ 

CMP Meeting 12/17/03 - 

Janean VanDusen – Qwest advised there is not an effective date for this CR as of yet. The CR will remain in Development status. 

_______________________________________________________ 

CMP Meeting 11/19/03 

Janean VanDusen – Qwest advised there is not an effective date for this CR as of yet. The CR will remain in Development status. 

________________________________________________________ 


10-15-03 

Janean VanDusen – Qwest advised there is not an effective date for this project as of yet. This CR will remain in Development Status. 

_______________________________________________________ 


9-17-03 

Janean advised the FCC tariff does not have an effective date as of yet. This CR will stay in Development status. 

_____________________________________________________________________ 


08-20-03 

Van Dusen-Qwest stated that no precise implementation date was available. 

============================================ 





Macy, Cindy 


Report Name: 

Development 

5/5/03 






CR # 

16 


Impacted 

PC050503-2 

Page 28 of 32 

Attachment F

07-16-03 

Van Dusen-Qwest stated that the implementation date would be pushed back from 8/15. 

=========================================== 


06-18-03 

Van Dusen-Qwest stated that the implementation was scheduled for August although it may slip. She recommended that that CR move to 

Development. 

========================================================== 

Input Meeting – 06-03-03 

Attendees 


Janean Van Dusen – Qwest 

Skip Olson – Qwest 

Barb Newton – Qwest 

Richard Journey – Qwest 


Dalene Fuqua – Qwest 


White-Qwest welcomed the attendees, described the purpose of the meeting and asked Van Dusen-Qwest to describe the CRs. Van Dusen- 

Qwest described the CRs. 

050703-6 

Johnson-Eschelon asked if this CR would follow the same format as the previous grandfathering CRs. Fuqua-Qwest and Newton-Qwest stated 

that it would. 

050503-2 

Johnson-Eschelon asked if grandfathering and grandparenting the same and if they were different from retiring. Van Dusen-Qwest stated that 

grandfathering and grandparenting were synonymous and that they did not mean the same thing as retiring. Johnson-Eschelon asked if only new 

customers would be impacted. Van Dusen-Qwest stated that was correct. 

050503-1 

Johnson-Eschelon asked what switchnet 56 was. Olson-Qwest stated that it was digital data just like ISDN. He explained that switchnet can only 

run at 58 kbps and that there is a lack of demand for this product. 

========================================================== 


05-21-03 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC050503-2 

Page 29 of 32 

Attachment F


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC050703-6 Grandfather Measured Service plans in CO, 

ID North, NM, ND 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 


The following Measured Service Plans will be grandfathered effective 8/15/03: 

Colorado: 

LW1- Main line .05 first .02 additional 

AKN- additional line 

1MR- Main line .11 per call after 50 call allowance 

AHR- additional line 

1MB- Individual Message rate line 50 allowable .11 each additional 

ALS- additional line 

Idaho North: 

LW1 

1MR 

New Mexico: 

LW1 

AKN 

North Dakota: 

RVJ- Main line .05 1st minute .01 each additional 

AKN 




5/13/03 - Scheduled Clarification Call for 5/15/03 


5/21/03 - May CMP Meeting Minutes will be posted to the database 

06/03/03 - Input Meeting 

6/18/03 - June CMP P/P meeting mintues will be posted to the database 

7/16/03 - July CMP monthly meeting will be posted to the database 

8/20/03 - Aug CMP meeting minutes - see notes 

9/17/03 - Sep meeting minutes will be posted to the database 

10/13/03 - Ad Hoc meeting held to review changes to CR 


11/7/03 - Final Notice PROD.11.07.03.F0128.FNL_GrandparentMS 

11/19/03 - Nov CMP meeting minutes will be posted to the databas 

12/5/03 - Retraction of Grandparenting notification PROD.12.05.03.F.01141.RetractGrandparentMS_NM 

12/17/03 - Dec CMP notes will be posted to the database 







Macy, Cindy 



Janean Van Dusen – Qwest provided status. New Mexico Residence is on hold and New Mexico Business is scheduled for implementation March 

22. Idaho North is on hold, Colorado was cancelled and North Dakota was effective January 30 with the IT work complete with 15.0. This CR will 

remain in CLEC Test Status. 

______________________________________________ 


Janean Van Dusen – Qwest recapped that Colorado was cancelled, Idaho was on hold, ND was effective January 30, 2004 but it won’t be 

implemented until 15.0 gets installed. New Mexico was retracted last month due to the commission not approving it yet. NM now has an effective 

date of January 30 so Qwest would like to implement this as a Level 1. The CLECs agreed. This CR will remain in CLEC Test Status. 

_______________________________________________ 

December 17, 2003 CMP Meeting notes 


Report Name: 

CLEC Test 

12/1/03 






CR # 

17 


Impacted 

PC050703-6 

Page 30 of 32 

Attachment F

Janean VanDusen – Qwest advised this CR will be implemented December 1, 2003. NM was retracted by the state PUC and the retraction notice 

went out. This CR will remain in CLEC Test status. 

_________________________________________ 


Janean VanDusen – Qwest advised this CR will be implemented December 1, 2003. This CR will remain in Development status, until December 1 

and then the CLECs agreed that Qwest could change the status to CLEC Test. 

____________________________________________________ 


Janean VanDusen – Qwest advised this project is scheduled for implementation 11-28-03. A CLEC ad hoc meeting was held as there were some 

changes made to New Mexico and South Dakota. These changes were reviewed during the ad hoc meeting. This CR will remain in Development 

Status. 

______________________________________ 


Janean advised NM and ND are scheduled for 10/20/03. Idaho North is on hold and Colorado has been cancelled. This CR will remain in 


__________________________________________ 

August 20, 2003 Monthly Meeting minutes 

Janean VanDusen-Qwest advised this CR was delayed and is now scheduled for implementation on October 15, 2003. 

_______________________________________________________________ 

July 16, 2003 Monthly Meeting minutes 

Janean VanDusen-Qwest advised this CR is scheduled and on track for implementation August 15, 2003. 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

June 18, 2003 Monthly Meeting minutes 

Janean VanDusen – Qwest advised there was a CLEC input meeting held and this CR is on track for deployment in August. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

______ 

Input Meeting – 06-03-03 

Attendees 


Janean Van Dusen – Qwest 

Skip Olson – Qwest 

Barb Newton – Qwest 

Richard Journey – Qwest 


Dalene Fuqua – Qwest 


White-Qwest welcomed the attendees, described the purpose of the meeting and asked Van Dusen-Qwest to describe the CRs. Van Dusen- 

Qwest described the CRs. 

050703-6 

Johnson-Eschelon asked if this CR would follow the same format as the previous grandfathering CRs. Fuqua-Qwest and Newton-Qwest stated 

that it would. 

050503-2 

Johnson-Eschelon asked if grandfathering and grandparenting the same and if they were different from retiring. Van Dusen-Qwest stated that 

grandfathering and grandparenting were synonymous and that they did not mean the same thing as retiring. Johnson-Eschelon asked if only new 

customers would be impacted. Van Dusen-Qwest stated that was correct. 

050503-1 

Johnson-Eschelon asked what switchnet 56 was. Olson-Qwest stated that it was digital data just like ISDN. He explained that switchnet can only 

run at 58 kbps and that there is a lack of demand for this product. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________ 

May 21, 2003 CMP Meeting Minutes 

Van Dusen – Qwest presented the CR and suggested an input meeting on June 3 at 11 AM MT. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

PC050703-6 

Page 31 of 32 

Attachment F


Status Date 

Impacted 

PC120303-3 Grandparent Interstate SHNS and SST 

USOCs 

Director: 

Originator: 

Owner: 

CR PM: 



Excel spreadsheet of 1302 Interstate and SHNS USOCs being grandparented on 3/1/04. There are three types of elements being grandparented; 

ports, shelves and port to port connecting agreements. 

-Ports with month to month rates are not being affected. We are grandparenting 1,2,3 and 5 year rated ports. 

-Shelves are being replaced by a fully loaded node. The currently tariffed nodes will become these fully loaded nodes once shelves are 

grandfathered. 

-If a customer would have ordered a port to port connecting agreement, once that is grandparented, they will be able to order the currently tariffed 

COCC (central office connecting channel). 

Expected Deliverable: 03/01/2004 





Macy, Cindy 

CLEC Test 

2/18/04 




12/8/03 Contacted Janean VanDusen 

12/10/03 - Clarified CR 

12/17/03 - Dec CMP meeting notes will be posted to the database 


1/16/04 - PROD.01.16.04.F.01240.ResaleSST_SHNS level 4 implementation date March 1, 2004 

2/13/04 - PROD.02.12.04.F.01354.FNL_ResaleSST_SHNS 





Impacted 


February 18, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: 

Janean Van Dusen – Qwest provided status. The final notification went out February 13. There are two effective dates with this CR. One is 

March 12 and the other is March 24. This CR will move to CLEC Test Status. 

______________________________________ 

January 21, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: 

Janean Van Dusen – Qwest advised this CR is effective March 1, 2004. The USOC list is on the customer notification web site. It was noticed on 

January 16, 2004. This CR will move to Development Status. 

________________________________________ 

December 17, 2003 CMP Meeting notes: 

Janean Van Dusen – Qwest reported that this is a new CR that is grandfathering USOCs related to these services. The intent is to streamline the 

number of USOCs associated to this product. There is a spreadsheet with 1302 USOCs on it. This spreadsheet is too large to include as part of 

the CR but it will be sent out with the Notification. This CR will move to Presented status. 


Report Name: 



CR # 

18 

PC120303-3 

Page 32 of 32 

Attachment F


Attachment G – Proposed Modifications to CMP 

Framework

March 2004 Product & Process CMP Team Meeting ... - CenturyLink

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?