Wholesale: Products & Services

Archived System CR 14886 Detail

A CLEC should be allowed to submit a request for service using the interval that has been negotiated and is in the CLECs ICA. A CLEC has a contractual right to the intervals it has in its ICA. However, when the CLEC sends a request for service, and the interval the CLEC has negotiated in the CLECs ICA is different from the interval in the Qwest SIG, Qwest changes the CLECs requested due date to the interval in the Qwest SIG. For example, Eschelon has a contractual right to an interval in its ICA for a particular product in some states. That interval is shorter than the interval in the Qwest SIG. Qwest forces Eschelon to use different process when submitting a request for those orders so Eschelon can get the interval that it has a right to in its contract. This process includes marking the LSR for manual handling and actually calling the Qwest center Manager who handles this product to advise Qwest that Eschelon has sent an order with the interval in Eschelon's ICA. Eschelon has a right to the intervals in its ICA and should have to use a different process to get that interval. If Eschelon fails to follow the Qwest imposed process, Qwest changes the due date in Eschelon's ICA to the due date in Qwest's SIG, and uses the CFLAG/PIA field to tell Eschelon it changed the due date it requested. In addition, because this product is flow through eligible, Eschelon's requests are subject to Qwest service order typing errors when the order may have flowed through Qwest's systems because Eschelon has to set the LSR to manual handling. Qwest should change IMA to reflect intervals that a CLEC has in its ICA and not the Qwest SIG.

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

ORIGINAL 9/28/2001 CR DESCRIPTION:

Standard intervals should be mechanized in CLEC electronic interfaces based on standard interval guide (SIG).

Status History

Project Meetings

-- September 16, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that we are still exploring alternatives and that she will contact Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon to discuss further.

- August 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this is still being evaluated and that Qwest is looking into the contractual obligations around the 2-day standard interval. Jill noted that Qwest may ask for ad-hoc calls with the CLECs. Jill stated that a status would be provided in September.

July 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this is being reviewed and the LOE is pending. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR is ‘Other’, not IMA, so it will not be included in the prioritization. This Action Item remains open for status.

-- June 17, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR remains in Evaluation, Qwest research continues. This Action Item remains open.

-- May 13, 2004 Clarification Meeting CR# 14886 (5-6-2004 REVISED TITLE) Qwest Should Apply Interval Edits in IMA and IMA Flow Through Based on the CLECs ICA Intervals and Not the Qwest SIG

Introduction of Attendees: Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, John Gallegos-Qwest, Curt Anderson-Qwest, Nicole James-Qwest, Cynthia Gomez-Qwest, Jim Recker-Qwest, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest reviewed the revised CR Title and description:

5/6/2004 - REVISED DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE: A CLEC should be allowed to submit a request for service using the interval that has been negotiated and is in the CLECs ICA. A CLEC has a contractual right to the intervals it has in its ICA. However, when the CLEC sends a request for service, and the interval the CLEC has negotiated in the CLECs ICA is different from the interval in the Qwest SIG, Qwest changes the CLECs requested due date to the interval in the Qwest SIG. For example, Eschelon has a contractual right to an interval in its ICA for a particular product in some states. That interval is shorter than the interval in the Qwest SIG. Qwest forces Eschelon to use different process when submitting a request for those orders so Eschelon can get the interval that it has a right to in its contract. This process includes marking the LSR for manual handling and actually calling the Qwest center Manager who handles this product to advise Qwest that Eschelon has sent an order with the interval in Eschelon's ICA. Eschelon has a right to the intervals in its ICA and should have to use a different process to get that interval. If Eschelon fails to follow the Qwest imposed process, Qwest changes the due date in Eschelon's ICA to the due date in Qwest's SIG, and uses the CFLAG/PIA field to tell Eschelon it changed the due date it requested. In addition, because this product is flow through eligible, Eschelon's requests are subject to Qwest service order typing errors when the order may have flowed through Qwest's systems because Eschelon has to set the LSR to manual handling. Qwest should change IMA to reflect intervals that a CLEC has in its ICA and not the Qwest SIG.

Additional Discussion: Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that Qwest response to the revision was that it would be a new CR. Bonnie stated that it is not a different CR. Bonnie stated that Eschelon realizes that in the 5.01 Release, Qwest was implementing a change to put edits in IMA based on the Service Interval Guide. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that the challenge for the CLECs is on service orders. Bonnie stated that Qwest flows through its systems and also manually types orders. Bonnie stated that Eschelon is forced to use a different process and noted that it is very manually intensive stated that they should not have to. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that this request is for any product where the interval is different in the SIG vs. the ICA’s. Bonnie stated that the contract always rules. Cynthia Gomez-Qwest asked Eschelon for examples. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that for example; the Eschelon contract has a 2-day interval for UBL in the states of CO, OR, & MN. Bonnie stated that when they submit a service order with a 2-day interval, the process is manually intensive. Bonnie stated that this causes them to only use it occasionally. Bonnie stated that the loops are then removed from the flow through process and they have to call the Duluth Center Manager and give them information so that the order can be worked. Cynthia Gomez-Qwest asked if there were more examples and asked for a complete list. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that some say that standard intervals do not apply. Bonnie stated that all CLECs have negotiated some time, different intervals for different products. Bonnie stated that the first driver is always the ICA, then the SIG, if no standard interval. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she needs this change in IMA and in back-end systems. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that if the manual process is not used, Qwest applies the standard interval and sends a PIA to the CLECs indicating that the standard interval was used. John Gallegos-Qwest asked for the average percentage of orders that fall into this category. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that all Eschelon orders in CO, OR, & MN. John Gallegos-Qwest asked if this varies by stated and CLEC. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon responded yes. John Gallegos-Qwest asked if Eschelon had a percentage. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that they do business in 10 Qwest states and 50% of UBL orders fall-out. (10 Qwest States are AZ, CO, ID, MN, ND, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) There were no additional questions or comments.

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest confirmed that this request is for IMA EDI & GUI

Confirmed Impacted Products: Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest asked for the specific product(s) that this Change Request is for. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that the CR is for UBL 2 & 4-wire

Establish Action Plan & Resolution Time Frame: Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest stated that Qwest will review the revised request and provide a status at the June Systems CMP Meeting. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated okay.

- May 11, 2004 Email Sent to Eschelon: Hi Bonnie, This email is to confirm the Clarification Call details for your CR 14886. They are: DATE: Thursday, May 13, 2004 TIME: 9:00 a.m. MT / 10:00 a.m. CT CALL IN #: 1-877-564-8688, 8571927 Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM-Systems

May 10, 2004 Email Sent to Eschelon: Bonnie, I have revised the CR and attached a copy for your records. I am in the process of scheduling the Clarification Call. I have also created an Action Item on the CR to communicate the Revision to the CLEC Community and for Qwest to provide a Status. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems

- May 6, 2004 Email Received from Eschelon: Peggy, It is not a completely different request than the first. To the contrary, I have E-mails Qwest sent to Lynne Powers stating Qwest would not make the change it did to IMA and Qwest did make the change. Eschelon should not have had to submit a CR to correct something Qwest said it would not do. Qwest said the edits it put in place with the SIG would not have the impact to our intervals and it did. Karen Clauson was involved. I would be happy to include Karen if need be.

Please schedule the clarification call without delay. Bonnie J. Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom, Inc.

- May 6, 2004 Email Sent to Eschelon: Hi Bonnie, In reviewing the revision to 14886, this seems to be a completely different request from the original request. Due to the difference, we would ask that Eschelon submit a new CR for the Interval Edits based on the CLECs ICA Intervals and withdraw the CR of 14886. If you feel that it should be a revision, please send me an email and help me understand why it is a revision and not a separate request. Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM - Systems

May 4, 2004 Email Received from Eschelon: Peggy, Revised Title: Qwest should apply interval edits in IMA and IMA flow through based on the CLECs ICA intervals and not the Qwest service interval guide (SIG).

Revised Description of Change: A CLEC should be allowed to submit a request for service using the interval that has been negotiated and is in the CLECs ICA. A CLEC has a contractual right to the intervals it has in its ICA. However, when the CLEC sends a request for service, and the interval the CLEC has negotiated in the CLECs ICA is different from the interval in the Qwest SIG, Qwest changes the CLECs requested due date to the interval in the Qwest SIG. For example, Eschelon has a contractual right to an interval in its ICA for a particular product in some states. That interval is shorter than the interval in the Qwest SIG. Qwest forces Eschelon to use different process when submitting a request for those orders so Eschelon can get the interval that it has a right to in its contract. This process includes marking the LSR for manual handling and actually calling the Qwest center Manager who handles this product to advise Qwest that Eschelon has sent an order with the interval in Eschelon's ICA. Eschelon has a right to the intervals in its ICA and should have to use a different process to get that interval. If Eschelon fails to follow the Qwest imposed process, Qwest changes the due date in Eschelon's ICA to the due date in Qwest's SIG, and uses the CFLAG/PIA field to tell Eschelon it changed the due date it requested. In addition, because this product is flow through eligible, Eschelon's requests are subject to Qwest service order typing errors when the order may have flowed through Qwest's systems because Eschelon has to set the LSR to manual handling. Qwest should change IMA to reflect intervals that a CLEC has in its ICA and not the Qwest SIG.

Bonnie J. Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom, Inc.

-- April 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Eschelon is still looking to see what the intent and business need is for this request. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that it is because with the implementation in a back-end system that does not accommodate for contract differences with the Service Interval Guide. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that they are battling with those situations. This Action Item remains Open.

April 16, 2004 Email Received from Eschelon: Peggy, I have not forgotten you. I am researching within Eschelon the purpose and what the need and intent of the CR was. I should have a response to you next week. Have a great weekend!! Bonnie J. Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom, Inc.

-- April 9, 2004 Email Received from Eschelon: Hi Peggy, I am still checking with a couple of folks here at Eschelon to determine what the needs are to revise the CR. I should have some response for you soon. Thanks, Bonnie J. Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom, Inc.

- April 9, 2004 Email Sent to Eschelon, Bonnie Johnson & Kathy Stichter: Hi Bonnie and Kathy, RE: 14886 Pre-order Transaction: Due Date availability & standard Intervals This email is a follow-up to the discussion that took place for this Systems CMP CR 14886, at the March 17th Review of Open Systems CMP CRs. During that meeting, Eschelon stated that a revision to the CR would be made and that another Clarification Meeting would be helpful. Do you have the revision ready to provide to me at Peggy.Esquibel-Reed@qwest.com ? Once the revision has been received, I will schedule the Clarification call. In the email that contains the revised CR, if you would also provide me with several options for that Clarification Call, I would greatly appreciate it. I have attached a current copy of the referenced CR. Thanks much, Peggy Esquibel-reed Qwest CMP CRPM - Systems

- March 17, 2004 Review of CR’s (AI021904-03 Review of Open Systems CMP CRs: March 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the intent of this request was to put edits in place that based on the Standard Interval Guide, has something to prevent from asking for a specific due date. Bonnie stated that the question is do you see a value in this. Bonnie stated that this CR does have a large LOE and that is probably one of the reasons why it has been ranked low in the prioritizations. John Berard/Covad asked if this request was only for IMA GUI. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that it is for IMA Common. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the value needs to be evaluated and asked that the LOE be re-evaluated to see if it could possibly be lower due to other functionality that has been previously deployed. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that there appears to be some interest in this request. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that Qwest could re-evaluate the LOE but he needs more clarity and understanding of the request. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she would revise the CR to add more detail of the request. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that once he reviews the revision, he would advise if an additional Clarification Call is needed. Phyllis Burt/AT&T asked Bonnie for clarification of the request. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Eschelon is requesting an edit, in IMA, to enforce the asking of the correct interval. Bonnie stated that she was advised that they need to input the standard interval, then they need to request an expedite of the due date. Bonnie stated that she received a notice that indicated that the interval for Centrex was going to be less. John Gallegos/Qwest asked Eschelon to also please verify the Product scope for this request. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she would confirm if it should be for All Products. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that another Clarification Call would be a good idea. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that once the CR revision has been received, an additional Clarification Call would be scheduled. There were no additional questions or comments on this CR. This CR will be revised and re-evaluated.

February 19, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion Excerpt (Attachments H & J): Judy Schultz/Qwest stated that she wanted to provide an update to the funding approval process that was discussed in the January CMP Systems Meeting. Judy referred everyone to Attachment J in the Distribution Package. She stated that all CRs are being re-evaluated and must be approved. Judy said that CRs could not be scheduled without approval. Judy stated that the CRs with an impact to the IMA interface would follow the existing prioritization process. Judy noted that the funding for IMA 15.0 and IMA 16.0 has been approved, as well as funding to begin work on IMA 17.0.

January Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: There were no comments or questions for this CR.

-- 8/21/03 CMP Systems Meeting Kim Isaacs/Eschelon stated that she would like an IMA edit. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that this CR was a nice to have. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that an edit would require a new CR be submitted.

March 20, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion Regarding IMA 14.0 Prioritization: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that this is not a high priority for Eschelon.

December 19, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Kit Thomte/Qwest reviewed the prioritization process as defined in the CMP document. She noted that December 30th, 2002 is the due date for submitted votes. Judy Schultz/Qwest noted that the due date would be included in the instructions in the notification that goes out with the ballot. Kit Thomte/Qwest reviewed the sample prioritization form. Connie Winston/Qwest said that when you send in a LSR this would do a validation against a standard due date. Qwest initiated this CR for pre-order and withdrew the CR. Eschelon picked it up. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that this is a nice to have and it sounds like you want to know ahead of time that you are going to request the right due date. Our folks know what the intervals are for whatever products they support. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said she thinks it’s a nice to have.

CenturyLink Response

October 13, 2004

Kathy Stichter Bonnie Johnson Eschelon

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request number 14886 - Qwest Should Apply Interval Edits in IMA and IMA Flow-Through Based on the CLECs ICA Intervals and Not the Qwest Service Interval Guide (SIG).

CR Description: 5/6/2004 - REVISED DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE: A CLEC should be allowed to submit a request for service using the interval that has been negotiated and is in the CLECs ICA. A CLEC has a contractual right to the intervals it has in its ICA. However, when the CLEC sends a request for service, and the interval the CLEC has negotiated in the CLECs ICA is different from the interval in the Qwest SIG, Qwest changes the CLECs requested due date to the interval in the Qwest SIG. For example, Eschelon has a contractual right to an interval in its ICA for a particular product in some states. That interval is shorter than the interval in the Qwest SIG. Qwest forces Eschelon to use different process when submitting a request for those orders so Eschelon can get the interval that it has a right to in its contract. This process includes marking the LSR for manual handling and actually calling the Qwest center Manager who handles this product to advise Qwest that Eschelon has sent an order with the interval in Eschelon's ICA. Eschelon has a right to the intervals in its ICA and should have to use a different process to get that interval. If Eschelon fails to follow the Qwest imposed process, Qwest changes the due date in Eschelon's ICA to the due date in Qwest's SIG, and uses the CFLAG/PIA field to tell Eschelon it changed the due date it requested. In addition, because this product is flow through eligible, Eschelon's requests are subject to Qwest service order typing errors when the order may have flowed through Qwest's systems because Eschelon has to set the LSR to manual handling. Qwest should change IMA to reflect intervals that a CLEC has in its ICA and not the Qwest SIG.

ORIGINAL 9/28/2001 CR DESCRIPTION: Standard intervals should be mechanized in CLEC electronic interfaces based on the standard interval guide (SIG).

History: A clarification meeting, due to the CR revision, was held on May 13, 2004 with Eschelon and Qwest representation. At this meeting, it was determined that the request was specifically for the states of Colorado, Oregon, and Minnesota and that there are variations based on each individual Interconnection Agreement, State, and by each CLEC.

Qwest Response Qwest is meeting the CLECs intervals based upon our contractual agreements. At times, manual handling is the most efficient way to meet our requirements and this would be one of those cases. We have determined that this requested change is economically not feasible as it would require system costs and significant investigation. The estimated costs to implement this CR are $74,520.

Additionally, Qwest understands that Eschelon is the only CLEC calling Qwest to have the 2-day due date honored and the Eschelon call can be discontinued. Going forward, Eschelon only has to mark the LSR for manual handling and Qwest will clarify the due date process in the PCAT.

Sincerely,

Qwest