Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC012604-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

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.

Project Meetings

11/17/04 November meeting minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised this process was effective November 4. This CR will move to CLEC Test Status. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon commented that they are very unhappy with the results of the process and that the CLECs comments made no difference. This CR will move to CLEC Test Status.

10/20/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Jill Martain – Qwest advised that Qwest did receive comments on the PCAT. Qwest has responded to the comments and the effective date is November 4. This CR will remain in Development Status.

9/15/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that the PCAT is being revised to include Qwest’s definition of RPON. This PCAT should be available for review soon. This CR will remain in Development Status.

8/16/04 CMP Meeting Mintues Jill Martain – Qwest advised that we have had ad hoc meetings and done analysis internally. This is a process that Qwest and the CLECs will need to agree to disagree as there is manual work involved for both parties. Qwest isn’t going to be able to do the reject request in all scenarios. If the LSRs are submitted together at the same time, the due date is the same and the provisioning has not started yet, then we could reject both orders. If the provisioning process has started on the LSR, the CLEC will have to make the decision to stop the order. Bonnie clarified what a true RPON is versus a reference to another order. Bonnie said it sounds like if the order is not truly a RPON, it is a TACO ‘to assume completion of’. Jill advised Qwest will take the previous PCAT and add definition and clarity around the definition of RPON and resubmit the PCAT for review. Stephanie Prull – Eschelon advised that not all CLECs code to the ‘Page of field’. The RPON process includes the reference to submit a sup to add ‘page of field’. This process makes the field ‘conditional’ and this would be a coding change. Jill advised Qwest will look at the disclosure document to identify impacts. This CR will remain in Development Status.

July 21, 2004 CMP Meeting Minutes: Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that the team held an ad hoc meeting on June 29. Qwest is still researching alternative options. Qwest will provide status at the August meeting. This CR will remain in Development status.

PC012604-1 LSR Rejects with RPON Ad hoc meeting 6-29-04 2:00 – 3:00

In attendance: Amanda Silva – VCI Anne Robberson - Qwest Communications Liz Balvin – MCI Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Jeff Sonnier – Sprint Lori Nelson – Mid Continent Communications Carla Pardee – ATT Cindy Macy - Qwest Communications Jenn Arnold – US Link Nancy Sanders – Comcast Jill Martain - Qwest Communications Julie Pickar – US Link

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and verified the attendee names. Cindy reviewed the history of the CR. Qwest has held several ad hoc meetings on this process. The PCAT was distributed. The CLEC community had comments on the PCAT and the project was discussed in the CMP meeting. The CLEC community provided order/process examples that they had concerns with. Qwest reviewed the examples. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss Qwest’s original intent for this CR and determine next steps.

Anne Robberson – Qwest advised the original intent of this CR was to address LSRs issued on the same day, whose FOC had not been sent. The intent was not to address LSRs issued on different days or LSRs that were related where one or more of the LSRs had an error identified after a FOC.

Kim Isaacs – Eschelon clarified that if the CLECs RPON the order, the orders need to be worked together. Jill Martain – Qwest advised there are major system changes needed otherwise. The only time that Qwest can reject all orders with RPON is when the LSR has not been FOC’d. Qwest can support the process to reject all orders if they were all submitted on the same day, with the same due date, and none of them have been FOC’d.

Liz Balvin – MCI said she believes the CLECs have been clear on this process all along. Liz advised the CLECs are required to receive the FOC back on a DSL order before they can submit the second LSR. Liz advised this process would not work for DSL, and she is confused that it has taken this long to determine there are system impacts. Jill Martain – Qwest advised in 16.0 DSL can be done on one LSR. Kim Isaacs – Eschelon advised two LSRs are still required if conditioning is needed.

Kim Isaacs – Eschelon asked what does RPON on the same day provide to the CLEC. Jill advised the LSRs are worked together from a due date perspective, assignments and provisioning all happen together. Jeff Sonnier – Sprint advised another advantage is the customer doesn’t go out of service if the work is for the same customer and same due date. Jill advised that once Qwest has started the provisioning process we can not reject them all if they have different due dates or submit dates. Once a LSR has had a FOC issued, our systems do not allow us to reject the LSR. We are required to follow the jeopardy process, whereby we send a jeopardy after a FOC, follow-up in 4-hours and then cancel the service orders and then follow-up again to see if the jeopardy condition was cleared or reject the LSR at that time. The intent is that Qwest would reject all of them if the LSRs were issued on the same day and with the same due date. The reason for this is that Qwest has different processes in place after the FOC and the provisioning process begins.

Jeff Sonnier – Sprint advised that their systems do not allow them to issue the 1st LSR with an RPON to the 2nd LSR, as the 2nd LSR hasn’t been issued yet. Liz Balvin – MCI advised their system processes the same way.

Jill advised if the 1st one came in without RPON and it went flow through, Qwest can’t reject it as it has already started the provisioning process and the system doesn’t allow for that. Kim Isaacs asked if Qwest can send a jeopardy notice because there is trouble on the RPON order, using the jeopardy code associated with a problem with a related order. Jill advised that jeopardy code doesn’t stop the provisioning process. Further discussion went on to explain how the jeopardy code associated to a related order works from a technician perspective verses the business office use of the same code and Jill explained how the business office using that code would not put the order on hold unless additional manual steps occurred. Jill advised that the only other possible code that could be used was the error condition identified after a FOC, but that code still did not stop the provisioning for the first 4-hours and if unresolved, the service orders were cancelled.

Jill questioned whether another option would be to have the CLEC make the determination if the first LSR or other RPON’d orders should be cancelled. There are situations where the LSR that is being rejected either has a typographical error or only requires a minor correction to re-submit. In this case, the first order that was submitted would not need to be touched by either Qwest or the CLEC and the provisioning process would not be stopped. Jeff Sonnier advised this would cause our LSR costs to increase.

Jill advised the best solution is a system solution to fix the issues for both the CLECs and Qwest. Liz Balvin – MCI advised that it will take a long time to get this as we are working on 17.0 prioritization currently and asked if there could be a manual interim solution.

Jill advised the CLEC community that Qwest will go back and revisit the CR based on the discussion today to determine next steps and possible other alternatives. Qwest will meet internally and then schedule another ad hoc meeting. The CLEC community advised that would be fine and asked Qwest to please consider a manual process or additional alternatives.

June 16, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Anne Robberson – Qwest advised we have set up an ad hoc meeting for June 29 at 2:00 p.m. MST to discuss this CR. This CR will remain in Development Status.

May 19, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Cindy Macy – Qwest provided status on this CR. Cindy advised that the effective date is June 18, 2004. Qwest did receive comments on this CR and we are currently reviewing the comments. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised that Eschelon has a real concern with the process. Bonnie understood that on RPON orders, if one is rejected, than all would be rejected. Eschelon does not believe that Qwest will have insight as to how the order should be provisioned. If something is rejected than every LSR should be rejected. Bonnie advised that Eschelon checked with the other CLECs and they also understood this was the process. Liz Balvin – MCI advised she submitted the same comment. We want the process to be as clean as possible and we don’t want the decision to be made by Qwest. Jill Martain discussed the differences between a reject and a jeopardy and the timing of the FOC. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon and Kim Isaacs – Eschelon gave examples of situations when they would want both orders placed in jeopardy status. Kim advised there is a jep type that can be used when we are jeopardizing an order due to a problem on another order. Liz Balvin – MCI advised that there are procedures in place to reject, jep and keep orders in sync for the end users. Jill agreed and said that she has questions on how we would do this. Jill suggested having another ad hoc call to discuss how the RPON process works with the jeopardy process. Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that during the CLEC meetings on this CR we did not discuss the jeopardy process, just rejects and RPON. Liz Balvin – MCI asked Jill to outline her concerns before the ad hoc call so this can be sent to the CLECs in advance. Jill agreed and asked for examples from the CLECs on scenarios that they would want both LSRs placed in jeopardy status. This CR will remain in Development Status.

April 21, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Cindy Macy – Qwest provided status for Anne Robberson on this CR. We have a meeting with the CLECs on Friday, April 23 to review the process again. The CLECs wanted to review the process one more time and then we will release the documentation. This CR will remain in Development Status.

LSR Rejects with RPON PC012604-1 April 23, 2004

In attendance: Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Anne Robberson - Qwest Communications Emily Baird – POP Aaron Chong – MCI Julie Pickar – US Link Noreen Carol – Birch Telecom Cindy Macy - Qwest Communications

Cindy Macy-Qwest Communications began the call and explained that two previous meetings were held to discuss this process. The CLECs wanted to meet one additional time to address any new questions. Anne Robberson - Qwest Communications reviewed the process.

Kim Isaacs – Eschelon asked what the supp type of the related LSR should be. Should it be supp type two or three? Anne advised if we are not impacting the due date on the original request then use supp type three. Anne agreed to update the document to include this information.

Kim Isaacs – Eschelon asked if there is an escalation do we need to tell the escalation desk about all of the LSRs, or will the escalation desk know that there is an RPON and they need to escalate all of the LSRs. Anne advised it is safer to tell the escalation desk about all of the LSRs.

Julie Pickar – US Link asked if there are three LSRs and one of them is rejected, do we have to put sups in for all of them. How does Qwest know the LSR in error? Anne advised there is a reject reason and remarks that are used.

The group agreed to have the documentation released to the document review site. A comment cycle will be available if there are additional comments, or you can direct questions to your Service Manager.

LSR Rejects with RPON Ad hoc meeting March 25, 2004

In attendance: Kathy Morales – NOS Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Anne Robberson - Qwest Communications Regina Mosely – ATT Donna Osborne Miller – ATT Liz Balvin – MCI PJ Keller – Priority 1 Stephanie Prull - Eschelon Amy Brown – Time Warner Jennifer Fischer - Qwest Communications Peter Budner – Qwest Communications Twila Gossman – McLeod USA Cindy Macy - Qwest Communications

Cindy Macy - Qwest Communications opened the call and introduced attendees. Cindy reviewed the history of the project and the agenda. The team agreed Anne would go over the updated process and address questions.

Anne reviewed the process and the updates that were made as a result of our first CLEC input meeting. Liz Balvin – MCI asked if both orders need to have RPON on them. What happens when two separate orders are issued and one does not have RPON on it? Will Qwest know how to find the other RPON order if only one of the orders has RPON on it? Anne agreed she would check on this and let us know.

Stephanie Prull – Eschelon asked if we can use ‘page of’ field instead of RPON for EDI on the first LSR. Not all companies use the page of field though. Anne – Qwest advised the Migrations and Conversions PCAT references the ‘page of field’. Stephanie – Eschelon asked should the ‘page of’ field be conditional now instead of optional. The LSOG says the related request must contain RPON and page of field (optional). Anne advised she will need to check on this and let us know. Stephanie said she prefers that Qwest has a means to determine the related order. A suggestion was made that maybe Qwest could use the Remarks field to put the related RPON information in remarks. Stephanie – Eschelon also reviewed with the team that the (14.0 ) EDI Disclosure document states that ‘when multiple RPONs in a series are to be related it would have a blank RPON on the first one’. Anne advised she will need to check on this and let us know.

Anne provided the following information after her investigation: Unless indicated on the LSR, Qwest has no way of knowing PONs are related. The first PON should contain an entry in the “page of” field and subsequent LSRs need to have RPON populated. This is the only way Qwest will know the lead LSR has RPONs. If the lead LSR is submitted without “page of” information, our expectation would be that you submit a SUP to add the “page of” information.

Catherine – NOS asked for a copy of the notes from the last meeting. Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that the notes are available on the public website or you can send me your email address and I will forward the notes to you.

The team agreed to hold another meeting after Anne finds out more about if both orders have to have RPON on them, the use of ‘page of’ field, and using remarks to relate the order.

LSR Rejects with RPON Ad hoc meeting March 25, 2004

In attendance: Kathy Morales – NOS Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Anne Robberson - Qwest Communications Regina Mosely – ATT Donna Osborne Miller – ATT Liz Balvin – MCI PJ Keller – Priority 1 Stephanie Prull - Eschelon Amy Brown – Time Warner Jennifer Fischer - Qwest Communications Peter Budner – Qwest Communications Twila Gossman – McLeod USA Cindy Macy - Qwest Communications

Cindy Macy - Qwest Communications opened the call and introduced attendees. Cindy reviewed the history of the project and the agenda. The team agreed Anne would go over the updated process and address questions.

Anne reviewed the process and the updates that were made as a result of our first CLEC input meeting. Liz Balvin – MCI asked if both orders need to have RPON on them. What happens when two separate orders are issued and one does not have RPON on it? Will Qwest know how to find the other RPON order if only one of the orders has RPON on it? Anne agreed she would check on this and let us know.

Stephanie Prull – Eschelon asked if we can use ‘page of’ field instead of RPON for EDI on the first LSR. Not all companies use the page of field though. Anne – Qwest advised the Migrations and Conversions PCAT references the ‘page of field’. Stephanie – Eschelon asked should the ‘page of’ field be conditional now instead of optional. The LSOG says the related request must contain RPON and page of field (optional). Anne advised she will need to check on this and let us know. Stephanie said she prefers that Qwest has a means to determine the related order. A suggestion was made that maybe Qwest could use the Remarks field to put the related RPON information in remarks. Stephanie – Eschelon also reviewed with the team that the (14.0 ) EDI Disclosure document states that ‘when multiple RPONs in a series are to be related it would have a blank RPON on the first one’. Anne advised she will need to check on this and let us know.

Catherine – NOS asked for a copy of the notes from the last meeting. Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that the notes are available on the public website or you can send me your email address and I will forward the notes to you.

The team agreed to hold another meeting after Anne finds out more about if both orders have to have RPON on them, the use of ‘page of’ field, and using remarks to relate the order.

March 17, 2004 CMP Meeting Anne Robberson – Qwest advised that we held a CLEC Input meeting on March 2 and reviewed the draft process. There were some questions and action items taken. There is another call scheduled next week Thursday March 25 from 1:00 – 2:00 to review the updated process. We anticipate we will then be able to publish the updated process. This CR will move to Development Status.

PC012604-1 Rejects with RPON CLEC Input Call Tuesday March 2, 2004

In attendance: Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Donna Osborne Miller – ATT Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Regina Mosely – ATT Anne Robberson – Qwest Stephanie Prull – Eschelon Liz Balvin – MCI Phyllis Burt – ATT Mark Gonzales – Qwest Steve Kast – Qwest Cheryl Peterson – ATT Cindy Macy – Qwest

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and reviewed the attendees names. Cindy advised that the purpose of today’s call is to review the Draft process for Rejects with RPONs and to gather input from the CLECs. The team agreed to have Anne review the draft process and then open it up for questions and comments.

Anne Robberson – Qwest read the draft process. Anne advised that LSRs could be related for varying reasons. Anne reviewed the two main situations that could cause a related LSR to be rejected. Anne explained that if the DDD (desired due date) is the same on the RPONs and one of LSRs has an error on it, then all of the LSRs need to be rejected as they would have to be supp’d for a new due date per the SIG. Anne confirmed that if the DDD is longer than the standard interval and we can fix the error before the due date is in jeopardy, then we don’t reject these. This is being added to the document draft.

Kim Isaacs – Eschelon asked if the original LSR was a reject in error, and then it was fixed, how do the CLECs clear this? For example, if the only reason the LSR was rejected was a mistake, done in error, are the CLECs required to contact the Help Desk for each error, or does the Help Desk clear all of the LSRs? Ann agreed to check on this? CLECs can call the help desk for any reason, we don’t limit why they can or can’t call. The process says that if one reject is cleared, all should be cleared.

Cheryl Peterson – ATT asked if Qwest were to reject all RPONs and only 1 was in error, how does Qwest identify this on the LSR? How does the CLEC know what LSR has the error on it? Anne Robberson – Qwest advised that the center places a note on the LSR to identify which one has the error. There is a generic reject reason code that is used, but a note is also but in the remark section. Currently, the reject codes used by the ISC are generic and are 915 and 919. Either one of these would be used with a note saying LSR was rejected due to Related PON reject. With the 15.0 release in April, we are adding a new reject code (831) to encompass this scenario. This will only be in the 15.0 version of IMA. So until you are on the 15.0 version, you will receive either the 915 or 919 codes with a comment. After you are on 15.0, you will receive and 831 which will say the related PON is in error.

Cheryl Peterson – ATT asked if there is a time frame to respond to reject reasons? Anne advised it is based on the situation. To summarize, if it is a jeopardy notice you have 4 hours to respond, if it is a reject you have to respond within a 30-day time frame. Clarification: The answer to this question is found in the Ordering Overview PCAT under Error Notice Matrix section. According to this matrix, if a fatal error is found, Qwest will send a Reject Notice and you have as much time as necessary to respond on the original LSR. If a non-fatal error condition exists PRIOR to FOC, Qwest sends an Error Notification. Qwest then waits 4 business hours for you to send a SUP correcting or canceling the LSR. If Qwest does not receive a SUP within 4 business hours, we reject the LSR by sending a Reject Notification. If AFTER FOC is sent Qwest finds an error condition (fatal or non-fatal-), Qwest sends you a Jeopardy Notification requesting a SUP within 4 business hours. If a SUP is not received within 4 business hours, we cancel the service order(s) associated with the LSR, but the LSR stays in Jeopardy status for 30 days. If Qwest does not receive a SUP within 30 days, we send you a Reject Notification.

Cheryl Peterson – ATT asked if there is a cost to resubmit the orders? Anne advised there is no cost for a supp.

Stephanie Prull – Eschelon asked when the subsequent orders are sent back, does Qwest look at all the orders or just the subsequent order that was sent back? Anne advised she would check on this. Anne advised this is part of the higher level process that Denise Martinez manages so she will check with Denise. The process says that the ISC is to look for all errors before sending back the LSR. Once it is returned to us, they are to look for all errors to be cleared.

Cheryl Peterson – ATT asked if we send RPON and all are error free do they flow through? Anne advised she believes so if the product is flow through eligible. Kim Isaacs – Eschelon advised that the Flow Through Exception Matrix implies that RPON orders do not flow through. Anne agreed to check on this. In the Ordering Overview PCAT, there is a matrix that does say any LSRs with RPON do not flow through. So, to answer the question, if you send RPON and all are error free, they drop to the ISC and are manually processed.

Anne advised she will update the draft process to help clarify and include some of the questions and information from today’s meeting. The team agreed to meet again to review the updated draft process, and then it could be sent out for CLEC review and comments via notifications. Cindy will schedule another review meeting for later in the month.

February 18, 2004 CMP Meeting 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.