Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC020705-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

AT&T expects Qwest to develop and implement a process for CLECs to accept the Buried Service Wire fee while the outside technician is still at the customer premises.

Project Meetings

-- June 15, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting discussion: Jim Recker-Qwest stated that an ad hoc meeting had been held with the CLEC Community and that Qwest had asked for examples and information to help understand the volume. Jim stated that Qwest needs the data in order to identify the volume of orders that require Buried Service Wire. Jim noted that AT&T is looking for data. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that information was sent to Qwest on June 8th and noted that examples had been previously provided. Sharon stated that historically, the volume for AT&T could be 4-6 per month. Sharon stated that the average is about 2 per month. Sharon stated that her June 8th email also asked if Qwest could complete the work but keep the order open until the subsequent work is performed. Jim Recker-Qwest stated that Qwest continues to discuss internally in order to identify a solution for this request. Jim stated that Qwest Retail also uses the existing process for Buried Service Wire. Jim stated that this CR remains in Evaluation status for further analysis. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that if Qwest cannot accommodate to call AT&T when the technician is at the premise and needs to reschedule, then AT&T requests that the process be simplified. Sharon stated that the scheduling of the subsequent work should be simpler. Jim Recker-Qwest stated that Qwest is looking at the current process and stated that a viable solution would also be helpful to Qwest. Jim stated that Qwest is working diligently to see what can be done. [Comment received from Eschelon: Jim stated that Qwest is working diligently to see what can be done but Qwest can’t get to the meat of how to do this]. Jim noted that Qwest understands AT&Ts problem and is looking to see if can a viable solution can be determined. Jim stated that a status would be provided in the July CMP Meeting. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR remains in Evaluation status.

June 8, 2005 Email Received from AT&T: Peggy, AT&T would like Qwest to proceed with a solution for CR #PC020705-1. AT&T agrees that for the month of April 2005, there were no Buried Service Wire issues. However, historically, AT&T experiences an average of two Buried Service Wire issues a month. It is a big dissatifier for AT&T's customer when service is not provided on the expected due date for any reason, including Buried Service Wire issues. On the ad hoc call held last week, Qwest stated that costly internal process changes need to be made to satisfy AT&T's expectations for the CR. My understanding is that Qwest doesn't have any way to track the billing of the Buried Service Wire cost or the subsequent dispatch of the technician to complete the Buried Service Wire process once the original service order is completed. Is there some way to complete the work on the due date, hold the original order open until the subsequent work is completed and then complete the original order? When a due date is missed due to a Buried Service Wire issue, another dissatifier is rescheduling the due date for completion of the service. As Qwest considers a solution to the CR, please consider streamlining the process for rescheduling the original due date completion. Sharon Van Meter AT&T Western Region LSAM

June 1, 2005 Ad Hoc Meeting ATTENDEES: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Rosalin Davis-MCI, Liz Balvin-Covad, Jim Recker-Qwest, Shirley Tallman-Qwest, Russ Urevig-Qwest, Alan Braegger, Lydell Peterson-Qwest, Laura Baird-Qwest, Chris Viveros-Qwest, Chris Quinn Struck-Qwest, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest MEETING DISCUSSION: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that this call was scheduled at the request of AT&T. Chris Viveros-Qwest reviewed the CR and provided a high level background of what has occurred with this request and stated that he would like to better understand the driver of this request and discuss how the current process satisfies part of the request. Chris stated that we would like to gather any additional data that could help in determining a solution. Chris then asked Sharon Van Meter (AT&T) if the driver of the request is to eliminate delays in providing the end user service when there is a need for a buried service wire on the due date. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T said yes. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that the difficulty has been that the scenario was talked about at the highest level. Chris stated that sometimes the technician can temporize the drop and the customer gets service, and sometimes there is a wait for a technician. Chris stated that this is a case of a new drop vs. reinforcing a drop. Chris stated that when a technician goes out on the due date and sees that a new drop is needed and needs to be buried, the technician will temporize a drop, as long as it can safely be dropped and does not lie across a driveway. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked to confirm that a new drop would be placed at the location as long as it is not unsafe. Chris Viveros-Qwest said yes and that it is at no charge. Chris stated that in this scenario, there is no issue in regard to payment authorization. Chris stated that the delay is when there is a need to place another drop or when reinforcing the existing drop. The current process is a resulting jeopardy and referral to an engineer. Chris stated that this could mean a site visit in order to determine if the current threshold has been exceeded. If it has been, Qwest would need authorization from the customer. Chris stated that this means that the service is not completed and in jeopardy status, and is referred for the drop to be buried. The order is then scheduled for the drop and the order gets completed. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if the current service would remain but an additional drop would be needed. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated yes and the customer would have more than 1 line. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if the engineer would look to get authorization for the drop. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that the engineer needs to determine the estimated cost and if the cost is within the state specific threshold, Qwest would place the drop with no additional charge. If there is a cost, Qwest would bill as authorized. Chris stated that we need to come up with a way to get the work done and noted that the authorization of charges is not the real issue. Chris stated that we need to focus on what part of the current process needs to be changed and Qwest believes that a process change to get customer service on the due date would be a significant change. Chris stated that a new process would need to be developed to get the work completed. Chris then stated that we would need to consider the volume, benefit, and cost. Chris stated that Qwest analyzed April data and found no jeopardies due to this reason. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she was not involved in this issue in April or May. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that a piece of this request is cared for in the existing process and that the rest would require significant changes and Qwest does not see the volume. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she agreed that AT&T did not provide all the facts and that this started with getting the technician authorization of charges. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that the current process does not have the technician putting in additional drops, in this scenario. Chris stated that a new process would be needed to instruct the technician to do a new drop. Chris stated that this is service order driven, the service order would be in jeopardy, a referral would be needed to the technician, an estimate would need to be determined, the estimate would need to be given to the customer, billing would need to occur, and then the drop could be scheduled. Chris stated that to provide the customer service, there is no current process to get the drop buried. Chris then stated that the new process would not be driven by the original service order. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if this would be an internal process to Qwest and the CLECs would not be involved because authorization was already given. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that we would still have the same interface points and stated that if there was a charge, Qwest would expected the CLEC to pay the charge. Chris then stated that replacing the service order driven process with a new process is never easy or inexpensive. Chris stated that Qwest is struggling with justifying taking this work on when the volume or frequency does not support it. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she agreed that it is not frequent but noted that when it does happen, it causes AT&T a lot of grief and is a big dissatisfier. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that Qwest Retail is also unhappy when this occurs. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she needs to check with her internal customer to discuss and stated that they would probably want Qwest to proceed with this request. Sharon said that she would see if this request should be pursued. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that was fair. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if any other CLECs were having problems. Liz Balvin-Covad asked Sharon what would be pursued if there was already an existing process. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that when the installer finds no room on the pair, the order is placed in jeopardy status on the due date and authorization is needed for Qwest to lay another drop. Chris Viveros-Qwest clarified that when there is a need for an additional drop, the customer does not get the service, evaluation needs to be done, the buried service wire needs to be scheduled, and then the service to the customer needs to be rescheduled. Chris stated that a new drop would be placed, as long as it was safe, the customer would get service, and there would be an immediate referral to get the temporary drop buried. Liz Balvin-Covad asked if the new process was to make this happen on the due date and not jeopardize the order. Chris Viveros-Qwest said that was the request from AT&T and where Qwest is struggling to come up with a justification. Liz Balvin-Covad asked if on the due date is where the current process does not accommodate. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that the issue is the delay in getting the end user service (Retail & Wholesale). Liz Balvin-Covad asked if this was only when a new drop is required. Chris Viveros-Qwest said when Qwest knows up-front there is already a process in place. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that they will probably go forward with the request but needs to go back internally and give them the information that was provided on this call. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that if AT&Ts decision is to proceed with the request, Qwest needs AT&T to identify the frequency because Qwest cannot find where this problem has occurred so it must be infrequent. Liz Balvin-Covad stated that this would benefit Retail as well because it would eliminate a 2nd dispatch. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that the drop would be place, if it was safe to do so, and would still need to be buried. Chris stated that it would help to see if the benefit outweighs the cost. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if there was another alternative to meet the customers due date. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that we could not determine another solution. Shirley Tallman-Qwest stated any alteration to the current process would mean a change to that process and would be very expensive. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that the driver is that we rely on the service order to get activities done and if the service order is completed, we no longer have the driver. Liz Balvin-Covad asked why there would be additional cost and asked if this could result in a 3rd dispatch. Liz stated that if we can get the service up and all were happy, it should mean 1 less dispatch. Liz stated that this would be positive for Wholesale and for Retail. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that the additional cost is to provide service on the due date when a temporary drop is needed. To then bury the drop is additional cost for Retail and for Wholesale. Chris stated that each step up to the buried drop is triggered from the original service order. Liz Balvin-Covad asked that if the service order completion was rescheduled and the drop was then buried at that time, if there would there be additional cost in that scenario. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that the service order is prompting Qwest to go to the location, and once the temporary drop is placed, the service order is completed and then there is no driver to get the drop buried. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that to get the drop buried, there are additional steps that are needed. Liz Balvin-Covad asked if the additional cost is for the process to accommodate the trigger that gets the drop buried. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that the additional cost is to find an alternate path for having the triggers occur and have an established process with the service order driving the steps. Liz Balvin-Covad stated that she did understand. Jim Recker-Qwest stated that the state tariffs drive the charges. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that there could be instances where additional drops would result in charges. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that AT&T is willing to accept charges to get the drops buried and thought the issue was regarding payment of the charges. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated there was that focus and that the first roadblock was authorization of payment, and then Qwest looked deeper into the process. Liz Balvin-Covad asked if Qwest did not charge for the first visit. Chris Viveros-Qwest said that was correct. Liz Balvin-Covad stated that she thought there was a double dispatch fee. Chris Viveros-Qwest said there was not. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if they could issue a follow-up order to get the drop buried, so Qwest could do the work without messing-up the back-end systems. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that he did not know if that would be viable and that timing could be an issue because he would wonder if the follow-up order could be executed in time to allow the technician to completed the work without leaving the premise. Liz Balvin-Covad stated that completing the service order would start the billing process. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that if the process is changed to not put the order in jeopardy status, the service order would complete and then there is no way to bill for the buried service wire. Chris stated that a separate bill would be needed to bill for it and a process for curbing the steps. A second order from a CLEC would probably not alleviate the need for process changes and an alternative path might still be needed. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked that if there were no instances of volume, if Qwest would not do this request anyway. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that Qwest is not willing to go to the expense if we cannot warrant the expense to the benefits. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she had no further questions. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that we appreciated AT&T working through this with us to see if the volumes are there. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked in the analysis of the jeopardies, if both Retail and Wholesale were looked at and none were found. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that he looked at jeopardies in IMA for the month of April. Russ stated that looking at AT&T jeopardies, he found none. Russ stated that he then looked at the next 2 highest CLECs and found none. He then spot checked the rest. Russ stated that there were 267 jeopardies in April. Russ stated that he could not check on the Retail side because he does not have access to their data. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she would take this back internally and see if AT&T wants to pursue this request. Liz Balvin-Covad stated that there was a post completion process implemented and asked if that process could accommodate what AT&T was looking for and stated that the billing would already have been kicked-off. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that the order would have completed and any billing would not exist on the service order. Russ stated that we would have the same problem and that it could not be kicked out for review. There were no additional questions or comments. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that Qwest would wait for the email from AT&T to see if they wanted to pursue this request and noted that a status would be provided at the June CMP Meeting.

May 18, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that Qwest is continuing to evaluate this request and would provide a status next month. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T questioned why there is still no status. Sharon said Qwest has not provided status for two or three months in a row. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that Qwest is still looking at options to potentially come to an agreement for a viable option. Jill noted that she was aware that there are items being discussed such as the current process and the billing or charges associated to Buried Service Wires. Jill stated that options are still being explored. Jim Recker-Qwest stated that a call could be scheduled to present AT&T with Qwest’s findings so far. Jim noted that internally there are questions that are still being discussed. [Comment from Eschelon: Jim said they thought Qwest had things covered but then more questions came up.] Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that her people are looking to her for status and that she needs to provide them with some information. Sharon stated that she would like a meeting fairly quickly. This CR remains in Evaluation status.

April 20, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that Qwest was still evaluating this request and the status remains in Evaluation. Jill stated that there would be a status at the May CMP Meeting.

-- March 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that Qwest is reviewing this request internally and more information would be provided at the April CMP Meeting. This CR moves to Evaluation status.

-- March 15, 2005 Ad Hoc Meeting: Attendees: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, David Balenger-AT&T, Jen Arnold-TDSMetroCom, Phyllis Sunins-Qwest, Russ Urevig-Qwest, Shirley Tallman-Qwest, Lydell Peterson-Qwest, Laura Baird-Qwest, Alan Braegger-Qwest, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest

Peggy Esquibel Reed- Qwest stated that the purpose of this meeting was for additional discussion regarding the Buried Service Wire Process Change CR that was submitted by AT&T. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that we wanted to discuss how to handle the buried service wire issue when it is encountered, from an outside technician perspective. Russ stated that one of the issues is when the technician goes out to perform an install, the drop is full, and the tech needs to drop a line. Russ stated that Qwest needs to obtain acceptance of the charges, and then possibly drop the wire above ground. Russ stated that another concern is that Qwest has a certain obligation to perform a certain amount of duty. Russ stated that Qwest would attempt a call in order to obtain acceptance of charges, and noted that the hold time would be a maximum of 5-minutes. Russ stated that the technician would obtain the acceptance of the charges and note that the charges were accepted. Russ stated that Qwest would then proceed with the process of getting the wire buried. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked which telephone number the Qwest technician received on his service order; if it was an 800# or the TN of the co-provider. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that we would need to look at unbundled loops, UNE-P, and general products. Alan Braegger-Qwest stated that what is requested is the LCON TN, but mostly gets the TN of the CLEC, and sometimes the TN of the end user customer. David Balenger-AT&T stated that the fields are populated with either individual extension numbers or with an 800 #s for automated requests, in addition to an end user contact. David then noted that AT&T does not receive a telephone call to advise that the work was completed. Alan Braegger-Qwest stated that Qwest would not call the end user for billing issues. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if the technician would have the number of the CLEC and noted that it would need to flow to Qwest. Alan Braegger-Qwest stated that the technician does get the telephone number of the CLEC. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that Qwest does call for unbundled loops but does a call for UNE-P, to advise that the work was completed. Russ stated that he would validate the telephone number received on non-designed orders and stated that Qwest needs an established timeframe to obtain approval of charges. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that as long as the TN is on the LSR, she understands that the Qwest technician cannot stay on the line very long. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that when an outside technician goes out to perform an installation and a drop is needed, and the safety requirements are not met, Qwest would jeop the order unless AT&T requires a call. Russ stated that Qwest would still need acceptance of the charges and the order would go into a delayed status. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if Qwest would install the wire and bury the wire at the same time. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated yes and noted that a safety issue could be if the wire would have to lie across a driveway. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that Qwest should make a call, in all cases, and that if AT&T is not reached, the order should be jeop’ed. Sharon stated that this would need to be built into the process. Russ Urevig-Qwest asked Alan Braegger (Qwest) if that could be made the standard practice. Alan Braegger-Qwest stated that he would want to do that and noted that currently there is a lot of hold time. David Balenger-AT&T stated that this would be acceptable, as AT&T would not expect that the technicians wait. David stated that AT&T could tell Qwest, right there, if they would accept the charges. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that if the contact TN was an 800#, the expectation is that it would be manned. David Balenger-AT&T stated that if the Qwest technician leaves a message for a call-back, waits 5 minutes, then leaves; it is acceptable to AT&T. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that Qwest needs all to understand that there would be a maximum hold time of 5 minutes. David Balenger-AT&T asked if then the LSR would need to be resubmitted with the approval in the Remarks. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated yes. Lydell Peterson-Qwest asked if the IMPCON and the LCON TNs are on the LSR. David Balenger-AT&T stated that they were both on the LSR and noted that the IMPCON is the AT&T TN and the LCON is the number of the end user customer. Lydell Peterson-Qwest asked to confirm that the IMPCON TN is the number that the Qwest Technician is to call to obtain acceptance of the charges, and that the LCON is the local end user customer and should not be contacted, by the Qwest technician. Russ Urevig-Qwest also asked to confirm that the TN that the technician would look for is the IMPCON, which is the CLEC and is an 800#. David Balenger-AT&T stated that some do have 800#’s but that some have extension numbers. Russ Urevig- Qwest stated that Qwest would need to validate that the information is captured from the LSR flows down to the service order, then flows to the technician’s service order. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that a concern for Qwest is that the CLEC Community understands that Qwest understands the request but has requirements on the Qwest side as well, and that Qwest will have a maximum hold time of 5 minutes. Russ stated that all need to be okay with that. David Balenger-AT&T stated that he looked at an LSR and that the LSR has the Initiator and the IMPCON. David stated that the Initiator is the agent in the Center and that the IMPCON contains the generic 800#. David noted that the LSR he looked at has the PON of ZXPH02871778. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that he would look at the service order and asked which field’s TN was Qwest to call. David Balenger-AT&T stated that Qwest should call the TN contained in the Initiator field. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that he would look at the PON provided, along with the service order that was created, in order to see what TN is on the service order. David Balenger-AT&T stated that it should have the name of Patty Garnier with the TN of 480 649-4913, unless is a different field on the Qwest side. David stated that it could also show ‘Tech on duty’ with the TN of 800 235-1070. Russ Urevig-Qwest asked for the due date. David Balenger-AT&T stated that the due date is pending, as Qwest is currently processing the LSR. David stated that the requested due date is March 18th. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that AT&T was okay with the 5 minute hold time and stated that when the process was written that the 5 minute hold time needed to be very specific in the documentation. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that it would be written in the process. Lydell Peterson-Qwest asked to confirm that the expectation would be the same for the states of Oregon and Washington, and that the LSR would need to be resubmitted with the appropriate USOCs. Russ Urevig-Qwest responded yes and stated that the process would be consistent across the Qwest 14-state territory. Shirley Tallman-Qwest asked that when Qwest calls the CLEC and the CLEC authorizes the charges, if the order would need to be supped to indicate that the charges were authorized. Alan Braegger-Qwest stated that the USOCs would need to be added without a supp and stated that Qwest would need to internally work that and other items out, in order to accommodate this request. Lydell Peterson-Qwest asked for clarification that the Qwest technician would call the CLEC, the CLEC would authorize the charges, the Qwest technician would perform the work, and the CLEC would send a supp. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that in the past, a follow-up supp would be required, so that the authorization of charges would be in writing. Russ stated that the technician does complete out a UNE-P order, so he would need to check to see if a supp would be jeop’d because the work was completed. Russ stated that he would review to see if a supp would need to be required or if a supp would not be needed. Russ stated that maybe Qwest could proceed with the activity and add the charges to the order without a supp. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that when the Qwest technician calls AT&T and AT&T okays the charges, the technician could perform the work and AT&T could immediately submit a supp, because the work would not be completed for a little bit of time. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that for non-designed, the technician would have their work for the day and if a supp 3 (for other) is received during that day, it may or may not flow through the system, so there could be a timing issue in regard to the processing of the supp. Alan Braegger-Qwest suggested that if the line could not be dropped, that the service order be closed, so the CLEC would have control of the line, and then Qwest would perform the work later. David Balenger-AT&T asked how the CLEC would be notified that the work was done. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that Qwest needs to make sure that the wire is in the ground and noted that the CLEC would not be notified, as it would be an internal ticket number. David Balenger-AT&T asked that if the end user calls 2 weeks later and says that they still have no service, who would the CLEC call. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that the work could still be pending and noted that it could be pending several months out. David Balenger-AT&T asked how the CLEC would know what the timeframe is in order to tell their customer. Shirley Tallman-Qwest stated that Qwest does have an internal buried service wire desk that the CLECs Service Manager could contact. Lydell Peterson-Qwest stated that AT&Ts concern is how they find out when the wire would be buried. Russ Urevig-Qwest asked if the CLECs wanted documented, in the PCAT, how to gather information. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T responded yes and stated that the PCAT will need to be very clear. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that another concern, for Qwest, is that when Qwest calls the CLEC and obtains acceptance of the charges, without paperwork and only the notes that the Qwest technician makes, that we don’t fall into billing disputes claiming that the charges were not authorized via an LSR. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if the technician would know what the charges would be. Alan Braegger-Qwest stated that the technician’s don’t provide estimates of charges because it is difficult to provide a quote because at that time they would not be opening a trench, burying the wire, and closing the trench. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated to David Balenger (AT&T) that they would assume that the charges would be reasonable and accept the charges. Sharon asked that if the billed amount were $10,000, what David would do. David Balenger-AT&T stated that AT&T would need to discuss off-line. David stated that their end user doesn’t even pay the $250. David stated that AT&T would need to discuss with Product off-line. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if Qwest would know is a regular order or would Qwest not know until the trench is dug if it was a standard order. Alan Braegger-Qwest stated that the technician could say that it ‘appears’ to be standard but Qwest would not really know so cannot provide a quote. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that if AT&T authorizes the charges, AT&T is authorizing the charges. David Balenger-AT&T stated that AT&T needs to discuss internally. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she has no issue with that and noted that AT&T would clarify internally. Sharon asked if before the process was set, if there would be another call. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that the PCAT would be specific about all the information. Lydell Peterson-Qwest asked that after Qwest receives the verbal authorization of charges, if there could be a Record only supp in order to avoid a Qwest said-CLEC said situation. David Balenger-AT&T stated that the situation currently occurs. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that in that instance, Qwest would not install; Qwest will only install if has authorization of charges. Russ noted that confusion on either side could occur. Russ stated that Qwest does have a concern that charges are reimbursed once they are accepted. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that Qwest will meet internally to look at the provided LSR example, look at the field data for names and TNs, look at the service order, and will see what flows to the outside technician. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if any other CLECs had questions or concerns. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she was okay and had no questions or concerns. Jennifer Arnold-TDSMetroCom stated that she was also okay and had no questions or concerns.

February 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion, walk-on request: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T reviewed the CR and the expected deliverable. There were no questions or comments.

February 14, 2005 Clarification Meeting: Attendees: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, David Balenger-AT&T, Amanda Silva-VCI, Phyllis Sunins-Qwest, Russ Urevig-Qwest, Shirley Tallman-Qwest, Lydell Peterson-Qwest, Jim Recker-Qwest, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest reviewed the CR’s description and expected deliverable and asked AT&T if they had additional information to share. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that there was no additional information regarding the specific request but would like to note that AT&T went to their Service Manager to resolve this prior to issuing the CR, in an attempt to prevent a CR from being needed. Sharon stated that there had already been several conference calls discussing this issue. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that he was familiar with the request. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest confirmed that this CR was for Provisioning and that the Impacted Products were not applicable. Lydell Peterson-Qwest stated that Qwest would like examples from AT&T to assist with the investigation of this change request. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that for AT&T, they have from 0-3 instances per week and stated that AT&T has already provided 1 example and stated that there are not other examples. Sharon stated that AT&T expects Qwest to move forward without further examples. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked what Qwest needed examples of. Lydell Peterson-Qwest stated that examples are needed of move orders that received a jeopardy because buried service wire was needed. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if Qwest does not track jeopardies for buried service wire. Lydell Peterson-Qwest stated yes, Qwest does track them. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that on the due date, when we go out, the technician may need to open an activity. David Balenger-AT&T asked that if buried service wire is needed, if can Qwest pull by jeopardy, by region code. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that he would need to check to see if Qwest had that data. David Balenger-AT&T stated that this issue keeps resurfacing and asked what the requested examples would provide Qwest. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that Qwest is looking for specific examples in order to investigate because Qwest is not experiencing this issue with other CLECs. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if something different was supposed to happen instead of the orders being jeop’d for buried service wire. David Balenger-AT&T stated that AT&T does not want a jeopardy on the due date and a new interval. David stated that AT&T wants the contact information utilized and for Qwest to accept a verbal yes. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that maybe Qwest has not experienced this with other CLECs because that had not been brought up. Bonnie asked what Qwest needed examples of if Qwest knows which jeopardizes are for buried service wire. Bonnie asked if what AT&T is really requesting is the ability to approve charges and that the due date is not really the issue. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated yes, AT&T would like to tell Qwest that AT&T accepts the fee for buried service wire and mark for manual handling, but no one wants that. David Balenger-AT&T stated that when they have to tell their customer that they have to send the order back, it is dissatisfying to the customer. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that if the technician is out and they need to drop a wire, the technician needs approval. Russ stated that there are occasions when the technician gets the approval on the same day but that we cannot dig on the same day due to circumstances. Russ asked if AT&T is asking for a clear process for Qwest to make an attempt to obtain the approval of the cut on the day that the technician is out. Russ stated that approval is needed for trenching expenses. David Balenger-AT&T stated that the wording in the PCAT states that Qwest should do this and that AT&T automatically accepts the fees. David stated that a call to obtain the approval should not be needed, due to the language in the PCAT. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that this is state specific and noted that in certain states; Qwest can go ahead and drop if meets state requirements. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that the PCAT states that when submitting a request for buried service wire on the original or supplemental, you are authorizing or accepting the charges. David Balenger-AT&T stated that AT&T realizes that Qwest may not know the day of but AT&T is not asking for a site visit on every move order. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if this happens mostly for residential locations. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that happens just as often for business and residential locations. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that Eschelon was receiving jeopardizes but that they were really for conduit. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that is true and that are being addressed separately from this CR. Amanda Silva-VCI stated that VCI’s experience on a jeop’d order was that Qwest needed $375 for additional work on tribal land and asked if could be an example. Amanda provided the LSR ID of 13340389. Amanda then stated that a jeopardy had not yet been received because this just occurred. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if the PCAT language meant anything because they do not know that buried service wire is needed when they submit the LSR. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that if the submitter knows that the facilities are full, and most businesses do know, and that there will be a buried service wire issue, the submitter can note the information in remarks and mark for manual handling. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if Qwest could do a blanket approval for AT&T. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that AT&T would always approve the charges. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that there are difficulties with doing a blanket approval. Jim Recker-Qwest asked if all CLECs would want to do that. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon said no. Phyllis Sunins-Qwest stated that with Symmetry & Symphony, can only have billable fields and that this would need internal discussion. Jim Recker-Qwest asked to confirm that for this request, it is specifically for service wire (2 or 3 pair) and not for larger service wire cables, which are conduit. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T confirmed that this request was only for buried service wire and not for conduit. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked what the possibility was for adding a field in IMA. David Balenger-AT&T stated that they still would not know that buried service wire is needed when the submitted the LSR. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that would then be a separate CR. David Balenger-AT&T stated that it would also require more automation on AT&Ts part. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that exclusions would also be needed. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon said okay. Jim Recker-Qwest asked if the size of the drop needed to be specified. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that if residential or business needs a drop, either 4 or 6 pair needs to be specified. Jim Recker-Qwest asked if the end user customer of record is asked for the size. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that internal discussion is needed to look into the cost differences that the CLEC would need to approve. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if that question was asked of the Retail customer. Jim Recker-Qwest stated that he just wanted to make sure that he had all the facts. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if there was a current process on the Retail side that could be mirrored. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that he would need to look into that. There were no additional questions or comments regarding the request. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that this CR has been requested to be walked-on at the February CMP Meeting and that the CR would also be scheduled for formal presentation at the March CMP Meeting.

CenturyLink Response

TO: Sharon Van Meter AT&T Communications

SUBJECT: CLEC CR-PC020705-1 Buried Service Wire Process Change

Description of Change: AT&T very rarely knows when Buried Service Wire is needed. When Qwest determines that the service is needed, Qwest needs confirmation that AT&T will pay for the Buried Service Wire fee. Today Qwest sometimes notifies AT&T via jeopardy, on the due date, that Buried Service Wire is needed. Notifying AT&T on the due date is a big dis-satisfier for the AT&T customer as they are expecting the service to be delivered on the due date. Sometimes Qwest completes the service without notifying AT&T that the service is needed - which is a good thing for the customer. AT&T is looking for Qwest to develop a process to notify CLECs, on the customer due date, that Buried Service Wire is needed and allow the CLEC to accept the charges while the technician is still on the customer’s site.

Qwest Response: During the ad hoc calls, AT&T clarified that this request is for a Buried Service Wire Process to be developed in order for the end user customer to get service on the due date, when it is has been identified that an additional drop is required.

Qwest does not inventory "Drops" or "Buried Service Wire" and therefore has no indication that an additional drop is required until the technician arrives at the service location. At that time the technician checks the existing drop for capacity to determine if there is in fact spare capacity. If there is no spare capacity, the technician places the order in jeopardy. The service order in jeopardy triggers an indication that a Qwest representative needs to survey the situation at the service location to determine the cost to augment the drop. This information is then sent to the requestor for approval. Upon approval to proceed, the jeopardy will be updated and trigger handoff to the Buried Service Wire (BSW) group. Once this work is complete, the BSW group releases the order from jeopardy and a new due date is scheduled to complete the service request.

Qwest has researched and analyzed how to meet the expected deliverable of providing service on the original due date. In order to accomplish that, Qwest has determined that it would require the following changes:

- A new process for technician’s to obtain written CLEC authorization to place the drop on the due date. This would entail CLECs being willing to authorize charges without receiving a quote since the site survey will not have taken place.

- Installation procedure changes to reflect that technician’s may temporize additional drops when the CLEC has authorized AND it is safe to do so. This would result in the technician completing the service order as there is no jeopardy. This would also entail re-training technicians on the change in procedure.

- A new process for triggering what the jeopardy triggers currently. Namely, the Qwest representative surveying the site to determine the cost of the augment.

- A new means of scheduling the drop work with the BSW group

Qwest is respectfully denying this request due to economic infeasibility, based on the costs to implement the multiple process changes required, compared to the low volume of requests requiring a Buried Service Wire augment as estimated by AT&T and by Qwest’s research.

Sincerely, Qwest Communications

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the April 20, 2005 CMP Meeting

April 12, 2005

AT&T Sharon Van Meter

SUBJECT: CR # PC020705-1 Buried Service Wire Process Change

This letter is in response to AT&T’s Change Request (CR) PC020705-1 Buried Service Wire Process Change. This CR requests that Qwest develop a process to notify CLECs, on the customer due date, that Buried Service Wire is needed and allow the CLEC to accept the charges while the technician is still on the customer’s site. AT&T expects Qwest to develop and implement a process for CLECs to accept the Buried Service Wire fee while the outside technician is still at the customer premises.

Qwest would like to place this CR in evaluation status in order to continue with analysis of the existing process and look at potential solutions for this change request. Qwest will provide an updated response at the May CMP meeting. Qwest will move this CR to Evaluation status.

Sincerely,

Jim Recker, Qwest Communications