Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC030802-1 Detail

Description Of Change

- Caller must be a Qwest retail customer

- Customer must call business office and say they wish to "remove the freeze off of their local service"

- Do not instruct the customer to use the word "PIC". This is used for inter and intra lata services and causes confusion which can delay removing the LEFV

- CLEC can be a third party on the call to Qwest by the local customer

- Customer can call up to 7pm in his local service area to remove the freeze

- The LEFV resides in a repository that is worked overnight which means it will be removed off the customer's account that night and the LSR can be sent the next day without rejection

- Although updates to a CSR can take up 3-5 days, the removal of the freeze is not dependent on that CSR being updated.

- Qwest does not charge $5 to remove the freeze

- A Communicator will be sent to the CLEC community when the PCAT is updated

The last 2 bullet points can be removed from the CR as per clarification call 03/18/02

Scope expanded to include business accounts as well (per CLEC request 03/20/20)

Project Meetings

Documentation and disposition of AT&T CR PC 03802-1 – Local Service Freeze

As you know, I submitted this CR and requested application of the CMP “Exception Process”. I then escalated the issue based on discussions with Qwest. It’s a strange dichotomy for Qwest to state at the CMP Product and Process meeting that AT&T had five business days to respond to Qwest’s binding response to AT&T’s escalation of PC 030802-1 and then infer it was at Qwest’s own discretion whether to even document AT&T’s comments let alone where. At a minimum, the correspondence generated as part of the escalation should be included with the documentation of the CR, just as all other correspondence and minutes relating to CRs are documented. Since Qwest indicated in its binding response to AT&T’s escalation that Qwest would continue “to do problem solving working sessions with AT&T”, I don’t understand why my request to move the escalated change request to a ”Development” status was denied. AT&T understood the main purpose of escalating a change request was to ensure it received top priority based on business needs, not to house it in the dead-end file once Qwest provides its binding response. Qwest was clearly not prepared to present the binding response at the CMP meeting. No copies were provided to the CLEC community at the meeting and Sue Burson appeared unsettled by the request to present the binding response and respond to questions. While I have provided detailed written comments on Qwest’s binding response, AT&T has not rejected it. The areas addressed by Qwest’s response may satisfy most of AT&T’s needs, however, it is not clear from Qwest’s response that the problems AT&T has been experiencing have actually been resolved. AT&T expects that Qwest will work collaboratively with AT&T to resolve these issues. We are extremely disappointed that Qwest chose to then send out the local service freeze notice as a Level 1 notification (Announcement Date: April 18, 200; Document Number: PROS.04.18.02.F.00426.LocalServFreeze) . Judy, you had articulately explained the five levels of Qwest-initiated product/process changes in the morning portion of the April 17th meeting. Yet, the notice was sent on April 18th as a Level 1 instead of the Level 3 AT&T had strongly recommended in our written and oral responses on April 17th. We have repeatedly indicated to Qwest the local service freeze has had a daily negative impact on our ability to meet the end customers’ requests for a change in local service provider. For Qwest to indicate at this juncture of the change request that no comment cycle is available to the CLEC community shows a true disregard for the redesigned CMP, to the commitment made by the entire CMP re-design team since its work began in July 2001 and to Qwest’s commitment in its binding response “to do problem solving working sessions with AT&T.”

04/10/02 - AT&T comments on Qwest's draft response

1. Caller must be a Qwest retail customer This is a true statement. The Qwest Retail end user may contact their Qwest Retail business office to have their local service freeze removed. Their new CLEC may be on the phone with them at the same time (Three-way call).

AT&T - AT&T should be able to call the retail office without having the customer on line, this would eliminate the unnecessary time it takes to reach the customer. (Portland Metro Market – AT&T Broadband)

2. Customer must call business office and say they wish to "remove the freeze off of their local service" This is a true statement. When the end user customer contacts the Qwest Retail business office, they should ask to have their local service freeze removed. If the end user customer simply states that they are moving to AT&T, there may be some confusion as to whether this is a PIC change or the customer is moving their local service to AT&T.

AT&T - Does the retail office see the pending order to port to the CLEC? End users are being told their Qwest number(s) are disconnected and therefore Qwest cannot remove the LEFV. Perhaps they are confusing the "pending" disconnect. Notation on the Qwest side is very poor. Customers are given information such as their number is disconnected, but when they call back again, there is no note of the information they were given or even that they called in earlier. (Denver Metro Market - AT&T Broadband) AT&T believes the Qwest Retail business office is not the best arm of Qwest to be responsible for removing the LEFV. Sales’ organizations are based on revenue generating actions. They should not be responsible for lifting the LEFV when this clearly indicates a loss of revenue when the end customer moves to another competing CLEC for their local service. We believe this accounts for the lack of notations on the customer’s account after he has called nine times to remove the LEFV. (Terry Bahner - LSAM)

3. Do not instruct the customer to use the word "PIC". This is used for inter and intraLATA services and causes confusion which can delay removing the LEFV This is true. It is helpful in guiding the end user customer through the process since they may have a PIC, LPIC, and Local Service Freeze. The Sales Consultants have been provided training and job aids to help determine the customer’s need.

AT&T - Again, Qwest’s notation is very poor. The notes need to indicate what "type" of freeze the customer wishes to remove. The customer will use the word "LOCAL" and the Qwest notes will indicate "PIC". This is still a training issue on the Qwest side. The "R" order number should be noted so both sides of Qwest’s offices have access to this information. (Denver Metro Market - AT&T Broadband) AT&T believes the lack of notation or the wrong notation on the customer’s account and the multiple times the end customer has to call Qwest to lift the LEFV is indicative of a failed process and a serious training deficit. (Terry Bahner - LSAM)

4. CLEC can be a third party on the call to Qwest by the local customer See question #1

AT&T - AT&T believes Qwest needs to send out additional internal memos to drive home this statement. (Terry Bahner - LSAM)

5. Customer can call up to 7pm in his local service area to remove the freeze Qwest has customers across three different time zones. The Residence end user customer may call their Qwest Retail business office until the close of business in the Pacific time zone. - Central time zone until 9:00 PM (they will be routed to a center in the Mountain or Pacific time zones after 7:00 PM local time) - Mountain time zone until 8:00 PM (they will be routed to a center in the Pacific time zone after 7:00 PM local time) - Pacific time zone until 7:00 PM The hours for the Business, Federal Government, Education, Public Access Lines business offices are listed in the April 3, 2002 update to the PCAT.

AT&T - The window of opportunity to reach the retail office should be extended to include Saturdays. (Portland Metro Market - AT&T Broadband) Prime selling hours are until 9pm. The 7pm time could prevent us from closing the sale if the customer has a freeze on. It is not enough to rationalize that the customer can always call back later to remove the freeze. Sales organizations know that any obstacle thrown in the way of completing the sale at the time of offering the sale diminishes the chances of completing the sale. This places Qwest at an unfair competitive advantage. (Salt Lake Metro Market - AT&T Broadband) AT&T requests expanded hours to include Saturdays. (Denver Metro Market - AT&T Broadband) AT&T believes that Qwest for the time being should at least match their hours of removing the LEFV to the Monday-Saturday schedule already in existence. A second option would be for the CSIE to field the calls and note the customer’s account. (Terry Bahner - LSAM)

6. The LEFV resides in a repository that is worked overnight which means it will be removed off the customer service record. Qwest has a Local Freeze Repository where all frozen phone numbers are stored. That repository is updated on a daily basis as orders are issued to add or remove local freeze. When an order is issued to remove the freeze, the telephone number is removed from the Repository that night. The LEFV will not be removed from the CSR for 3-5 days. See further explanation in response to question 7.

AT&T - If the "R" order number is supplied in the remarks field...why cannot this be done manually and resubmitted the same day? See # 7’s explanation that SDC’s are already checking for system notations and if there is a notation, they will process the LSR. If Qwest does include Saturday hours but not same day supps, what day would the number update in the repository? (Denver Metro Market - AT&T Broadband)

7. Although updates to a CSR can take up 3-5 days, the removal of the freeze is not dependent on the CSR being updated. The Customer Service Record does not update for 3-5 days after the R order is issued to add or remove the Local Service Freeze. When a LSR is issued and there is LEFV on the CSR, the Wholesale Service Delivery Coordinators are checking system notations to determine if an order has been issued to remove the local service freeze. If there is a notation, they will process the LSR. In addition, if the LSR contains the R order number (of the freeze removal) the SDC will allow the order to be processed.

AT&T - The centers should be able to send the LSR immediately after calling the retail office to remove the freeze. Waiting 24hrs to submit is unacceptable unless Qwest is willing to reduce the 3-business day port rule. (This point was made my Jonathan Wolf on last week’s call. (Portland Metro Market - AT&T Broadband) However, the LSR will be rejected if submitted the same day as the LEFV removal request. This adds an additional day to the installation process. This may also require AT&T to contact the customer again to reschedule the originally promised installation date. This, in turn, could cause the original install to be missed if the customer cannot be contacted again in enough time to meet the due date. (Salt Lake Metro Market - AT&T Broadband)

The following questions were submitted by AT&T in a letter to Qwest dated 03/19/02

8. Customer required to call Qwest multiple times to remove LEFV The customer should be able to accomplish removal of the local service freeze in one call to Qwest.

AT&T - Simply remove the freeze with one call. (Portland Metro Market - AT&T Broadband) Should be able to and can are two different things. (Salt Lake Metro Market - AT&T Broadband) AT&T has provided examples where this demonstrates that it does not occur. As stated in earlier meetings with Qwest, this is one of the three process requirements that must be addressed to move the CR towards a workable process. (Terry Bahner - LSAM)

9. No established process to remove the LEFV at the Qwest retail offices Qwest has had established processes in place for local service freeze removal since March 10, 2001 when Local Service Freeze was first implemented.

AT&T - There are no established process by Qwest, until a workable process is in place a all frozen accounts should be lifted per Mike Mason’s request on the last two calls. (Portland Metro Market - AT&T Broadband) It’s apparent these "established processes" are broken. (Denver Metro Market - AT&T Broadband) AT&T has repeatedly indicated the process is not consistent. This has been demonstrated to Qwest by examples that range from Qwest refusing to help the end customer when AT&T Broadband is on the call to actually adding the LEFV and issuing a "D" order to disconnect the customers service instead of the "R" order. (Terry Bahner - LSAM)

10. No consistent confirmation number provided by the Qwest retail offices to note customer account Qwest Sales Consultants are currently providing the R order number to any end user customer or CLEC (on 3-way call) who requests it. We have determined that a specific work group has been providing "confirmation numbers" instead of the R order numbers. That situation has been corrected by the issuance of internal memo (MCC) and managing the performances of the involved individuals. Do not hesitate to request the R order that is being issued to remove the freeze.

AT&T - AT&T believes Qwest needs to continue to monitor how the LEFV is noted on the customer’s account by the Qwest representative. Although AT&T acknowledges and appreciates Qwest identifying a specific work group who was incorrectly providing a "good" confirmation number, a problem still surfaced after the MCC was sent. Once again we reference when Qwest issued either a "D" order or a "C" order for removing the LEFV. (Terry Bahner - LSAM)

11. Inconsistent information between the account team and the PCAT pertaining to submission of the LSR The PCAT is the Qwest official source for CLEC information.

AT&T - AT&T believes Qwest subject matter experts did provide inconsistent information to the service managers. It placed them in a precarious position by having to always "go to the SPOC" for every issue concerning the LEFV. This caused delays in developing a working process and delays in the status of the examples provided. It created a unnecessary extra layer in resolving outstanding LEFV issues. (Terry Bahner - LSAM)

12. Inconsistent Quality Check process at the Sierra Vista Center Calls and orders are monitored on a regular basis to ensure quality.

AT&T - Improved communication between the retail office and Sierra Vista (Portland Metro Market - AT&T Broadband) Inconsistencies still exist. (Denver Metro Market - AT&T Broadband) If this is true, why is Qwest saying they can cancel an LSR related to an LEFV issue? If this is true, why are some orders rejected and others are issued a jeopardy condition after the FOC? (Terry Bahner - LSAM)

13. Inconsistent escalation process at the Denver CSIE once confirmation has been received There are several determining factors as to how the escalation is handled. Each escalation is reacted to on an individual case basis.

AT&T - A single point of contact for escalations. (Portland Metro Market - AT&T Broadband) AT&T believes this does not meet our business requirements. Our third standing request is for Qwest to provide an escalation process that addresses LEFV issues that occur out of process. AT&T should not be penalized and lose their requested due date when Qwest fails to remove the LEFV. Our customer should never be placed in jeopardy when he wishes to have another CLECS’ local service because a Qwest system or agent failed to respond properly to a LSR issue regarding LEFV. (Terry Bahner - LSAM)

14. IMA 9.0 edit pulled and no notice sent to the CLEC Qwest did not remove any IMA 9.0 edits; therefore, notification to the CLECs was not necessary. There was a non-IMA edit in place that was checking the CSRs for LEFV which was relaxed so LSRs could flow through and allow the Service Order Processors to check the Freeze Repository and edit for a freeze at that point in the process.

AT&T - Qwest has stated on numerous occasions that back end systems are not considered CLEC impacting. Therefore, these back end system edits are neither subject to a CLEC review nor a CLEC upgrade notification. AT&T believes these edits did affect our orders. We believe they changed whether a LSR was rejected up front or issued a jeopardy condition after the FOC. This alters how a CLEC responds to an LSR. AT&T has repeatedly asked how these non-IMA edits affect our orders. Qwest has not provided an answer. AT&T has reconfirmed the information provided on March 15th by the Qwest service managers that an edit did occur on March 14th, 2002. If we cannot question Qwest’s backend systems, then we will refer to it as an IMA change when we believe our orders have been impacted. (Terry Bahner - LSAM)

15. IMA 9.0 edit to be implemented at a future date without CLEC notice All planned CLEC Impacting changes to IMA are currently being presented to the CLECs for prioritization. There are no plans to implement a 9.0 edit pertaining to Local Service Freeze.

AT&T - AT&T wants Qwest to not implement any edits in any systems (IMA, non-IMA) until a workable process to remove the LEFV has been agreed upon by AT&T and the CLEC community. (Terry Bahner - LSAM)

16. Jeopardy condition codes issued after the FOC affecting CLEC due date Qwest has listened to the concerns raised by AT&T on this issue and has taken steps to fortify existing processes to alleviate this problem.

AT&T - However, since we have to wait to supp the Pon AFTER the freeze is removed, this still results in a due date push out/reschedule for the customer. (Denver Metro Market - AT&T Broadband) AT&T wants to know what these steps are. The action of issuing a jeopardy condition after the FOC drastically affects our due date. If this jeopardy condition is a result of Qwest’s inability to successfully lift the LEFV, we believe we should not lose our due date under any circumstances. (Terry Bahner - LSAM)

17. Inconsistent Qwest retail process where CLEC can be a third party on the call with end customer See question #1

18. Inconsistent process between removing the LEFV and the updating of the CSR See question #6

19. Confusing reject /jeopardy condition message issued by Qwest The reject/jeopardy message currently being used is the only existing message that fits the local service freeze situation. Requests for new reject messages go through the CMP CR process. LSRs received to change lines/accounts with a local service freeze are rejected with the error message "Features on account are not compatible with requested features". In the Customer Comments section of the Reject Notice Qwest will include the following: "Please have end user contact current local service provider to have local service freeze removed."

AT&T - According to an earlier Qwest communication, Qwest stated the error message would read "Change activity not allowed, CLEC does not own account". Is this the message if the reject is caught up front (fatal reject) as opposed to the message for a jeopardy reject after the FOC? Or has this been changed altogether? (Denver Metro Market - AT&T Broadband) AT&T believes Qwest has not adequately addressed this issue. AT&T has requested LEFV be listed as a reason for a reject/jeopardy message in the PCAT. The jeopardy matrix needs to address LEFV. (Terry Bahner - LSAM)

20. AT&T reiterated they would like all of the above bullet points validated by Qwest and the process clearly documented in the PCAT The PCAT will be updated April 3, 2002.

AT&T - Under the current circumstances, Qwest needs to provide a collaborative atmosphere in resolving LEFV issues before any future PCAT documentation takes place. (Terry Bahner - LSAM)

21. What kind of questions does Qwest ask a Retail end user customer before adding a local service freeze? Upon initial contact with the end user customer, the Qwest Sales Consultant informs the customer of the availability of the freeze as follows: "We offer free protection to ensure that your provider of local service, long distance service, and local long distance service cannot be changed unless you contact us directly. You may remove this protection from your account at any time by contacting Qwest directly with a verbal, written, or electronically signed authorization. Would you be interested in setting that up now?" If the end user customer indicates they would like a freeze established, they are transferred to a Third Party Verifier (TPV) who asks the customer for the Billing Name on the account, Billing Address, the last four digits of their Social Security Number, and their date of birth. In addition, they ask if the caller is over 18 years old and is responsible for the account, and if they have permission to place the local service freeze on each specific line of the account.

AT&T - AT&T believes Qwest needs to go beyond the statement provided. It’s apparent the end customer is unaware of the cumbersome process to remove the LEFV when he wishes to obtain local service from a different company. (Terry Bahner - LSAM)

22. What changes have been made in the Local Service Freeze Removal process since 02/18/02? The process was working well before that date. Qwest has had established processes in place for local service freeze since March 10, 2001 when Local Service Freeze was first implemented. The only changes made to the process have been made within the past two weeks as a result of this CR.

AT&T - It is very clear to AT&T that Qwest did not have a working process in place on March 10, 2001. If Qwest had a good process in place that didn’t harm both the end customer and the CLEC, this CR would have never been submitted. (Terry Bahner - LSAM)

As a general proposition, Qwest has responded in the theoretical realm to many of the questions versus saying what the actual situation is (like in #8 above, but there are many other examples in their responses). It's easy to set up a theoretical process, but that is meaningless if the practical implementation is not being accomplished effectively. (Salt Lake Metro Market - AT&T Broadband)

-

04/08/02 - Draft follow-up meeting minutes sent to participating CLECs via e-mail

CLEC Change Request Follow-up Meeting 11:30 a.m. (MDT) / Thursday 4th April 2002 1-877-564-8688 ID 626-5401 # PC030802-1 Local Service Freeze - Process to remove LEFV from Qwest residential accounts

Attendees: Terry Bahner / AT&T Sharon Van Meter / AT&T Lindel Watkis / AT&T Mike Mason / AT&T Cynthia Linenberger / AT&T Rick Wolters / AT&T Johnthon Wolf / AT&T Joan Russell / AT&T Mitchell Menezes / AT&T Bonnie Johnson / Eschelon Karen Clauson / Eschelon Terry Wicks / Allegiance Leilani Hines / Worldcom Susan Travis / Worldcom Monica Avila / VarTec Telecom, Inc. Judy Schultz / Qwest Todd Mead / Qwest Harriett Berry / Qwest Pam DeLaittre / Qwest Scott Riley / Qwest Pete Budner / Qwest Carylon Brown / Qwest Sue Burson / Qwest

Introduction: - Qwest presented a brief history of the CR, (submitted 03/08/02, clarification call 03/18/02, AT&T expedite letter 03/19/02, AT&T walked-on @ CMP 03/20/02, general clarification call 03/26/02, Qwest draft response issued 04/02/02). The purpose of this call is to review Qwest’s draft response dated 04/02/02 - Note: Notification CMPR.04.01.02.F.01248.CRMeeting issued to CLECs on the 1st of April, informing them of a call on 04/04/02 for a follow up discussion on this issue. Standard P&P Redline guidelines of 5 business days for notifications to CLECs not followed due to expedited status of this CR.

Review Qwest Draft Response - Harriett Berry reviewed Qwest’s draft response dated April 2, 2002 - AT&T commented that using Aegis is currently their only option, as when they call the Qwest Business Offices they be on hold for long periods and the staff do not appear to be familiar with this process. AT&T asked that the 866-311-0222 number remain in effect. Qwest agreed that the Aegis number will remain in effect until this issue is resolved. - AT&T stated that the Qwest web site states the Local Service Freeze can be removed immediately, which has not been their experience. Qwest reiterated that it is effective the same day, but the LSR has to be submitted the next day. AT&T then asked Qwest to reduce the process time by one business day. Qwest took an action to reply to this. - AT&T stated that their desire is for Qwest to lift the Local Service Freeze so the LSR can be submitted the same day - see 2.10 - Eschelon asked if the LSR can be submitted using the R-Order number in the PON field? Qwest believed this would work. Qwest will investigate and report back. - AT&T reiterated they believe something changed on February 18th. They believe this process is broken and asked Qwest to lift the Freeze to before February 18th conditions - see 2.10 - Eschelon stated that Qwest could go to the State Commissions and seek a waiver on the Local Service Freeze. Eschelon also asked about a written process to remove the Freeze. Besides the presence of a form, Eschelon wanted to know whether there was a back end process in place to deal with this and what had been communicated to the CLECs? Qwest took an action to respond to this. - AT&T reiterated they are seeking: 1. To only have to make one call 2. To send in their LSR without rejection 3. A clear and concise escalation process 4. Have the AGIS number available on Saturday’s - AT&T also stated they continue to see large numbers of customers with the Freeze implemented, who believe they have never asked for it on their account. Qwest replied that they are continuing to investigate the AT&T examples and have already found most of the TPV’s for the AT&T examples. AT&T replied they have heard this before but have yet to receive any validation from Qwest. AT&T stated the implementation of a freeze is not clear as too many customers are not aware of this action on their account. Qwest will provide validation to Terry Bahner (AT&T) - AT&T stated they were going to escalate this CR as they expected resolution today, but believed this call had failed in its intent. AT&T want the freeze lifted and want an official response on this from Qwest in 24 hours. AT&T also offered to support an application by Qwest to the commission to get a waiver on Local Service Freeze until this issue is resolved. - AT&T also stated they believe the interim exception process has not worked for them as they had expected a response to this CR immediately.

Establish Action Plan - Qwest will respond to the above actions as soon as possible. - Qwest will either respond or provide a status update on lifting the freeze within 24 hours

-

04/05/02 - Status update from Qwest on AT&T's request to immediately lift the freeze

Status Update: Per action from April 4th CLEC Meeting

All, Qwest continues to review and analyze AT&T's request made yesterday to lift the Local Service Freeze. Qwest has not arrived at its final position at this time, however executive management is deeply engaged. We will follow up with another status update prior to close of business Monday April 8th 2002.

CR details can be found in the Product & Process Interactive report. The Product & Process Interactive report can be found at: http://qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/changerequest.html

Thanks Todd Mead

-

04/05/02 - Letter from AT&T expressing their disappointment with Qwest's response presented in the follow-up meeting on 04/04/02

1875 Lawrence St. Denver, CO 80202-1847

April 5, 2002

Todd Mead CMP Manager Qwest Communications 1801 California Street Denver, Colorado 80202

RE: Change Request PC 030802-1

Dear Todd:

This reconfirms AT&T’s repeated request that Qwest suspend the local service freeze until a collaborative Qwest-CLEC process can ensure an effective, efficient and prompt way to remove the LEFV with no impact to the end customer. AT&T does not believe Qwest’s draft response presented at the April 4th conference call meets our company’s immediate needs.

AT&T is disappointed that Qwest cannot recognize the impact the LEFV has on our daily LNP operations. It is very disturbing when Qwest continues to fail to bring to the table a workable solution. It is discouraging when Qwest continues to ignore our requests to engage the appropriate Qwest subject matter experts to participate in discussions with AT&T to help resolve this issue quickly. Had the appropriate operational SMEs from Qwest participated on the call yesterday, we might have made progress resolving these issues. Unfortunately, once again such individuals were absent.

AT&T’s expectations of the LEFV process is really quite simple. The end customer should be able to remove the LEFV with one call. AT&T Broadband should then be able to submit the LSR to port the customer immediately after the customer has taken the appropriate step to remove the LEFV without fear of an order rejection or a jeopardy condition being issued after the FOC. And last, if the process fails, there is a working escalation process to effectively handle the issue quickly.

Up to this point, Qwest has made minimal effort to work with AT&T to hammer out a workable solution. We view this as a dismal Qwest failure. First, it demonstrates Qwest’s inability to perform a normal function adequately. Second, it clearly shows Qwest does not acknowledge nor recognize the urgency related to the CMP exception process. Third, it demonstrates Qwest’s inability to effectively manage changes to its processes when they adversely impact CLECs.

AT&T will send to Qwest written comments embedded in Qwest’s April 2, 2002, rough draft response to change request PC 030802-1. It will also include AT&T’s proposed resolutions. In the meantime, AT&T will continue to direct the end customer to call AEGIS directly to remove the LEFV from his account. We are expecting at least a verbal response from Sue Burson by close of business today regarding AT&T’s request to suspend LEFV until a workable process can be implemented. AT&T would expect Sue to then send a written response to AT&T. Please insure the minutes from the April 4th conference call reflect AT&T has officially escalated this to Sue Burson.

Sincerely,

Terry Bahner Supervisor AT&T Local Services Access Management Western Region 303-298-6149

Cc: Tim Boykin Sharon Van Meter Donna Osborne-Miller Judy Schultz Mike Mason

-

04/02/02 - Notification PROS.04.02.02.F.00414.LocalServiceFreeze issued informing CLECs of PCAT update

Announcement Date: April 2, 2002 Effective Date: April 3, 2002 Document Number: PROS.04.02.02.F.00414.LocalServiceFreeze Notification Category: Process Notification Target Audience: CLECs, Resellers Subject: Options to Remove Local Service Freeze

Beginning April 4, 2002, Qwest will issue updates to its Wholesale Product Catalog that includes new/revised documentation for Local Service Freeze.

The Local Service Freeze PCAT will be updated to outline the options of requesting the removal of the Local Service Freeze. The PCAT also lists the information the retail end-user needs to provide to have the Local Service Freeze removed.

You will find a summary of these updates on the attached Web Change Notification Form. Actual updates are found on the Qwest Wholesale Web site at this URL: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/clecs/lsfreeze.html

You are encouraged to provide feedback to this notice through our web site. We provide an easy to use feedback form at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/feedback.html. A Qwest representative will contact you shortly to discuss your suggestion.

-

03/28/02 - Letter from AT&T expressing their disappointment with the general clarification call held on 03/26/02

1875 Lawrence St. Denver, CO 80202-1847

March 28, 2002

Todd Mead CMP Manager Qwest Communications 1801 California Street Denver, Colorado 80202

RE: Change Request PC 030802-1

Dear Todd:

AT&T is greatly disappointed with the conference call Qwest facilitated March 26, 2002 to discuss the expedited CR PC 030802-1. Qwest stated at the March 20, 2002 Product and Process CMP monthly meeting they understood the urgency of this change request regarding the local service freeze (LEFV). There was no need for a second clarification call. A clarification call had already been held on March 18, 2002.

We believed Qwest was willing to resolve the issue expediently, Todd, when you indicated you would have your subject matter experts available on the March 26th call. I then indicated to you that I was expecting my AT&T Broadband subject matter experts to also be available to help resolve the issue in the e-mail I sent March 22, 2002 (RE: CR # 5582295 - Updated Matrix). I suggested, in order getting to immediate resolution, that you include operational subject matter experts. I was very clear about AT&T’s expectations for the March 26th conference call.

AT&T also believes Qwest implied a resolution would be forthcoming by indicating the temporary 800 telephone number was directly dependent on the outcome of the March 26th meeting. If Qwest was not ready to problem solve the issue then there should never have been a question about keeping the 800 number available. While AT&T appreciates Qwest extending the use of the 800 telephone to help ease the burden of this issue, we should not have had to explain why we needed the extended use of it.

AT&T once again reminds Qwest of the negative impact the LEFV has imposed on our ability to port a customer. It continues to affect our daily ability to port a customer who wants our local service. This truly is unacceptable to us. AT&T has identified and shared with Qwest some of the most basic obstacles in a letter sent March 18, 2002 (RE: Change Request PC 030802-1).

Since Qwest has indicated a formal response will be issued to the CLEC community on April 3rd without a collaborative effort between Qwest and the CLEC community, AT&T clearly expects Qwest to be open to additional suggestions on the follow up conference call scheduled April 4th. AT&T expects that conference call to resolve outstanding issues and the appropriate decision-making individuals from Qwest will attend.

We believe going forward explicit timelines should be provided and adhered to by Qwest for an expedited CR. It should mirror the expedited CR Qwest presented as a walk on at the same March 20 meeting. Qwest clearly defined the timeframe and expectations of the CLEC community during that presentation. It should not be any different for an expedited CLEC CR.

AT&T looks forward to partnering with Qwest and the CLEC community to enhance the Interim Exceptions Process for OSS interfaces, Product and Process Changes (RE: Qwest Re-Design Web site) in future re-design CMP sessions. We believe use of the process, as it now stands for this specific change request, clearly indicates its’ lack of substance.

Sincerely,

Terry Bahner Supervisor AT&T Local Services Access Management Western Region 303-298-6149

Cc: Tim Boykin Sharon Van Meter Donna Osborne-Miller Judy Schultz Mike Mason

-

03/27/02 - Draft general clarification meeting minutes sent to participating CLECs via e-mail

General Clarification Meeting

3:00 p.m. (MDT) / Tuesday 26th March 2002

1-877-564-8688 ID 626-5401 # PC030802-1 Local Service Freeze - Process to remove LEFV from Qwest residential accounts

Attendees: Terry Bahner / AT&T Carla Dickinson-Pardee / AT&T Sharon Van Meter / AT&T Lindel Watkis / AT&T Mike Mason / AT&T Cynthia Linenberger / AT&T Noriko Wilson / AT&T Anthony Robert / AT&T Leilani Hines / Worldcom Susan Travis / Worldcom Monica Avila / VarTec Telecom, Inc. Judy Schultz / Qwest Todd Mead / Qwest Harriett Berry / Qwest Pam DeLaittre / Qwest Gay Abrahamson / Qwest Joan Smith / Qwest Connie Winston / Qwest

Introduction: Qwest presented a brief history of the CR, (submitted 03/08/02, clarification call 03/18/02, AT&T expedite letter 03/19/02, AT&T walked-on @ CMP 03/20/02 and general notification to all CLECs advising them of this meeting 03/21/02) Note: Notification CMPR.03.21.02.F.01239.CRMeeting issued on 03/21/02 to CLECs informing them of a call on 03/26/02 to discuss this issue. Standard P&P Redline guidelines of 5 business days for notifications to CLECs not followed due to expedited status of this CR.

Review Description of Change: Terry Bahner read out the following from Change Request PC030802-1: VALIDATE THESE FOLLOWING BULLET ITEMS AS PART OF THE PROCESS: - Caller must be a Qwest retail customer - Customer must call business office and say they wish to "remove the freeze off of their local service" - Do not instruct the customer to use the word "PIC". This is used for inter and intra lata services and causes confusion which can delay removing the LEFV - CLEC can be a third party on the call to Qwest by the local customer - Customer can call up to 7pm in his local service area to remove the freeze - The LEFV resides in a repository that is worked overnight which means it will be removed off the customer's account that night and the LSR can be sent the next day without rejection - Although updates to a CSR can take up 3-5 days, the removal of the freeze is not dependent on that CSR being updated. - Qwest does not charge $5 to remove the freeze * - A Communicator will be sent to the CLEC community when the PCAT is updated * *Removed as per clarification meeting 03/18/02 Terry also read out additional scope as per AT&T’s expedite request (AT&T letter dated 3/19/02) - Customer required to call Qwest multiple times to remove LEFV - No established process to remove the LEFV at the Qwest retail offices - No consistent confirmation number provided by the Qwest retail offices to note customer account - Inconsistent information between the account team and the PCAT pertaining to submission of the LSR - Inconsistent Quality Check process at the Sierra Vista Center - Inconsistent escalation process at the Denver CSIE once confirmation has been received - Qwest retail office confusing end customers by referring to the LEFV as a PIC freeze (Repeated above 3rd bullet) - IMA 9.0 edit pulled and no notice sent to the CLEC - IMA 9.0 edit to be implemented at a future date without CLEC notice - Jeopardy condition codes issued after the FOC affecting CLEC due date - Inconsistent Qwest retail process where CLEC can be a third party on the call with end customer - Inconsistent process between removing the LEFV and the updating of the CSR - Confusing reject /jeopardy condition message issued by Qwest

- AT&T reiterated they would like all of the above bullet points validated by Qwest and the process clearly documented in the PCAT - AT&T confirmed they would like the CR scope expanded to include Business Accounts as per CLEC request at the March CMP meeting. Todd will adjust CR documentation. - AT&T stated that 68% of all orders for removing LEFV in the Portland region had to be rescheduled last month. AT&T are seeking clarification on what exactly is the process for removing LEFV. AT&T also asked for an extension on the 800 number until the LEFV process is clarified and documented. - Qwest reiterated that they are working as expeditiously as possible to resolve this issue, and they aim to present a written draft response to the CLECs next week. - AT&T said they are willing to wait for the written response next week but need immediate ‘relief’ now. Immediate ‘relief’ was defined by AT&T as: - Keeping the 800 number live until next week (and include Saturday availability) - Someone in CSIE to take the lead on this issue and be nominated as the Single Point of Contact (SPOC) - Qwest would confirm later in the day on the status of this request. - AT&T also stated that they believe 100% of customers they talk too, insist they never asked for the freeze to be installed. AT&T would like to know what type of validation/questions Qwest ask to believe the customer has requested this product. - AT&T also asked for clarification on the R-Number and whether the order number is sufficient as some LSRs are currently being rejected with this information. - Worldcom and VarTec Telecom expressed their continued interest in this issue. - Qwest restated that they are currently not aware of anything that was ‘backed out’ of IMA 9.0 and also reiterated that the only work currently pending for IMA is in the prioritization list for all CLECs to vote on. - AT&T stated that since February 18th 2002, this process has not been working. They requested that in light of Qwest’s inability to support the process and the fact that the freeze placed on accounts were questionable as far as customer approval to begin with. That the best and quickest way to fix this matter was to lift the freeze and go back to the way we were prior to February 18th and not go back until all the issues were properly addressed and good process was actually in place. Qwest stated that a number of States were ‘turned-up’ on Feb 18th so this may be a volume issue. AT&T believe their volume did not change on Feb 18th and asked for the freeze to be lifted until a working process is put in place by Qwest. Qwest replied they understood AT&T’s concern and reiterated they are working as fast as possible on getting an accurate and workable solution for all CLECs.

Establish Action Plan: Next Meeting: Thursday 4th April @ 11:30 am (MDT) - same bridge number as this call. Qwest will present written response. Qwest will investigate and report back to AT&T this afternoon on providing ongoing ‘relief’

-

03/21/02 - Notification CMPR.03.21.02.F.01239.CRMeeting issued to CLECs informing them of a call on 03/26/02 to discuss this issue

Qwest will host a general clarification meeting on CLEC Change Request (CR) PC030802-1 (Process to remove LEFV from Qwest residential accounts) on Tuesday March 26, 2002.

Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Time: 3:00 p.m. MST Conference Line: 1-877-564-8688 Passcode 626-5401 #

Details of the CR can be found in the Product/Process Interactive report at: http://qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/changerequest.html Sincerely,

Todd Mead

-

03/19/02 AT&T advised Qwest they would like this CR expedited

1875 Lawrence St. Denver, CO 80202-1847

March 18, 2002

Todd Mead CMP Manager Qwest Communications 1801 California Street Denver, Colorado 80202

RE: Change Request PC 030802-1

Dear Todd:

AT&T is requesting Qwest to officially expedite PC 030802-1. The local service freeze (LEFV) is critically affecting AT&T Broadband’s ability to port customers. This LEFV has presented multiple obstacles. We are requesting to have an immediate discussion between Qwest and AT&T Broadband subject matter experts to discuss the many problems associated with LEFV. What have been identified to date are the following:

- Customer required to call Qwest multiple times to remove LEFV - No established process to remove the LEFV at the Qwest retail offices - No consistent confirmation number provided by the Qwest retail offices to note customer account - Inconsistent information between the account team and the PCAT pertaining to submission of the LSR - Inconsistent Quality Check process at the Sierra Vista Center - Inconsistent escalation process at the Denver CSIE once confirmation has been received - Qwest retail office confusing end customers by referring to the LEFV as a PIC freeze - IMA 9.0 edit pulled and no notice sent to the CLEC - IMA 9.0 edit to be implemented at a future date without CLEC notice - Jeopardy condition codes issued after the FOC affecting CLEC due date - Inconsistent Qwest retail process where CLEC can be a third party on the call with end customer - Inconsistent process between removing the LEFV and the updating of the CSR - Confusing reject /jeopardy condition message issued by Qwest

It is critical Qwest establish a team to address the customer impact and at the same time improve the processes. As I have indicated both in e-mail and on the clarification call to Qwest, this is now a high profile issue between both companies. Mike Mason, Vice-President AT&T Broadband, has escalated this to Scott Shipper, Vice-President Qwest.

AT&T’s account team has declined to work directly with AT&T to resolve this issue and has instructed AT&T to move all discussion to CMP. In addition Todd, you stated on the clarification call held March 18, 2002, Qwest would not provide a resolution to this CR until the monthly CMP forum in May. This is unacceptable to AT&T.

AT&T requests Qwest to expedite PC 030802-1 immediately. AT&T will present this CR as a "walk on". Please inform Jim Beers. Under the Interim Exception Process for OSS Interfaces, Product and Process Changes (RE: Qwest Re-Design Web site) this can be addressed at Wednesday’s monthly CMP meeting and voted on as an expedited issue by the CLEC community.

Sincerely,

Terry Bahner Supervisor AT&T Local Services Access Management Western Region 303-298-6149

Cc: Tim Boykin Sharon Van Meter Donna Osborne-Miller Judy Schultz

-

Clarification Meeting

11:00 a.m. (MDT) / Monday 18th March 2002 1-877-564-8688 ID 626-5401 # PC030802-1 Local Service Freeze – Process to remove LEFV from Qwest residential accounts

Attendees: Terry Bahner / AT&T Donna Osborne-Miller / AT&T Cynthia Linenberger / AT&T Lindel Watkis / AT&T Mike Harggert / AT&T Harriett Berry / Qwest Chris Quinn-Struck / Qwest Pete Budner / Qwest Todd Mead / Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Terry read out the change request: VALIDATE THESE FOLLOWING BULLET ITEMS AS PART OF THE PROCESS: * Caller must be a Qwest retail customer * Customer must call business office and say they wish to "remove the freeze off of their local service" * Do not instruct the customer to use the word "PIC". This is used for inter and intra lata services and causes confusion which can delay removing the LEFV * CLEC can be a third party on the call to Qwest by the local customer * Customer can call up to 7pm in his local service area to remove the freeze * The LEFV resides in a repository that is worked overnight which means it will be removed off the customer's account that night and the LSR can be sent the next day without rejection * Although updates to a CSR can take up 3-5 days, the removal of the freeze is not dependent on that CSR being updated. * Qwest does not charge $5 to remove the freeze * A Communicator will be sent to the CLEC community when the PCAT is updated

- AT&T asked for more clarification around the 6th Bullet as the updated PCAT indicated the LSR can be submitted immediately after the LEFV is removed (not the next business day). - The last two bullet points can be removed from the original CR. Todd will adjust the CR documentation. - AT&T asked for clarification around the edit that is going into IMA - AT&T asked for Qwest to explain the role and also train the duty pager on the Local Service Freeze process. AT&T have experienced significant problems with issues they have escalated to the duty pager - AT&T also asked Qwest to provide clarification on what remarks to expect in the remarks section of the jep notification re: Joan Wells

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted: Products: LNP, Private Line, Unbundled Loop & UNE Areas: Pre-ordering, Ordering & Provisioning - Billing was added

Confirm Right Personnel Involved: Harriett confirmed she is the correct person to be the Qwest SME in relation to this CR.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation: AT&T want to see a clear and concise process around removing the Local Service Freeze, verified and documented in PCAT.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame): General clarification – April CMP meeting. Qwest’s initial response presented at May CMP meeting. AT&T will send Change Management a letter this afternoon requesting Qwest expedite this CR. AT&T will ‘walk-on’ this CR at Wednesday’s CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

April 2, 2002

Terry Bahner Supervisor AT&T Local Services Access Management 1875 Lawrence St. Denver, CO 80202-1847

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR # PC 030802-1 "Local Service Freeze Removal for Residence and Business Customers"

Following are responses to your list of issues and questions from CR #PC030802-1, your additional list of issues dated March 19, as well as questions from our March 26, 2002 conference call.

1. Caller must be a Qwest retail customer This is a true statement. The Qwest Retail end user may contact their Qwest Retail business office to have their local service freeze removed. Their new CLEC may be on the phone with them at the same time (Three-way call).

2. Customer must call business office and say they wish to "remove the freeze off of their local service" This is a true statement. When the end user customer contacts the Qwest Retail business office, they should ask to have their local service freeze removed. If the end user customer simply states that they are moving to AT&T, there may be some confusion as to whether this is a PIC change or the customer is moving their local service to AT&T.

3. Do not instruct the customer to use the word "PIC". This is used for inter and intraLATA services and causes confusion which can delay removing the LEFV This is true. It is helpful in guiding the end user customer through the process since they may have a PIC, LPIC, and Local Service Freeze. The Sales Consultants have been provided training and job aids to help determine the customer’s need.

4. CLEC can be a third party on the call to Qwest by the local customer See question #1

5. Customer can call up to 7pm in his local service area to remove the freeze Qwest has customers across three different time zones.

The Residence end user customer may call their Qwest Retail business office until the close of business in the Pacific time zone.

- Central time zone until 9:00 PM (they will be routed to a center in the Mountain or Pacific time zones after 7:00 PM local time) - Mountain time zone until 8:00 PM (they will be routed to a center in the Pacific time zone after 7:00 PM local time) - Pacific time zone until 7:00 PM

The hours for the Business, Federal Government, Education, Public Access Lines business offices are listed in the April 3, 2002 update to the PCAT.

6. The LEFV resides in a repository that is worked overnight which means it will be removed off the customer service record. Qwest has a Local Freeze Repository where all frozen phone numbers are stored. That repository is updated on a daily basis as orders are issued to add or remove local freeze. When an order is issued to remove the freeze, the telephone number is removed from the Repository that night. The LEFV will not be removed from the CSR for 3-5 days.

See further explanation in response to question 7.

7. Although updates to a CSR can take up 3-5 days, the removal of the freeze is not dependent on the CSR being updated. The Customer Service Record does not update for 3-5 days after the R order is issued to add or remove the Local Service Freeze.

When a LSR is issued and there is LEFV on the CSR, the Wholesale Service Delivery Coordinators are checking system notations to determine if an order has been issued to remove the local service freeze. If there is a notation, they will process the LSR. In addition, if the LSR contains the R order number (of the freeze removal) the SDC will allow the order to be processed.

The following questions were submitted by AT&T in a letter to Qwest dated 03/19/02

8. Customer required to call Qwest multiple times to remove LEFV The customer should be able to accomplish removal of the local service freeze in one call to Qwest.

9. No established process to remove the LEFV at the Qwest retail offices Qwest has had established processes in place for local service freeze removal since March 10, 2001 when Local Service Freeze was first implemented.

10. No consistent confirmation number provided by the Qwest retail offices to note customer account Qwest Sales Consultants are currently providing the R order number to any end user customer or CLEC (on 3-way call) who requests it. We have determined that a specific work group has been providing 'confirmation numbers' instead of the R order numbers. That situation has been corrected by the issuance of internal memo (MCC) and managing the performances of the involved individuals. Do not hesitate to request the R order that is being issued to remove the freeze. 11. Inconsistent information between the account team and the PCAT pertaining to submission of the LSR The PCAT is the Qwest official source for CLEC information.

12. Inconsistent Quality Check process at the Sierra Vista Center Calls and orders are monitored on a regular basis to ensure quality.

13. Inconsistent escalation process at the Denver CSIE once confirmation has been received There are several determining factors as to how the escalation is handled. Each escalation is reacted to on an individual case basis.

14. IMA 9.0 edit pulled and no notice sent to the CLEC Qwest did not remove any IMA 9.0 edits; therefore, notification to the CLECs was not necessary. There was a non-IMA edit in place that was checking the CSRs for LEFV which was relaxed so LSRs could flow through and allow the Service Order Processors to check the Freeze Repository and edit for a freeze at that point in the process.

15. IMA 9.0 edit to be implemented at a future date without CLEC notice All planned CLEC Impacting changes to IMA are currently being presented to the CLECs for prioritization. There are no plans to implement a 9.0 edit pertaining to Local Service Freeze.

16. Jeopardy condition codes issued after the FOC affecting CLEC due date Qwest has listened to the concerns raised by AT&T on this issue and has taken steps to fortify existing processes to alleviate this problem.

17. Inconsistent Qwest retail process where CLEC can be a third party on the call with end customer See question #1

18. Inconsistent process between removing the LEFV and the updating of the CSR See question #6

19. Confusing reject /jeopardy condition message issued by Qwest The reject/jeopardy message currently being used is the only existing message that fits the local service freeze situation. Requests for new reject messages go through the CMP CR process.

LSRs received to change lines/accounts with a local service freeze are rejected with the error message "Features on account are not compatible with requested features." In the Customer Comments section of the Reject Notice Qwest will include the following: "Please have end user contact current local service provider to have local service freeze removed."

20. AT&T reiterated they would like all of the above bullet points validated by Qwest and the process clearly documented in the PCAT. The PCAT will be updated April 3, 2002. 21. What kind of questions does Qwest ask a Retail end user customer before adding a local service freeze? Upon initial contact with the end user customer, the Qwest Sales Consultant informs the customer of the availability of the freeze as follows: "We offer free protection to ensure that your provider of local service, long distance service, and local long distance service cannot be changed unless you contact us directly. You may remove this protection from your account at any time by contacting Qwest directly with a verbal, written, or electronically signed authorization. Would you be interested in setting that up now?"

If the end user customer indicates they would like a freeze established, they are transferred to a Third Party Verifier (TPV) who asks the customer for the Billing Name on the account, Billing Address, the last four digits of their Social Security Number, and their date of birth. In addition, they ask if the caller is over 18 years old and is responsible for the account, and if they have permission to place the local service freeze on each specific line of the account.

22. What changes have been made in the Local Service Freeze Removal process since 02/18/02? The process was working well before that date. Qwest has had established processes in place for local service freeze since March 10, 2001 when Local Service Freeze was first implemented. The only changes made to the process have been made within the past two weeks as a result of this CR.

Sincerely,

Harriett Berry Senior Process Analyst Qwest

Cc: Sue Burson, Director Process Management, Qwest