Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC031203-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

May 15, 2003

Project Meetings

Suellentrop-Qwest stated that the CR had been implemented in June and recommended a close. The group agreed and the CR was Closed.

===========================================

CMP Meeting 07-16-03

Suellentrop-Qwest stated that the change had been implemented on 6/30 and asked that the CR be moved to CLEC Test status. There were no objections.

================================================ CMP Meeting 06-18-03

Suellentrop-Qwest stated that implementation was scheduled for 6/30.

========================================================== CMP Meeting 05-21-03

Suellentrop-Qwest stated that the initial notification was distributed on 5/15. He stated that there had not been any comments and that he wanted to move the CR to development. ==========================================

04-16-03 - CMP Meeting

Suellentrop-Qwest presented the CR and described the input meetings that had already taken place. Van Meter-AT&T stated that at the earlier input meeting Qwest had resolved all CLEC questions, but that she had wanted to have another input meeting to ensure that all CLECs had an opportunity to ask questions. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that this CR was to implement a pre-order option. Berard-Covad asked how long the MLT results were stored in WFA. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that they were stored as long as the circuit was in use. He stated that and CLEC can request the MLT info. Johnson-Eschelon asked how long a Qwest employee would have to wait to get the MLT results. She asked if the employee would have to call the CSIE center and wait 48 hours. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that he would find out. Johnson-Eschelon stated that the team needed to meet again to discuss this CR.

================================================

Input meeting April 22, 2003

Matt White - Qwest Craig Suellentrop - Qwest Don McKay – ATG Communications Mary Roberts – ATG Communications

White–Qwest reviewed the purpose of the meeting.

McKay-ATG asked that Suellentrop-Qwest walk him through the tests Qwest performs before delivery of a loop. He stated that he was interested in qualifying DSL loops from an Unbundled xDSL-I and and Unbundled ADSL Compatible perspective. He asked how Qwest would know that a loop will work for DSL and clarified he was talking about ADSL and SDSL. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that the question is outside the scope of this CR. However, he explained that there is a set of core tests that Qwest performs when a loop is provisioned. Suellentrop-Qwest described the Core tests and stated that the technical parameters of unbundled loops are discussed in the interconnection unbundled loop tech pub - 77384. He concluded that the only additional test for ADSL compatible loops is a load coil test. McKay-ATG stated that he had no other questions. Roberts-ATG stated that she did not have any additional questions about this CR. There was no input regarding the manual process proposed in this CR. White-Qwest thanked the attendees and adjourned the meeting.

==================================================

Input Meeting April 21, 2003

Attendees Matt White – Qwest Craig Suellentrop – Qwest Michael Derleth – ATG Communications Sharon Van Meter – AT&T Liz Balvin – MCI Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Mike Reith - ZTel

White-Qwest described the purpose of the meeting. Suellentrop-Qwest described the CR and the proposed process.

Johnson-Eschelon asked if Qwest internal personnel and retail have to follow this same process. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that all retail employees would have to follow the same process. He stated that Wholesale SDCs, who handle CLEC orders, have access to WFA. Johnson-Eschelon stated that she was not sure if retail sales would need this information. She asked if retail maintenance would have access to this information. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that network personnel have access to WFA. He stated that if retail wanted this information, they would need to go through this new process. He stated that retail hasn’t requested this information at this time. Johnson-Eschelon asked if there were any other methods that this information will be communicated. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that there was not.

Johnson-Eschelon asked why the CLECs would need this information. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that Qwest uses this information to validate that an unbundled loop is in good working condition when it is provisioned. He explained that CLECs could use this information if the CLEC is interested in marketing services to the end-user served by that loop. He continued that some CLECs have stated that this info is useful to them in qualifying loops for DSL service.

Johnson-Eschelon asked if the MLT testing process was documented in the PCAT. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that he did not think so. Johnson-Eschelon asked if it would be added to the PCAT. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that Qwest will document that the testing process is happening when it documents the new process in the Loop Qualification and Raw Loop Data Job Aid. White-Qwest asked if there were any additional questions. Van Meter-AT&T stated that all of her questions were answered in the 1st input call and in the CMP meeting. There were no additional questions. White-Qwest stated that there would be another input meeting on Tuesday at the same time, thanked the attendees and adjourned the call.

====================================================

=====================================================

Input Meeting Minutes Tuesday, April 8, 2003

Attendees Craig Suellentrop - Qwest Michelle Thacker – Qwest Deni Toye – Qwest Matt White - Qwest Sharon Van-Meter – AT&T Stephanie Prull - McLeod

White-Qwest described the purpose of the meeting and asked Suellentrop the present the CR. Van Meter-AT&T stated that she may need another input call to satisfy her internal users’ needs.

Suellentrop-Qwest presented the change and proposed implementation method and asked for questions. Van Meter-AT&T Asked when Qwest would respond if AT&T submitted a request. Thacker-Qwest stated the answer would be provided within 48 hours. Prull-Allegiance asked if Qwest would look into circuits without MLT. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that Qwest would not. He explained that if a CLEC gives Qwest a circuit ID, Qwest cannot determine what the circuit was before. Similarly, Qwest cannot perform an MLT test if a CLEC is provisioning a circuit that was not a voice grade circuit served by a Qwest switch before the request or if the circuit was provisioned before the MLT test process was in place. Prull-Allegiance asked if there was anywhere that denotes if an MLT test was done. Toye–Qwest stated that Qwest runs a test on all reuse circuits today and put results in WFA. She explained that if there is nothing in WFA, the circuit was not tested for MLT. Van Meter-AT&T asked if calling the center during business hours would ever result in being connected to a voice mailbox. Thacker-Qwest stated that it would not. Van Meter–AT&T asked if she cloud submit a request via e-mail. Thacker-Qwest stated that Qwest could not provide the same level of care for a request submitted by e-mail. She stated that the 48 hour timer for e-mail requests would start when the e-mail was read. She stated this could add several hours to the process. Van Meter-AT&T asked if she would be issued a ticket number when she called in. Thacker-Qwest stated that she would. Prull–McLeod asked if the 48 hour timeline was escalatable. Thacker-Qwest stated that it was. Van Meter-AT&T asked if this was the only format that Qwest could give the CLECs this information. Van Meter–AT&T stated that Mary Pat Cheshire made a declaration to the FCC that stated that Qwest created hard copies from the WFA. Toye–Qwest stated that the current process is not to print WFA information. White-Qwest asked if AT&T needed hard copies. Van Meter-AT&T stated that AT&T wanted all the info available. Toye–Qwest stated that if Qwest were to print the information, it would show the same information that Qwest was sending to the CLECs via e-mail. She stated that AT&T could print the e-mail for a hard copy identical to what Qwest would produce if Qwest’s process were to print hard copies. Prull–McLeod asked which test would WFA refelct if two MLT tests were run. Toye–Qwest stated that the system would display the most recent test results. Van Meter-AT&T asked that Qwest schedule an additional input call. She also requested a draft of the output from Qwest. Thacker-Qwest stated that the output would consist of a cut-and-paste from WFA. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that today CLECs perform MLT tests on their own circuits. He stated that this process would yield the same information. Prull-McLeod stated that she was familiar with this process and the McLeod was currently using it. Van Meter-AT&T asked what the subject line of the e-mail would contain. She asked that it contain the requester’s name. Prull-McLeod stated that having this sorting capability is important. She suggested including the first initial and last name of requester. Thacker-Qwest stated that Qwest would have to check to ensure there is adequate space in the subject line for the circuit number, requesting company, and name information. Van Meter-AT&T asked if the response e-mail from Qwest would be at or within 48 hours of the request. Thacker-Qwest stated that the response would be within 48 hours, if possible.

White-Qwest suggested that the next input meetings be scheduled for April 21 and 22. Van Meter-AT&T stated that Qwest should send the notification scheduling these meetings, but that the team should discuss this issue at the CMP Meeting. She stated that Qwest should cancel the input meetings if the CMP attendees agreed that they were not necessary. Prull-McLeod and Suellentrop-Qwest agreed. White-Qwest stated that he would issue the notification, thanked the attendees, and adjourned the call.

======================================== 03-19-03 CMP Meeting

Suellentrop-Qwest presented the CR as a walk-on. He proposed an input cycle. There were no questions. CR moved to presented.