Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC042303-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Do not call to dispacth on any other that specific scenarios noted in Title of change. Utilize EBTA for "other" dispatch situations.

Project Meetings

CMP Meeting 11/19/03 Craig Suellentrop – Qwest advised the PCAT has been updated and no comments have been received. Implementation is scheduled for December 1, 2003. This CR will remain in CLEC Test.

CMP Meeting 10/15/03 Craig Suellentrop –Qwest advised pre-dispatch calls will only occur when the CLEC requests them. The notification will go out October 17. This CR will move to CLEC Test Status.

CMP Meeting 9/17/03 Craig advised the notification is almost ready. The documentation team is currently reviewing the documentation. This is a Level 3 change.

CMP Meeting 08-20-03

Suellentrop-Qwest stated that Qwest was finalizing the training and the documentation. He stated that the documentation should be in the review site within the next two weeks. Zulevic-Qwest asked if the change was UNE-P specific. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that the change was for all non-design products.

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

CMP Meeting 07-16-03

Osborne-Miller-AT&T described the Qwest acceptance and asked if the response would apply to MEDIACC. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that MEDIACC users would use the comments field. While CEMR users would have a button to select. Zimmerman-AT&T stated that this sounded good. Osborne-Miller-AT&T and Johnson-Eschelon stated that they were very pleased with Qwest’s acceptance of this CR. CR moved to Development.

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

Suellentrop-Qwest presented the Qwest response. Johnson-Eschelon stated that she thought Qwest was going to check to see if Qwest could use the Call Before Dispatch option in CEMR and only perform the pre-dispatch call for those CLECs. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that it was Qwest’s policy to call regardless of whether the CLEC checks “Call Before Dispatch” in CEMR. He stated that he will check to see if this was an option. Osborne-Miller stated that AT&T was split on the proposed solution in the response. ========================================================== CMP Meeting 05-21-03

Osborne Miller-AT&T presented the CR. Suellentrop-Qwest asked what the other CLECs thought about this request. Johnson-Eschelon stated that Eschelon wanted the calls to continue. She suggested that there might be a systems solution to determine which CLECs wanted the call. Balvin-MCI stated that she would like to see a list of all calls the AT&T would not want. Zimmerman-AT&T stated that AT&T wanted only the CRs denoted in the CR. Johnson-Eschelon stated that there was a field in CEMR for a call before dispatch. She stated that Eschelon wanted the calls. She stated that this should be the CLEC’s option regardless of the reporting medium. ========================================== CLEC Change Request – PC042303-2 Clarification Meeting Friday, May 09, 2003

1-877-550-8686 2213337#

Attendees Matt White – Qwest Craig Suellentrop – Qwest Anthony Washington – Qwest Donna Osborne-Miller – AT&T Craig Zimmerman – AT&T Lydia Braze – AT&T Paulita Moore – AT&T

Introduction of Attendees White-Qwest welcomed all attendees and reviewed the request.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Osborne-Miller-AT&T reviewed the CR. Suellentrop-Qwest asked if AT&T was asking for this change to apply to all trouble tickets. Zimmerman-AT&T stated that most of the tickets are electronically submitted, but that the intent would be for the change to apply to all. He explained that AT&T has a separate line for LEC technicians to call in to. That line does not get a higher priority than customer calls. As a result, because Qwest calls in status reports that do not require AT&T action the supplier line is flooded with unnecessary calls. This call volume and causes AT&T to miss the important action-required calls. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that he understood the request. He stated that he would also be interested to hear other CLEC opinions of this request. Osborne-Miller-AT&T asked if there was any way Qwest would implement this process only for AT&T. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that Qwest would prefer an universal policy.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted White-Qwest confirmed that the attendees were comfortable that the request appropriately identified all areas and products impacted.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved White-Qwest confirmed with the attendees that the appropriate Qwest personnel were involved.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation White-Qwest reviewed the request to confirm AT&T’s expectation.

Identify and Dependant Systems Change Requests White-Qwest asked the attendees if they knew of any related change requests.

Establish Action Plan White-Qwest asked attendees if there were any further questions. There were none. White-Qwest stated that the next step was for AT&T to present the CR at the May Monthly Product/Process Meeting and thanked all attendees for attending the meeting.

CenturyLink Response

July 9, 2003

REVISED RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the July 16, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR PC042303-2 “AT&T Requests that pre-dispatch calls be limited to specific scenarios, primarily address mismatches, no access situations, and/or vendor meet requests”

This CR requests that the pre-dispatch call made by the Qwest repair technician prior to leaving to the end-user location is only made when there are address mismatches, no access situations, and/or vendor meet requests. AT&T believes that making the pre-dispatch call on all dispatches places an undue burden on their call centers.

The current non-designed repair process for outside technicians requires a courtesy call to the customer of record (both wholesale and retail) prior to leaving to the end-user location. At the May 21 CMP meeting other CLECs requested that this process not be changed and that they want Qwest to make the pre-dispatch call. Therefore, this request was denied at the June CMP meeting.

However, the question was raised about using a box titled, “Call Before Dispatch” in the CEMR application. This function is also available to Qwest’s repair agents on manually reported trouble. The CLEC community was agreeable to the idea of Qwest only performing the pre-dispatch calls when requested via the above mentioned methods. If this is still the case, Qwest accepts this request and will issue a Level 3 notification to implement the modified process.

Sincerely,

Craig Suellentrop Staff Advocate, Policy & Law Qwest

Cc: Mary Retka, Director-Legal Issues, Qwest Cathy Augustson, Lead Process Analyst, Qwest Catherine R. Garcia, Lead Process Analyst, Qwest

====================================== June 11, 2003

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the June 18, 2003, Monthly CMP Product/Process Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR PC042303-2 “AT&T Requests that pre-dispatch calls be limited to specific scenarios, primarily address mismatches, no access situations, and/or vendor meet requests”

This CR requests that the pre-dispatch call made by the Qwest repair technician prior to leaving to the end-user location is only made when there are address mismatches, no access situations, and/or vendor meet requests. AT&T believes that making the pre-dispatch call on all dispatches places an undue burden on their call centers.

The current non-designed repair process for outside technicians requires a courtesy call to the customer of record (both wholesale and retail) prior to leaving to the end-user location. At the May 21 CMP meeting other CLECs requested that this process not be changed and that they want Qwest to make the pre-dispatch call.

Therefore, Qwest respectfully denies this change request because the requested change does not result in a reasonably demonstrable business benefit; this request will negatively impact other CLECs.

However, Qwest would like to address AT&T’s concern regarding placing an undue burden on their call center. As Qwest understands, AT&T has a supplier line and the hold times could be quite lengthy. Qwest would like to propose a process that on the courtesy pre-dispatch calls, the technician would wait in a Voice Response Unit (VRU) for at least a set period of time (say 90 seconds). After this time the technician would drop the call. This would relieve most of the volume into the call center. When there are address mismatches, no access situations, and/or vendor meet requests, the technician would wait on the line until someone is reached. If someone answers the phone, or if the call is routed to voice mail, the process in place today would not change.

Sincerely,

Craig Suellentrop Staff Advocate, Policy & Law Qwest

Cc: Mary Retka, Director-Legal Issues, Qwest Cathy Augustson, Senior Process Analyst, Qwest