Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC060509-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Qwest description: LIS Mid Span Meet POI Subsection, the existing process was expanded upon and additional clarity and detail were added.

Qwest description: Trunking Subsection, the existing process not previously documented was added regarding the TCIC numbering range as well as providing additional clarity and detail to existing documentation

Qwest description: The existing process relating to the local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG) was added which was previously not documented.

Qwest description: LIS to AT Switch(es) Subsection, the existing Single Point of Presence (SPOP) process was added which was previously not documented.

Project Meetings

Mark Coyne-Qwest said this change was effective on 10/30/09 and asked if there were any objections to closure. Bonnie Johnson-Integra said they objected to this change and that Qwest would be closing over their objection. Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC agreed with Integra.

9/16/09 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Mark Coyne-Qwest said an adhoc meeting was held on 9/9/09. The Qwest team is looking at the comments submitted and will issue a final with the response to comments. Mark said a delayed response was submitted on 9/10/09.

9/9/09 Adhoc Meeting PROD.INTE.08.11.09.F.06720.LISV23

Attendees: Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC, Mindy Chapman-Neustar, Kasha Fauscett-Comcast, Kim Isaacs-Integra, Bonnie Johnson-Integra, Doug Denney-Integra, Sandy Stulen-Qwest, Georganne Weidenbach-Qwest, Todd Rodgers-Qwest, Diana Rasmussen-Qwest, Susan Lorence-Qwest, Ellen Munz-Qwest, Lynn Stecklein-Qwest

Susan Lorence-Qwest stated that the purpose of this meeting is to discuss a level 4 notice and the objections and comments submitted by Integra on 8/24/09 on PROD.INTE.08.11.09.F.06720.LISV23. The comments are posted on the Qwest Wholesale Website and the PCAT can be found on the Document Review Archive Site. Susan said that discussions started back in the spring and Qwest agreed to submit a CR and go through the level 4 process. Susan said there were a couple of other changes but are basically the same questions previously reviewed in the March and April time frame.

1. What is the impact of Qwest changing “Reciprocal Compensation” to “Intercarrier Compensation”? Why is Qwest making this change? How does this change apply, if at all, to CLECs when their ICAs with Qwest refer to Reciprocal Compensation?

Qwest Response – Sandy Stulen Qwest has changed reciprocal compensation to intercarrier compensation due to the fact that not all compensation is reciprocal. Intercarrier compensation (9/16/09 Comments to minutes received from Integra in CAPS) IS MORE INCLUSIVE better explains how Qwest and the carrier deal with compensation between the two parties.

Kim Isaacs-Integra said reciprocal compensation is a subcategory of intercarrier compensation. She asked why Qwest feels it necessary to change the terms.

Sandy Stulen-Qwest said there is no impact. She said we changed it to intercarrier compensation because the compensation we exchange between the CLEC is compensation between that carrier and Qwest.. She said it doesn’t change what is in your contract but is meant to be more intercarrier compensation. She said that with reciprocal compensation, there were some customers who had many ISPs behind them and we were paying a lot more than what we were getting in from a usage basis. She said this is to make it more clear between the two carriers and doesn’t change rates.

Georgeanne Weidenbach-Qwest said the traffic is more unbalanced.

Kim Isaacs-Integra asked if there was any change to the CLECs ICA with references to reciprocal compensation.

Sandy Stulen-Qwest said the new negotiation template talks about intercarrier compensation in the heading where it used to say reciprocal compensation.

Kim Isaacs-Integra asked about the other contracts that are referred to as reciprocal and said the negotiation template is just that, for negotiations.

Sandy Stulen-Qwest said it is still reciprocal compensation with the same items underneath it as before. She said we still have DTT, entrance facility, LIS etc. and still fit under 7.3.

Georgeanne Weidenbach-Qwest said historically reciprocal compensation means matching or duplicate and is exactly the same. She said most traffic is unbalanced.

Kim Isaacs-Integra said she will take this back.

2. LIS Mid Span Meet OPI Subsection - Qwest is limiting and changing the product by changing the description. For example, Qwest removed the following sentence: “Determination of a midway point will be negotiated on the basis of each party sharing equally in the cost.” Is Qwest’s intent to shift the costs to the CLEC, so that Qwest no longer shares equally in the cost? If not, why is this change needed? If Qwest is claiming a change in law, please provide citations for Qwest’s changes and resubmit the changes as regulatory changes based on the decisions that Qwest says allow Qwest to make such a change. To date, Qwest has cited no authority to limit the product in this manner. Although Qwest claims it is providing “additional clarity,” the revised version is much less clear. Qwest’s changes are in conflict with, for example, the Minnesota SGAT (as well as Eschelon’s and Integra's ICAs in Minnesota). Consistent with Qwest’s trend of making SGAT terms unavailable without prior Commission approval, Qwest with this change is removing SGAT language and replacing it with the PCAT description of the product to match Qwest’s Negotiations Template verbatim. The Negotiations Template is not Commission approved and is no substitute for the SGAT. It reflects only Qwest's negotiations position and is not enforceable or proper basis for changes in CMP.

Qwest Response – Sandy Stulen Qwest believes that the change in the language provides more clarity to the mid-span meet product - there is no change in the product offering. This is still a negotiated mid-span meet POI with the CLEC and Qwest each sharing in its portion of the build of the mid-span meet POI. This does not change ICA language in each individual CLEC’s interconnection agreement regarding mid-span meet POI. This was originally a level 2 change and we agreed to make it a level 4.

Kim Isaacs-Integra said Qwest is saying there is no change but Qwest has removed the sentence ‘the determination of the midway point will be negotiated on the basis of each party sharing equally in cost’. Kim said this seems like a change and if it is negotiated and asked why the sentence can’t remain.

Georganne Weidenbach-Qwest said that we are comporting with the FCC order and can’t always be 50/50 because there may not be a manhole in the street that is 50/50.We are going to have to negotiate a little more and were trying to provide clarity on language because it is so old and nothing has changed.

Kim Isaacs-Integra said Qwest is pulling out the negotiated part.

Sandy Stulen-Qwest said the negotiation part is still there and the actual point of interface that the fiber facilities use will be subject to negotiation between the parties.

Kim Isaacs-Integra said it doesn’t say we will share equally in the cost.

Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC said this has a significant impact on what they have today and was what she addressed in the original comment. She said negotiating something where the parties are going for 50/50, drives the parties to look for something that is 50/50 or something close to that. She said this is different language and they have serious concerns and are not amenable to remove the language that says the parties will pay 50/50.

Sandy Stulen-Qwest said the parties will equally share in the cost and it doesn’t say anything in this language about 50/50 and it all will be negotiated.

Georganne Weidenbach-Qwest said that federal law says in a meet point arrangement each party pays its portion of the cost to build the facilities to the meet point.

Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC said the negotiation was more or less to make it an equal.

Georganne Weidenbach-Qwest said it is not technically in existence.

Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC said equally in cost implies 50 % for both parties and doesn’t drive anything towards an equal share. She said based on her experience with Qwest, she is not convinced this is what Qwest intends. If Qwest intends 50/50, she wants that language in there and by removing it takes a huge parameter away.

Georganne Weidenbach-Qwest asked why we don’t stick with what the federal law says. She said that their ICA language is not changing and this is a general product catalog.

Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC said that this is negotiated agreement language that has been approved. She said Qwest is not planning to use this as a general offering. She said Qwest relies on it and she ends up arguing it and spending time on what the language says. The language that Qwest is eliminating is in their ICA today and the language being proposed takes away a major negotiation tool that saves them time and energy. She said driving to the 50/50 helps the party gets them to where they need to be with less hassle and eliminating is backwards. She said this is not in their favor and doesn’t think it appropriate.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said with the level 2 that implied we weren’t changing anything. And with the level 4 process, the SMEs have said there is no change in process. She said the level 4 allows Qwest to update documentation to meet the current FCC guidelines and requirements. We don’t want to debate any legal issues on this CMP call. The intent of this call is to get additional comments and allow Qwest to give additional clarification instead of getting into a debate about what is in the contract because that is outside of the scope of CMP.

Georganne Weidenbach-Qwest said this change is getting the language to be consistent with the FCC requirements. She said the argument is silly and when you look at the definition of negotiation it means compromise. In the network environment 50/50 is what we shoot for because no one wants to pay more than anyone else. She said there probably isn’t a manhole that is truly 50/50 between the two of us.

Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC said it may be silly, but as a negotiator trying to get to 50/50 gives a point everyone works toward.

Georganne Weidenbach-Qwest said we have never had a problem negotiating a location since 1999 and didn’t think PAETEC had mid spans.

Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC said she thought they do have mid span meets, but will check.

3. Trunking Subsection – Integra objects to the statement “Unless specifically stated otherwise in the interconnection agreement you must have a separate trunk group for each type of traffic”. Integra is requesting that Qwest retract this statement. Whether Qwest retracts it or not, it does not govern Qwest's relationship with Integra, and Qwest should put no process in place to enforce this concept as to Integra.

Qwest Response- Sandy Stulen Qwest requires different trunk groups for Exchange Services (EAS/local) if there is a local tandem. IntraLATA LEC toll and JPSA go to the access tandem. This is the way Qwest requires traffic routing; however, there maybe circumstances where Exchange Services (EAS/local), intraLATA LEC toll and JPSA maybe combined by using SPOP if your ICA allows it. Each CLEC’s interconnection agreement dictates the terms of how their traffic can be routed.

Kim Isaacs-Integra said the statement assumes that if the ICA is silent, then Qwest sets the terms. It needs to be reworded so that if the ICA is silent and additional terms are needed negotiation takes place with the CLEC and not unilaterally decided (9/16/09 Comments to minutes received from Integra in CAPS) BY QWEST.

Sandy Stulen-Qwest said in the first paragraph it says that the terms and conditions for LIS can vary by individual ICA. This PCAT is for general information and is not changing anyone’s contract.

Kim Isaacs-Integra said they are hyper sensitive to what Qwest puts in PCATs and that Qwest has attempted to change their ICA using PCAT updates. She said PAETEC and Integra have examples where they have opened (9/16/09 Comments to minutes received from Integra in CAPS) DISPUTES because Qwest has changed the PCAT and assumed that changes the ICA terms.

Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC said when they have older ICAs and things have been silent, they have operated in a certain direction. She said Qwest has now put it in a PCAT and they have disputes that have never been there before. She said Qwest says it’s not in your ICA it is under the PCAT. Julia said they would be more willing to look at this with a caveat. She said that this is in direct conflict with what she deals with daily.

Sandy Stulen-Qwest asked for examples because she was not familiar with this.

Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC said she has been dealing with this for 8 months on VOIP and Collo. She said if Qwest is looking for specifics, she can provide the names of who she has been working with. She said this may be used by Qwest as a general reference but is not how it is used and includes litigation. She echoed Kim’s concern if this is not intended to change terms, they want a statement and if their agreements are silent, this doesn’t replace that and those points need to be negotiated.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said we have noted their concern and will consider their comments.

4. Trunking Subsection - Qwest made changes stating that “…a letter from you is required indicating you will not be ordering one-way trunking in the future,” but Qwest provides no basis in the law or contracts for this requirement. Integra is unable to find these provisions in its contracts. Qwest cannot impose a requirement like this if the ICAs so not require it. Integra is requesting that Qwest retract this statement. Whether Qwest retracts it or not, it does not govern Qwest's relationship with Integra, and Qwest should put no process in place to enforce this concept as to Integra.

Qwest Response – Sandy Stulen The request for a letter is required when a CLEC wants the ability to use the full range of TCICs available. This letter is to ensure Qwest that you will not be ordering one-way trunking, therefore Qwest will not run into duplication or busy TCICs. The TCIC assignments will not be duplicated between the same point codes has been documented in Qwest’s Common Channel Signaling Network Interface Specification technical publication since February 2006. Qwest’s process to require the letter in order to follow the specified requirements documented in the technical publication has been in place for several years. Normally the CLEC was informed of this process when they requested the use of the full range of TCICs. Qwest decided that it made sense to document it in the LIS PCAT for easier reference for all CLECs. This was originally a level 2 change and we agreed to make it a level 4. Kim Isaacs-Integra said Qwest is adding terms and it needs to go through the negotiation process.

Sandy Stulen-Qwest said this is more for process than a term and the PCAT is for our processes.

Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC said Qwest is trying to bind them to those processes and forcing them to take steps that is a term and is constricting what they can do via a process. She said it does change the terms of their agreement.

Diana Rasmussen-Qwest said we want to avoid confusion and the potential rejection of ASRs.

Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC said that Qwest is telling them how to do their jobs and putting limitations on systems that have been set up.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said we can make a process change with a PCAT update.

Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC said a process change doesn’t mean you can dictate new terms.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said this is not intended to dictate new terms.

Bonnie Johnson-Integra echoed Kim’s and Julia’s concern and that changing information in a PCAT are terms of an agreement that are not process (9/16/09 Comments to minutes received from Integra in CAPS) AND that THESE TERMS should be negotiated.

5. Trunk Group Subsection - Qwest changed the language from “you may” to “you will.” Qwest has provided no basis or cited no law that allows Qwest to add this requirement. This also is in conflict with Eschelon’s ICA in MN, OR, UT, and WA, and Integra's ICA in MN, which states: “7.2.2.1.3 When either Party utilizes the other Party’s tandem Switch for the exchange of local traffic, where there is a DS1’s worth of traffic (512 CCS) between the originating Party’s End Office Switch delivered to the other Party’s tandem Switch for delivery to one of the other Party’s End Office Switches, the tandem provider is entitled to provide alternate Interconnection proposals for the other Party’s consideration. Such proposals may include the request to establish a direct end office trunk group to the Party’s End Office Switch.”

Qwest Response-Sandy Stulen Qwest made this change from “you may” to “you will” because Qwest believes this is the standard that Qwest is working towards and many of the CLECs have this language in their interconnection agreements already. Each CLEC’s interconnection agreement dictates the terms of how the trunking requirement for 512 CCS at a tandem is handled. This was originally a level 2 change and we agreed to make it a level 4. We are trying to avoid tandem switch exhaust by offloading the traffic to the Qwest end offices. This is only a benefit to all CLECs and carriers in the long run.

Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC said this is a significant and critical term and needs to stay as “you may” and objects to “will” Julia said she is in negotiations and their ICAs currently have “you may”. Their negotiator said this is how it is in the template and this is 1 more document to show how you do business and not a reflection on how you want to do business. Qwest will drive us back to this even when they are negotiating with terms that say “you may”.

Georganne Weidenbach-Qwest said it would not be a positive thing if there was a situation where everyone’s ICA said “you may” and there was a switch that was exhausted and no one would agree to augment end offices and everyone’s traffic fails. She said this is a positive thing to avoid that kind of exhaust.

Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC said it is a positive thing but will contradict and eliminate the points/language of the SPOP agreement. She said she wouldn’t mind putting something in here that says “you may” if there is an exhaust situation that the parties will negotiate because it is a problem for them too. She said the way this is written they would have huge amounts of network that would be cost prohibitive because they operate with SPOP. She said it would be different if it said they can negotiate or notice so we don’t exhaust. This is a very important term that is in their ICA. Bonnie Johnson-Integra agreed with PAETEC that this is an ICA term. Qwest continuous effort to change their product PCATs to match their negotiation template (9/16/09 Comments to minutes received from Integra in CAPS) WHICH IS QWEST’S VIEW OF THE WORLD is not appropriate. She hoped that it wasn’t Qwest interpretation that because Qwest changed from a level 2 to level 4 that they would agree. Bonnie said that it seemed that Qwest was miffed that we are OBJECTING TO THESE CHANGES because Qwest changed it from level 2 to level 4. BONNIE SAID THAT QWEST MAKING CHANGES WITH A LEVEL 2 CHANGE AND THE CHANGE ITSELF ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.

Sandy Stulen-Qwest said some CLECs have “you may”, some have “you will” and some have even different language. She said we were trying to get to the standard of “you will”. She said the terms and conditions of your ICA will dictate when trunking becomes an issue and when you work with your service manager you will use your contract

Georganne Weidenbach-Qwest said that we understood their position and will take under consideration.

Bonnie Johnson-Integra said part of the problem and when you run into an issue, is when you start putting contract terms in a PCAT vs. process.

Georgeanne Weidenbach-Qwest said we want to drive to some consistency.

Bonnie Johnson-Integra didn’t disagree but the place to do that is in contract negotiations.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said the next question about charges is outside of CMP.

6. Miscellaneous Charges section is not accurate. Some ICAs contain rates for the additional cooperative acceptance testing, automatic scheduled testing – the rates are not always dictated by the tariff.

Qwest Response-Sandy Stulen Miscellaneous charges in the LIS PCAT are only addressing the miscellaneous charges that are used in regard to LIS. They are all billed out of the Qwest State Switched Access tariffs. The exhibit A’s clarify that. The other miscellaneous charges where rates are listed in Exhibit A are associated with another section of the interconnection agreement, Unbundled Network Elements.

Doug Denney-Integra said Qwest referred to additional charges other than the 3 specific miscellaneous charges that are listed in the contract. He said there have been disputes whether all of the references should reference that tariff. He said since they are in Exhibit A that dictates how they are going to apply. He said there is no reason to put a statement that references the tariff when that isn’t always the case

Sandy Stulen-Qwest said that is referenced in 5.4.3 in the Qwest state access tariff and could possibly change the wording. It is outside of the scope of the PCAT. She said that Qwest would go to the Exhibit A first anyway where it would be referenced to go to the Qwest state access tariff.

Doug Denney-Integra said that would be accurate.

7. Application Subsection the Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG) - Integra objects to the language Qwest added. The requirements regarding this subject are covered and governed in the ICAs. Integra is requesting that Qwest retract this statement. Whether Qwest retracts it or not, it does not govern Qwest's relationship with Integra, and Qwest should put no process in place to enforce this concept as to Integra.

Qwest Response-Sandy Stulen The Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG) is the industry guideline for traffic routing. Qwest’s position is that it is entitled to route calls consistent with the LERG. So, Qwest believes it necessary to address it in the LIS PCAT. Each CLEC’s interconnection agreement includes terms of how that CLEC and Qwest will utilize the LERG. This was originally a level 2 change and we agreed to make it a level 4.

Bonnie Johnson-Integra said (9/176/09 Comments to minutes received from Integra in CAPS) AS LONG AS QWEST CONTINUES TO PUT ICA terms and conditions in a PCAT will be an issue. She said they identified this concern upfront.

Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC said Qwest doesn’t list all offices that subtend a tandem in the LERG and based on this language they have to do that.

Todd Rodgers-Qwest asked if this was in reference to EOWLTF’s

Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC said yes.

Todd Rodgers-Qwest said we don’t because we can’t and they could not do this if they wanted to.

Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC said Rox had questions concerning this language. She said for whatever reason she stopped getting the Qwest mailouts on 9/17 and was reassigned a week ago and hasn’t been privy to any notices.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said the problem was resolved because Julia’s mailbox was maxed out. She did not want to leave the impression that Qwest randomly removed PAETEC from the mailout process. Susan said once we have so many e-mails and mailouts bounced back we have to assume the e-mail address is no longer valid.

Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC said her mailbox was not full and said a number of other people were knocked off .She said the problem with the language is that the terms had changed and did limit what was there because they can’t get to those subtending end offices for routing options. Those options are only available to Qwest

Todd Rodgers-Qwest apologized that PAETEC would read into it that way. He reiterated the LERG doesn’t allow this for ourselves or PAETEC and is the same standard for everyone. It’s technically not feasible.

Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC said she will get with Rox to determine how the language being proposed would create an opportunity for Qwest and not for them and will provide feedback.

8. Application Subsection LIS to AT Switch(es) Subsection. The change to add “SPOP” is vague and thus preclude an effective comment opportunity.

Qwest Response-Sandy Stulen Qwest originally had that “you may connect to Qwest’s access tandem for termination of Exchange Service (EAS/Local) and /or IntraLATA LEC Toll calls to all end offices subtending that access tandem in the LATA.” Qwest is clarifying that this is used when a CLEC orders SPOP. This has always been the case and the CLECs are required to have SPOP language in their interconnection agreement to do this, but thought it was best to explain this better in the LIS PCAT. This was originally a level 2 change and we agreed to make it a level 4.

Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC asked if the following is a new sentence: In addition, intraLATA LEC Toll and JPSA calls to all EOs subtending an AT within a LATA may be delivered to that access tandem.

Sandy Stulen-Qwest said it was and Qwest is clarifying that this is used when a CLEC orders SPOP

Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC said that she would need to research this because it has a big impact to them. She will get specifics on what the issues are on the terms vs. the detail and the problem with changing the terms and if the process dictates the terms.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said we have noted their concern and would be sending out a delayed response. She asked if PAETEC could provide feedback in 10 days.

Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC said that she should be able to provide feedback by September 18th.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said Qwest will review the responses and proceed accordingly.

8/19/09 ProdProc CMP Meeting

Susan Lorence-Qwest said the level 4 announced on 8/11/09 with an effective date of 9/25/09.

7/15/09 ProdProc CMP Meeting

Mark Coyne-Qwest said the level 2s have been implemented and the level 4 changes have been discussed in adhoc meetings. He said the level 4 notifications will go out with the redline changes.

6/17/09 ProdProc CMP Meeting

Sandy Stulen-Qwest said that Qwest is submitting Level 4 LIS PCAT changes as a result of changes that were originally submitted as a Level 2. She said that we may be adding additional items in the process of reviewing the changes. She said that the original Level 2 changes that will now be a Level 4 are: LIS Mid Span Meet POI Subsection, Trunking Subsection, process relating to the (LERG) and the LIS to AT Switch Subsection, (SPOP). Sandy said that will be looking at some other changes to determine if they should be a level 3 or 4. Bonnie Johnson-Integra asked if Qwest was planning to let the level 2s expire before Qwest submits the Level 4 changes so there won’t be overlapping notices. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that we want to close out the level 2’s that we received approval to move forward on from the March meeting. Susan said that we will get those submitted and implemented. Susan said that a final notice will go out to communicate what is and isn’t going forward and then we will start addressing the level 4s. Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that would be great to let the level 2’s work their course and then submit the level 4’s.