Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC060514-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date: ASAP

Project Meetings

10/15/14 Product/Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said the CenturyLink SME team investigated the five PONs from Level 3 that were examples of the reason this CR was submitted. That information was sent to Matt Mereau - Level 3 in early September. Matt requested a call to better understand the information. On September 18, a call was held with Service Management and the SME team to review each PON. Matt said he would look for additional PONs but also said the conditions surrounding this CR do not appear to be as significant as originally thought. Mark said a draft response was sent to Matt that denies this CR as being economically not feasible due to low volume. Mark relayed CenturyLink also implemented steps to insure process adherence as indicated in the draft CenturyLink response included in the package. CenturyLink will follow-up with Matt to see if there are any questions about the denial.

9/17/14 Product/Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said this CR was submitted by Level 3 and was presented in the August monthly meeting. The Clarification call had been held on June 12. The CenturyLink SME team investigated the five PONs from Level 3 where this scenario was thought to be a problem. CenturyLink sent an email to Matt Mereau – Level 3of the specifics of the PON investigation. Follow-up with Matt resulted in a request to meet with the CenturyLink Service Manager and the SME team on 9/18/14 to review the specific situation of each PON. In the August monthly CMP call, Matt said he thought he had another PON occurrence which is still pending. Mark said depending on the result of the SME team and Service management team discussion, we may have a process clarification to make in the CenturyLink documentation.

8/20/14 Product/Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink introduced the CR that was submitted by Level 3 and said the Clarification call had been held on June 12.

Matt Mereau – Level 3 then presented the CR. Matt said that at times during CenturyLink Flow through, the incorrect CLLI may get assigned which then prevents their customers from access where the circuit is dropped. When that happens, the CenturyLink resolution is for a disconnect and new connect to be submitted causing a delay in delivery to the end user when the timeline starts over again. Matt said he is asking for a Change order process to shorten the delivery time. He said volume is not high but the current process impacts customer satisfaction.

Tracy Strombotne – CenturyLink asked what the volume of this is.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said that based on the Clarification call, it was shared the volume was not high. Mark said the SME team investigated five examples of PONs that MM submitted. Mark said the SME team is still investigating these but it appears three of the five examples were related to inside wiring and the other two were related to CenturyLink installing to a dedicated vs. a shared site. For those related to inside wire, a PCAT update may be required or an internal process update. The SME team will be responding to Level 3 on the specifics of these soon. A draft CR response should be available for the September meeting.

Matt Mereau – Level 3 said he agrees the volume is relative low but he had another one that came to his attention. Matt said he would submit the PON to the CMPCR mailbox for further investigation by CenturyLink.

Kim Isaacs – Integra said if an error has been made by CenturyLink, it was not right for CenturyLink to apply a standard interval to the corrective orders and follow a normal flow.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said CenturyLink would take that into account.

7/16/14 Product/Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink asked if anyone from Level 3 had joined the call. This CR is a carryover from the June CMP meeting. The Clarification call was held on June 12. The CenturyLink SME team is investigating five examples of the PONs where this has been a problem. The CR will hopefully be presented in the August CMP meeting.

6/18/14 Product/Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said this was a new CR from Level 3 but the originator Matt Mereau was not able to be on the call today so the CR will be officially presented in the July CMP meeting. Mark said the Clarification call was held on June 12 and that during the call, CenturyLink requested information as to frequently this occurred and requested examples. The CR originator said he thought he had about six or so occurrences of this situation since the first of the year and would send those PONs. Mark said CenturyLink had received five PONS and that the CenturyLink SME team was reviewing the service requests.

6/12/14 CMP Clarification Meeting Attendees: Matt Mereau – Level 3 Laurie Roberson – Integra Paul Schlachter – CenturyLink Pat Bratetic – CenturyLink Mark Coyne – CenturyLink John Hansen – CenturyLink Susan Lorence – CenturyLink

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink opened the call and recapped the purpose of the clarification call. She relayed that the CR had originally been requested as an Exception CR but that after discussion with Matt Mereau – Level 3 as to what that meant per CMP, it was determined that it would follow the normal CMP CR process.

Matt Mereau – Level 3 then presented the new CR. Matt said occasionally Level 3 receives an escalation where the incorrect CLLI or Switch is assigned to the order and that it is not determined until the service is delivered to their customer. It then becomes an escalation to try to get the situation quickly resolved. The current process requires a disconnect and a new install order to resolve. Matt said he was told by his CenturyLink Service Manager Scott Ellefson that the problem is because the order follows a flow through process and that when the switch is assigned, it is not known that the switch assigned could not be accessed until the technician arrives. Matt asked if CenturyLink has seen this situation before.

Paul Schlachter – CenturyLink said CenturyLink is aware of the situation and that was a good description.

Matt Mereau – Level 3 said he is hoping to establish a process to correct the problem more quickly.

Paul Schlachter – CenturyLink asked whether Level 3 knew the volume of occurrences and could provide some examples.

Matt Mereau – Level 3 said he could provide examples. The current volume is not huge. Matt said there may have been 6 in the last year but it causes the Level 3 customers to have a bad experience which needs to change.

Paul Schlachter – CenturyLink asked if Level 3 is testing during “test and turn up” or whether Level 3 is waiting until equipment is placed.

Matt Mereau – Level 3 said they are waiting until the vendor completes the installation and cannot get to the location.

Paul Schlachter – CenturyLink said that sounds like it might be a different scenario in that the order was assigned to a dedicated closet.

Matt Mereau – Level 3 said he is getting his information from Scott Ellefson and that maybe he is getting the scenarios mixed up. He said the issue is that Level 3 cannot get to equipment because it is in a lock down closet for another customer.

Paul Schlachter – CenturyLink said that was why the examples will be good to figure out the scenario(s).

Matt Mereau – Level 3 said he can provide the examples and asked if PONs are required.

Paul Schlachter – CenturyLink said yes and to send them to the CMPCR mailbox.

Laurie Roberson – Integra asked if the desired switch that Level 3 wants is on the original order.

Matt Mereau – Level 3 said he thinks it is assigned by CenturyLink flow through.

Paul Schlachter – CenturyLink said the customer provides the actual address and a flow through CLLI. He has seen a couple instances where there is only one device in a location and it is not that the CLLI is incorrect but it cannot be connected to, like a locked closet.

Laurie Roberson – Integra asked what happens if a new order is written, why does the problem not reoccur.

Paul Schlachter – CenturyLink he needs to see the examples to see what the situation is, if the device was placed at wrong location, or if customer was expecting a certain floor and CenturyLink used an existing device rather than place a new device.

Laurie Roberson – Integra said if the order has a specific suite, CenturyLink may use a device that does not serve the suite.

Matt Mereau – Level 3 said like a common room.

Paul Schlachter – CenturyLink said that was correct, CenturyLink would connect to the demarc point. If inside wire was required to connect, it is up to the technician to determine depending on the distance.

Laurie Roberson – Integra asked if a CenturyLink tech is dispatched on these, how does a CenturyLink tech get access and install to a private location not owned by that customer.

Paul Schlachter – CenturyLink said that was why he needed to see the examples to see the scenario and to figure out why a disconnect and install was said to be the solution.

Laurie Roberson – Integra said she knows Ethernet is more complicated but if this happens on DS0, it goes to Repair to correct. She said a disconnect/install seems harsh.

Paul Schlachter – CenturyLink said from the CR Description, it seemed the situation was an incorrect CLLI but it sounds like it may be an incorrect device.

Matt Mereau – Level 3 said he understood the problem was caused because of flow through based on the address and that a site survey does not occur prior because the address implies the building is lit.

Paul Schlachter – CenturyLink said that was correct. Based on the address and what is in the building, CenturyLink tries to use an existing CLLI to go flow through so AQCB is not used to build new.

Matt Mereau – Level 3 said it would take a couple days to identify some PONs and he would try to provide a variety but he felt the discussion summed up the situation. He said you can imagine what happens with customer satisfaction when a customer’s interval goes from 30 or 60 days to 120.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink said the SME team will look at the examples and that we may need to reconvene to review options – possibly other than the disconnect/reconnect identified on the CR.

Matt Mereau – Level 3 said that sounds like a good plan.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink reviewed the next steps: the examples would be provided to the CMP CR mailbox, the CR would be presented by Matt at the monthly CMP meeting on Wednesday, June 18, 2014 at 9 AM MT, participating CLECs would have the opportunity to ask questions, and then the SME team will evaluate the examples to determine next steps. Susan said a CR can be accepted or denied based on Section 5.3 of the CMP document. She said she would post the meeting minutes to the Wholesale calendar and any updates that may be required can be sent back to the CMPCR mailbox. Susan asked if there were any other questions. There were none.

The clarification call concluded at 2:25 PM MT.

CenturyLink Response

Matt Mereau – Level 3

This letter is in response to Level 3 Change Request PC060514-1, entitled “CLLI Change Order Process Requested”.

CR Description: Today if an Ethernet order were to follow a flow through order process with CenturyLink and an incorrect CLLI or Switch were assigned where a customer could not access, by current process CenturyLink requires Level 3 to submit a new Install/Disco order to get the order assigned to a new switch. Ideally we should not have to submit any new orders as this is essential a CenturyLink mistake. In summary, if CenturyLink is not able to provide a quick resolution where they assign incorrect CLLI’s, we would at minimal like to be able to submit a change order instead of install/disco with standard sla. The requested implementation date for this functionality is as soon as possible. History: This Change Request was received on June 5, 2014. A Clarification call was held on June 12, 2014 with Level 3, Integra and CenturyLink representatives present. During the Clarification call, Matt Mereau, Level 3, agreed to provide some examples of the order scenario for CenturyLink SMEs to investigate. Matt provided five PONs on June 13, 2014.

Due to scheduling conflicts, the CR was not presented by Matt Mereau, Level 3, until the August 20, 2014 monthly Product Process CMP meeting.

On September 4, 2014, an email was sent to Level 3 that provided the details of the investigation of the five PONs by the CenturyLink SME team. Further follow-up with Level 3 resulted in the establishment of a call between Level 3 and CenturyLink SMEs and Service Management to review the information. That call occurred on September 18, 2014. Following the call, Matt Mereau, Level 3, planned to get with his Provisioning team and also do some research to see if there were other PONs that were this scenario. The plan was to send that data to CenturyLink by October 6. No additional data is available at this time.

CenturyLink Response: As a result of the CenturyLink investigation of the five Level 3 PONs associated with this CR and discussion with Level 3 on the September 18, 2014 call that included the CenturyLink SME team and Service Management, Level 3 identified that the conditions surrounding this CR do not appear to be as significant as originally thought. The CenturyLink SME team had identified that four of the five PONs investigated were related to device issues and only one of those four PONs resulted in the need to issue a disconnect and new connect to ensure both the CenturyLink and the customer inventories were kept in sync. The remaining PON was waiting on a related ASR. CenturyLink relayed that, as always, any CenturyLink inventory issues are being addressed as they come to light.

Based on the low volume of this scenario and the estimated very high cost to implement a technical solution to allow a change order to correct an inventory problem instead of requiring a disconnect and install order, CenturyLink is denying this CR due to being economically not feasible.

To ensure process adherence in the CenturyLink Centers on how to handle this order scenario, as of September 2014, the CenturyLink internal process for correcting a device assignment was clarified and reviewed with the Center personnel. For those order scenarios that require a disconnect/add, CenturyLink relayed that no one-time charges will be accessed to the customer, termination liability will not be impacted and an expedited Due Date (DD) can be requested by the customer at no charge.

Sincerely,

Susan Lorence CenturyLink Wholesale CR Project Manager