Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC062602-2 Detail

Description Of Change

While some of the rejects proved out that there were no reusable UNE DS0 circuits, the reject reasons did not clearly state the true circumstances. For example one reject stated “no working circuits found”. When further researched, it was found that there were indeed working circuits there but the only working circuits for the End User were DS1s.

Allegiance would also like to collaboratively work with Qwest and other CLECs to establish clear, definitive reject reasons for CLEC to CLEC reuse of facilities orders to insure that all resources available to the SDCs have been utilized to find working circuits. When Allegiance submits CLEC to CLEC reuse of facilities orders, we already have obtained a CSR from the CLEC so we know the numbers we are porting are indeed working on some kind of circuit. These reject reasons should be clear enough to insure the CLEC that there are indeed no working UNE DS0 circuits to reuse. As stated above some of the orders rejected did indeed have available working UNE DSO circuits that could be reused. Allegiance currently does not have confidence that the SDC’s reject reasons are valid and their training is adequate to locate reusable UNE DS0 circuits. In many instances we are having to drop new loops in order to take the customer when there are reusable loops available. Installing new loops is more expensive, more time consuming for the cut over, and there is the risk the orders will be held for lack of facilities. The ability to “reuse” facilities is less expensive, the cut over process is less time consuming, and the end user has less down time.

Expected Deliverable:

Clear, definitive reject reasons that the CLECs can rely on that all resources were utilized to “find” working UNE DS0 circuits for CLEC to CLEC reuse of facilities orders.

Project Meetings

Qwest requested that Allegiance research to determine if Allegiance personnel is receiving the comments that were agreed to. Attendees agreed that this could be closed off line if Allegince (Mendoza) agreed.

09/18/02 September CMP Meeting The improved comments associated with rejects on CLEC to CLEC Reuse of Facilities were implemented on August 23. The response indicated it was implemented on August 22. Qwest will update the status history to reflect the actual date. Allegiance (Wicks) indicated they were unaware that the process was underway, Terry will check with his people to find out. Eschelon (Johnson) indicated they had encountered a couple of problems with the process, Russ worked through these issues for them. This CR will remain in “CLEC Test” until the October meeting when it is anticipated that the CR will be updated to "Completed."

- 08/21/02 - August CMP Meeting Minutes Qwest (Urevig) reviewed the three scenarios and comments that are associated with the reject reasons. Allegiance (Wicks) inquired about the second scenarios comments. Are they intended to be two separate or one comment? Qwest indicated that they are two distinct comments. This CR was moved to "CLEC Test".

"Wicks, Terry" , Kathleen Thomte/Mass/USWEST/US@USWEST cc: Cheri Hurless/GROUPWARE/USWEST/US@USWEST

Subject: CR

I wanted to get back to you with the different type of comments we are looking at placing on the rejected CLEC to CLEC migrations request, during our last meeting we determined there were 4 different types of rejects which would require different comment.

1. Wrong type of circuit being requested does not match what was requested by CLEC. 2. Multiple circuits at customer location not all circuits being migrated. 3. No circuits found for migration 4. CLEC to CLEC reuse of facility show detail of which CLEC migration is from (This is probably going to be included in the first scenario).

These are the scenarios and the comments that will reject will contain, I combined the 2 and 3

1. When Qwest finds the circuit at the requested address is NOT the same type of circuit to which the migrate has been requested, the comment remark associated with this will read: Circuits at request address do not match the type of circuit indicated on the LSR for migration. The circuits found are (ex. LX-N or AD--, HCE-, etc)

2. Multiple circuits are found at the requested address, if the number of circuits at the address do NOT match the number of migrations indicated on the LSR. It is very important that the CLEC indicate who the OLSP (old local service provider) is when requesting migration because this will aid in determining whether multiple circuits are really an issue. Qwest will provide these comment remarks for the reject: Multiple circuits have been identified at request address, circuits are currently not those of the indicated OLSP or Multiple circuit have been identified for the OSLP but do not match the number of loops requested for migration.

3. Qwest has searched all available records to identify circuits at end user address, but was NOT able to identify circuit for migration. Qwest will review all data on LSR to obtain circuits to be migrated. Additional data that is recommended to aid in the migration request are: the TN that is being ported to the NLSP’s (new local service provider) switch and the name of the OLSP. If Qwest can NOT find the circuits, the following comment remarks will be provided on the reject: Qwest has search for circuits at the requested address, using the end user name, address, OLSP, and TN provided. Qwest can not find circuits please verify data on LSR for accuracy.

If these cover additional comments or consistent comments will help the CLEC determine the reason for the reject I will place these into the Job aid for Migration then cover this with the SDC's, coaches, SME's and SDC to make sure everyone has the same understanding.

If you have any comments or concerns maybe we can talk or discuss this at the next CMP meeting.

August 12, 2002

Terry Wicks Allegiance Russ Urevig Qwest Kit Thomte Qwest

Notes from follow up meeting: PC062602-2 Rejects on CLEC to CLEC Reuse of Facilities order for no Circuit Ids found. Qwest agreed to hold follow up meeting to collaborate with Allegiance regarding comments associated with reject reasons.

The team agreed that Russ would put together proposed comments for Terry to review. The group also agreed to talk through on the call what the 3-4 scenarios are that exist that could drive the comments.

1. Wrong type of circuit being requested does not match what was requested by CLEC. 2. Multiple circuits at customer location not all circuits being migrated. 3. No circuits found for migration 4. CLEC to CLEC reuse of facility show detail of which CLEC migration is from (This is probably going to be included in the first scenario).

The team agreed that Russ would put together scenarios and new comments for Terrys review.

07/17/02 - July CMP Meeting Minutes: Allegiance (Wicks) reviewed the CR and indicated that his representatives were not using the prescribed process. When analyzed he discovered that the reject reasons did not really make sense. Through discussions with Qwest it appeared that our SDC need access to a special database. Qwest and Allegiance will review the reject reasons to help clarify them. Qwest will provide an initial response prior to the August meeting. This CR will carry a “Clarification” status

Date: July 3, 2002 Place: 1005 17th St Room 1770-C Call-In No.: 877 550-8686 PC062602-2 CR No.:PC062602-2 CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

Attendees Name/Company: Terry Wicks Allegiance Russ Urevig Qwest Debbie Osborne Qwest Neil Houston Qwest Kit Thomte Qwest

Meeting Agenda: Action 1.0 Introduction of Attendees See list above

2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change Terry Wicks reviewed the CR with the SME from Qwest. Process to find working circuits needs to be re designed and reviewed with personnel. Update reject reasons to be clearer specify scenarios that relate to the reject so the SDC can provide better information to the CLECs.

2.1 Terry believes that a collaborative process should be used to allow input from Allegiance and other CLECs in the development of the error messages. We agreed that we could discuss at the CMP meeting and determine the level of interest. 2.2 Terry presented an example that the SMEs reviewed to ensure a level of understanding for the problem. 2.3 Qwest inquired about what changed in May 2002 that seemed to impact thee errors. Allegiance clarified that was when they discovered that the process was not being used.

3.0Confirm Areas & Products impacted 3.1CLEC to CLEC migrations Qwest wanted to clarify that this was a specific issue associated with one product (UNE). And not a global issue. Allegiance indicated it was not global. Qwest inquired about what changed in May 2002 that seemed to impact thee errors. Allegiance clarified that was when they discovered that the process was not being used. 4.0Confirm Right Personnel Involved 4.1Russ Urevig will have the lead on this CR. Neil will stay involved as required.

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation 5.1Ensure that Qwest personnel understand the process and are trained. Improve the reject remarks to be more specific to scenarios thus providing the CLECs a better idea of the problem.

6.0Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests 6.1 None apply

7.0 Establish Action Plan 7.1 No systems are impacted the time frame would be dependent on the participation of the CLEC in the meeting and the timing of updating the documentation. 7.2

CenturyLink Response

Terry Wicks, LEC Manger Allegiance Telecom, Inc

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR # PC062602-2 Rejects on CLEC to CLEC Reuse of Facilities orders for no circuit IDs found

This is in response to the request from Allegiance where as Allegiance would like to collaboratively work with Qwest to establish clear, definitive reject comment reasons for CLEC to CLEC reuse of facilities orders to insure that all resources available to the SDCs have been utilized to find working circuits.

After meeting with Terry Wicks several times to discuss the application of the comment remarks that are associated with the reject for CLEC to CLEC migration, we have clarified the comments and have modified the comments as set forth below to address the following scenarios.

1. When Qwest finds the circuit at the requested address is NOT the same type of circuit to which the migrate has been requested, the comment remark associated with this will read: Circuits at request address do not match the type of circuit indicated on the LSR for migration. The circuits found are (ex. LX-N or AD--, HCE-, etc)

2. Multiple circuits are found at the requested address, if the number of circuits at the address do NOT match the number of migrations indicated on the LSR. It is very important that the CLEC indicate who the OLSP (old local service provider) is when requesting migration because this will aid in determining whether multiple circuits are really an issue. Qwest will provide these comment remarks for the reject: Multiple circuits have been identified at request address, circuits are currently not those of the indicated OLSP or Multiple circuit have been identified for the OSLP but do not match the number of loops requested for migration.

3. Qwest has searched all available records to identify circuits at end user address, but was NOT able to identify circuit for migration. Qwest will review all data on LSR to obtain circuits to be migrated. Additional data that is recommended to aid in the migration request are: the TN that is being ported to the NLSP’s (new local service provider) switch and the name of the OLSP. If Qwest can NOT find the circuits, the following comment remarks will be provided on the reject: Qwest has search for circuits at the requested address, using the end user name, address, OLSP, and TN provided. Qwest can not find circuits please verify data on LSR for accuracy.

A review of the internal documentation for Qwest has been completed and several changes have been made to streamline the search for unbundled loop circuits. The completed changes and notification to the Wholesale Service Delivery centers will be complete by August 22. The change notifications will be distributed with an MCC, the details of the MCC are the TOPIC is Standardized Comments for CLEC to CLEC Migration Rejects, the SUBJECT is Unbundled Loop, the USER GROUPS AFFECTED are Wholesale. A joint review meeting with the Team Leads, Coaches and SMEs (subject matter experts) will also be held to review the changes and clarify the importance of this process. We have accepted the request to modify the comment remarks on the rejected migration, so that the comments are more standard for the problem encountered. If the Qwest deviates from the standard comments it will be only to provide additional information about that reject.

Sincerely,

Russell Urevig Sr Process Analyst Wholesale Service Delivery