Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC063005-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Project Meetings

Thanks Lynn. Please note in the CR the following on behalf of Covad:

Qwest’s response does not provide sufficient information to question the dollars assessed that resulted in the denial of this CR. Qwest houses the information requested and it is not required to access the Inventory Systems to extract and send to the billing systems which contains this information.

Thanks,

Liz

--Original Message-- From: Stecklein, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.Stecklein@qwest.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 9:55 AM To: Balvin, Elizabeth Cc: Hankins, Lynn Subject: RE: PC060105-01 Update Lines in Service Report

Liz,

I have attached a revision of the denial on PC060105-01 Update Lines in Service Report that includes a breakdown of the estimated costs. Let me know if you have further questions.

Thanks,

Lynn Stecklein Qwest Wholesale CRPM 303 382-5770

--Original Message-- From: Balvin, Elizabeth [mailto:ebalvin@covad.com] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 1:31 PM To: Stecklein, Lynn Subject: RE: PC060105-01 Update Lines in Service Report

Lynn,

Covad requests a breakdown of the estimated costs = $726, 730.

Thanks,

Liz

--Original Message-- From: Stecklein, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.Stecklein@qwest.com] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 10:31 AM To: Balvin, Elizabeth Subject: RE: PC060105-01 Update Lines in Service Report

Hi Liz,

This is in response to your e-mail below regarding PC060105-1 Update Lines in Service Report. We did research your request asking Qwest to merge the data from two systems – 1 Billing and 1 Lines in Service. The second denial that was sent to you (attached) covers the cost for doing that merge. In order to do the merging correctly, Qwest would have to invest in hardware and development time to create the rules associated with the merge and which data is used, etc. As stated in the denial – ‘It is possible for Qwest to combine the two systems so that the billing information requested is included in the Lines In Service Report, however the cost to complete the systems work to do this merge and implement business rules for the merging process would be $726, 730. Therefore, Qwest denies this CR as being economically infeasible’

Let me know if you have additional questions or concerns.

Thanks,

Lynn Stecklein Qwest Wholesale CRPM

303 382-5770

--Original Message-- From: Balvin, Elizabeth [mailto:ebalvin@covad.com] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 4:22 PM To: Stecklein, Lynn Subject: RE: PC060105-01 Update Lines in Service Report

Lynn,

I believe Qwest mis-understood my “clarifying” request…as identified in the updated response:

Qwest’s Lines in Service report was built as a response to a CMP request and currently is created from data contained in Qwest’s Network back-end systems, which inventory the circuits and lines by the circuit ID/working telephone number. These systems are not used for billing or account maintenance; rather, they are used for inventory and trouble reporting only. For this reason, the source system does not contain the SBN or billing address, nor are the fields available to contain this information. The billing systems, which contain this information, don’t communicate with the inventory and trouble reporting systems.

I understood that the back-end systems used to generate the “lines in service” report did not house the SBN or billing address but the fact is that Qwest does “house” this information. Thus, I continue to request that the “existing” information be extracted “from whatever source” and provided for on the “Line In Service Report”. The original request did not ask that the back-end systems be expanded to house this information, thus I don’t believe an updated request is needed.

Thanks,

Liz

--Original Message-- From: Stecklein, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.Stecklein@qwest.com] Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 11:54 AM To: Balvin, Elizabeth Subject: PC060105-01 Update Lines in Service Report

Hi Liz,

This is a follow up to the discussion we had in the August CMP Meeting regarding the denial on PC060105-01 Update Lines in Service Report. (See Meeting Minutes below) We have determined that the cost to combine the two systems so that the billing information you are requesting is included in the Lines in Service Report is economically not feasible. The denial attached has been revised to reflect the new project description and costs. Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Lynn Stecklein Qwest Wholesale CRPM 303 382-5770

8/17/05 CMP Meeting

PC060105-1 Update Lines In Service Report

Liz Balvin – Covad stated that she had questions regarding the denial. She said that Qwest refers to backend systems to generate the reports and wants to understand what the system has. Liz said that she wants the SBN at a minimum and would like a call to further discuss.

Laura McGhghy – Qwest stated that the data we are currently providing is existing data. {Comment received from Eschelon: from the MR-8 report]. She said that she was not sure what other systems would be needed for additional data and what that level of effort would be. [Comment received from Eschelon: Laura said they don’t have the fields in LMOS and TIRKS.]

Liz Balvin – Covad said that they would like to expand the report. She said that the report is an extract from LMOS and Tirks [Comment received from Eschelon: and she did not ask that Qwest get the data from those systems.] Liz said that she needs to expand the line and service report to create fields there and extract data elsewhere.

Laura McGhghy – Qwest said that she would take back to determine if possible.

Liz Balvin – Covad asked if the $500K to expand was because of LMOS and Tirks.

Laura McGhghy – Qwest said yes.

Liz Balvin – Covad said that Qwest already has the information and that they are just asking for the information on the report. [Comment received from Eschelon: Liz said wherever Qwest extracts the data from works for her.]

Laura McGhghy – Qwest said that we will look at that possibility.

Jill Martain – Qwest stated that we will talk offline with Covad.

10/19/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jim Recker/Qwest stated that after multiple internal and external meetings, Qwest has determined that to implement this request would require a very manual intensive process. He said that this process would require that the status be checked multiple times and that we were unable to find a way to mechanize that process. Jim said that input was requested from other CLECs regarding this request. He said that Eschelon provided input on specific products. He said that based on the changes required for this request, Qwest is denying this CR because there is no demonstrable benefit to Qwest. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that when Eschelon looked at this request they determined that they had no problem with the all or nothing regarding (Comments to minutes received from Eschelon 10/27/05) the specific products and request types McLeod listed in the CR. Bonnie also thanked Qwest for saying that there was no demonstrable benefit to only Qwest because Qwest cannot determine what business benefit a CR has for a CLEC.

9/21/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jim Recker/Qwest stated that this CR is requesting that Qwest provide the option to CLECs to bypass the process of calling Qwest back following the completion of an all day basic cut. Jim stated that Qwest did research the feasibility of making this optional. Jim said that we have determined that we would not be able to make this as an option due to the fact that we would not know who would call and who would not. He said that this would have to be done for all CLECs. He said that we continue to evaluate this CR to determine the feasibility of other options. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if this is applicable on basic installs only. Jim Recker/Qwest said yes, for basic cuts. Jim asked if the CLECs wanted Qwest to move forward with this request. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that she would like to take this back and determine if (Comment to minutes received from Eschelon 9/30/05) moving forward with this request would have a negative impact to Eschelon since this would not be optional. Bonnie said Eschelon had not reviewed internally because they thought this could be optional. Bob Eggert/SBC asked if this was for basic services and not special access. Jim Recker/Qwest said that this was applicable if LX-- was on the order. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this applied to 2 wire, 4 wire UBL. Jill Martain /Qwest asked if the CLECs had comments on whether they want to have Qwest pursue this request to send their comments to the CMP mailbox. Jim Recker/Qwest stated that we would provide a readout in the October meeting

8/17/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jim Recker - Qwest stated that Qwest has been meeting internally to discuss this request and that we are in the evaluation stage. [Comment received from Eschelon: Jim said that Qwest has not identified all of the impacts.] Jim said that the status of this CR will move to be Evaluation.

8/3/05 E-mail from McLeod

Thanks for your help Lynn!!!

--Original Message-- From: Stecklein, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.Stecklein@qwest.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 1:22 PM To: Schug, Adam C. Subject: RE: CR = PC063005-1

Hi Adam,

I am including (see below) the meeting minutes from the July CMP Meeting where this CR was discussed. In that meeting, the CR moved to a presented status. Qwest is currently reviewing this request to determine options, feasibility, etc. and will provide a response either in the August or September CMP Meeting. Let me know if you have further questions.

Thanks,

Lynn Stecklein

Qwest Wholesale CRPM

303 382-5770

--Original Message-- From: Schug, Adam C. [mailto:Adam.Schug@mcleodusa.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 12:13 PM To: Stecklein, Lynn Subject: CR = PC063005-1

Lynn, I was wondering where we are at with the above change request and what happens next. Can you please provide me with an update.

Thanks

Adam C. Schug McLeodUSA Star Quality Certified Center of Excellence Customer Fulfillment Technical Team Lead Mountain & Central Region (319) 790-6332

7/20/05 Product/Process Meeting

Michelle Sprague - Mcleod reviewed the description of this CR. She said that McLeod would like Qwest to provide the option to CLECs to bypass the process of calling Qwest back following the completion of an all day basic cut. She said that in today’s process, Qwest contacts the CLEC to notify them that the cut is complete, the CLEC then completes their testing and verification, the CLEC then contacts Qwest back to let them know that the cut is accepted. Michelle said that in the future process, they would like Qwest to automatically assume the cut is accepted if the CLEC does not contact them back within 2 hours. Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon asked if this would include basic or coordinated cuts. Michelle Sprague - McLeod said that this request would not include new loops (Comments to minutes from Eschelon 7/27/05) and coordinated cuts because those are managed but does include basic conversions. She said that on the CR she requested a two hour time frame but was open to changing the timeframe if two hours wouldn’t work. Jeff Sonnier - Sprint asked if there was a possibility that Qwest could complete the circuit and then later find out the circuit didn’t complete and that there is a problem. Michelle Sprague - Mcleod said that if the CLECs are doing adequate testing this is unlikely. Jeff Sonnier - Sprint asked what the proposed suggested interval. Michelle Sprague - Mcleod said that they are suggesting 90 minutes because 2 hours may be too long. Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon said that there must be a standard interval now. She said that if Qwest doesn’t get a call it goes into a jeopardy status. Bonnie asked if Qwest has researched the optional aspect of this change. (Comments to minutes from Eschelon 7/27/05) Qwest said that they had not but did discuss it on the clarification call. Liz Balvin - Covad said that they may want McLeod to revise the CR to include specifications on these two items. Jill Martain - Qwest stated that this CR will move to a presented status.

7/12/05 Clarification Meeting

Attendees: Michelle Sprague - Mcleod, Steph Prull - Eschelon, Kim Isaacs - Eschelon, Ev Montez - Qwest, Kathy Ocken - Qwest, Deb Smith - Qwest, Lori Langston - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Review Descripion of Change

Lynn Stecklein - Qwest reviewed the description of change. McLeod would like Qwest to provide the option to CLECs to bypass the process of calling Qwest back following the completion of an all day basic cut. In today’s process, Qwest contacts the CLEC to notify them that the cut is complete, the CLEC then completes their testing and verification, the CLEC then contacts Qwest back to let them know that the cut is accepted. Future process, we would like Qwest to automatically assume the cut is accepted if the CLEC does not contact them back within 2 hours.

Discussion: Michelle Sprague - Mcleod stated that they are open to any timeframe and said that they started with the 2 hour timeframe as an example. She said that Mcleod has been working with the Qwest Account Team and they suggested that Mcleod submit a CMP CR. She said that they are submitting a large volume of UNE-P to UNE-L orders and by eliminating the completion call they could save on resources. Lynn Stecklein - Qwest asked Mcleod what products would be impacted by this request. Michelle Sprague - Mcleod said that the request was submitted for the Unbundled Loop Product but she did not want to limit the scope. She said that other CLECs may have other recommendations. Michelle said that this would not impact coordinated hot cuts. Lori Langston - Qwest asked what Mcleod had in mind if the orders were completed late in the day. Michelle Sprague - Mcleod said that they would consider decreasing the timeframe to one hour to accommodate the 5:00 close. Kathy Ocken - Qwest stated that changing it to 60 minutes to could frame due time issues. Deb Smith - Qwest said that eliminating the call would pose a risk on brand new loop orders because of the testing and complexity involved. She said that we would need to limit to reuse situations. Steph Prull - Eschelon said that she would like to keep this process optional due to the impact this could have on smaller CLECs. Michelle Sprague - Mcleod said that she agreed and that the CLEC could request this option when they sign their Interconnection agreement. Lori Langston - Qwest asked what happens today when we don't receive a call from the customer to close. Kathy Ocken - Qwest stated that the order is place in a jeopardy status and follows the CNR process. The customer has to supp the order with a new due date. Ev Montez - Qwest said that she had a concern if this process included DS1 due to the testing and complexity involved. Kim Isaacs - Eschelon said that they agreed that DS1 should not be included because they wanted to test to make sure they have a good loop.

Confirm Products Impacted Michelle Sprague - Mcleod stated that this CR was requesting this process on Unbundled Loop but said that she wanted to keep the option open for products

Establish Action Plan Lynn Stecklein - Qwest stated that Mcleod requested that this CR be included as a Walkon in the July 20th Product/Process CMP Meeting.

CenturyLink Response

Final Response

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the October 19, 2005 CMP Meeting

TO: Chelsea Payne McLeodUSA

SUBJECT: CLEC CR PC063005-1 Cease completion verification calls

Description of Change: McLeod would like Qwest to provide the option to CLECs to bypass the process of calling Qwest back following the completion of an all day basic cut. In today’s process, Qwest contacts the CLEC to notify them that the cut is complete, the CLEC then completes their testing and verification, the CLEC then contacts Qwest back to let them know that the cut is accepted. Future process, we would like Qwest to automatically assume the cut is accepted if the CLEC does not contact them back within 2 hours.

Qwest Response:

During the ad hoc call, McLeod indicated that this request is for products associated with basic cuts (existing unbundled analog loops). In addition, during the CMP meeting McLeod stated that the 2 hour interval in the CR should be 90 minutes and to make this function optional.

Qwest has researched and analyzed how to meet the expected deliverable to provide the option to CLECs to bypass the process of calling Qwest back following the completion of an all day basic cut. Qwest has determined that it would require the following changes:

A new manual process for tracking and/or monitoring the interval of the order after completion of the lift and lay would be required, as well as reviewing the order multiple times to check status. Since this would involve only basic reuse (lift and lay) orders, it would require Qwest to sort the orders that need to be tracked which would include reassigning orders that would be completed late in the day. Making this process optional would be manually intensive since it would require CLEC by CLEC tracking. Qwest has previously implemented process changes that have removed manual intervention and monitoring and included steps to ensure quality, where the requested process change would be a regression of current processes and would reinstitute a manual process.

Qwest is denying this request because the requested change does not result in a demonstrable business benefit.

Sincerely, Qwest

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the September 21, 2005 CMP Meeting

September 21, 2005

Mcleod

SUBJECT: CR # PC063005- Cease completion verification calls

This letter is in response to Mcleod's Change Request (PC063005-1 Cease completion verification calls). This CR requests that Qwest McLeod would like Qwest to provide the option to CLECs to bypass the process of calling Qwest back following the completion of an all day basic cut. In today’s process, Qwest contacts the CLEC to notify them that the cut is complete, the CLEC then completes their testing and verification, the CLEC then contacts Qwest back to let them know that the cut is accepted. McLeod would like Qwest to automatically assume the cut is accepted if the CLEC does not contact them back within 2 hours.

Qwest would like to keep this CR in evaluation status in order to continue with analysis of the existing process and look at potential solutions for this change request. Qwest will provide an updated response at the October CMP meeting.

Sincerely,

Qwest Communications