Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC100504-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverables: PCAT documentation, validation of email addresses used today, copy of form for CLEC review. Proposed implementation date mid to late January 2005 (after notification).

Project Meetings

May 18, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this was effective on April 1st and proposed closure of the CR. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if anyone had used this process and asked if it were working. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she would like to check and see if AT&T has used the process and asked that the CR remain open for another month. Jill Martain-Qwest agreed to keep the CR open another month. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that this process applied more to residential than to business. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR remains in CLEC Test

-- April 20, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this was effective on April 1st and would like to move to CLEC Test. Amanda Silva-VCI stated that she would like to go over the process, including the workinleftin@qwest.com mailbox. Amanda stated that she has a working line, marked it for manual handling, and now has a missed due date of the 14th and was not notified. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that Michelle Thacker is currently on vacation and she would have Michelle clarify with her off-line. Liz Balvin-Covad stated that (Change to meeting minutes from Covad 4/28/05) the meeting minutes from last month reflected CLECs need to provide email addresses ASAP and asked what the process was. She wanted to confirm that Covad may still opt into the process if desired. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she had asked for a notice and asked if one was sent. Susan Lorence-Qwest stated that Michelle had mentioned this in the March monthly Product/Process meeting and stated that workingleftin@qwest.com was identified in the PCAT final notice response to comments. Liz Balvin-Covad asked if Covad still had the option to do this. Susan Lorence-Qwest stated yes. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR is now in CLEC Test.

-- March 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Michelle Thacker-Qwest stated that formal comments had been received and addressed. Michelle stated that the CLECs need to provide Qwest with email addresses ASAP. Michelle asked that the email addresses be sent to Qwest at the workingleftin@qwest.com mailbox. Michelle then noted that the targeted effective date was April 1st. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that a notice should be sent stating that information is needed. Michelle Thacker-Qwest stated that a notice was being sent and would include instructions. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR remains in Development status.

February 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Michelle Thacker-Qwest stated that the comment cycle begins on February 16th. Michelle stated that there has been a process change from the October 28th meeting discussion. Michelle stated that upon further investigation it has been determined that the follow-up to resend the second notification to clear a working left in is not feasible at this time. Michelle stated that the 24 hour reminder would not be done and that an email would be sent after 48 hours. Michelle again stated that the 24 hour interval is removed. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she had reviewed the notice and stated that she needed additional clarification. Bonnie asked if this process would apply for residential locations only. Michelle Thacker-Qwest stated that it could also apply to small businesses that choose to move and abandon the service. Michelle stated that this would be for 1FR and 1FB. Michelle stated that there would not be a working left in situation on a Centrex 21. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if this traditionally would apply to residential. Michelle Thacker-Qwest stated yes but noted that it could also apply to small businesses. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked how the CLEC is to communicate that a working left in is not to be disconnected. Michelle Thacker-Qwest stated that the CLEC would need to reply on the form that Qwest would send to the CLEC. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if it would be a good idea that the notice identifies what is required and when; such as which fields that Qwest is responsible for and which fields the CLEC is responsible for populating. Bonnie stated that she needs to better understand the fields on the form. Bonnie asked that if the CLEC does not want a working left in to be disconnected, which fields are to be populated. Comments to notes received from Eschelon 2/24/05 - Bonnie recommended that Qwest develop a form dictionary so Qwest and the CLEC know what fields they are responsible for and when. Michelle Thacker-Qwest thanked Bonnie for the input and stated that she would take the information back and look into it. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if Retails process was the same in the event that Qwest determines that there is a working left in, the LSR needs to be supped and it needs to indicate that it is an additional line situation and then the due date is pushed out. Bonnie asked if a Retail order also gets rejected. Michelle Thacker-Qwest stated that if it is not identified as a working left in, Retail has to go back and have the proper information on the service order so that it reflects additional lines. Michelle stated that Comments to notes received from Eschelon-if Retail has to make that change, Retail has to apply the standard interval. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon thanked Michelle for the clarification. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the CR remains in Development status.

January 20, 2005 Email Sent to VCI: Malia and Amanda, Thank you for sending the examples of what you currently receive for a working left in. What you are receiving is the process that is currently in place, a generic email. Once PC100504-1 is implemented, there will be a new form that Qwest will use to notify a CLEC to clear a working left, rather than placing a telephone call or sending a generic email. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM

- January 19, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion Michelle Thacker/Qwest stated that she is working to get the information to the documentation team next week and will then negotiate the Level 4 notice and effective dates. Michelle stated that the status remains in Development and that she would provide a status at the February CMP Meeting. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked if this process was generally working for Qwest. Michelle Thacker/Qwest stated that this process is not yet in effect and will go in effect after it has been noticed. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T said that explained her issue. Lydell Peterson/Qwest stated that he would work offline, with AT&T. Michelle Thacker/Qwest asked Lydell to call her of he had questions. Susan Lorence/Qwest asked if there should be a lower level notice sent for a shorter timeframe. Amanda Silva/VCI asked if this would pertain if has a working residential account line. Michelle Thacker/Qwest stated that it is identified that there is a working left in once the LSR is in IMA and then is worked to clear. Michelle noted that the CLEC may receive a jeopardy. Michelle stated that the form would be used across the board; for Qwest blocking a CLEC, CLEC blocking a CLEC or when a CLEC is blocking Qwest. Michelle stated that the Interconnection Call Center can be contacted to check status of a working left in. Amanda Silva/VCI asked if they could mark the LSR that there is a working left in, if they already knew that. Michelle Thacker/Qwest asked that they do, so Qwest can work it and try to prevent a jeopardy. Amanda Silva/VCI stated that VCI is currently receiving the form via email. Michelle Thacker/Qwest stated that the form has not yet been implemented and asked who VCI was receiving the form from. Amanda Silva/VCI stated that Malia (Tasi/VCI) receives the form and will send the form to Peggy (Esquibel Reed) at Qwest. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she is concerned because Qwest Retail sends notices to tell CLECs to clear a working left in and the CLECs receive jeopardizes. Bonnie stated that the end user then needs to contact the owner, so the sooner this is implemented, the better. Jill Martain/Qwest asked if there was any objection to a Level 2 Notice being sent, as this is needed quickly. There was no objection. Jill stated that the Level 2 Notice would be sent. Michelle Thacker/Qwest stated that she would work on the notice and noted that the CR remains in Development status.

- 11/17/04 November meeting minutes Cindy Macy - Qwest advised that this process is under development and the PCAT should be available some time in December. The CR will move to Development Status.

10/20/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Michelle Thacker, Qwest presented the CR saying that there are now several different ways left ins are being worked and Qwest would like to standardize the process and present PCAT documentation. Doug Andreen, Qwest added the CLEC Input Call will be on 10/28. The CR will move to presented.

- CLEC Input Call Meeting Minutes PC100504-1 Request to clear a working left in October 28, 2004 1-877-521-8688, Conference ID 1456160# 9:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m. Mountain Time

PURPOSE To gather input from the CLECs regarding this CR List of Attendees: Emily Baird – POP Communication Stephanie Prull – Eschelon Sharon Van Meter – AT&T Caren Schaffner - MCI Nicki Notberg – MIDCO Communications Mark Matson – SBC Telecom Rosalin Davis - MCI Jeff Sonnier - Sprint Lydell Peterson – Qwest Doug Andreen – Qwest Michelle Thacker – Qwest Jennifer Fischer - Qwest

MEETING MINUTES

The meeting began with Qwest making introductions and welcoming all attendees.

Doug Andreen explained that the purpose of the meeting and reviewed the description of the CR.

Sharon Van Meter asked for a definition of Working Left In (WLI). Michelle responded that it is when service is live and we have another company trying to install new service at the address. She said there is no documentation in the PCAT, no criteria around how long to clear a WLI or how to notify. The form and CR are designed to document and standardize the process.

Michelle asked if email was an acceptable way of communicating WLIs. There were no objections.

Jeff Sonnier asked if the situation was when the CLEC sends an LSR to Qwest and Qwest finds working service at the address. Michelle said yes or the reverse situation when Qwest is trying to put in service and the CLEC has WLI. She added the ownership is determined by the CSR.

Lydell Peterson stated AT&T had a concern about the current 24 hour time period to clear. They feel this is too tight and their suggestion was two to three days. Stephanie Prull agreed saying especially around weekends.

Michelle added that WLIs could be in association with moves but not porting. She added that since the standard interval for new service is three days and will affect both CLECs and Qwest.

It was agreed that a two working day timeframe was reasonable and that Qwest could still meet its three day commitment interval.

Nicki Notberg said she had a WLI where her customer could not get service and that the previous Qwest subscriber had passed away. She said it took her Account Manager to get it cleared. Her question was if the information is provided can WLI be cleared sooner. Michelle said the D order should be issued immediately. Stephanie reiterated that we are not saying you have to wait the two business days. Michelle said yes, the sooner the information is received the sooner the disconnect. Michelle said she would check into why Nicki is not getting jeopardy notices.

Stephanie asked when emails would go out. Michelle answered as soon as notified of the WLI throughout the day. Nicki asked how long it takes Qwest to find a WLI after an LSR is issued. Michelle said should be pretty immediate but within 24 hours.

Michelle asked what the expectation would be if there is no response to the email within the two business days. Will it be escalated, a D order issued, etc. It was agreed that escalation is appropriate following the PCAT escalation process. Some LSRs have been issued when actually it is a request for an additional line etc. so a D order is too risky.

Rosalin asked if a dispatch was ever necessary. Michelle said yes on things like abandon service.

Eric of NOS asked who the email would go to. Michelle said her expectation is whoever is designated within the CLEC with a primary and secondary contact being ok. Some discussion ensued and it was agreed that specific CLEC email contacts would be used.

Caren said that MCI follows almost the same process today and would that remain the same. Michelle read through the WLI form and asked if there was anything to add. Caren asked if there was a dispute, like with an additional line do the CLECs email the form back. Michelle said yes and she will add an Other/Reply heading to the form. Caren added that a disconnect in error process needs to be mentioned. Michelle said she would put a link in to the appropriate process. Stephanie added that it needs to also be specified which escalation process is used for WLI escalations. Michelle noted this and said she would provide links.

Stephanie asked what the plan would be if she received a jeopardy notice but no email. Michelle said the expectation is that after the jeopardy is issued that it will be cleared as soon as possible and the an FOC sent with a due date.

The last question was asked by Stephanie about if Qwest has the customer and the CLEC needs to clear the WLI. Michelle responded that if it isn’t cleared within the two day timeframe the escalation process would be invoked. It was further agreed that if no response to an email is received within 24 hours a reminder will be sent.

The next steps were outlined: • Michelle will negotiate with Retail so Wholesale and Retail are on the same page. • Michelle will formulate a rough version of the PCAT which will be distributed to the CLECs before calling an ad-hoc meeting • An ad-hoc meeting will be called to review the rough PCAT in advance of any formal comment cycle. This will probably occur in the December timeframe.