Open Product/Process CR PC110201-2 Detail |
| Title: Partial turn up of circuits on multiple related LSRs | ||||||
| CR Number |
Current Status Date |
Area Impacted | Products Impacted | |||
|
|
||||||
| PC110201-2 |
Completed 2/20/2002 |
Ordering, Test and Turn-up of facilities | Unbundled Loop, UNE-P | |||
| Originator: Osborne-Miller, Donna |
| Originator Company Name: AT&T |
| Owner: Osborne, Deb |
| Director: |
| CR PM: |
Description Of Change |
|
CLECs have the ability to submit multiple circuits on an LSR or multiple LSRs and relate them to each other. However, if circuits are related by same or related orders, Qwest testers require CLECs to complete or sup all LSRs that are related if a few circuits fail testing. AT&T wants Qwest to allow CLECs to complete LSRs that have circuits that test good and to sup out LSRs with circuits that fail testing. An example of this problem of related orders is with a hospital SEAP0104650. 7 of 10 circuits tested good. Because 3 circuits on related LSRs failed testing, Qwest’s policy stated the work done on the 7 good circuits would have to be worked back and all 10 LSRs needed to be sup’d for a new due date. Qwest’s policy to do all or none causes excess re-work and problems associated with working-back circuits to Qwest.
Modification - 11/27-01:
The CR will focus on accepting partial LSRs that are related to multiple LSRs and will also evaluate any differences on managed cuts versus coordinated cuts.
|
| Date | Action | Description |
| 11/2/2001 | CR received by Donna Osborne - Miller of AT&T | |
| 11/2/2001 | CR status updated to Submitted | |
| 11/2/2001 | Updated CR sent to Donna Osborne-Miller of AT&T | |
| 11/12/2001 | Left voice messages for Donna and Jonathon at AT&T to schedule clarification meeting. | |
| 11/14/2001 | CMP Meeting - AT&T presented its CR. | |
| 11/19/2001 | Clarification Meeting scheduled with AT&T for 11/27.. | |
| 11/27/2001 | Conducted Clarification meeting with AT&T. | |
| 11/27/2001 | Issued Clarification Meeting Minutes to AT&T. | |
| 12/4/2001 | Issued e-mail to AT&T requesting additional information. | |
| 12/12/2001 | CMP Meeting - CLEC Clarification was made on the CR. Qwest advised that its current practice allows what the CR is requesting. Qwest to formalize its response. Status of CR changed to Evaluation. | |
| 1/8/2002 | Issued Qwest's Draft Response dated December 27, 2001 to AT&T and posted to dBase. | |
| 1/16/2002 | CMP meeting - Qwest presented its Draft Response. It was agreed that the CR could move into CLEC Test. | |
| 1/21/2002 | Issued Qwest's Response dated December 27, 2001 to CLEC Community. | |
| 2/20/2002 | CMP Meeting - It was agreed that the CR could be Closed. Meeting discussions will be set forth in the Product/Process Draft Meeting Minutes contained in the Product/Process CMP Meeting Distribution Package 03/20/02. | |
| 3/20/2002 | CR Open/Closed status changed to closed and inactive and checked for Archive 2002 |
Project Meetings |
| Subject: CR PC110201-2 Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 13:18:28 -0700 From: Richard Martin Jonathan, This e-mail is a follow-up to the voice mail I left yesterday. In the voice mail I indicated that we were still looking to get the names of the individuals that provided the direction referenced in our 11/27 Clarification Meeting. In addition, I advised that it appears that the PON referenced in the CR, SEAP0104650, is not in Qwest's system. Could you please double check the PON number or provide the related LSRs. Thanks for your cooperation, Ric
CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting Date: November 27, 2001, 9:30 (MT) Place: Conference Call Conference Call-In No.: 877-542-1728 CR No.: PC110201-2, Partial Turn-up of circuits on multiple related LSRs Attendees: Ric Martin, Qwest Mark Coyne, Qwest Connie Winston, Qwest Jonathan Spangler, AT&T Horacce Fluker, AT&T Shelia Dizon-Crun, AT&T Introduction of Attendees Introduction of the participants on the Conference Call were made and the purpose of the call discussed Review Requested (Description of) Change Jonathan Spangler provided two (2) examples where they were advised that they had to SUPP all LSRs when partial LSRs or Circuits were completed. First – AT&T had issued 10 separate LSRs that were related to one another and 7 of the 10 were good circuits. Qwest personnel, including supervision and after the initial escalation, advised AT&T that they would only do all 10. Second – AT&T had several circuits on one LSR. One circuit was a DSL TN and they couldn’t port all TNs. This was resolved by AT&T issuing a SUPP to remove the DSL TN. It was agreed that this CR would only focus on the first example and AT&T would evaluate if they wanted to issue a Change Request on the second example. In addition to evaluation the first example, AT&T wanted Qwest to advise of any differences for handling managed cuts versus coordinated cuts. AT&T advised that they wanted, in the first example, to be able to complete the 7 LSRs and SUPP out the other 3. Connie Overly advised that she believed that was Qwest’s policy. Jonathan advised that this was contrary to what AT&T was told in their Quality Service Manager call. In addition Qwest’s associate, supervisor and escalation manager advised otherwise. Qwest is to confirm the policy. Qwest requested AT&T to provide the names of the individuals that center. Confirm Areas & Products Impacted The products listed on the CR are the products AT&T want to ensure is covered. . Confirm Right Personnel Involved Qwest had the appropriate SMEs involved. Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation AT&T wanted clarification on Qwest’s policy and documentation of the policy. Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests There is no corresponding System CR Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) AT&T will advise of the Qwest personnel involved in the example. Qwest will confirm its policy and provide documentation Qwest will provide appropriate communication of correct policy. The CR will be Clarified with the CLECs at December’s CMP and Qwest will advise on the above. -
|
CenturyLink Response |
|
Wholesale Product Marketing December 27, 2001 Jonathon Spangler ILEC Relations Manager AT&T This letter is being sent in response to CLEC Change Request Form # PC110201-2. PC110201-2 pertains to a request to change the due date on one or more LSRs that were previously submitted in a group of related PONs. This response addresses the current IMA process for changing the due date on one or more LSRs within a group of related PONs allowing the remaining PONs to be processed. IMA Process: A supplemental LSR should be issued for the PON requiring the due date change. The value entered in LSOG field 25 SUP should be “3” because there will be other changes on the LSR in addition to the due date change. The value entered in LSOG field 51 RPON should be blank to indicate that this PON is no longer part of a related group. The value of LSOG field 14 DDD should contain the new desired due date. The value of LSOG field 10 PGofPageof should follow the LSOG business rules for the product specified on the LSR. The LSOG business rules are documented on the Qwest website http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/clecs/lsog.html. Sincerely, Deborah Osborne Process Specialist
|
Information Current as of 1/11/2021