Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC110210-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date: 12/20/10

Project Meetings

8/17/11 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said this CR went into effect on May 16, 2011 and that (8/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) [delete , AS] was shared last month, there was an issue with a customer not using the process. Mark said that the process team and service management team had got the customer on board.

Cindy Buckmaster – CenturyLink said that there were really two CLECs who were doing work in manholes that were reminded of the process and have successfully utilized it.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink asked if they were familiar with what to do going forward.

Cindy Buckmaster – CenturyLink said yes.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said that we relayed last month that we would issue a Level 1 renotification as a process reminder. Mark said the notice was going out on Thursday, 8/18, to remind all customers about the process and the Web tool. Mark said we would continue to leave the CR in CLEC test for one more month and then asked if anyone had had an opportunity to use the process/tool and asked whether they would mind sharing their experience. There was no response.

7/20/11 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) SAID [Deleted RELAYED]\ the change went into effect on May 16, 2011. Last month (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) CENTURYLINK agreed to leave THIS open to see if THE process was utilized. The process has not been utilized yet.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) SAID [Deleted RELAYED] Cindy Buckmaster is in the process of checking with Network on situation where customers have been in facilities and not using the process. (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) CENTURYLINK WILL work with customers to do a trial of THE process/AND tool. CENTURYLINK WILL BE ISSUING A [Delete WILL ISSUE] renotification to remind customers to use the process and will send it as a level 1 notice.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) SAID [Deleted INDICATED] THAT for now this one will remain open.

** Cindy Buckmaster – CenturyLink – (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) SAID [Deleted INDICATED] she joined the call late, was there anything still open on her CR PC110210-1 CLEC work in Qwest outside plant facilities.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink – (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) SAID [Deleted RELAYED] that Susan Lorence was able to provide an update on the CR. She explained issue with customers and would leave CR in CLEC test and re-notify with level 1 to remind CLECs of process (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) AND ASKED IF CINDY HAD ANYTHING [Deleted ANYTHING}] else to share.

Cindy Buckmaster – CenturyLink – (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SAID no, Thank you.

6/15/11 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest relayed the change went into effect on May 16, 2011 and requested the CR be moved to Completed status.

Bonnie Johnson- Integra asked if any CLEC had actually used the tool and said the CR should be left open until then. Bonnie suggested if the tool had not been used, that Qwest should do a test with a CLEC to insure it works.

Mark Coyne – Qwest said (6/23/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) HE DIDN’T KNOW AND CINDY BUCKMASTER WAS NOT ON THE CALL. [delete WE WOULD] WE WILL leave it open until July and would check with Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest.

5/18/11 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest relayed the change went into effect on May 16, 2011 and asked if there had been any issues. Having only been implemented, there were no issues identified.

4/20/11 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest relayed a level 4 notice was sent out on March 31, 2011 and that the final response will be sent on April 25, 2011.

3/16/11 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest relayed some documentation associated with the CR had been posted to the CMP Calendar.

Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest provided some background on the CR and then reviewed the December 2010 Ad hoc meeting CLEC Questions and Qwest Answers matrix. NOTE: An updated Q/A matrix with 03/16/11 responses is available at the end of these meeting minutes.

Brenda Bloemke – Comcast said thank you, it looked like the questions she had down had been answered.

Kim Isaacs – Integra asked if Qwest personnel use this tool when they need access.

Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest responded that she did not think Qwest personnel would be using this tool since they work in a smaller turf of 3-4 COs. They know what is going on at any point in time. From a customer perspective, this tool is for the entire state and region which could generate requests to multiple Qwest managers. Kim Isaacs – Integra asked if the manhole tracking calendar is common or is the difference how it will be accessed.

Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest said the calendar is the same. She then walked through the revised version of Access to Poles, Ducts and ROWs and the “Utility Vault Access Request” which describes the steps in the process and tells what needs to be included on the request form. She related the documentation updates to the Q/A matrix she had previously reviewed. She asked if there were any questions and there were none. Cindy said Qwest was close to completing the tool and that she thought that it would be ready for delivery around the first of April. She said the documentation is also near completion as the tool is enhanced. Cindy said to let Qwest know if there are additional issues that are identified as the documentation is reviewed.

Brenda Bloemke – Comcast questioned whether customers would be able to see the calendar.

Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest said she doubted it but would pass the request on to the Network personnel. Cindy said we are almost ready to turn everything up and would like to submit as a level 2 notification and wanted to know if there were any objections.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked if the documentation was available today

Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest relayed the documentation is available as part of the meeting.

Kim Isaacs – Integra verified that the change had not been noticed yet and said that she was not comfortable with a level 2 notification and needed her internal staff to review it. Mark Coyne – Qwest said that since the level 2 notice was not intended to go out until the end of March, customers would have until the end of March to begin to review the proposed change. There would then be an additional 7 days to review the changes.

Kim Isaacs – Integra indicated that a level 2 was not appropriate and wanted the longer review time.

Mark Coyne – Qwest asked what others on the call thought.

Brenda Bloemke – Comcast agreed that a longer time period was appropriate.

Mark Coyne – Qwest said we would go with a level 4 notification and asked if there were any other questions and there were none.

2/16/11 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest indicated the technical team is still continuing to develop the web tool associated with this change and at the same time the process/product team is working to finalize the responses and processes associated with the questions that came out of the December ad hoc meeting that was held. At this point, a review of the process and the flow and those screen prints will take place in the March CMP meeting. It is also at that point that Qwest will be able to provide responses to the questions that came up during that ad hoc meeting in December.

1/19/11 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest indicated there was an ad hoc meeting on December 2, 2010 and that the team is looking at that input while they continue to work on the web tool.

Brenda Bloemke – Comcast asked if Qwest had any feedback on any of the ad hoc meeting questions and whether there was a timeline for that.

Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest indicated that the CLEC input is under review and that Qwest will put together a document that has answers to their questions and share them as soon as we can but we do not have a firm timeline yet.

Mark Coyne – Qwest said there will be a spreadsheet similar to what we did with the Bordertown change and post that for folks to see.

12/15/10 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest said the CR was presented last month and an ad hoc meeting was held on December 2, 2010. Several CLECs attended and provided good input in that meeting and those minutes have been posted to the calendar. The SME team is considering the feedback and continuing to work on the process and the related web tool.

12/2/10 Ad Hoc meeting Attendees: Kim Isaacs – Integra, Bonnie Johnson – Integra, Brenda Bloemke – Comcast, Jim Hickle – Velocity, Bill Thompson – Qwest, Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest, John Hansen – Qwest, Rachel Ruiz – Qwest, Susan Lorence – Qwest

Susan Lorence – Qwest provided the purpose of the meeting: to provide a high level review of the process, to answer questions and gather input for the new web tool associated with the CR that Cindy Buckmaster had introduced in the November CMP meeting. Susan relayed that she had attached to the Wholesale calendar a draft of the vault process that had been developed so far.

Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest said she is the product manager responsible for Poles, Ducts and Right of Ways. She provided an overview of why this CR was being initiated by Qwest; we have had situations in different manholes where we were not sure who had been where. Qwest wants to have a line of sight at all times to people who are working in our network. Our Qwest techs call in to find out if someone is scheduled to be in a certain manhole and why. Qwest wants to develop a single repository for tracking who is in the network at any point in time which is what this CR is about. Cindy said we have begun development of a mechanized entry point and that Bill Thompson from Network is going to explain the system at a high level and how it will be to utilize it.

Bill Thompson – Qwest relayed that his task was to create a single, standard point to be accessed throughout the company for information for anyone wanting entry to our underground manhole vaults. Bill said it will be a web based process that can be accessed by the CLECs and that when the request comes in, Qwest will verify the CLEC. Once verified, that CLEC will only be able to see information pertinent to their domain or company. Bill said validation would be on the domain/email address, the ACNA, the RSID or the OCN and then entry is allowed to the actual online form. Bill said the email address is how information will be sent back to the requestor. Qwest needs CLECs to identify the State and City to determine which of our management centers/local construction managers would receive the request to review and approve. Bill said we are looking for pertinent information so that the local people can know what work type of work is being performed, e.g., if access is needed for a vault or multiple vaults within a run. Qwest also wants to know the contractor name if they will be performing the work. Bill said if it is a common contractor that Qwest also uses, at times without our supervision, we would almost certainly do the same thing with the CLEC. Bill said following review by the local construction manager, a reply will be sent back to the email address on the request; there may be notes included back on the request that the visit needs to be accompanied, unaccompanied or a random visit. Bill said his team is looking at the potential reasons for denial which would be a situation where no one can enter the hole. That is a valid safety reason and we would have to make the vault safe for both the CLEC and Qwest employees. Another potential reason for denial is a work conflict since the vaults are so small that two work groups cannot perform work in the same vault at the same time. Bill asked if there were any questions.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra said her questions were similar to questions when Qwest was developing a process for their central offices. Her first question was if the CLEC has to get approval from Qwest?

Bill Thompson – Qwest indicated that is the term that has been used but really unlike the central office which is a large facility and multiple work groups can work simultaneously, a manhole is a very confined space. Qwest is looking for conflicts if for some reason we are working construction or maintenance there.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra said she will look closely at the interconnection agreements to see if approval is required. Bonnie said she understood Qwest needed to know who is going to be in their vaults and did not disagree with that but would be opposed to a process where Qwest can limit a CLECs availability or stop work progression due to lack of approval. Bonnie questioned if more information was going to be provided.

Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest relayed that there will be more detailed information provided in the PCAT to go along with the process and that Qwest was open to customer input on the documentation as well. Cindy said Qwest will collaborate on the documentation to insure it provides the level of detail to those that are going to utilizing this service.

Jim Hickle – Velocity questioned the timeframe for the approval process and whether it was to take five minutes or a week?

Bill Thompson – Qwest indicated if a contract has verbiage about how much time in advance requests must be submitted, that would be followed but if there is no language in the contract, then Qwest was looking at 48 hour advance notice. Bill said this is the same timeframe used with our technicians requiring access to our manholes.

Jim Hickle – Velocity asked about an emergency situation?

Bill Thompson – Qwest indicated that has not really been discussed in detail but emergency work is not going to require prior approval as far as he knew. Bill thought emergency work was emergency and out of service was out of service.

Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest said that was a good question and we will take that as an issue. Cindy said Qwest understood the customer vantage point and that the tool is built to handle 90% of the time, we would also address the emergency situations.

Jim Hickle – Velocity asked if a customer had done field verification for a run that fiber was going to be pulled through, was it possible to get global approval for the entire route for a time period versus approval for each individual manhole?

Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest indicated that we are working on that also and had a specific job in mind. The question is how long can a run be and how many requests are needed to cover a run that is very long.

Jim Hickle – Velocity asked how priority will be determined if both Qwest and a customer need to be in the manhole at the same time.

Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest again said that was a good question and will be addressed in the methods.

Jim Hickle – Velocity questioned why Qwest was developing this process now and had there been issues in the past that Qwest thought needed to be addressed.

Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest said there is a lot of history behind this and provided some background. Cindy said even as far back as 1990 to 2000 as part of divestiture, there were network issues that we did not know whether we had created the issue or whether someone else had. Cindy said from an IXC perspective, we tried to set up a system like this but had abandoned it in favor of registering when we were in the manholes. Then with the Telecom Act in 1996 up to 2000, Cindy relayed Qwest started to see things happening more frequently in the network, such as crushed duct pipes. Cindy provided another example of a Qwest tech driving by a manhole that had been staged/OSHA protected and the tech found someone else there. Cindy said Bill was called to develop a process.

Jim Hickle – Velocity provided an example where they had been told that someone from Qwest needed to be there but when they called they were told nobody really does that. Jim said what may be great on paper may not work in practice. Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest agreed and said that is the point which is twofold. One: we do not always want to be there to babysit. Cindy said there are many times where you or your contractor can be there; you are trained and Qwest is fine with that. Secondly, we are going for a single web entry point and consistent method to better train resources. Cindy relayed you will submit a request through the electronic system and our construction manager will get notified that you are going to be out there.

Brenda Bloemke – Comcast wanted clarification that Qwest was not saying that every request would require someone to be there with her technician. The process was just for notification that the customer will be in the manhole.

Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest indicated that is correct. Qwest will make the decision to accompany or not but Qwest will not accompany you on every entry to every manhole.

Brenda Bloemke – Comcast asked whether there was a guideline to know ahead of time whether they will have to be accompanied or not.

Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest indicated yes we will develop documentation which identifies cases that would require supervision and which will not. Cindy said a construction manager in a particular location will dictate whether the manhole is enterable with or without a construction supervisor.

Jim Hickle – Velocity suggested that Qwest may want to provide a ‘response back to Qwest capability’ in the web tool. Jim provided an example that their tech is in a manhole and they notice something that should be brought back to that construction manager, e.g., a wall is cracked. Their tech could provide feedback that they completed their work but noticed a particular condition.

Cindy Buckmaster and Bill Thompson – Qwest both indicated that this is a really good idea.

Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest said we will work with the mechanization team to figure out how to get that feedback into the business and will put the documentation together.

Jim Hickle – Velocity indicated his point was to improving the database and have Qwest know more about what is actually in the ground.

Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest indicated we appreciate his efforts on our behalf and that she understood where Jim was coming from.

Susan Lorence – Qwest asked if there were any other questions. There were none. Susan said we will take this feedback and continue to work on developing the process and tool. As we get more information, we will either schedule another ad hoc or cover it in the monthly CMP meeting. Susan requested that if anyone had other questions, they should e-mail them to CMPCR@qwest.com. It would be good to have them in advance so the SME team can consider them as they continue development.

Brenda Bloemke – Comcast asked if Cindy had a timeline for delivery of this tool and next steps.

Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest indicated the next steps are to develop the documentation but that she thought the delivery of the tool was scheduled for the middle of January.

Bill Thompson – Qwest indicated that he would have to get back to you on that.

Susan Lorence – Qwest indicated that we still have to go through the CMP notification process.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra indicated that she had discussed with Mark Coyne (Qwest) that we prefer to talk about things in the CMP meeting versus having multiple ad hoc meetings.

Susan Lorence – Qwest indicated that he did pass that along and we would certainly consider that.

Jim Hickle – Velocity questioned when a request is denied, is there going to be some kind of an escalation process. Jim said if Qwest denied something but customers still need to get the work done, they need to know how to go about escalating up the line.

Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest indicated that was a good point and we will take care of that.

Susan Lorence – Qwest thanked everyone for attending the call and giving input into the process. Susan said we will give status at the CMP meeting.

Meeting adjourned at 1:57 pm MT.

11/17/10 Product Process CMP Meeting Cindy Buckmaster – Qwest presented this CR. Cindy said Qwest has had a number of incidences where we have had damaged facilities as a result of someone being in a manhole. Qwest technicians have relayed that some customers have been in manholes that were not scheduled and Qwest has confirmed that after looking at our records. Cindy said this CR is to initiate a system that will allow customers to notify us when there is a need to access a particular location. Then Qwest will have that in our records to know who was in a location and that we know that you have permission to have access. Cindy said we have an ad hoc call on the calendar to discuss it in further detail.

Brenda Bloemke – Comcast asked if this was already on the calendar and has an ad hoc notice been sent out.

Susan Lorence – Qwest said the call was on internal calendars to reserve SME time. Susan said we have a number of ad hoc calls that are going to be coming up over the next two weeks and that she was planning on sending one notice with about three or four specific ad hoc calls listed. The ad hoc call for this CR is scheduled on December 2, 2010.

Kim Isaacs – Integra asked if the one notice that will have several ad hocs is all for one topic.

Susan Lorence – Qwest indicated that it is not. Susan said she was trying to cut down on the volume of notices from Qwest and is suggesting one notice with each ad hoc meeting in a separate section of the notice. Susan said if the group thinks it is better to keep them separate, that is fine too.

Kim Isaacs – Integra indicated that she would prefer separate since she has different SMEs at different calls so the separate notices work really well. Kim also said from a historical aspect, one ad hoc per notice is easier as well.

Susan Lorence – Qwest indicated that she can do that.

Mark Coyne – Qwest asked if anyone else on the call had a preference.

Brenda Bloemke – Comcast indicated that her preference would be separate.

Susan Lorence – Qwest indicated that she would send them out individually.

Mark Coyne – Qwest asked if there were any other questions on this CR. There were none.