Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC111303-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Determine whether a process change only is necessary whereby the CLECs would be required to populate differing BANs on each order. Otherwise, what system enhancements would need to be made to support.

Project Meetings

-- 2/18/04 CMP Meeting

Sue Kriebel reviewed the action item concerning the examples from Cbeyond that carried non-active BAN numbers. Sue clarified the issue by stating that not all orders are assigned BANs automatically but only those that go through flow through. It was uncovered that orders manually typed were having BANs assigned incorrectly in some cases. She is working with the centers to correct. Stephen Calhoun, Cbeyond asked about the issue of the CLECs being able to use the alternate BAN field as they wished. Doug Andreen, Qwest said that was still being researched. Connie Winston, Qwest is looking into dropping existing edits of a formatting nature that now exist in the system. The CR will remain in development.

Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes PC111303-1 Allow multiple Billing Account Numbers Per Product Per State CMP Product & Process February 12, 2004 1-877-521-8688, Conference ID 1456160 9 a.m. – 10a.m. Mountain Time

PURPOSE This meeting was to discuss action items from the January CMP Product and Process meeting, specifically: 1. Cbeyond examples were old BANs have been populated 2. Cost backup to the denial so CLECs can pursue other avenues 3. Can CLECs use optional BAN field as they wish

List of Attendees: Kathy Stichter, Eschelon T.J. Koller, Priority 1 Liz Balvin, MCI Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon Kim Isaacs, Eschelon Jan Arnold, U S Link Carla Pardee, AT&T Stephan Calhoun, Cbeyond John Gallegos, Qwest Connie Winston, Qwest Lydell Peterson, Qwest Sue Kriebel, Qwest

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

The meeting was called to discuss three outstanding items from the last CMP meeting: 1. Cbeyond examples where old BANs have been populated (Sue Kriebel) 2. Cost backup to the denial so CLEC can pursue other avenues (John Gallegos) 3. Can CLECs use optional BAN field as they wish (Connie Winston)

Issue 1.

Sue Kriebel, Qwest stated that on the list from Cbeyond that not all products go through the FTS (flow through system) and have BANs automatically assigned. On the Cbeyond list several orders had been marked for manual handling and it was found that the control point not in place was to ensure that the person manually handling the order assigned the correct – active BAN.

Stephan Calhoun, Cbeyond said that this more clearly explained why some orders were assigned BANs that were not expected. He feels that responses should initially carry this level of detail and thanked Qwest for the research

Liz Balvin, MCI asked what audits were in place to ensure manually handled orders carry the correct BAN. Sue said the process organization had sent a reminder to the order typists reminding them that they need to look up the correct BAN in CPS. She also said that Qwest is looking for other methods to tighten this up.

Issue 2:

John Gallegos, Qwest explained the impacts of the LOE. He stated that numerous systems (7) were affected downstream.

Connie Winston, Qwest added that CPS would have to be re-architect and then several changes to other impacted systems.

Liz asked how the functionality had existed before when the burden for entering BANs fell to the CLECs. Connie answered that even then only one active BAN per product per state was permitted. Liz asked for more detail since the CLECs need to truly understand what is impacted rather than just saying multiple systems. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon agreed saying that CLECs did not necessarily have to know the system names but need the hours breakdown. Connie suggested this be taken off line and thought through to determine the format and structure this might take. She added specific to this CR that the min impact was to CPS and other highly impacted systems would be IMA and CRM. Bonnie stated that this was more information than the CLECs have had before and Stephan added that it truly helps to understand the reasons behind the denial. Connie said she would take an action item to see what kind of language can be appended to the denial.

Issue 3

Connie said she was still checking if the CLECs could use the optional BAN field. Qwest does some formatting validation but is looking at what it would take to remove these edits. Liz asked if the editing was limited to things like A/N characters and not if the BAN was a “good BAN”. Connie said yes that it is formatting only. Liz asked what the timeframe was and Connie answered hopefully by the CMP meeting.

1/21/04 CMP Meeting Sue Kriebel, Qwest reviewed the response denying the request based on it being economically not feasible. Sue stated to allow multiple BANs per product per state would remove some automation and would require several front and back end system changes. Liz Balvin, MCI stated she had sent Cbeyond examples where old BANs had been populated and would like these to be investigated. Sue agreed to do so and also stated that when BANs are closed orders in queue will flow to the old BAN. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon stated that it was also possible that the Cbeyond orders were handled on a manual basis. Steven Calhoun, Cbeyond said that the examples were new orders so this should not have been the case. Liz also wanted some cost backup to the denial citing that if it was important enough to the CLEC that they can pursue other avenues. Judy Schultz, Qwest said that a meeting was held a week ago explaining that detail needs to be provided on an economically not feasible denial. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon did verify that if an incorrect BAN is placed on an order that it will be corrected automatically by Qwest. Bonnie added that the denial is based on “we can’t do this” when that very thing is happening today. Liz stated that the main thrust of the three multiple BAN CRs is to give the CLECs the ability to control the billing of their customers. She stated she didn’t know the trigger for changing BANs. Connie Winston, Qwest said the process is managed by the CPS system and is handled by specific centers. Connie verified that a CLEC could be notified when a BAN is at 6,000 and potentially could not be exhausted until 9,000 because of orders during the interim and that Qwest is trying to keep the BANs at an acceptable level to avoid processing problems. Connie mentioned that the process is the same for all CLECs. Liz asked if the CLECs could use the optional BAN field as they wished. Connie said she would check. It was verified that the FOC would provide the same information as it does today but CLECs could track to the outbound order. Kathy Stichter, Eschelon asked about BAN consolidation. Sue explained the process and that this was done manually with the center. It was agreed that there are multiple action items to research and that a conference call would be held when new information is available. The CR will remain open in Development status. (Comment from Stephanie Prull) Stephanie Prull – Eschelon stated she is interested in the economic breakdown as well due to the economic price discrepancies quoted between her CR and the MCI CR. (end comment).

12/17/03 December CMP Meeting Liz Balvin of MCI presented the CR and stated that a clarification meeting had already been held. Doug said that per the clarification call that two BANs per product per state would solve the MCI specific situation since they are trying to separate divisions. Sue Kriebel, Qwest clarified that today there is one active BAN and possibly many inactive. This CR calls for multiple active BANs. Liz said they were willing to assign BANs from MCI’s end if this would help although at the present time both Liz and Bonnie Johnson of Eschelon were sure that any BAN assigned by the CLEC was overrode when passing through Qwest systems. Bonnie pointed out that Eschelon has well over 100 bills to look at for disputes and discrepancies and that this presents an administrative nightmare. The CR was changed to Presented status.

Clarification Meeting 11:00 a.m. (MDT) / Tuesday November 25, 2003 1-877-521-8688 1456160# PC111303-1 Allow multiple Billing Account Numbers Per Product Per State Attendees: Name/Company: Liz Balvin, MCI Sue Kriebel, Qwest John Gallegos, Qwest Doug Andreen, Qwest Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed. Review Requested (Description of) Change Doug Andreen -Qwest read the description of the CR: Qwest currently only supports a single BAN per product per state. MCI requests the ability to designate multiple BANs per product, per state. In doing so, the CLECs would have the ability to track orders submitted by different divisions of their company. Doug also covered the expected deliverables of the CR: Determine whether a process change only is necessary whereby the CLECs would be required to populate differing BANs on each order. Otherwise, what system enhancements would need to be made to support. Liz Balvin MCI stated that she has confirmed with her service manager that MCI is only allowed one BAN per product per state. She said that there is a field on the LSR to populate the BAN and she was hoping this would be able to be used to solve the request. Sue Kriebel Qwest said that there are numerous customers that do not populate this field and that it is populated when it hits Qwest. She also clarified that there may be multiple BANs per product per state but only one is live. Liz said what she is trying to do is enable segregation of the two divisions in MCI that handle the same products. Two BANs per state per product would be sufficient for MCI. She also thought there was another CR in existence that was similar. John agreed. John gave some historical perspective on population of the BAN field on the LSR. While it was done by the CLECs for some time this became a problem and now this field is populated by Qwest. John stated that implementing this CR would possibly put the responsibility back on the CLECs for ensuring the right BAN was on the order. Liz said MCI would be willing to do this and is open to any way to support implementation of the CR. Liz found the CR that is very similar. SCR100903-02. Sue questioned if this CR could still be worked as only a process change. John said no that there would have to be changes to internal systems to accommodate the change. Liz mentioned that she thought the customer profile drove BAN assignment. John answered yes, but only in part Liz expressed the concern that if this requires systems changes especially to IMA that a time line of presenting the CR at the December Product and Process meeting and having a response in January would conflict with the prioritization of 16.0 CRs in IMA for system changes. John responded that he would consider the expectations of her CR along with SCR100903-02 to ensure that the timeframes did not adversely impact prioritization. It was agreed to leave the CR in Product and Process for now. Doug agreed to relate to two CRs. Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Billing and Wholesale Billing Interface Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct personnel were involved in the meeting. Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation The following expectations were identified/confirmed: 1. Determine whether a process change only is necessary whereby the CLECs would be required to populate differing BANs on each order. 2. Otherwise, what system enhancements would need to be made to support 3. Relate this CR and SCR100903-02 in order to accelerate possible resolution of the CR. Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests Related system change SCR100903-02 is related but not dependent Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) As it now stands, Liz will present the CR at the December 17 CMP Meeting. Response will be made during the January cycle.

CenturyLink Response

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the January 2004 CMP Meeting

Liz Balvin MCI Carrier Management - Qwest Region MCI

SUBJECT: Qwest Change Request Response – CR PC111303-1 Allow Multiple Billing Account Numbers Per Product Per State

Qwest currently supports a single BAN per product per state. MCI requests the ability to designate multiple BANs per product, per state. In doing so, the CLECs would have the ability to track orders submitted by different divisions of their company.

A clarification meeting was held on November 25, 2003 with MCI and Qwest representation. At this meeting, Qwest clarified with MCI there may be multiple BANs per state but only one is ‘live/active.’ MCI explained they would like the ability to segregate the two divisions of MCI that handle the same products and therefore would only need two active BANs per state.

Qwest has completed an analysis for PC111303-1, Allow Multiple Billing Account Numbers, per Product, per State, and has determined that this change is economically not feasible. Qwest currently provides active BANs on a state by state basis. Qwest auto-populates these BANs to ensure ordering and billing accuracy. This change would require Qwest to remove this automation, which would require Qwest and CLEC manual intervention likely leading to additional errors or an increase in rejects. Additionally, several of Qwest’s front and back end systems would require changes in order to remove automation, modify existing accounts to allow the manipulation of BANs. Through Qwest’s analysis it was determined that the estimate for the initial implementation of this change would be at least $1 million. Qwest believes that to implement such a change to Qwest systems would be cost prohibitive.

Therefore, Qwest respectfully denies your request for PC111303-01, Allow Multiple Bans per Product, per State, due to economic infeasibility.

Sincerely,

Sue Kriebel Manager Process Management Qwest

CC: Connie Winston Lynn Notarianni Loretta Huff Beth Foster Kit Thomte Judy Schultz