Wholesale: Products & Services

Archived System CR SCR012204-01RG Detail

Qwest is submitting this CR as a Regulatory Change. Docket numbers:

Arizona T-00000A-03-0369

Colorado 03M-417T

Idaho GNR-T-03-23

Iowa INU-03-01

Minnesota CI-03-961

Montana D2003.5.62

Nebraska 3026

New Mexico 03-00404-UT

North Dakota PU-439-03-295

Oregon UM 1100

South Dakota TC 03-181

Utah 03-999-04

Washington UT-033044

Wyoming 90002-TF-03-2

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable):

The CLEC would be able to schedule BHC without planning meeting with Qwest, yet Qwest would be able to perform BPL edit to ensure the requirements for the BHC process have been met. Oct 1 2004.

Status History

Project Meetings

Jill Martain/Qwest stated that Qwest provided a response to Covad’s question last month associated with appointment scheduler and asked if everyone was okay to close this CR. Liz Balvin/Covad stated that the question was whether the CLEC’s could access the IMA Appointment Scheduler without an amendment. Liz said that Qwest responded that the CLECs would be required to have their Interconnection Agreement amended in order to use the BHC functionality Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR will be closed.

11/30/04 Response sent to Covad

Hi Liz, This is in response to the question you raised on SCR012204-01RG TRO BHC IMA changes and Appointment Scheduler Enhancements in the November CMP Meeting. Your question was whether the CLECs could access the IMA Appointment Scheduler without an amendment.

The response is as follows: Covad would be required to have their Interconnection Agreement amended in order to use BHC functionality. This is stated under the Terms and Conditions section in the BHC PCAT. http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/clecs/batchhotcut.html

Let me know if you have any further questions.

Thanks,

Lynn Stecklein

Qwest CRPM

11/17/04 CMP Systems Meeting

John Gallegos/Qwest asked if anyone had any questions or had an opportunity to test this CR. Liz Balvin/Covad asked if you need to have an amendment in place to access. John Gallegos/Qwest said yes and you need a questionnaire. Comment from Covad 11/24/04 – John was going to check the IMA/Appointment Scheduler enhancements as to whether CLECs could access without an amendment. John Gallegos/Qwest said that this CR will remain in CLEC Test for another month.

10/22/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR was deployed with the IMA 16.0 Release and will remain in CLEC Test.

9/16/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR will be deployed prior to the next monthly CMP Meeting.

7/22/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Russ Urevig/Qwest stated that the requirements were reviewed to incorporate other products. Russ stated that more products would be accommodated. Russ stated that included would be Loop Splitting (Product 24), UBL Split (Product 41), and UBL Split with NP (Product 42). Russ stated that because products were certified on a facility perspective, DSL was previously certified, these can be included. Russ stated that other products such as DS1, DS3, OCN, and ISDN related, cannot be included. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that is for 2 and 4-wire analog only. Russ Urevig/Qwest responded yes. Liz Balvin/MCI asked if this was only for facilities that exist prior to migration. Russ Urevig/Qwest stated that those actively providing DSL service would be migrated. John Berard/Covad asked if UNE-P Line Splitting to Loop Splitting would be included. Russ Urevig/Qwest responded yes. Liz Balvin/MCI asked if Batch Hot Cuts would only accommodate migrations. Russ Urevig/Qwest stated yes, and noted that new activity or facility adjustments would be excluded from BHC. John Berard/Covad asked which Release this CR was deploying with. Russ Urevig/Qwest stated 16.0. This Action Item is Closed.

2/19/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Russ Urevig/Qwest stated that this request IMA would be modified to allow the BHC request using the CHC field when it equals “B”, this would require the scheduling of the BHC request into appointment scheduler. Russ stated that the Appointment scheduler would control the minimum required by the CLEC and the maximum allowed per C/O. Russ said that the Appointment scheduler would hold and return the APPCON when the minimum requirements have been met. IMA would be modified with BPL edits to only allow the CHC=B for LX—with ACT’s = to V or Z and and the TSE equal to N or blank and the DSTCH must also be blank. Russ stated that expedites would not be allowed with this request and that this request is categorized as a Regulatory Request. Russ Urevig/Qwest asked if there were any questions. There were no questions or comments.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - February 5, 2004 SCR012204-01RG - Scheduling Tool

This tool will allow a CLEC to schedule a batch hot cut at a specific CO and on a specific date. The tool will display the number of batch hot cuts that can be performed on that date at the selected CO. If there are slots available, the CLEC may then reserve a number of cuts in that CO for the designated day. If the CLEC enters 25 or more lines for conversion, the appointment scheduler functionality will return an appointment confirmation number. The CLEC will populate this number in the APPCON (appointment confirmation) field of each LSR for that day.

If a CLEC submits fewer than 25 lines to the appointment scheduler, those lines will remain as pending until the CLEC enters a total of 25 lines. However, these pending lines may be 'bumped' to the next available day if another CLEC submits LSRs in a batch that exceeds 75 lines for a particular CO. (For example, if CLEC ABC has 21 pending LSRs for Denver Main on January 29th, and CLEC XYZ submits 76 LSRs for the same CO and the same date, CLEC ABC’s LSRs will be 'bumped' to the next available date.)

In addition, CLECs will be able to 'add' lines to an existing batch as long as the standard installation interval is met, and the batch size does not exceed 100 lines. [Note: During a clarification call for this CR on February 2, 2003, MCI and Eschelon commented that this aspect of the proposed functionality may not be necessary.]

Pending reservations will be held until 7 PM MT seven business days prior to the cut date. If a CLEC has fewer than 25 lines in pending status at 7 PM MT seven business days prior to the cut, the appointment scheduler will automatically 'bump' the lines to the next available business day.

During the ordering of a BHC, CLECs complete an accurate LSR via either EDI or IMA GUI in the same manner they do for a Basic Hot Cut request today. Qwest’s proposal designates, however, that LSRs requesting BHCs must also contain the CHC field populated with a 'B' for batch and include the confirmation number for the batch and frame due date returned from appointment scheduler.

Edits:

Qwest proposes additional IMA validations such as determining that the CLEC has appropriately populated LSR fields designating the order as a BHC. These validations will take the form of new edits and/or error messages. Business Process Level ('BPL') edits which will be developed are items to aid the CLEC in making a BHC request. The CHC field must be populated with the correct elements for the request to move forward into the batching of the service order for the CO. Some of the fields which will have the BPL edits established are the REQTYP - request type AB or BB, ACT-V (for conversion as specified) or Z (conversion with no directory listing changes), APTCON (this would be populated with the information from the appointment scheduler), TEST=N or blank (indicating there are no special testing requirements). DSPTH=N or blank (indicating no dispatch), CHC=B (indicating the request is for a BHC), NC-LX- - (this is the only network channel code allowed in the BHCP). Once an LSR passes these validations, a BHC USOC will be assigned to the Qwest service order.

- February 3, 2004 Clarification Meeting

Introduction of Attendees: Sherry Lichtenberg-MCI, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Sheryl Peterson-AT&T, Joyce Perry-AT&T, Liz Balvin-MCI, Bob Falcone-AT&T, Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Rick Walters-AT&T, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest, Lynn Stecklein-Qwest, Russ Urevig-Qwest, John Gallegos-Qwest, Matt White-Qwest, Michelle Thacker-Qwest, Curt Anderson-Qwest, Jim Recker-Qwest, Cathy Garcia-Qwest, Justin Sewell-Qwest, Kit Thomte-Qwest, Denny Graham-Qwest

Review Description of Change IMA would be modified to allow the BHC request using the CHC field when it equals B, this would require the scheduling of the BHC request into appointment scheduler. Appointment scheduler would control the minimum required by the CLEC and the maximum allowed per C/O. Appointment scheduler would hold and return the APPCON when the minimum requirements have been met. IMA would be modified with BPL edits to only allow the CHC=B for LX-- with ACT’s = to V or Z and and the TSE equal to N or blank. The DSTCH must also be blank.

Discussion:

Sherry Lichtenberg/MCI stated that she did not see a description of the Appointment Scheduler fields and how it gets developed.

Russ Urevig/Qwest stated that this CR is for requirements in the LSR field to be BPL edits for the appointment scheduler. The appointment scheduler is embedded in the CR. Russ stated that we are still in the development stage for the fields and activities.

Russ Urevig/Qwest stated that this tool would allow a CLEC to schedule a batch hot cut at a specific CO and on a specific date. Russ said that this tool will display the number of batch hot cuts that can be performed on that date at the selected CO. Russ stated that if there are slots available, the CLEC may then reserve a number of cuts in that CO for the designated day. He said that if the CLEC enters 25 or more lines for conversion, the appointment scheduler functionality would return an appointment confirmation number. Russ said that the CLEC would populate this number in the APPCON (appointment confirmation) field of each LSR for that day. Russ further stated that if a CLEC submits fewer than 25 lines to the appointment scheduler, those lines would remain as pending until the CLEC enters a total of 25 lines. Russ said that these pending may be "bumped" to the next available day if another CLEC submits LSRs in a batch that exceeds 75 lines for a particular CO. Russ also stated that CLECs will be able to "add" lines to an existing batch as long as the standard installation interval is met, and that batch size does not exceed 100 lines.

Sherry Lichtenberg/MCI stated that she felt this request was difficult to evaluate because there was not enough information in the CR to ask questions because she did not fully understand the appointment scheduler.

Russ Urevig/Qwest stated that the purpose of this call was to provide the CLECs further clarification of this request and to take back feedback and input. Russ stated that we develop screen shots and detailed requirements at a later date.

Liz Balvin/MCI stated that she wanted to understand the difference between the current tool and asked if they have he ability for min & max scheduling ability.

Russ Urevig/Qwest said that in the current appointment scheduler the increment for batch hot cut is in 15-minute increments. Russ stated that the estimated time is 3am to 11am. Russ stated that Qwest won’t set up specific timeframes but there will available slots in the CO and based on the LSR activity. Russ said that if the CLEC submits a request for 10 today you currently only have 10. This CR will allow a CLEC to submit 15 more and will add to a cumulative total of 25 and that you can continue to build with a minimum required for each CLEC.

Sherry Lichtenberg/MCI asked where this process is documented so that MCI can full understand the requirements.

Russ Urevig/Qwest stated that the purpose of this call is for the clarification only of this CR and that he could work with Matt White/Qwest and Kristin Provost/Qwest on documenting the process.

Cheryl Peterson/AT&T stated that she understood the BHC process was based on the TRO and is not a mandated process and that it is a state level decision.

Matt White/Qwest stated that Qwest has a process in place for Regulatory CRs and that the intent of this call was not to discuss the regulatory category. Matt stated that the purpose of this call was an opportunity for the CLECs to provide additional feedback and input to this clarification.

Cheryl Peterson/AT&T asked how soon Qwest would implement this change so that they could plan resources for coding.

Matt White/Qwest stated that Qwest plans to implement with the IMA 16.0 release.

Liz Balvin/MCI stated that the appointment scheduler will impact IMA 16.0 and said that the other Regulatory CR (SCR012204-02RG) tool will impact CEMR

Matt White/Qwest stated that is true.

Sherry Lichtenberg/MCI asked if Qwest knew or had any judgement on how much of the IMA 16.0 release would be used for this request.

Matt White/Qwest stated that the purpose of this call was for clarification and we need to determine if the other CLECs are asking for any other requirements associated with this CR.

Sherry Lichtenberg/MCI wanted this call to understand the appointment scheduler and can’t assess anything from this request that Qwest is proposing.

Liz Balvin/MCI asked if there was an LOE that could be shared.

Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that this call was to clarify the request and that the LOE would be available further in the process.

Liz Balvin/MCI asked if the CHC would launch in the backend systems to allow ability to schedule 25-100.

Russ Urevig/Qwest stated that was correct and that the CHC = B will drive the same functionality and will be for scheduling of a batch.

Liz Balvin/MCI stated that if you have 10 today, want to hold them, how does Qwest see that happening.

Russ Urevig/Qwest stated that when you create LSRs that are in a pending status and you go to the appointment scheduler, they are held until the standard interval for that type of batch hot cut is met. Russ cited the example if the standard interval is 7 days and on the 7th day you have not accumulated enough requests for the minimum, it would be sent back to the originator. Liz Balvin/MCI asked if the 10 would be held for a particular CLEC.

Russ Urevig/Qwest stated that if no other CLEC makes a request for the maximum that day, the 10 would be sent back and stated that it is 1st come, 1st serve for the minimum and maximum.

Sherry Lichtenberg/MCI asked if they submitted 10 on Monday, 10 on Tuesday, and if another CLEC reserves 90, will theirs get rejected.

Russ Urevig/Qwest said that yes, at that point, the minimum of 25 would no longer be met. Sherry Lichtenberg/MCI said why allow a reservation of a smaller number when Qwest negating transition plan. She stated it makes more sense to let those that are in a reservation status go.

Russ Urevig/Qwest stated that you are not reserving, Qwest is holding, if the CLEC doesn’t want Qwest to hold and would only sent minimum, Qwest can look into that.

Sherry Lichtenberg/MCI stated that it would be better to allow the CLEC to reserve it and then cancel at a later date if necessary. Russ Urevig/Qwest stated that if the CLEC reserves 25 or 50 for a day, and another CLEC sees that the day is full, goes to another day, see that original date is cancelled, that is impacting to the CLEC wanting the original date.

Sherry Lichtenberg/MCI stated that we need more detail and that another meeting would be beneficial for those who did not attend the workshop.

Russ Urevig/Qwest stated that another meeting could be scheduled to discuss the appointment scheduler at another time. Cheryl Peterson/AT&T asked how long the reservation. Russ Urevig/Qwest stated that when the minimum requirements are met, Qwest send a confirmation number. Russ stated that pending requests are held until the last day of the standard interval.

Cheryl Peterson/AT&T asked how the CLEC would be notified from the appointment scheduler.

Russ Urevig/Qwest stated that information would be provided as to why they can't be met with ‘full’ or ‘required minimum not met’ . Sherry Lichtenberg/MCI asked if there would be a new error message.

Russ Urevig/Qwest said yes for the appointment scheduler response.

Sherry Lichtenberg/MCI asked if the new error message would be included in the LOE.

Russ Urevig/Qwest stated that any activities associated with this request would be included in the LOE.

John Gallegos/Qwest said that a high level of effort would be provided per the CMP process and since this is the clarification call the LOE will be provided at a later time.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that her concern that if Qwest allow the CLECs to reserve slots with less than the minimum requirement.

Russ Urevig/Qwest stated that he didn’t like the term reserved because Qwest is not reserving and stated that Qwest is holding the slot.

Sherry Lichtenberg/MCI asked if they send 25 are the slots now reserved or pending.

Russ Urevig/Qwest stated that if you submit 25, the slots are reserved.

Sherry Lichtenberg/MCI stated that she agrees with Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon.

Liz Balvin/MCI stated that if another CLEC wanted 90, it would kick back your 10 and asked if there is an option for only 10 a day and 15 the next day.

Matt White/Qwest stated that the minimum required are 25 and this would not allow MCI’s scenario. MCI’s concern might be more efficient to only allow the CLECs a minimum of 25 and not allow the increments of fewer than 25.

Sherry Lichtenberg/MCI stated that they need to see the day available and schedule the hot cut. She said that Qwest wants me to negotiate up front anyway and that she did not see how there would be less than 25.

Russ Urevig/MCI that that this pending request is based on the February forum. Russ stated that if the CLECs want the ability to submit a minimum of 25, Qwest would be flexible in looking at that.

Sherry Lichtenberg/MCI said that makes better sense to MCI.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she agrees that 25 should be the minimum and that they would like the ability to add to the batch if there are slots available.

Russ Urevig/Qwest stated that we can wait until we are further into development to discuss the technicalities on how this would work.

Liz Balvin/MCI asked if this is for pre-order and is BPL on the order side.

Russ Urevig/Qwest said that pre-order remains the same and the BPL edits are for CHC = B and for LX—and activities of V or Z. Russ also stated that the request type is AB or Loop with number portability.

Sherry Lichtenberg/MCI asked if retail to UNE-L is allowed,

Russ Urevig/Qwest said there are not restrictions for product to products and that the only restriction is for conversion on the reuse of facilities.

Liz Balvin/MCI said that this is only for migrations.

Sherry Lichtenberg/MCI asked if Qwest would reject a customer who is IDLC.

Russ Urevig/Qwest said yes, it would error prior to being submitted.

Confirmed Impacted Area(s): Pre-Order, Ordering, and Provisioning

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: The impacted interface is IMA.

Confirmed Impacted Products: The product impact is to UBL.

Obtain the Business Need from the CR Originator-What is the problem that needs to be solved: This is a TRO Change Request.

Establish Action Plan & Resolution Time Frame: CR due for presentation at the February 19, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting.

January 27, 2004 Email Sent to the CLEC Community: Good Afternoon, This email is to alert the CLEC Community that Qwest will host a Clarification Call to discuss 2 Qwest initiated CMP CRs. Those CRs are: SCR012204-01RG TRO BHC IMA changes and Appointment Scheduler Enhancements SCR012204-02RG TRO - Batch Hot Cut Status Tool A copy of each of these CRs is attached. The Clarification Call is scheduled as follows: DATE: Tuesday, February 3, 2004 TIME: 9:00 a.m. MT CALL IN #: 1-877-564-8688, 8571927 Please feel free to forward this emailed invitation to other CLECs that I may have inadvertently left off the distribution. Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems

CenturyLink Response

February 3, 2004

RE: SCR012204-01RG

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR012204-01RG). Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held February 3, 2004) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1075 to 2075 hours for this IMA Change Request and 335 to 375 SATE hours.

At the next Monthly Systems CMP Meeting, CMP participants will be given the opportunity to comment on this Change Request and provide additional clarifications. Any clarifications and/or modifications identified at that time will be incorporated into Qwest's further evaluation of this Change Request.

Sincerely, Qwest