Wholesale: Products & Services

Archived System CR SCR021904-02 Detail

This issue makes reporting and tracking of jeopardy notices difficult. It also causes discrepancies in the appearance of the status updates in IMA when trying to view both EDI and IMA status updates.

Expected Deliverable:

Eschelon is requesting that any status update that is due to service order jeopardy, when the LSR has not yet been placed in Jeopardy should not be sent to the CLEC. Eschelon is asking that this become an optional Status Update that the CLEC may subscribe to if desired. Suppression of these updates will allow the CLEC to be clearer as to when their order is in a “true” jeopardy state. If a CLEC chooses to suppress the SU Jeopardy notice the only time the CLEC should see a jeopardy notice is the 855/865 LR that is sent back with a RT = J.

Suppressing of the jeopardy notice should not interrupt the status update flow of other statuses.

Implementation Date is an IMA Release.

Status History

Project Meetings

-- May 10, 2006 Email Received From Eschelon: Hi Eschelon would like to withdraw SCR021904-02. This CR has already been implemented in an earlier version. This CR is no longer needed in its intended form by Eschelon. Thanks Stephanie Prull EDI Business Analyst Eschelon Telecom, INC

- May 8, 2006 Received Voicemail from Eschelon Withdrawing SCR021904-02

- March 23, 2006 General Meeting Held ATTENDEES: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Denise Martinez-Qwest, Curt Anderson-Qwest, Anders Ingemarson-Qwest, Liz Emery-Qwest, Phyllis Sunins-Qwest, Steph Prull-Eschelon DISCUSSION: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that this meeting is to discuss this change request and a possible change in scope. Peggy stated that Qwest wants to make sure that the SME Team fully understands exactly what the request is so we go down the correct development path. Peggy stated that this additional clarification call was requested, with Eschelon, because Qwest does have some questions. Peggy then noted that Steph (Prull-Eschelon) had indicated earlier in the week that this may or may not still be a problem due to a workaround that Eschelon had put into place. Peggy then asked Steph if she had talked to her users to see if this was still an issue and asked if she had found and LSR examples that she could share with Qwest. Step Prull-Eschelon stated that this is still a problem. Steph stated that the customers that subscribe to status updates, in EDI, are getting the status update for a jeopardy but then did not receive an actual jeopardy. Steph stated that the response was suppressed and caused confusion because they received a notice of a jeop but not the jeop itself. Steph stated that the next day, they would get a call asking if they were ready to accept because the problem had been cleared before the actual jeopardy. Steph stated that this request was originally to stop the status updates and then on the initial clarification call, Qwest gave an option of receiving all status updates, via an update to a CLECs Profile. Denise Martinez-Qwest asked if the statuses that they are receiving are based on a query or if they were proactive statuses. Steph Prull-Eschelon stated that they are autopushes from Qwest. Steph stated that Eschelon used to load all statuses, and then the status updates caused confusion, so put a temporary workaround into place. Steph stated that there are some that they still want to see. Denise Martinez-Qwest asked if the Jeopardy Notice is the only one that Eschelon wants suppressed. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated that is the case for Eschelon but that Qwest had said that it was easier to do all. Steph then noted that Eschelon wants a Jeopardy Notice when the LSR comes out of Jeopardy. Steph said that they would also take the option of seeing some. Steph Prull-Eschelon stated that she would send service order or LSR numbers for Qwest to look at. There were no additional questions or comments.

March 20, 2006 Email Received from Eschelon: Perfect. I have it blocked off for you. Steph

March 20, 2006 Email Sent to Eschelon: Steph, 2:00 MT / 3:00 CT it is. Same call-in number. Thanks.

- March 20, 2006 Email Received from Eschelon: Hi Peggy, I will send them as fast as I can. One question. Would it be possible to do this call either an hour earlier or later? I have been scheduled for a mandatory meeting at that time. It just happened to come in between the time I emailed you and now (Go figure). Otherwise I am completely open on Friday. Let me know if that is possible. Sorry for the conflict already. Thanks Steph

-- March 20, 2006 Email Sent to Eschelon: Hi Steph, I have scheduled our discussion to take place as follows: DATE: Thursday, March 23rd TIME: 1:00 MT / 2:00 CT CALL IN: 1-877-564-8688, 8571927# Thanks, Steph. If you do get those examples, just send them on over. Peggy E-R

March 20, 2006 Email Received from Eschelon: Hi Peggy, Honestly I'm not sure if this is still occurring or not. But I can discuss with you. Since we had no idea when this CR would be implemented, we did a workaround on our side to surpress these from our systems perspective. I will check with my users to see if they have any examples that they have found out recently, but I'm not sure how fast I will get those. Let me do some searching and see what I can find. If you want to have a call to discuss I'm available Thursday and Friday this week. Steph

- March 20, 2006 Email Sent to Eschelon: Good Morning Steph, This email is in regard to your submitted CMP CR SCR021904-02 Suppression of Jeopardy Status Updates. This CR was ranked as the #2 candidate in the IMA 20.0 Release and during the business requirement phase of this effort, we have discovered some information, things that have occurred in the past, that may somewhat change the scope of your request. We would like to ask if the problem that prompted your submittal of this change request is still occurring and ask that you PLEASE provide some LSR examples to further assist us in our investigation and to make sure that we are headed down the correct path with this development effort. If you would send those examples within the next few days, that would be great. We will do some additional research of those examples to see exactly what you are experiencing. We would also like to schedule a call with you to discuss the request and what may still be or no longer be required to be done for this CR. I have attached a copy of the CR for your review. Thanks Steph, I appreciate your prompt response. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Wholesale CMP

- March 15, 2006 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the list of IMA 20.0 Initial Prioritization List is located in Attachment M. There were no questions or comments.

February 15, 2006 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion for IMA 20.0 Prioritization CR Review: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the list of IMA 20.0 candidates is located in Attachment M. She said instead of reviewing all candidates each CLEC will indicate what their top 2 candidates are. Jill said that we will also review the prioritization and ranking instructions following this exercise. Lynn Stecklein-Qwest said that we will ask each CLEC what there top 2 candidates are based on the attendance list. Below are the top two candidates per CLEC in attendance: AT&T-Sharon Van Meter #1 SCR031203-02 Resolve Disconnect of Account Number #2 SCR040403-03 Support of Expedite Reason Field on the LSR Covad (via email) #1 SCR102102-1X Dual Inventory of DSL Tie Cables in TIRKs and SWITHCH/FOMS #2 SCR103103-01 Support of Parsed and Structured CSR #2 Eschelon-Kim Isaacs #1 SCR 050305-01 Bulk PIC Change Process in IMA #2 SCR032202-1 IMA GUI-PostOrder/Status Updates/Posted to be Billed Integra Laurie Fredricksen stated that she would have to get back to Qwest on there top 2 candidates. McleodUSA (via email) #1 SCR031103-01 Changes to Edits or Process Regarding Complex Listings on an ACT of N Order for Resale #2 SCR040403-03 Support of Expedite Reason Field on the LSR SBC Bob Eggert said he is the ASR representative and that he will refrain from the IMA 20.0 prioritization process. Time Warner-Dianne Friend #1 SCR010705-01 Directory Listing Changes in Conjunction with LNP #2 SCR042704-01 FBDL PON Field VCI No representative from VCI was present. Verizon Business-Rosalin Davis #1 SCR040403-03 Support of Expedite Reason Field on the LSR #2 Rosalin stated that she would get back to Qwest on her second candidate. Information received via e-mail: #1 SCR042704-01 FBDL PON Field #2 SCR040403-03 Support of Expedite Reason on the LSR XO No representative from XO was present. Sprint-Jeff Sonnier #1 SCR010705-01 Directory Listing Changes in Conjunction with LNP #2 SCR031105-01 Change of Usage of CCNA for Sprint on LNP Orders TDS (via email) Julie Pickar stated that she would have to get back to Qwest on there top 2 candidates. E-mail received 2/15/06 on the TDS top 2 candidates #1 SCR032202-1 IMA GUI-PostOrder/Status Updates/Posted to be Billed #2 SCR 050305-01 Bulk PIC Change Process in IMA Cox-Tom Larson #1 SCR010705-01 Directory Listing Changes in Conjunction with LNP No second pick. Qwest-Jill Martain #1 SCR021904-02 Suppression of Jeopardy Status Updates #2 SCR102505-02 Edits for the LSR Delivery Address Activity (DACT) Field Comcast (via email) #1 SCR102505-02 Edits for the LSR Delivery Address Activity (DACT) Field #2 SCR110702-01 Request to Add Ability for CLECs to Get a List of Circuit IDs or Telephone #s Associated with Active POTS-Splitter

Jill Martain-Qwest stated that we will include everyone’s top 2 candidates in the meeting minutes. Lynn Stecklein-Qwest reviewed the prioritization instructions. She said that Qwest will distribute the Prioritization Form by 5 p.m. MT on February 20, 2006. She said that the completed Prioritization Form should be submitted to cmpcr@qwest.com no more that 3 business days following Qwest’s distribution of the prioritization form. Lynn said that the total point will be calculated by the Qwest CMP Manager and the results will be distributed to the CLECs within 2 business days following the submission of the ranking and no later than 5 p.m. on February 27, 2006. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if Qwest could explain how the highest point value works and how, for example, number 21 would be the top choice. Lynn Stecklein-Qwest said that the highest point value (i.e. 21) should be assigned to the CR that Qwest and CLECs wish to be implemented first. She said that the next highest point value (i.e. 20) should be assigned to the CR that Qwest and the CLECs wish to be implemented second and so on. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon explained that we go through this exercise to take into consideration what the other CLECs top priorities are so that as each CLEC votes they could take into consideration the other CLECs top 2 as well instead of just ranking their top 2 and then going down the list. Jeff Sonnier-Sprint asked if the ballot would have a ‘Point Value’ Column. Jill Martain-Qwest said that the ballot would have the ‘Point Value’ Column and that instructions would be included with the notification. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked what the IMA 20.0 capacity was, hinting at 75,000 hours Jill Martain-Qwest said that the IMA 20.0 capacity is 7,500 hours.

February 16, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that this CR is medium high for Eschelon. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR is also medium high for Qwest.

July 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that Qwest would distribute the ballot on July 27th, it is due back to Qwest on July 30th, and Qwest would email the initial prioritization list to the CLECs on August 3rd. There were no questions. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that this is medium for Eschelon. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this is medium for Qwest as well.

April 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that there are several options for this request. Connie stated that one option is for Qwest to provide functionality of suppressing Jeopardy Status updates or another is for Qwest to provide the option of receiving all status updates. Connie stated that since the LOEs are pretty close, the option of choice would probably be the second option. Connie stated that the LOE for the second option is 1275 to 2550 IMA hours and 100 to 200 SATE hours. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that the second option is their choice. This Action Item is closed.

- March 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Stephanie Prull/Eschelon presented the CR and reviewed the CR Description. There were no questions or comments. Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that this CR now moves to Presented Status.

-- March 3, 2004 Email Received from Eschelon: Hi Peggy, See my responses below. Thanks Steph

1) Is this request only for the existing jeopardy codes, codes that can currently receive jeopardy notices? [Prull, Stephanie A.] Yes this is for existing codes that can currently receive jeopardy notices. However I would assume this would apply to any new ones that may come along especially those that may fall under the 6pm rule. 2) Can you confirm that Qwest is not to stop any other status conditions; only those that are associated to an existing jeopardy code? [Prull, Stephanie A.] That is correct. I only want to see the statuses labelled "jeopardy" affected. We want the other status updates to continue as normal. This again would include new jeopardy codes in the future as well as they are introduced.

March 2, 2004 Email Sent to Eschelon: Hi Stephanie, We have additional question's regarding you CR for Suppression of Jeopardy Status Updates. 1) Is this request only for the existing jeopardy codes, codes that can currently receive jeopardy notices? 2) Can you confirm that Qwest is not to stop any other status conditions; only those that are associated to an existing jeopardy code? Thanks. I hope you feel better. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems

-- March 2, 2004 Clarification Meeting:

Attendees: Stephanie Prull-Eschelon, Jackie Diebold-USLink, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Liz Balvin-MCI, Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest, Deb Roth-Qwest, Jill Martain-Qwest, Phyllis Sunins-Qwest, Conrad Evans-Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest Reviewed the CR Description that currently the Jeopardy process states a Jeopardy notice will not be sent until 6pm if the Jeopardy can not be cleared. At this time the status updates are still being kicked off from Qwest backend systems to indicate the service order has gone into a jeopardy status. This causes confusion to the CLEC when they receive the Status update of Jeopardy however they never see a Jeopardy notice come to them. This issue makes reporting and tracking of jeopardy notices difficult. It also causes discrepancies in the appearance of the status updates in IMA when trying to view both EDI and IMA status updates. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the Expected Deliverable states that Eschelon is requesting that any status update that is due to service order jeopardy, when the LSR has not yet been placed in Jeopardy should not be sent to the CLEC. Eschelon is asking that this become an optional Status Update that the CLEC may subscribe to if desired. Suppression of these updates will allow the CLEC to be clearer as to when their order is in a 'true' jeopardy state. If a CLEC chooses to suppress the SU Jeopardy notice the only time the CLEC should see a jeopardy notice is the 855/865 LR that is sent back with a RT = J. Suppressing of the jeopardy notice should not interrupt the status update flow of other statuses. Implementation Date is an IMA Release. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest asked Stephanie (Prull) and Bonnie (Johnson) if they had anything to add to the description of the request. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that she had no additional information to add. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she also had no additional information.

Confirmed Impacted Area(s): Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest asked to confirm that the impacted area is Provisioning. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon responded yes.

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest asked to confirm that the impacted interfaces are IMA and SATE. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon responded yes, that is correct.

Confirmed Impacted Products: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest asked to confirm that this was an impact to All Products. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon responded yes.

Additional Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest asked to confirm that Eschelon does not want Autopush to go, and does not want SOSI Queries to go. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that it is correct that Eschelon does not want Autopush to go and stated that Eschelon only gets Autopush. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that Autopush is an update and a SOSI Query is to get status on a specific order or LSR. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that she only wants to see it if a Jeopardy Notice has been sent. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that first would see the Status Update, then the Jeopardy notice, then Autopush. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that in order to prevent confusion, she only wants to see it if a Jeopardy Notice has been sent. Phyllis Sunins/Qwest asked Jill Martain (Qwest) if she understood the piece that states "Eschelon is asking that this become an optional Status Update that the CLEC may subscribe to if desired. Suppression of these updates will allow the CLEC to be clearer as to when their order is in a 'true' jeopardy state". Jill Martain/Qwest stated that she does understand that statement and stated that it was done with the error notice and is the same type of functionality. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that was correct and stated that they need the options. Deb Roth/Qwest asked to confirm that Eschelon is requesting to not see the Jeopardy Notice or to only see it when the LSR is in Jeopardy. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon stated that whichever is easier is okay, but that Eschelon’s preference is to not see it at all. Stephanie stated that, to prevent confusion, if the LSR is in Jeopardy Status, she wants to see the notice. If the LSR is not in Jeopardy Status, she does not want to see the notice at all, until the LSR reaches Jeopardy Status.

Establish Action Plan & Resolution Time Frame: CR is due for presentation at the March 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting. Qwest will provide the response to the CR in April 2004.

February 19, 2004 Email Sent to Stephanie Prull/Eschelon: Hi Stephanie, Please provide me with your availability for the Clarification Call. Several dates and times would be great. I will then schedule the call and send you the call-in information. Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems

CenturyLink Response

March 31, 2004

RE: SCR021904-02 Suppression of Jeopardy Status Updates

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change RequestSCR021904-02. As discussed at the Clarification Meeting (held March 2, 2004) Qwest anticipates two options as possible solutions for this IMA and SATE Change Request:

OPTION 1) Qwest to provide functionality of suppressing all Jeopardy Status Updates across the board. Status updates, autopush, and SOSI Query would be suppressed if not in jeopardy status. The LOE for this option, Option 1, is 1050 to 2100 IMA hours and 75 to 150 SATE hours.

OPTION 2) Qwest to provide an option of receiving all status updates. The LOE for this option, Option 2, is 1275 to 2550 IMA hours and 100 to 200 SATE hours.

At the April 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. Upon obtaining consensus from CMP participants as to the appropriate direction for Qwest to take on this Change Request, this Change Request, SCR021904-02, will become available for the next IMA Prioritization vote.

Sincerely, Qwest