Wholesale: Products & Services

Archived System CR SCR042803-03 Detail

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable):

Qwest will update IMA to allow requesting a dispatch using the DSPTCH field and eliminate the manual process for requesting dispatch.

Status History

Project Meetings

SCR042803-03 Allow Dispatch field “yes” on LSR for POTS services to prevent manual handling of LSRs when a Qwest dispatch is required (originated by Eschelon ) Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the CR was denied by Qwest due to it’s economic impact. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she wanted additional information on the cost and that she did not understand where the cost of $110 is coming from. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the field would be available to flag a dispatch and if a Field Technician was dispatched on every order, regardless if it was required or not, then it would be very costly to Qwest. She stated that Qwest has reviewed the previous month’s data and that the cost would be very high. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if Winston/Qwest was saying that the CLECs would not be able to know when there needs to be a dispatch or not. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that there was risk to Qwest on CLECs having the ability to dispatch on every order. Kit Thomte/Qwest asked if Johnson/Eschelon was ok with Qwest’s response. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that currently Eschelon requires a dispatch on every POTS order, but that the orders fell out for manual handling because they could not use the “dispatch” field. She explained that through her request she would be marking the field “yes” instead of telling Qwest through the remarks field. She stated that she did not understand Qwest’s position. Judy Schultz/Qwest asked if Johnson/Eschelon if she was requesting dispatch today. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that under the current process, Eschelon orders using the remarks field which causes the order to fall out for manual handling. She stated that she felt that her CR was clear. She stated that she was requesting to use mark the “dispatch” field and mark it “yes”. She stated that she did not understand why this would be an increase in cost. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she would need to talk with the Network SMEs, but that she understood that by allowing this field to be used it would increase the amount of dispatches. John Berard/Covad stated that he believed that CLECs were being charged for dispatch in the Tariff. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR would remain in Denial Status and that Qwest would continue to evaluate the issues discussed.

CMP Monthly Meeting- excerpt from meeting minutes June 19, 2003

SCR042803-03 Review status of CR (SCR042803-03 Dispatch field 'Yes') (originated by Eschelon) Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR is in evaluation and that Qwest is working with Network partners to see how this can be implemented. There were no questions or comments. This action item remains open.

CMP Monthly Meeting- excerpt from meeting minutes May 22, 2003

SCR042803-03 All dispatch field “yes” on the LSR for POTS services to prevent manual handling of LSRs when a Qwest dispatch is required. (originated by Eschelon) Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon reviewed the CR. Stephanie Prull/McLeod stated that this CR would help her company greatly. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that the CR was currently in evaluation and that Qwest had an additional call with Eschelon the day before to review and gain additional clarification. Judy Schultz/Qwest stated that the CR appeared to have process implication John Gallegos/Qwest stated that it did and that was why Qwest had the additional call with Bonnie (Johnson) to get further clarification.

Additional Clarification Call May 21, 2003

Attendance: Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, John Gallegos-Qwest, Cathy Auguston-Qwest, Conrad Evans-Qwest, Terri Kilker-Qwest, Monica Manning-Qwest, Laurel Nolan-CRPM Qwest

Review of CR: Gallegos-Qwest stated that a few items came up while Qwest was completing their investigation. He stated that Qwest wanted to raise them to Eschelon immediately. He asked if Eschelon's concerns were in regards to moves and new lines and tagging at the Demarc. Johnson-Eschelon stated that the reason Eschelon got into this was due to problems with tagging at the Demarc. She stated that Eschlon was currently changing these orders to manual handeling and requesting dispatch. She continued that this was for business lines only and that taging at the demarc should be taking place. She stated that Eschelon was told that the only way they can have someone come out was to change the order to manual. She continued that they wanted to use the field for POTs and that it was currently available on UNE orders. She stated that they wanted to click "yes" and drive a dispatch. Gallegos-Qwest asked if this was for new lines and moves only. Johnson-Eschelon stated that he was correct. She stated that the bottom line was that they wanted tags and that they should be done every time. Gallegos-Qwest stated that the process is to tag, but that sometimes they were removed. Johnson-Eschelon stated that changing the order to manual prevents flow through and creates additional oportunities for error. Gallegos-Qwest asked if Eschelon was requesting to reserve pairs. Johnson-Eschelon stated that currently Eschelon used Facility Check. She stated that they just wanted to make sure that they get their lines and that they could not always depend on Facility Check in multi-line locations. She stated that Eschelon knew that they could not reserve facilities. Gallegos-Qwest stated that Qwest was currently looking at the impacts to processes and that they would provide an LOE as soon as possible. Nolan-Qwest stated that the CR was currenly in evaluation and that it would be discussed at the next day's CMP Meeting. She stated that Qwest would provide the LOE as soon as possible.

Meeting adjourned.

Clarification Call May 5, 2003

Attendance: Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Kim Issacs-Eschelon, Joan Pfeffer-Qwest, Berkley Loggie-Qwest, John Gallegos-Qwest, Suzy Enney-Qwest, Laurel Nolan-CRPM Qwest

Review of CR: Nolan-Qwest reviewed the CR title and description of change. She asked if there were any changes or corrections. Johnson-Eschelon stated that the request was cut and dry and that they wanted to be able to use this field when ordering POTS services. Gallegos-Qwest stated that this field would not allow all items to flow-through. He stated that other factors contributed to flow-through activity. Johnson-Eschelon stated that she understood this, but that she thought that this request would help with flow through of certain products. She continued that Centrex 21 doesn’t currently flow through and that there was an existing CR requesting flow through. She stated that the possibility of a facility being taken after a order is placed is high for business lines. She stated the need for dispatch. Gallegos-Qwest reminded Eschelon that there could be other reasons for manual handeling. Johnson-Eschelon stated that she understood this. Gallegos-Qwest stated that the change was technically feasible, but that he needed to work with the business partners to assess the change.

Nolan-Qwest then reviewed the products and interfaces impacted. No changes.

Nolan-Qwest asked if there were any questions or concerns. None. She stated that the CR would be presented in the May meeting.

Meeting adjourned.

CenturyLink Response

Bonnie Johnson Eschelon Telecommunications

CC: Lynn Notarianni Connie Winston Beth Foster Kit Thomte

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request number SCR042803-03, dated 04/28/03, titled: Allow Dispatch field ‘yes’ on LSR for POTS services to prevent manual handling of LSRs when a Qwest dispatch is required.

CR Description: “Per Qwest LSOG rules, the DSPTCH field is “N” (not required) for all POTS services. A CLEC is required to use “manual handling” with remarks added on the LSR when a Qwest technician dispatch is required to install and tag a line. Qwest requires CLECs use this process regardless of whether IMA facility check shows dispatch is required or not required if the CLEC requests dispatch. Qwest should provide a system solution instead of the manual processes. Because Qwest requires this manual process a CLECs LSRs are prevented from “flow through” for new lines and moves that require dispatch by a Qwest technician. A CLEC could easily populate the DSPTCH field “yes” when a dispatch is required or requested and prevent the Qwest manual process to request dispatch. When an LSR is prevented from flow through it increases the opportunity for service order errors.

Expected Deliverable: Qwest will update IMA to allow requesting a dispatch using the DSPTCH field and eliminate the manual process for requesting dispatch.”

History: A clarification meeting was held on May 5, 2003 with Eschelon and Qwest representation and an additional call on May 21, 2003. This Change Request was also discussed in the May and June CMP Systems Meetings.

Qwest Response: Qwest has completed an analysis for CR SCR042803-03, dated 04/28/03, titled: Allow Dispatch field ‘yes’ on LSR for POTS services to prevent manual handling of LSRs when a Qwest dispatch is required. Through Qwest’s analysis it was determined that the ongoing cost for providing the option of dispatch on every act of N and T would be approximately $110 per order.

Considering that this process can be requested manually, determined jointly between the CLEC and Qwest, and because dispatch is not needed on every order, Qwest is denying your request for CR SCR042803-03, dated 04/28/03, titled: Allow Dispatch field ‘yes’ on LSR for POTS services to prevent manual handling of LSRs when a Qwest dispatch is required based on economic infeasibility.

Sincerely,

Qwest

DRAFT RESPONSE May 15, 2003 RE: SCR042803-03

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Eschelon's Change Request SCR042803-03. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification meeting (held May 5, 2003) Qwest is still examining the issue. Qwest will continue to research the problem and provide an updated response at the May Systems CMP Meeting.

At the May Systems CMP Meeting, CMP participants will be given the opportunity to comment on this Change Request and provide additional clarifications. Qwest is interested in the experiences of the CMP community as relates to this issue. Qwest will incorporate any feedback received into further evaluation of this Change Request.

Sincerely, Qwest