Wholesale: Products & Services

Archived System CR SCR091214-1 Detail

Status History

Project Meetings

Denise Martinez – CenturyLink stated that it was not an issue with the GUI or XML IMA release but rather with the CLEC conversion activities for that weekend.

Kim Isaacs – Integra confirmed the problem was with the conversion activities and not with the IMA Release itself. Kim said there had been questions in Integra with why there was a delay.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink asked if it was appropriate to talk to the Walk-on at this time. She asked Kim Isaacs – Integra to present the Walk-on that was submitted on August 12, 2015 that was included on Page 79 of the July 2015 System package.

Kim Isaacs –Integra recapped the Walk-on request. After the July mid cycle conversion was rescheduled, Integra received an email from the EIS team that set off a “tempest in a teapot” trying to understand the purpose. Kim said some concerns with the email were: why was the request sent to a broad distribution, why not use Integra IMA XML contacts as listed in the CLEC Questionnaire, why was certain information requested again that CenturyLink already has access to, requesting a one day turn around for the Integra response was not acceptable, and that including a Subject is a business courtesy.

Denise Martinez – CenturyLink said that she thought there may be some misunderstanding about who the EIS team email was sent to. She explained that this was not sent to a broad distribution but rather was sent as a follow-up to confirm details to only a limited list of contacts that were impacted by the delay of the Mid cycle migration and who had already been certified. Denise said it only went to those contacts who had previously been contacted by Denise by phone as a courtesy received the email.

Kim Isaacs – Integra stated that it seemed that the Integra email recipients were not those that would have been involved with the migration.

Denise Martinez – CenturyLink stated that Kim and Stephanie Prull – Integra were identified for the email and no one else from Integra should have received it. Denise explained that, regarding the Questionnaire, the customers contacted were the ones that had initially sent in details for the Mid cycle conversion. Denise said this was not intended to be a broad System distribution so it was not sent as a CMP notification. Regarding the issue of requesting Trading Partner ID, etc. and other information previously available, Denise stated that Frank Dolinar had been introduced in CMP a month or so earlier as the new CenturyLink EIS team contact and this was his first attempt at contacting people. The short timeframe was due to the fact that this was not intended to be a CMP notice but just a way to confirm Frank had the correct information. As to the missing “Subject” line, Denise agreed and apologized.

Kim Isaacs – Integra thanked Denise.

Denise Martinez – CenturyLink stated in regard to the concerns with the Questionnaire, CenturyLink would continue to research and that it would be helpful if Integra could send specific examples.

Kim Isaacs – Integra stated that there were ongoing issues with Questionnaire and the Subscription tool and that they would look for examples to provide.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink stated that we would take this as an Action Item and would investigate any examples that Integra provided. She then returned to the issue of closing the three IMA Release 38 CRs and asked if there were any objections to closing those – especially from those who had migrated.

Kim Isaacs – Integra said they had some problems when they were coming back online after the migration but those seem to be resolved.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink asked if there were any other objections. There were none.

07/15/15 Systems CMP Meeting SCR091214-1 IMA LNP Data TN edit SCR091214-2 IMA – Duplicate Port Request Edit SCR100914-1 IMA – TN Range Edit Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said these CRs are associated with the IMA Release 38.0 that was implemented April 20, 2015. He said we are holding the CRs open until the next CLEC migration to XML which is scheduled for July 18, 2015. We will review these in August to move them to Completed status.

6/17/2015 Monthly Systems CMP Meeting SCR091214-1 IMA LNP Data TN edit SCR091214-2 IMA – Duplicate Port Request Edit SCR100914-1 IMA – TN Range Edit Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said these CRs are associated with the IMA Release 38.0 that was implemented April 20, 2015. He said we are holding the CRs open until the next CLEC migration to XML which is July 18, 2015.

5/20/2015 Monthly Systems CMP Meeting SCR091214-1 IMA LNP Data TN edit SCR091214-2 IMA – Duplicate Port Request Edit SCR100914-1 IMA – TN Range Edit Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said these are the IMA Release 38.0 CRs that were implemented the weekend of April 20, 2015. He said that there was a CLEC migration weekend on May 16, 2015. We had two CLECs scheduled to migrate that weekend but they moved to the next migration weekend of July 18, 2015. Mark asked if it was OK to move these CRs to a Completed status.

Kim Isaacs – Integra said that IMA CRs are normally left open until a CLEC migrates to XML and asked if the CRs could remain open until then.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said we will hold these CRs open until after the July migration and revisit them in August.

4/15/2015 Monthly Systems CMP Meeting SCR091214-1 IMA LNP Data TN edit SCR091214-2 IMA – Duplicate Port Request Edit SCR100914-1 IMA – TN Range Edit Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said these three IMA Release 38.0 CRs will be implemented the coming weekend effective April 20, 2015.

3/18/2015 Monthly Systems CMP Meeting SCR091214-1 IMA LNP Data TN edit SCR091214-2 IMA – Duplicate Port Request Edit SCR100914-1 IMA – TN Range Edit Mark Coyne – CenturyLink provided status on these three IMA Release 38.0 CRs. He stated the Final XML Tech specs were sent March 6, 2015, the Draft GUI Release Notes are due March 23, 2015, the Final GUI Release Notes will be sent March 30, 2015, and that the IMA release is scheduled for implementation April 20, 2015.

2/18/2015 Monthly Systems CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said these are the three CRs associated with IMA Release 38.0. The Draft Technical Specification were sent February 6, 2015. The Technical walkthrough was held February 16, 2015. Final XML Tech specs are due March 6, 2015. The IMA Release 38.0 is scheduled for implementation April 20, 2015.

1/21/2015 Monthly Systems CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said these are the three CRs associated with IMA Release 38.0. The Draft Tech specs are to be sent February 6, 2015. The Technical walkthrough is scheduled for Monday, February 16, 2015 at 10 am MT. The IMA Release 38.0 is scheduled for implementation April 20, 2015.

10/15/2014 Monthly Systems CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said the CR was presented in September. The high level LOE for this CR is 1900-2100 hours and it is scheduled for IMA Release 38.0.

9/17/2014 Monthly Systems CMP Meeting Denise Martinez - CenturyLink presented the new CR to implement a new edit that does not allow porting of CenturyLink data TNs to support a new restriction that will be added to the LNP PCAT. Denise said this edit will be similar to other LNP edits that exist today, such as no porting of 555, 960 and 976 NXXs, etc. The USOCs GFR and GFB identify this service on the CSR.

Kim Isaacs – Integra asked if GFR and GFB have a voice component.

Lee Brummett - CenturyLink said it does not.

Kim Isaacs – Integra said this is stand alone data. Kim said the federal regulations do not carry an exclusion for data TNs and said if the customer wants to port the TN that they can.

Lee Brummett - CenturyLink said data TNs were never intended to be ported. Lee said the FCC does not say that porting has to be allowed and only the voice number can be ported.

Kim Isaacs – Integra said she did not read the FCC rule that way.

Lee Brummett - CenturyLink said he will go back and look at the FCC rules but said that the data TNs are classified differently. These numbers are not on the public switched telephone network as dialable numbers. Companies are limited to a small number of these numbers and it is difficult to get replacements when ported out.

Kim Isaacs – Integra asked if the data numbers are labeled differently in NPAC.

Lee Brummett - CenturyLink said they are classified differently than a dialable number.

Kim Isaacs – Integra asked what the classification is. Kim said she understood the CenturyLink concern about having to request replacement numbers if a number is ported but she also understood the customer concern if they want to change providers and want to take that number along. Kim said she wants to align the two.

Lee Brummett - CenturyLink said he would check the classification in the NPAC.

Kim Isaacs – Integra asked if the end user customers know the stand alone data TNs are not portable.

Lee Brummett - CenturyLink said he will check.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink asked if customers know that TN for a data.

Kim Isaacs – Integra said if it is on their bill, they will know the number. When the winning provider accesses the account, the number comes up and the customer says to port that also. If not ported, it causes delays the transition from one carrier to another.

Denise Martinez - CenturyLink said she understood that most customers do not know what that number is, that it is billing only.

Kim Isaacs – Integra said if it appears on the bill, Integra will ask the end user about it and will need to do address it. She said the problem will cascade when they tell the end user customer they cannot have that data number. Kim said she understood the issue from CenturyLink but it needs to be thought through from the winning carrier side also.

Denise Martinez - CenturyLink said it seems like it would be similar to the other restrictions that are noted in the PCAT like a 555 or 800 number. The CLEC will know the number is not portable and would be handled similarly.

Kim Isaacs – Integra that is not necessarily true. She does not know any end user that has wanted to port a 555 or 900 number. Kim asked if there is contract language that is clear to the end user what TNs cannot be ported.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink asked if the concern is more for the winning carrier than for the end user. Kim Isaacs – Integra said the end user will make the problem the winning carrier’s problem.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said CenturyLink will do the follow-up and will include the information in the meeting minutes if available. Mark asked if there were any other questions. There were none.

NOTE – CMP CALL FOLLOWUP: This is a response to Integra’s concerns with LNP data ports. We don’t port unassigned TNs which is what data TNs are. These first ten digits are the first ten digits of the account number, not an assigned TN. It should not be assumed that the first 10 digits of our CRIS account numbers are working numbers, and the account numbers are not portable, unassigned TNs are not portable. This is not mentioned in our standalone DSL contracts because we are not communicating a TN assignment to the customer since we are not assigning a TN.

Listed is a FCC reference to porting of an unassigned TN: FCC 97-289, pp71 references the LNPA-WG Architectural and Administrative Plan dated 23April1997 • LNPA-WG Architectural and Administrative Plan dated 23April1997: o 7.2 Unassigned number/Unreserved: Service Providers will not port unassigned numbers unless and until there is an explicit authorization for such porting from a regulator with appropriate jurisdiction.

CenturyLink Response