Wholesale: Products & Services

Archived System CR SCR101802-02 Detail

This would reduce the number of address rejects at LSR placement. In addition to this would be using listed name and TN so if those did not match we would receive a reject for name and TN not matching which would resolve the issue of orders being delivered to the wrong location.

Desired Implementation Date: 12/1/02

Status History

Project Meetings

September 23, 2005 Email Sent to Covad: Hi Liz- Is this CR okay to be closed? Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Wholesale CMP

September 16, 2005 Email Received from Covad: Peggy, I’ve not forgotten this request, I hope to have a response by CMP. Thanks, Liz

September 8, 2005 Email Sent to Covad: Hi Liz, RE: SCR101802-02 Ability to submit Line sharing, Line Splitting and Loop Splitting LSR’s with TN only. (Omit address) I found a Covad Systems CR that was implemented in an IMA Release and had a bug fixed in the IMA 16.0 Release. I see notes that I was working with you, off-line, in order to close the CR, but do not show that it was ever closed. I believe that you were waiting until you migrated to the 16.0 Release in order to validate that the implementation was working properly. My question is if you have any dissent to my showing this CR as closed? I have attached a copy of the CR, for your review. Thanks, Liz, I appreciate your looking at this and apologize for my confusion. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Wholesale Change Management

November 4, 2004 Email Sent to Covad: Liz, I will place SCR101802-02 in Deferred Status. Will Covad be migrating to 16.0 early or late this month? I ask as a timing issue so I will know to take out of deferred in December or January for closure. Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM

-- November 3, 2004 Email Received from Covad: Peggy, Covad requests this CR be moved to 'deferred' status. The reason being, we are migrating to 16.0 this month and until then, cannot determine whether functionality is working. Specifically the bug fix that went into 15.0. Thanks, Liz Balvin Covad Communications

-- November 3, 2004 Email Sent to Covad: Hello Liz, Any status to the email below? Is Covad ready to close SCR101802-02? Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM

- October 26, 2004 Email Sent to Covad: Hi Liz, This email is in regard to SCR101802-02 Ability to submit Line sharing, Line Splitting and Loop Splitting LSR’s with TN only. This is a follow-up to see if you have had an opportunity to check with John (Berard) to see if this CR can be closed. This CR was deployed with 13.0 and there was a bug fix with 15.0. Please let me know if the CR is ready for closure or if there are open issues. If there is a problem that is preventing closure, please advise me of the trouble ticket number and what the issue is. I will then follow-up from that end. Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM-Systems

- October 20, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that there was a bug fix in 15.0 and asked if this CR was ready to close. Liz Balvin/Covad stated that she would check with John (Berard) and will close the CR off-line if OK’d by John.

- September 16, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: John Berard/Covad stated that they have not had an opportunity to test and asked if this request fixed back versions. Connie Winston/Qwest said no. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR will remain in CLEC Test.

-- August 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR was implemented in 13.0 and a bug fix was implemented in 15.0. Connie stated that this CR would remain in CLEC Test.

July 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this was implemented in 15.0 and would remain in CLEC Test.

- June 17, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that there was a bug fix with 15.0 for this CR and noted that it needs to be validated by the CLECs. John Berard/Covad stated that he would like the CR to remaining CLEC Test.

-- May 20, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: This CR will remain in CLEC Test.

-

April 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the fix for this CR went in with the IMA 15.0 Release and will remain open for another month for Covad to look at it. Connie stated that it was a significant bug fix. There were no questions or comments. This CR remains in CLEC Test.

-- March 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the associated bug fix is going in with the 15.0 Release. This CR remains in CLEC Test.

-- February 19, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: John Berard/Covad stated that ticket 442850 is scheduled to be fixed with the 15.0 Release and asked that the CR remain open, for deployment of the full functionality. This CR remains in CLEC Test.

-- January Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that there is an open trouble ticket and that fix is being delivered with the 15.0 release. This CR remains in CLEC Test.

-- December 17, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: John Berard/Covad stated that there is an open trouble ticket concerning a ported number problem and going to the wrong central office. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the CR would remain in CLEC Test until the ticket has been resolved.

- November 20, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: John Berard/Covad stated that there is a defect in that Qwest is looking at the NPA NXX and that all ported numbers are being rejected. John stated that the rejects are because Qwest is not looking at the ported numbers. John stated that there is an open trouble ticket for this CR. This CR remains in CLEC Test.

-- October 16, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR will remain in CLEC Test for Covad’s 13.0 migration.

-- September 18, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: John Berard/Covad stated that Covad is migrating to 13.0 at the end of September so would like to leave this CR open until October or November CMP. This CR remains in CLEC Test.

September 3, 2003 Email Received from John Berard/Covad: Peggy: Covad plans to cut over to IMA 13.0 on Sat 9/27/03. We would then like to have one month to verify if the new enhancements work as designed. So I would target the October or November CMP meeting to close these two out. John Berard Director - Operations Support/Change Mgt - Covad

September 3, 2003 Email Received from Mike Zulevic/Covad: John Berard has been tracking the CRs. I'll pass this along to him and ask him to get back to you.

- September 3, 2003 Email Sent to Mike Zulevic/Covad: Good Morning Mike, This email is in reference to 2 CMP CR's submitted by Covad. They were implemented in the IMA 13.0 Release on August 4, 2003. The CRs are currently in CLEC Test Status. Can these CR's be closed? There were no issues brought forward, from the CLEC Community, at the August Systems CMP Meeting. Please advise if you are okay to close these CRs, or if you need more time to validate. If you have encountered any issues that would prevent closure, please advise me of what those issues are so we can investigate. The 2 CRs are: SCR101802-02 Ability to submit Line sharing, Line Splitting and Loop Splitting LSR’s with TN only. SCR111102-02 Abbreviated ordering information for UNE DSL. Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CRPM -- Systems

- August 21, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR was implemented as part of the IMA 13.0 Release. Liz Balvin/MCI asked if this request was fully implemented. She noted that her understanding was that only a part of it was implemented. Connie Winston/Qwest responded that the CR was completed and noted that Liz was thinking of the N&T Loop Qual CR. Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that Qwest would work with Covad off-line to close this CR. There were no additional questions or comments.

July 17, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR would deploy in Release 13.0, on August 4, 2003.

-- March 20, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion on IMA 13.0 Packaging: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we don’t have packaging options and went right down the list. We did deploy #3 (SCR062802-09) based on the Exception Request and we used approximately 42,000 hours. I know that everyone is very familiar with these CRs. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if Qwest found any synergies with other CRs. Connie Winston/Qwest said that if we find synergies we tell you upfront. We did not find any during this time. Beth Foster/Qwest noted that the SATE packaging is also listed on the CMP web site under the walk on section.

-- March 18, 2003 Email from Mike Zulevic: Thanks. We will watch how these changes impact our rejects. Hopefully, it will get us to an acceptable level. If not, we will initiate another CR to seek other solutions. Mike Z.

March 18, 2003 Email to Mike Zulevic and Kasie Murphy/Covad, Sharin Van Meter/AT&T, Liz Balvin/WorldCom, Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon: I do in fact mean House Number. Sorry for the confusion.

March 18, 2003 Email from Mike Zulevic/Covad: Thank you for reconsidering the requirement for street name. Just to be clear, your email indicates Qwest will validate on "Street Number." Do you mean "House Number" (SANO)? I also confirmed the requirements of Verizon and Bell South. For line shared LSRs, Verizon performs edits on TN and name only. Bell South edits on TN only. Michael Zulevic Dir.- External Affairs/Operations Covad Communications

- March 18, 2003 Email to Mike Zulevic and Kasie Murphy/Covad, Sharin Van Meter/AT&T, Liz Balvin/WorldCom, Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon: RE: SCR101802-02 Ability to Submit Line Sharing, Line Splitting and Loop Splitting LSRs with TN Only (Omit Address). Upon further review, Qwest will remove the proposed Street Name requirement from the Covad submitted Systems CMP CR SCR101802-02. The checkpoints for validation will be TN, Last Name/Business Name, and Street Number. Thank you for your participation and feedback during this morning's conference call. Please contact me at pesquib@qwest.com with any questions, comments, or concerns regarding this issue. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Communications CRPM -- Systems

- Ad-Hoc Meeting With CLEC Community - March 18, 2003

Attendees: Sharon Van Meter/AT&T, Liz Balvin/WorldCom, Lori Langston/Qwest, Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon, Mike Zulevic/Covad, John Gallegos/Qwest, Crystal Soderlund/Qwest, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest

Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the purpose of the ad-hoc call is for Qwest to explain and discuss the requirement of Surname for Covad’s submitted CR, SCR101802-02. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that a 3-point validation will ensure that we are dealing with the correct customer and stated that if we rely on TN only, the result could be a disconnect in error. The 3-point validation would be 1) last name or business name, would look for ‘Smith’, 2) house number or street name, would look for 3215 & 5 for an address of 3215 5th St., 3) location, street, etc.’ would look for Robin for an address such as Robin Rd. Crystal noted that there is a high level of urgency to ensure that the correct account is being worked with. Crystal stated that this validation would prevent an End User or CLEC from being upset that their wrong customer was pulled down in error. Mike Zulevic/Covad asked if Crystal if she could require the house number only. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that needs the house number and the street name. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked to clarify if the 3-point validation was TN, listed name, and listed address. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that Qwest needs to ensure an exact match. Mike Zulevic/Covad asked if Liz’s CR is with SANO and street name. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated no, and stated that she was advised that if the TN matched, the street name would not need to be checked. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that for DSL services, they are different types of facilities. Crystal stated that once the DSL goes down, the facilities get taken immediately. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that wanted SANO because the double check will ensure migrating the correct user. Liz stated that with the data portion, if migrate by TN & SANO, 99% of the time, a house number would be different. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that she is not aware of the percentage but there have been instances with the wrong customer account. Crystal stated that if just SANO, it could be the same house number but a different street name. Crystal noted that to provide data services, a customer has to be completely pulled down and we do not want to pull down the incorrect customer. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that there seems to be a 4th validation step. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that he agrees with the check-points being TN, last name/business name, street name, and house number. Crystal Soderlund stated that could possibly relax some edits to not look for location. Crystal stated that the 3-point check is TN, listed name for last name only, and listed address. Mike Zulevic stated that there are 2 types of service, stand alone data line and line shared services. Mike asked if Qwest’s desire is the same as for SCR111102-02 (Abbreviated ordering information for UNE DSL). Crystal Soderlund stated that the line share product is a different candidate and that more than 1 provider is involved if taking down a DLEC. Crystal stated that the result could be the taking down of the wrong DLEC; that is why we need to ensure it is the correct customer. Crystal stated that for UBL, we only accept the request from who ever owns the loop, so it would be your own loop. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that if a CLEC is attempting to migrate DSL, if the End User had DSL provided by Qwest, they could migrate. Liz stated that for instance, if had MSN or another IP provider, they have to disconnect DSL with Qwest before they can place an order. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that that is a different scenario, when line share is in place and changed DSL provider. Crystal noted that Qwest is getting escalation’s for disconnects in error. Mike Zulevic/Covad asked if Qwest has experienced that many problems. Crystal Soderlund stated yes. Mike Zulevic/Covad asked if they could be attributed to this situation. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that she has experienced where manual LSRs or overridden LSRs. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that he does not have data at hand but believes is less than 5% of the volume. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that he has 2 ILECs supporting TN only and there have been no problems with the wrong customer scenario. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that when dealing with a DSL, it is a lot more difficult to put the customer back up. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that with UNE-P, we don’t pull a customer down like it happens with DSL, that is the difference. Liz Balvin/Qwest stated that SANO is in there due to Qwest’s concern. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that migrations are not a significant number of LSRs and that using only TN and the customer’s house number would provide an accurate validation. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if Qwest would drop the street name and have the CLEC provide TN, SANO, and surname. Liz stated that that should be enough validation. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that she would be happy to look at that and asked why it was important to the CLEC to not include the street name. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that it is another step for the CLEC reps to have to perform. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that his request is for the CLECs to provide as minimal information as possible. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest asked what other CLECs provide TN only. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated BellSouth and Verizon. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest asked Peggy Esquibel-Reed (Qwest) to contact other ILECs. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that she would work with Crystal regarding contacts. There were no other questions or concerns. The call was adjourned.

-- February 20, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR will include TN, SANO and surname and stated that Covad understands the need. Connie stated that Qwest’s concern is that we really want to ensure that we are dealing with the correct customer, to prevent disconnects in error. Connie stated that the CLECs need to understand the direction for this CR. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked why the surname was needed. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that Qwest needs the surname to match the surname on the account to ensure that it is the correct customer. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that she is not sure why it is needed as it was not needed for UNE-P. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that the difference is with the product. Jill stated that there was an issue with DSL and the potential of taking someone down incorrectly and the issue is different with UNE-P. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the TN with UNE-P is with conversion and that this is adding DSL so there are a few more risks with that type of order. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that he doesn’t see that there are more risks with DSL. Mike stated that he agreed in the adding of the customers last name as a compromise, he doesn’t feel that more than the TN is needed. Mike stated that other ILECs do with TN only. Mike stated that if this doesn’t get us to where we want to be we, Covad will come back and ask for TN only. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that there could be more problems if the last name is spelled wrong. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we can take this off line and talk to our business partners to get clarity around potentially causing more issues. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that misspelling has not been an issue. Jill agreed that it would be best to take off line to discuss. Mike Zulevic/Covad asked if there is a possibility of a miss match because the billing customer is different than the ordering customer. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest matches against listed name. Judy Schultz/Qwest asked if we look at this offline, is there a need to have a meeting prior to next month so we don’t jeopardize delivery. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that clarity is needed because we have to package next month and if we have a strong reason for needing the name then we will have an additional meeting with the CLECs to discuss further; otherwise, we will move forward with TN and SANO.

-- February 6, 2003 Email Response to Kasie Murphy/Covad Kasie -- Thank you for your prompt response and your willingness to work with us on a viable solution. Should you continue to have problem's after the implementation of this CR, Qwest would encourage you to submit a subsequent CR. Thanks again, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Communications CRPM -- Systems 303.896.6332

- February 6, 2003 Email From Kasie Murphy/Covad As discussed this morning you have suggested an alternate solution for our CR 108202. Our request was to have TN and Name only in order placement and the alternate solution provided by Qwest was to have Customer Last Name, SANO, Street Name, and TN. in order placement. This alternate solution is agreeable to Covad. However, we want to ensure that if after implementation and additional analysis the problems persist we will put in another Change Request or work with Qwest to determine other solutions. We appreciate your effort in trying to provide us an alternate solution for our request. Thanks Kasie Murphy kmurphy@covad.com 720-208-3043 Covad Communications

-- Ad-Hoc Meeting - February 6, 2003

Attendees: Kasie Murphy/Covad, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, John Gallegos/Qwest, Berkley Loggie/Qwest, Jill Martain/Qwest, Joan Pfeffer/Qwest, Crystal Soderlund/Qwest

Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the purpose of the meeting was for Qwest to discuss the proposed solution with Covad. Peggy stated that Qwest would like to treat this CR similarly to the Covad CR SCR111102-02 (Abbreviated Ordering Information for UNE DSL. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that Qwest would look to the CLEC to provide customer surname, SANO, street name, and TN. That would result in minimal fallout. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that for example: for the name of John Smith, ‘Smith’ would need to be provided; for an address such as 3215 W. 5th Street, what would need to be provided is '3215’ and ‘5’. Another example for address is an address of W. Robin Ave. ‘Robin’ would be required. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that Qwest is looking for a solution for both CRs that would ensure both Covad and Qwest that we are dealing with the correct TN. Crystal stated that it is understood that one of Covad’s concerns is surrounding loc. vs. ste. And by going with this solution, it would really reduce the problems. This solution would also ensure that we are dealing with the correct telephone number and would help to prevent the disruption of service for Covad’s customers. Kasie Murphy/Covad stated that the proposed solution does seem to address their issues and asked if this was the same solution for the other CR (SCR111102-02). Jill Martain/Qwest responded that it is the same, except that SANO is not being used for the SCR111102-02. Kasie Murphy/Covad asked by using the street names, how does that ensure that there would be no disruption of service. Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that the street name would be another checkpoint to ensure that we have the correct customer and not disrupt the wrong customer, which is a Covad customer. Kasie Murphy/Covad stated that she would take the information to Mike Zulevic and stated that this could be a viable solution. Kasie stated that it would help to resolve Covad’s thoroughfare, directional issues. Kasie Murphy/Covad stated that she would analyze to see what the results would look like if this were to be implemented and advise if we can move forward. Kasie Murphy/Covad asked if this CR and SCR111102-02 would be worked together. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that the 2 CR’s (SCR101802-02 & SCR111102-02) are on the 13.0 vote list, but packaging has not yet occurred. Kasie Murphy/Covad stated that she is pretty sure that this solution would work but would like to confirm with Mike Zulevic. Kasie advised that she would let Qwest know today. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest asked Kasie to please advise via email to pesquib@qwest.com

-- December 19, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Kit Thomte/Qwest reviewed the prioritization process as defined in the CMP document. She noted that December 30th, 2002 is the due date for submitted votes. Judy Schultz/Qwest noted that the due date would be included in the instructions in the notification that goes out with the ballot. Kit Thomte/Qwest reviewed the sample prioritization form. John Berard/Covad said that this CR is pretty much nirvana if they get it. He also said that they have implemented this with other ILECs and it works great, it eliminates a lot of work upfront.

November 21, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Mike Zulevic/Covad presented CR and stated that he would also like to use SANO or customer name. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that SANO was used for other product types. The status of this CR is 'Pending Prioritization.

Clarification Meeting - October 23, 2002 Introduction of Attendees: Mike Zulevic/Covad, Kasie Murphy/Covad, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, John Gallegos/Qwest, Berkley Loggie/Qwest, Crystal Soderlund/Qwest, Joan Pfeffer/Qwest. Review Requested (Description of Change): Submitting Lineshared, Linesplit and Loopsplit LSR’s without address information. More specifically including only the name and TN in the EU contact information section. This would reduce the number of address rejects at LSR placement. In addition to this would be using listed name and TN so if those did not match we would receive a reject for name and TN not matching which would resolve the issue of orders being delivered to the wrong location. Confirm Impacted Interface: IMA EDI & GUI Confirm Impacted Products Physical Collocation, UNE, Line Sharing, Line Splitting, Loop Split Discussion: Crystal Soderlund/Qwest stated that when submitting an LSR by TN, if the TN contains a typo, Qwest would be able to catch if the TN does not match the customer. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that possibly could by using SANO & Name Lite. Joan Pfeffer/Qwest stated that there is a 12.0 CR, Migrate by TN, for UNE-P that will use SANO, but this is not a migration. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that he was hoping could build off that. Kasie Murphy/Covad stated that when do an address validation, and working with Beth King (Qwest), she gets an address back, then the LSR gets rejected when the LSR gets submitted due to multiple addresses. Kasie stated that does not want to send the address, can send the end user name & address. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that can send end user last name or business name. Joan Pfeffer/Qwest stated that the information is available via the CSR. Kasie Murphy/Covad stated that Covad does not utilize the CSR, uses address validation. Comes down to submitting TN and name. The name should resolve name mismatches or rejects. John Gallegos/Qwest asked if this is specific to EDI and not to SATE? John stated that he would discuss with Beth King. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that he wants to order as simply as he can and using as little information as he can and still be efficient. There were no other questions or comments.

-- October 17, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: This was a walk on item by Mike Zulevic/Covad. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that on submitting LSRs; how do we order service for Line Shared and Loop Shared? We are having problems with rejections caused by names that are not quire right. These then need Covad and Qwest intervention. What we’ve implemented with other ILEC is using ‘name lite’. We already know the telephone number; want to use the TN along with a surname. That has dramatically reduced rejects. An agreement would need to be reached as to which name to use. Listed name or what? Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that they have a CR for migrate by TN. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that this is for new service, not a migration. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the migrate by TN product is UNE-P. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that Mike/Covad submitted this CR yesterday and requested it to be walked on today. There will be a clarification call in the future. The CMP process will be followed. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that it sounds like you are looking for this for 1FRs. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that it could be a business, wasn’t necessarily a 1FR. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that is asking for a customer surname. Mike Zulevic/Covad stated that he hasn’t really thought of the business aspect. Jeff Thompson/Qwest stated that an alternative that might be more uniform would be the TN and SANO. It would be worthwhile to have a clarification call and maybe reach some consensus. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that for her migrate by TN, let us place an order, let us do a validation on TN and SANO. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that typo’s might be the only reason for a reject. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that this CR would be discussed again next month.

CenturyLink Response

RE: SCR101802-02 Ability to submit Line sharing, Line Splitting and Loop Splitting LSR’s with TN only. (Omit address)

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR101802-02). Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held October 23, 2002) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1250 to 2100 hours for this IMA Change Request and 25 to 50 hours for SATE.

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.

This Change Request is an eligible candidate for the IMA 13.0 prioritization vote.

Sincerely, Qwest