Wholesale: Products & Services

Archived System CR SCR120301-6X Detail

When Qwest orders a local interconnection trunk group, AT&T assigns the two-six code and returns it to Qwest on the FOC. Qwest should be inventorying the two-six code that AT&T assigns for Qwest-initiated ASRs. However, Qwest is not inventorying the AT&T two-six code. Qwest is assigning their own two-six code. This presents a major problem in a number of areas including maintenance. One of the first pieces of information asked by Qwest when AT&T reports a trouble is to provide the two-six code. AT&T provides the AT&T-assigned two-six code, but Qwest didn't inventory it so the Qwest maintenance group can't find the trunk group AT&T is reporting.

Here is the industry documentation from the ASOG for two-six code assignment:

53 TSC - Two Six Code

Identifies a code assigned to a trunk group or a CCS link

Set.

NOTE 1: The code set is unique to each established

trunk group or CCS Link Set and is provided to the

customer on the Firm Order Confirmation or Design and

Order Confirmation. The TSC entry may then be

populated by the customer when ordering changes,

additions or deletions to an existing trunk group or CCS

Link Set.

Clearly Qwest is not in compliance with inventorying the two-six code, as the ASOG specifically states the two-six code is provided to the customer on the FOC. In the case where Qwest initiates ASRs, Qwest is the customer and AT&T is the supplier. Consequently, Qwest should be inventorying the two-six code provided by AT&T to Qwest on the FOC.

Status History

Project Meetings

June 20, 2002 CMP Meeting Discussion: Michael Buck (Qwest) said this is a cross over from Product/Process. If there is more to discuss, that can certainly be done, but the CLECs and Qwest discussed it in the Product/Process meeting yesterday. Qwest believes that this is not a CMP issue, but is working with AT&T to resolve the issue. Sharon Van Meter (AT&T) indicated that there would be an ad-hoc redesign meeting. She indicated that AT&T doesn’t want to close this. She acknowledged that AT&T understands that Qwest doesn’t think that this is a CMP issue but that AT&T does. AT&T wanted to include the other CLECs in the discussion. Sharon reviewed this issue, and how it was initiated as a product/process CR. She indicated that at the time it was submitted, no one noted that it shouldn’t be a CMP issue. She added that until we can talk about this at re-design and can get resolution on whether or not this is a CMP issue, AT&T would like to leave this open. She indicated that this was brought up last Fall to their Service Management team and that team referred them to CMP. Process CMP didn’t state that this was not a CMP CR. And now Qwest is referring AT&T back to their Service Manager. The good news is that Mike and Kit are working to get this resolved. Michael Buck (Qwest) stated that Qwest is moving forward with both the issue of whether this is in the scope of CMP as well as helping AT&T with their issue. Once this is discussed in re-design Qwest will decide whether this should be a Systems or Product and Process CR. Sharon Van Meter (AT&T) said that she wasn’t sure if this belongs in product/process or systems. She added, Personally, I don’t care, as long as it stays open. Jeff Thompson (Qwest) mentioned that his understanding is that this is purely manual. Qwest sends the CLECs a fax. The CLECs respond with a fax. He stated that in his mind it’s very clear cut that it is a manual process. He noted that when he first read the CR, he understood that AT&T was getting the run around, but that he didn’t understand why this was a Systems CR. He noted that when the issue is resolved in re-design, if it stays in CMP it should be a Product/Process issue. Sharon Van Meter (AT&T) said that while AT&T currently has a manual process, it was mentioned on a call with Qwest yesterday that Qwest is looking at a systems change. This has happened a couple of times, the ‘run around’, and while Sharon is sure that Qwest is not meaning to do it, it certainly looks that way to the CLECs. The 3rd issue to be careful of in the future, as things are brought forward via CMP, is that they don’t get sent back to the Service Manager. Jeff Thompson (Qwest) & Michael Buck (Qwest) agreed that that was a fair enough comment.

Time/Date: 10:00 a,m. (MDT) / Monday June 3, 2002 Conference Call-In No.: 877 542-1728 pass code 7117699 CR No.: CLEC Change Request SCR120301-6X Clarification/Walk-thru Meeting

Attendees: Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T Kathy Stryczek - AT&T Jeff Thompson - Qwest Michael Buck - Qwest Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Meeting Agenda: Introduction of participants on the Conference Call was made. The purpose of the call was to determine if SCR12030106X should be handled outside the scope of CMP. Review of CR: Donna Osborne-Miller reviewed the description of change on this SCR. AT&T opened this CR to address the system changes that must be implemented to address AT&Ts request for Two-Six Code Inventory For Local Interconnection Trunk Groups Ordered By Qwest This was previously known as PC120301-6. When Qwest orders a local interconnection trunk group, AT&T assigns the two-six code and returns it to Qwest on the FOC. Qwest should be inventorying the two-six code that AT&T assigns for Qwest-initiated ASRs. However, Qwest is not inventorying the AT&T two-six code. Qwest is assigning their own two-six code. This presents a major problem in a number of areas including maintenance. One of the first pieces of information asked by Qwest when AT&T reports a trouble is to provide the two-six code. AT&T provides the AT&T-assigned two-six code, but Qwest didn't inventory it so the Qwest maintenance group can't find the trunk group AT&T is reporting. Clearly Qwest is not in compliance with inventorying the two-six code, as the ASOG specifically states the two-six code is provided to the customer on the FOC. In the case where Qwest initiates ASRs, Qwest is the customer and AT&T is the supplier. Consequently, Qwest should be inventorying the two-six code provided by AT&T to Qwest on the FOC. Jeff Thompson said that he needed to understand why AT&T brought this issue to CMP. Jeff said that in this case, Qwest is the Customer and AT&T is the Provider and he could not consider this scenario one that would be governed by CMP. Donna Osborne-Miller said that AT&T was told by their Qwest Service Manager and Account Manager to work this issue in CMP. The Service Manager is Pete Budner and the Account Manager, (Lydell Peterson. Kathy Stryczek said that they also work with Dixie Carlson in the Des Moines Center on their conversions. Jeff Thompson asked if this order activity was all in region or out of region. AT&T was not sure. Jeff asked if there was a problem on the flip side when AT&T orders from Qwest via Exact and the TSC is returned on the FOC. Donna Osborne- Miller said there was no issue on this scenario. Jeff said that this scenario (when Qwest orders from AT&T) would fall under the umbrella of CMP. Jeff Thompson proposed that this issue be handled as a business to business issue and to work offline and not in CMP. Donna Osborne-Miller said that she had a concern that this issue would not be handled in a timely manner and that this CR was in Product and Process for months and then sent to the Systems CMP. How fast is Qwest going to work this issue? Jeff Thompson said that he would get with the Service Manager and that we might work as a notice and go with a 30 day notification. Jeff said that Qwest would be contacting Pete Budner this week.. Michael Buck said that Qwest would like to close this CR in CMP as withdrawn. Donna Osborne-Miller said that she wants to discuss this issue with Judy Schultz before any decision is made re: the CR. She wants to see if this can be a re-design issue

================================

May 16, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T reviewed request and advised that at last month's Product & Process CMP meeting it was determined that this needed to be a cross over CR due to impacts to Qwest downstream systems. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that for Systems, the CLECs usually come to Qwest via CMP and stated that there needs to be an off-line discussion as to why this request came thr CMP since it is Qwest who is the customer of the CLEC here. Donna Osborne-Miller stated that she is agreeable as this is backwards. Connie/Qwest stated that an off-line call will be set-up with AT&T. Terry Wicks/Allegiance asked if other CLECs would have the same situation? Connie Winston/Qwest responded that she didn't think that Qwest ordered LIS from any other CLEC but could check. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that it might be a good idea to do a General Notification so Qwest doesn't risk missing anyone.where there could be an impact. This CR will be discussed at the June Systems CMP Meeting. CR Status to be updated to Evaluation.

================================

INFORMATION FROM PnP CMP CR PC120301-6:

STATUS HISTORY: 12/03/01 - CR Submitted by AT&T and acknowledged by Qwest 12/07/01 - Clarification call arranged for 12/10/01, rescheduled for 12/11/01 at AT&T's request 12/11/01 - Clarification call held with AT&T 12/12/01 - CMP Meeting, AT&T introduced their CR, status changed to Clarification 12/14/01 - Draft clarification meeting minutes issued to AT&T 01/16/02 - January CMP meeting. The CR was clarified with the CLEC community. Qwest presented various potential manual and system options. Qwest received feedback on potential solutions and will continue to evaluate scenarios for presentation at the February CMP meeting. Status changed to "Evaluation" 02/12/02 - Draft response sent to AT&T and entered into CMP Database 02/19/02 - E-mail from AT&T with some questions about Qwest's response 02/20/02 - February CMP meeting: Qwest response dated 02/12/02 presented to CLECs. Qwest will present expected time frame for system implementation at the March CMP meeting. CR Status changed to "Development" Meeting discussions will be set forth in the Product/Process Draft Meeting Minutes contained in the Product/Process CMP Meeting Distribution Package 03/20/02 02/22/02 - Formal response dated 02/12/02 issued to CLECs - Document Number: CMPR.02.22.02.F.01229.CRResponses 03/20/02 - March CMP Meeting: Status update provided to CLECs, CR status to remain in "Development." Meeting discussions will be set forth in the Product/Process Meeting Minutes to be posted on the CMP Web site 04/12/02 - Revised response dated 04/10/02 sent to AT&T 04/12/02 - Revised response dated 04/10/02 posted to the web 04/17/02 - April CMP Meeting: Qwest presented revised response dated 04/10/02. Qwest agreed to open a related systems CR. Status of this CR to be advised after discussions with Judy Schultz. Meeting discussions will be set forth in the Product/Process Meeting Minutes to be posted on the CMP Web site 04/24/02 - Issued Systems CR to cmpcr@qwest.com on behalf of AT&T

PROJECT MEETINGS FROM PnP: 02/19/02 E-mail from AT&T with some questions about Qwest's response

Subject: RE: Qwest Response to Change Request PC120301-6 "Two-Six Code Inv entory for Local Interconnection Trunk Groups Ordered by Qwest" Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 17:20:24 -0600 From: "Stryczek, Kathleen K (Kathy), BNSVC" To: Michael Keegan CC: "Olsen, Linda Kae" , "Martin, Richard" , "Mead, Todd" , "Adkisson, Ann B, NCAM" , "Feinstein, Philip G (Phil), NNCER" , "Scherer, Esther A, NCAM" Michael, Thank you for your response to request PC120301-6 for Qwest to inventory the two-six code provided by AT&T on local interconnection trunk groups ordered by Qwest. If Qwest used the two-six code as the PON, would AT&T be able to report trouble tickets using the AT&T assigned two-six code? Also, would the Qwest maintenance group be able to locate a trunk group by searching for a PON which would have the two-six code embedded? If Qwest uses the AT&T two-six code only in the PON, but not in other systems, then I am concerned that Qwest may not be able to find the two-six code and associated trunk group when AT&T is reporting a trouble involving trunk groups ordered by Qwest. Kathy Stryczek AT&T 602-277-4527

Clarification Call, December 11, 2001, 11:00 am (MDT)

Attendees: Todd Mead, Qwest Linda Kae Olsen, Qwest Peggy Kilgus, Qwest Ann Adkinisson, AT&T Kathy Stryczek, AT&T Ester Shearer, AT&T

Reviewed description of Change Request.

Products impacted: Local Interconnection Service (LIS) Qwest need to have someone from the repair group who is involved in the management and use of the TIRKS system, involved in preparing the response to this CR. AT&T's expectation: AT&T would like Qwest to use the two-six code provided by AT&T when Qwest places an order for a local trunk group.

Action Plan: - Qwest will evaluate various options. This CR will be clarified with the CLEC Community at the January CMP Meeting. Qwest will provide a draft response for discussion at the February 2002 CMP meeting. - AT&T will provide Qwest with a contact in Ameritech to discuss ordering process and use of two-six codes. - Qwest to identify and involve the appropriate repair/TIRKS person to assist Linda in developing the draft response. An internal meeting will be held by next Wednesday (12/19/01)

CenturyLink Response

INFORMATION FROM PnP PC120301-6:

REVISED RESPONSE

April 10, 2002

Ms. Kathy Stryczek Manager AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR # PC120301-6 Two-Six Code Inventory for Local Interconnection Trunk Groups Ordered by Qwest

This letter is a follow-up response to AT&T Change Request PC120301-6, requesting Qwest inventory the two-six code that AT&T assigns for Qwest initiated ASRs.

Qwest’s written response dated February 12, 2002 informed the CLEC community that Qwest was willing to perform a detailed economic and technical investigation to evaluate the feasibility of implementing the system changes required to meet the intent of this CR.

Qwest has completed its evaluation and has concluded the cost of changing the myriad of downstream-related systems needed to effect this change is prohibitive. Qwest suggests deferral of this CR until the 2003 fiscal year funding review, planned for later this year.

Therefore Qwest regretfully informs AT&T that this CR cannot be processed this year.

Sincerely,

Susan Bliss Director Process Management Qwest

FORMAL RESPONSE

February 12, 2002

AT&T Ms. Kathy Stryczek Manager

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR PC120301-6 Two-Six Code Inventory for Local Interconnection Trunk Groups Ordered by Qwest

This letter is in response to AT&T Change Request PC120301-6, Two-Six Code Inventory For Local Interconnection Trunk Groups Ordered By Qwest. AT&T has requested that Qwest inventory the two-six code that AT&T assigns for Qwest initiated ASRs.

During the CLEC Community clarification meeting held January 16, 2002, AT&T confirmed their desire for Qwest to inventory the TSC provided on the FOC for the order. AT&T agreed that this TSC, along with the TCICs and ACTL information provided today, could be provided during the up-front planning meeting for new markets. Qwest could then use this code as the PON number as well as possibly make program modifications that would allow it to be used as the TSC (TGAC) in the processing and inventory systems used by Qwest (EXACT, IABS, TIRKS, WFA, TRDB, etc.)

Qwest is willing to pursue internal system changes to evaluate the feasibility (technical and economical) of implementing such changes. Qwest can not determine all of the systems that would be impacted, nor what the downstream effects on the process would be until the systems evaluations are performed.

If this approach is acceptable to AT&T, Qwest will initiate the required internal system changes and provide a status update at the March CMP meeting.

Sincerely,

Linda Kae Olsen Process Specialist - LIS Qwest