Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC021903-1CM Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

White-Qwest stated that the change was implemented on 5/30. Quintana-CPUC asked if the new language was in the PCAT. White-Qwest stated that he would find out and send Quintana an e-mail. ======================================= 05-21-03 CMP Meeting

White-Qwest provided a status.

======================================== Ad Hoc – Vote Meeting Minutes 05-27-03

Attendees Matt White – Qwest Rene Albersheim – Qwest Wendy Green – Qwest Lori Mendoza - Allegiance Liz Balvin – MCI Mike Zulevic - Covad Sharon Van Meter – AT&T

White-Qwest described the purpose of the meeting, explained that the standard for quorum was 6 carriers and stated that the voting standard was unanimity. He stated that Qwest had received Eschelon’s vote ahead of time and that with it, quorum had been established. He asked if there were any questions. There were none.

White-Qwest opened the balloting. The carriers on the line all cast their vote by voice as follows:

Qwest – Yes Allegiance – Yes Covad – Yes MCI – Yes AT&T – Yes

White-Qwest stated that Eschelon’s e-mail vote was ‘Yes’ the CR had passed by unanimous vote. He asked how the change should be implemented. Van Meter-AT&T stated that AT&T would like it implemented with a Level 1 Notification. There were no objections. White-Qwest thanked the attendees and adjourned the call.

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

Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes 05-15-03

Attendees Wendy Green – Qwest Matt White – Qwest John Finnegan – AT&T Lori Mendoza – Allegiance Liz Balvin – MCI Stephanie Prull – McLeod Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Monica Avila – Vartec

White-Qwest welcomed the attendees and describes the purpose of the meeting. He asked if any of the participants had comments about the proposed language.

Balvin-MCI stated that her concern is that the way the language is written, Qwest can mess up the migration immediately before the sunset date and the CLEC can be left high and dry. Green-Qwest stated that by the time the release sunsets, Qwest will have migrated many CLECs. Similarly, Qwest tries not to schedule any migratations on the last weekend to allow for a week of cushion. Balvin-MCI stated that the possibility still exists for Qwest to require a CLEC to use the GUI. Finnegan-AT&T stated that MCI’s issue is that they may not be up and running on the new release in time. He stated that the language that was added addresses the possibility of stopping earlier than the 60th day. Balvin-MCI stated that her biggest concern is that there is nothing in the language that covers the CLECs if Qwest has any fault in the reason that the CLEC hasn’t successfully migrated. She asked what would happen if MCI realizes that, after migration, there are issues that are Qwest’s fault. She asked what the CLEC’s recourse was at that time. White-Qwest stated that Balvin’s concern was not within the scope of this CR. He stated that this CR was originated by AT&T to allow CLECs to skip releases, not to discuss the finer points of migration difficulties. Balvin-MCI stated that this doesn’t get to the point of telling the CLECs that they would need to get the GUI if they failed to migrate to the new release. Finnegan-AT&T stated that it sounded like MCI’s preference would be to extend the release a little further. Balvin-MCI stated that was what she was after if it is a Qwest issue that has fouled up the migration. Finnegan-AT&T asked if MCI was concerned about not being able to get onto the newest release. Balvin-MCI stated that the language as it stands has a hole in it. There is no guarantee that the CLECs will not get high and dry if Qwest messes up the migration. White-Qwest stated that this problem would apply to all situations when a release is sunsetting. He explained that was why it is necessary to do a new CR to address this issue. Finnegan-AT&T stated that the proposed language was originally set up to allow CLECs to skip releases. He stated that MCI is bringing up an additional issue to address what happens if a CLEC cannot get on a release. Balvin-MCI asked if AT&T was comfortable with the language as it sits. Finnegan-AT&T stated that he was comfortable that the language allows AT&T to skip releases. He explained that he shared the concern about the successful migration, but could see that being in a new CR. Balvin-MCI stated that her issue is outside the scope of this CR. She stated that she would want to add new language for normal and extended sunsets. Finnegan-AT&T asked if the team could include language that allowed the release to be extended further. Green-Qwest asked what happened when Qwest technically cannot extend the release any further, because Qwest can technically only support three releases. Balvin-MCI stated that was a good point. She stated that the 60 day retirement delay is usually bumping up against the forth version. She asked if there were ever periods when Qwest intends to do a migration, and has to postpone it. Green-Qwest stated that she has never seen that happen. Balvin-MCI asked if there had ever been a migration that Qwest has messed up. Green-Qwest stated that there had not. Balvin-MCI stated that she recognized that this would be a rare occurrence. She stated that she felt like this language is to cover Qwest and there is a chance for CLECs to be left high and dry. She stated that she did not want to upset the AT&T change request but did not know how to get around covering CLECs in this instance. She stated that language could read “If Qwest is unable to migrate a company, the 60 day retirement extension will be extended to allow the CLEC to successfully migrate.” Finnegan-AT&T stated that he did not know how to address MCI’s concern and move forward with this CR. Balvin-MCI stated that the language as proposed gets to what the CLECs are after. She stated that the other issue will be a separate CR.

Balvin-MCI stated that she would need to get with her internal contacts to develop a new CR. She stated that she was fine if the group voted on this one as it stands.

White-Qwest stated that Qwest would propose a date to vote on the change and distribute the appropriate notification.

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

Ad Hoc – Vote Meeting Minutes 04-28-03

Attendees Matt White – Qwest Dean Buhler – Qwest Wendy Green - Qwest Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Liz Balvin – MCI Lori Mendoza – Allegiance Stephanie Prull – McLeod Donna Osborne-Miller – AT&T

White-Qwest described the purpose of the meeting, explained that the standard for quorum was 5 carriers, and that the voting standard was unanimous. He stated that quorum had been established and asked if there were any questions.

Johnson-Eschelon asked how Qwest kept track of who migrated. Green-Qwest stated that Qwest tracked conversions very quickly. She stated that Qwest wouldn’t retire the release until Qwest knew that all CLECs had successfully converted. Balvin-MCI stated that the language permitted Qwest to retire a release after all CLECs had converted without verifying that the conversions had been successful. She recommended that the language include “If all CLECs have successfully converted from the release.” Johnson-Eschelon recommended that the language include the phrase “successfully converted.” White-Qwest stated that Qwest would take the language back and attempt to address the concern. He explained that Qwest would then schedule another Ad Hoc meeting to discuss the additional proposed language. He stated that following that Ad Hoc meeting, Qwest could schedule a second vote meeting. He asked if there were any questions about the next steps. There were none. White-Qwest thanked the attendees and adjourned the meeting.

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

04-16-03 - CMP Meeting

White-Qwest described the CR and noted that the CMP community needed to vote on the proposed language. Menezes-AT&T stated that this proposed language ensured that a CLEC could skip a release. He also noted that the second timeline would be included in the CMP Document. White-Qwest proposed that the vote be held on 4/28.

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

03/19/03 CMP Meeting

Menezes-AT&T stated that because Buhler was not able to join the call AT&T and Qwest would have an off-line conversation about the Qwest proposed language. White-Qwest stated that he would schedule an Ah Hoc meeting to discuss the agreed-to language with the CMP community.

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

Ad Hoc CMP Meeting March 10, 2003

Attendees: Matt White – Qwest Wendy Green – Qwest Beth Foster – Qwest Dean Buhler – Qwest Renee Albersheim - Qwest Sue Stott – Qwest Donna Osborne-Miller – AT&T Mitch Menezes – AT&T John Finnegan – AT&T Carla Pardee – AT&T John Berard – Covad Mike Zulevic - Covad Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Lori Mendoza – Allegiance Becky Quintana – CPUC

White-Qwest started the meeting by welcoming the attendees, explaining the purpose of the meeting, and asking AT&T to describe their CR.

Finnegan-AT&T stated that this CR was submitted so the language in the document allowed CLECs to skip on release if they wished. Quintana-CPUC asked if this impacted PO18 or PO19. Finnegan-AT&T stated that he would investigate if the PID description needed to be changed.

Buhler-Qwest stated that having to extend the old release would cause Qwest additional resource requirements and cost. He continued that Qwest did not disagree with the nature of the request but that Qwest was developing additional language to propose to minimize some of the effects of the change. He stated that Qwest would present these proposed changes at the March 19, 2003, CMP Monthly Meeting. Finnegan-AT&T stated that AT&T had no problem with that.

White-Qwest stated that the vote would not be held at the March 19, 2003, CMP Meeting, but the attendees at that meeting would decide when to hold a vote. Menezes-AT&T asked if the vote could be held between monthly meetings. White-Qwest stated that it could.

The meeting was adjourned.

Open Product/Process CR PC022703-5 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected deliverable: Change the PTA email notification to include the Qwest contact name, phone number and the PON

Status History

Project Meetings

05/21/03 May CMP Meeting Minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised this change was made on May 12, 2003. Deni – Qwest has reviewed the change and no problems have been found. Sharon – ATT will check with her team and potentially close in June. This CR will move to CLEC Test.

04/16/03 April CMP Meeting Minutes PC022703-5 Subject Line for PTA email notification changed

Deni Toye – Qwest advised we will accommodate this Request. Deni reviewed the response and advised Qwest will make this change targeting the middle of May. The NDT PTA email subject line will be changed to include PTA, Initiator Name, Initiator Phone Number and the PON. This will be made as a Level 1 change. This CR will move to Development status.

- 03/19/03 March CMP Meeting Minutes Sharon Van Meter – ATT reviewed and clarified the CR with the CLEC Community. She explained this request will impact all CLEC PTA emails. McLeod advised they support the change and would sign up for PTA notification if the subject line contained the tester name, number and PON. This CR will move to Presented status.

Clarification Meeting PC022703-5 2:30- 3:30 March 10, 2003 1-877-572-8687 3393947#

Attendees Deni Toye Qwest Denny Graham Qwest Brett Fesler Qwest Sharon Van Meter ATT Cindy Macy Qwest

Meeting Agenda:

1.0 Introduction of Attendees Attendance notes

2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change Sharon ATT reviewed the Change Request with the team. Sharon and Deni discussed what information was requested to be in the Subject Line. Sharon advised the Qwest tester contact name and number and the PON from the LSR. Sharon advised this information would help ATT identify who needs to work the email notification at ATT. This will allow ATT to not have to open each email and determine who to assign it to.

Deni explained that the QCCC center does not divide their testing functions between their testers. Each tester can be assigned any testing job. Deni clarified this as Qwest didn’t understand the purpose of having the Qwest tester name and number on the PTA email subject line. Sharon agreed she would verify this information with her peers. (Sharon did reply after the clarification call that ATT would like the ‘ATT Initiator of the PON and his/her phone number).

Sharon advised that Verizon and Southwestern Bell provides this information on their test verification emails.

Deni asked if ATT wanted this change on just the PTA email or also the Test Results email. Sharon advised she would check on that and let us know. (Sharon replied this applies to just the PTA email)

Deni also asked if the words ‘PTA’ could remain on the email subject line. Sharon advised yes, PTA should remain on the subject line. The request would be to add to the PTA email subject line the ATT Initiator name and number and PON. Example: PTA – Initiator name/number/PON.

Deni confirmed if this change is made it would impact all CLECs.

3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Provisioning area impacted Unbundled Loop 2/4 wire is the product line that is impacted by this request

4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Attendees are the correct personnel

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation PTA should remain on the subject line. The request would be to add to the PTA email subject line the ATT Initiator name and number and PON. Example: PTA – Initiator name/number/PON.

6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None

7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Sharon will present this CR at the March CMP Meeting to the CLEC Community Qwest will investigate the request and reply at the April CMP Meeting

CenturyLink Response

April 8, 2003

Sharon Van Meter ATT

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response – CR # PC022703-5 AT&T Subject Line Change PTA

This is in response to AT&T’s Change Request CR PC022703-5. This CR requests that Qwest change the subject line of the NDT PTA email notification to include the Initiator Name, Initiator Phone Number and the PON.

Qwest accepts this CR. Qwest will have the subject line contain PTA, Initiator Name, Initiator Phone Number and the PON, in that order. Qwest anticipates this change will be made in the early part of May.

Sincerely,

Deni Toye Process Specialist Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC022703-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Reduce the FOC interval for a Dark Fiber order from day thirteen (13) to day two(2)

Status History

Project Meetings

June 18, 2003 CMP Meeting Minutes Kathy Rein advised we implemented the new FOC interval on May 30, 2003. We have processed ASRs using the new 5-day interval. Per Sharon’s request at the May CMP meeting, we did look again at publishing the interval but Qwest has determined this product will follow the existing guidelines in place for OCN products. Kathy Rein asked to move this to CLEC Test and Sharon advised yes. ATT is okay with the response and they have submitted some orders for this product. They will monitor the orders to make sure they get the 5-day interval.

May 21, 2003 CMP Meeting Kathy Rein - Qwest provided status that the interval for UDF was updated in the SIG to reflect 'Individual case basis'. ICB was used because UDF falls into the OCN product line and also matchs the OCN interval. Sharon Van Meter - ATT asked if the FOC would mean that Qwest could provide the service? Kathy explained the FOC does not guarantee service. Sharon asked why is the FOC not published? Qwest replied UDF matches the OCN product line. Sharon requested Qwest to look into publishing an interval in the SIG. Kathy Rein-Qwest agreed she would discuss this with the Product Manager and report back at the June CMP Meeting.

April 16, 2003 CMP Meeting PC022703-1 Seeking to reduce the interval of a FOC for the ASR associated with Dark Fiber from day thirteen (13) to day two (2) where Dark Fiber is reserved through the IRI process

Kathy Rein – Qwest reviewed our response. Sharon Van Meter – ATT asked what the FOC would mean to ATT. Does it mean Qwest will be able to provide the service? Kathy explained the FOC does not guarantee service. The IRI process is a ‘paper process’ and identifies on paper that facilities are available. The way to ensure facilities are available if by performing a field visit. Sharon asked if there is a charge for a field visit and Qwest replied yes. Sharon asked why the FOC would not be published. Qwest replied UDF is on the line of OCN products and OCN has an unpublished date. Qwest advised we will move this CR to Development and provide a target implementation date at the May meeting.

March 19, 2003 CMP Meeting Sharon Van Meter ATT reviewed and clarified the CR with the CLEC community. Sharon said that during the Clarification call Qwest asked if the interval was published by other RBOCs. Sharon advised Verizon and SBC’s interval is not published. SBC verbally gives a 20 day interval with a FOC on day 5. This CR will move to Presented.

Clarification Meeting Thursday March 13, 2003 1-877-572-8687 3393947# CR PC022703-1 Reduce FOC interval UDF

Attendees Sharon Van Meter – ATT Pat Finley – Qwest Kathy Rein – Qwest Janet Leonard – Qwest Cindy Macy - Qwest Title:

Meeting Agenda: 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Attendees Introduced

2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change Sharon Van Meter reviewed and clarified the CR. Sharon explained the process, as she understands it. The IRI process occurs first. This determines if resources are available and reserves them if available. The CLEC has to have a Collocation in place and this is an augment to the Collocation. Then the ASR gets processed to link to the Collocation. Sharon was given a 20-day interval and the FOC back on day 13.

Janet Leonard – Qwest asked who gave ATT the 13-day interval. Sharon advised the Des Moines person provided the interval (Debbie Mayhan). Janet advised in Minnesota we have 15 orders where we have reserved the dark fiber, we are working on the Collocation piece and then the ASR will be issued.

Pat Finley – Qwest asked what are the FOC intervals for other RBOCs? Sharon agreed to check on. Pat explained her research of other RBOCs finds no one has a published FOC.

Sharon advised Qwest has done a good job, Deb Mayhan has been very helpful.

ATT doesn’t want to get into the order and find out Qwest can’t deliver. The entire up front work is done in the Collocation so why does ATT have to wait for the FOC? ATT wants to make sure they are able to get service especially because they are spending money augmenting the Collocation site.

Pat Finley – Qwest explained when you reserve Dark Fiber it is not a guarantee the fiber is available. This is all based on paper records, which should be accurate, but are not guaranteed. Janet Leonard – Qwest explained the reservations are based on records and ICA language advises the customer they may want to do a field visit to make sure the fiber is available. SGAT 9.7.3.5.

Janet asked what does the CLEC want on Day 2? Sharon advised Confirmation that facilities are available so we do not get down the road and find out facilities is not available. Janet advised a field verification is recommended to guaranteed the reservation and charge associated with this. Pat said the DF request is usually reliable without the Field Verification but not guaranteed. The FOC is issued the day after the Design (DLR) is issued. This still doesn’t guarantee the order won’t go held. Janet recapped the FOC doesn’t guarantee the order won’t go held and we do not have a published FOC on DF in the SGAT.

Sharon – ATT clarified she would like to see a published FOC date which is less than 13 days. ATT doesn’t want to do the work to the Collocation site (add risers etc.) for no reason if they do not get the service.

Janet advised the APOT information is needed for Dark Fiber. There has to be a fiber termination. A copper termination does not work. The Service Interval Guide (SIG) has an ICB interval for OCN services. Dark Fiber does not have an interval and various products do not have a FOC date.

3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Okay

4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Yes

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Sharon – ATT clarified she would like to see a published FOC date which is less than 13 days.

6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None

7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) ATT will clarify / present this CR at the March CMP meeting on 3/19/03. Qwest will meet to review the CR and determine our response.

CenturyLink Response

June 11, 2003

AT&T Sharon Van Meter

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR # PC0220703-1 Request to reduce the FOC interval associated with Unbundled Dark Fiber.

This letter is in response to AT&T’s Change Request (CR) PC0220703-1. This CR requests that Qwest reduce the interval of a FOC for the ASR associated with Dark Fiber from day thirteen (13) to day two (2) where Dark Fiber is reserved through the IRI process.

Qwest provided the following response at the April Product Process CMP Meeting and Qwest has implemented the following change:

-Qwest will reduce the design due date to business day four (4) for Unbundled Dark Fiber (UDF) ASRs, thereby reducing the expected FOC delivery return date to business day five (5) - The UDF FOC delivery response date will remain unpublished - The Service Interval Guide will be updated to reflect a ICB FOC interval for UDF

During the May 21, 2003 Product Process CMP meeting ATT asked whether Qwest could publish the interval in the SIG. Qwest maintains our position that all fiber based OCN products have an ICB interval at this time. UDF will continue to have an ICB interval. Product volumes do not support a standard interval at this time.

Sincerely,

Kathy Rein Qwest – Senior Process Analyst

For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the April 16, 2003 CMP Meeting

April 8, 2003

AT&T Sharon Van Meter

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR # PC0220703-1 Request to reduce the FOC interval associated with Unbundled Dark Fiber.

This letter is in response to AT&T’s Change Request (CR) PC0220703-1. This CR requests that Qwest reduce the interval of a FOC for the ASR associated with Dark Fiber from day thirteen (13) to day two (2) where Dark Fiber is reserved through the IRI process.

Qwest accepts this Change Request with the conditions identified below: * Qwest will reduce the design due date to business day four (4) for Unbundled Dark Fiber (UDF) ASRs, thereby reducing the expected FOC delivery return date to business day five (5) * The UDF FOC delivery response date will remain unpublished * The Service Interval Guide will be updated to reflect a ICB FOC interval for UDF

Reducing the design due date will effectively reduce the expected FOC return by half. Qwest is presently addressing the internal impacts to implement these changes and anticipates implementation by end of second quarter. Qwest requests that this CR move to “development ” status.

Sincerely,

Kathy Rein Qwest – Senior Process Analyst

Open Product/Process CR PC022703-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable

AT&T requests training, preferably web based or via a conference call, to train CLECs how to better locate information in this database

Status History

Project Meetings

Sue McNa – Qwest explained that RPD is the Redacted Retail Methods and Procedures. Sue asked what are the CLECs using RPD for. McLeod advised they have been referred to RPD for order examples. Eschelon said for CF variables. Sue advised the Business Procedures, LSOG, and PCATs are the correct document to use for Wholesale information. Sue agreed it seems as if we need to make our PCAT, LSOG and Business Procedures more complete. It was agreed this CR would be closed and an AI would be opened to look at how and why RPD is being used and try to incorporate information CLECs need from RPD but is missing from our PCATs, business procedures and/or LSOG. We will work to direct our customers to our Wholesale Documentation, rather than the redacted retail M&Ps. Additional information provided after the CMP Meeting: Qwest has training in place called ‘Wholesale Web Tour’. This training takes customers through the various documentation contained on the web. This training is currently available to the CLEC Community.

Clarification Meeting 1:00 – 2:00 March 10, 2003

1-877-572-8687 3393947#

PC022703-2 Attendees Susan Orman- Qwest Diane Morrel – Qwest Michael Thompson – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest Carla Pardee - ATT Title:

Meeting Agenda:

1.0 Introduction of Attendees Attendance noted

2.0Review Requested (Description of) Change Carla Pardee – ATT reviewed the change request and also advised she is planning on withdrawing this CR but wanted to still talk to us about this so Qwest understands her concern. Carla explained ATT has been referred by their Service Managers to Infobuddy / RPD to find out information about certain subjects/questions they have. When ATT searches the RPD what they see is different that what the Service Manager views. This makes it difficult to discuss the information found as a result of a search in RPD. Carla requested if there was any training on RPD that would help them find the information they are looking for.

Susan Orman – Qwest explained that the ‘search engine’ is not something that Qwest provides. Each CLEC provides their own search engine, which is why the searches sometime deliver different results. There isn’t any training on how to enter search criteria, as this is a standard, yet individual way to query the web.

Carla advised sometimes the product name is different based on what RBOC you are dealing with and this also causes confusion on how to search for product information. The Qwest attendees advised Carla that the CLECs should be able to describe the product and the Service Manager may be able to suggest a few names to search by.

Carla asked about the Table of Contents and said it was not very logical. Michael Thompson explained the TOC was developed by the Retail organization and may not match the Wholesale organization order/view. The Redacted database does not have a sort except by date. The search engine determines how data is sorted/displayed. Diane suggested you look at the data by Product. If the lower level details that you are looking for are offered for more than one product, the data will be available by each product. You could search by many different products and then search again and find the lower level data you need. Diane suggested you filter by Wholesale first, as that will eliminate the Retail data that you may not be interested in.

Carla agreed she would try the suggestions we offered and withdraw her CR. Qwest agreed we would send an internal email to our Service Management team providing them with this concern and clarifications around the RPD, with the intent of them being better able to answer CLEC questions around RPD and Infobuddy.

Cindy advised Carla after the Clarification Meeting that she should present the CR at the March CMP Meeting and move to withdraw it.

3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Training / RPD

4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Agreed

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Carla will withdraw CR

6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None

7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Carla will withdraw the CR at the March CMP meeting

Open Product/Process CR PC022703-3 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

May 2003

Status History

Project Meetings

Pardee-AT&T stated that the CR could be closed.

=================================================== CMP Meeting 06-18-03

Sunins-Qwest stated that the change was implemented on 6/5. She asked that the change be moved to CLEC Test. Pardee-AT&T agreed.

========================================================== CMP Meeting 05-21-03

White-Qwest stated that the response to comments was sent 5/20. He recommended keeping the CR in Development until the CLECs had an opportunity to review the final documentation. ==========================================

04-16-03 - CMP Meeting

Sunins-Qwest presented the response. She stated Qwest already had a process in place but that it was not yet documented externally. She explained that Qwest would report on the progress of documenting the policy at the May CMP Meeting. Pardee-AT&T asked what the externally undocumented process was. Sunins-Qwest stated that she would verify the current requirements. (In an e-mail on April 22, Sunins-Qwest communicated to Pardee-AT&T that, on the LSR, there needed to be a “Y” in the EXP field, the LSR needed to be marked for manual, and the Remarks need to be populated with “Medical Emergency.”) The CR was moved into development status.

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

03-19-03 CMP Meeting

Pardee-AT&T presented the CR. White-Qwest asked if there were other CLECs who were interested in expanding this CR to products other than UNE-P. Prull-McLeod stated that she would like to see it expanded to all resale products. Johnson-Eschelon stated that she would like to see it expanded to all unbundled products. Sechser-US Link asked if there was a Qwest department where CLECs can register emergency numbers that would automatically receive priority if there were maintenance and repair orders opened for them. White-Qwest stated that he would find out.

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

Clarification Meeting 10:00 AM (Mountain Time) / Friday, March 14, 2003

1-877-550-8686 2213337#

Attendees Matt White – CRPM Phyllis Sunnis – Qwest Michael Whitt – Qwest Joy McConnell-Couch – Qwest Carla Pardee – AT&T Kevin Battin – AT&T

Introduction of Attendees White-Qwest welcomed all attendees and reviewed the request.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Pardee-AT&T reviewed the description change. Battin-AT&T stated that Qwest has expedite reasons, but they are directed at business customers. He stated that AT&T needed this option for consumers with medical conditions. He stated that AT&T understands that is not currently available through Qwest.

Sunins-Qwest asked if the only product AT&T was requesting this service for was UNE-P. Pardee-AT&T stated that UNE-P is only one that AT&T was looking for, but she felt that other CLECs would probably request this for additional products at the CMP Meeting.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted White-Qwest confirmed that the attendees were comfortable that the request appropriately identified all areas and products impacted. Confirm Right Personnel Involved White-Qwest confirmed with the attendees that the appropriate Qwest personnel were involved.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation White-Qwest reviewed the request to confirm AT&T’s expectation. Pardee-AT&T stated that the other ILECs around the country have a process similar to the one AT&T is requesting.

Identify and Dependant Systems Change Requests White-Qwest asked the attendees if they knew of any related change requests.

Establish Action Plan White-Qwest asked attendees if there were any further questions. There were none. White-Qwest stated that the next step was for AT&T to present the CR at the March Monthly Product/Process Meeting and thanked all attendees for attending the meeting.

CenturyLink Response

INITIAL RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the April 16, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

Carla Pardee AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR #PC022703-3

This memo is in response to AT&T CR PC022703-3. This CR requests a Medical Expedite Process for all resale products. Qwest Response: Accepted

Qwest currently allows CLECs to request medical expedites for both designed (Complex/Resale, Unbundled, etc.) and non-designed products offered by Qwest Interconnection services.

The "medical" expedite reason is not currently contained in external documentation. Qwest is researching the appropriate manner in which to communicate this additional expedite reason and will update the CMP community on the progress of this research at the May 2003 CMP Meeting.

Sincerely, Phyllis Sunins Sr Process

Open Product/Process CR PC022703-4 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

AT&T is requesting that the Transfer of Responsibility for Collocation be automated and a system solution be implemented to reduce the interval for the ASR restriction.

Status History

Project Meetings

Lacy-Qwest presented the Qwest denial. Van Meter-AT&T asked if any of the manual work could be mechanized or any of the current mechanized processes done in parallel. Lacy-Qwest stated that she had researched every process and that there was no way to further streamline the system. The CR was closed as denied.

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

04-16-03 - CMP Meeting

Nelson-Qwest presented the Qwest response. Van Meter-AT&T asked if there was no moratorium on LSRs as the minutes indicated. Nelson-Qwest stated that the minutes were incorrect and that there was a 5 day freeze. The CR was moved to evaluation status.

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

03-19-03 - CMP Meeting

Van Meter-AT&T presented the CR. The CR was moved to presented.

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

Clarification Meeting 3:00 PM (Mountain Time) / Friday, March 7, 2003

1-877-550-8686 2213337#

Attendees Matt White – CRPM Jeff Cook – Qwest Jane Lacy – Qwest Lillian Robertson – Qwest Peggy Englert - Qwest Cindy Kalakis - Qwest Sharon Van Meter – AT&T

Introduction of Attendees White-Qwest welcomed all attendees and reviewed the request.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Van Meter-AT&T reviewed the description change.

Lacy-Qwest what is an acceptable timeframe? Van Meter-AT&T was recently in interconnection agreement negotiations with Qwest and had proposed 30 days. She continued that she’d be happy with 21 days.

Robertson-Qwest asked if AT&T had any ideas for ways for Qwest to improve this process. Van Meter-AT&T stated that she’d like to see a script run that automatically updated all the collocation information.

Lacy-Qwest stated that during the 50 day freeze there was no moratorium on LSRs. Qwest agreed that the CLECs wouldn’t have to write ASRs, instead Qwest would write them manually. She stated that this is one step in a long sequential process. Van Meter-AT&T stated that the CLEC was put in a difficult position if it didn’t have enough trunks during this period. She stated the in such a case issuing LSRs didn’t do the CLEC any good.

Lacy-Qwest asked if AT&T would rather issue the ASRs for the DS3s and trunks? Van Meter-AT&T stated that the 50 day freeze had only happened to AT&T once, and that at that time AT&T didn’t have many ASRs to issue. She explained that she was concerned that 50 days is a long time for a company not to be able to issue orders.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted White-Qwest confirmed that the attendees were comfortable that the request appropriately identified all areas and products impacted. Confirm Right Personnel Involved White-Qwest confirmed with the attendees that the appropriate Qwest personnel were involved.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation White-Qwest reviewed the request to confirm AT&T’s expectation.

Identify and Dependant Systems Change Requests White-Qwest asked the attendees if they knew of any related change requests.

Establish Action Plan White-Qwest asked attendees if there were any further questions. There were none. White-Qwest stated that the next step was for AT&T to present the CR at the March Monthly Product/Process Meeting and thanked all attendees for attending the meeting.

CenturyLink Response

RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the May 21, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

Sharon Van Meter AT&T Communications

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR #PC022703-4

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request PC022703-4. This CR is a request by AT&T to automate the process to transfer ASR circuits from a vacating CLEC to an assuming CLEC in order to reduce the moratorium interval to submit ASR orders.

Qwest’s current process that enables the transfer of ASR type circuits from a vacating CLEC to an assuming CLEC requires coordination between several internal organizations that have responsibility for overseeing the updates to the affected databases. The record activity that occurs in the affected databases must be done sequentially and can only progress to the next downstream system once the step has been completed and any errors that were detected have been corrected. ASR orders received during the transfer process could cause the existing circuits that are in the process of being transferred to reject. Additionally, if change orders were processed prior to the completion of the transfer, it could obscure the correct CLEC to be notified in cases of maintenance, blockage, and/or overflow issues. It is a regulatory requirement that Qwest notify the carrier of capacity issues related to blocking.

Responding to a request to transfer ASR type circuits from a vacating CLEC to an assuming CLEC involves the following activities: - Update the billing system with the new ACNA, CIC, BAN, contact information, etc. - Update the TIRKS database with the new ACNA, MCN, BTN. - Update to the call record detail database with the new ACNA. - Update to the trunk record database with the new ACNA. Consideration is also given in the coordination of these database updates so as to avoid usage fallout at the time the bill is generated.

The moratorium imposed on the placement of the circuits is necessary in order to allow time for each impacted database to be updated. In addition there are timing requirements that must be taken into consideration when coordinating the updates to each database. Careful evaluation was given to determine if there were any processes that could be automated, which could reduce the moratorium time frame. Unfortunately an automated solution was not identified. Due to the nature of this type of request, the complexity and coordination involved among multiple systems prohibit Qwest from being able to remove the moratorium on placing ASR orders until the transfer is complete. Qwest respectfully declines this change request for the following reason: Technologically not feasible – automation opportunities, to reduce the moratorium on ASR orders, are not available.

Sincerely, Jane Lacy Product Manager

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

April 9, 2003

INITIAL RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the April 16, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

Sharon Van Meter AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR #PC022703-4

This is a preliminary response regarding AT&T CR PC022703-4.

There are a number of issues to be analyzed in answering this request. For this reason, Qwest would like to move this Change Request into the Evaluation Status to provide a complete answer to this request.

Qwest will provide a status update at the May CMP meeting and will outline their response at that time.

Sincerely,

Jane Lacy

Open Product/Process CR PC022703-6 Detail

Description Of Change

2. PARTNER TO RESOLVE CFA INVENTORY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO BULK CONVERSION PROJECT PLAN DEFNITION.

3. AGREE ON FORMAT/PROCESS TO TRANSMIT PROJECT TRACKING PLAN (WHEN AND WHAT).

4. ESTABLISH PROJECT TEAM AND DEDICATE RESOURCES (AT&T AND ILEC).

5. DEFINE "BULK CONVERSION SCOPE" (I.E., LINES PER LSO, LSO’S PER NIGHT).

6. ESTABLISH PROJECT TRACKING NUMBER AND KEY MILESTONES.

7. STANDARD WINDOW OF TIME TO DO BULK CONVERSIONS (POST 5:00 PM LOCAL TIME).

8. ESTABLISH COORDINATION OF BULK CONVERSIONS VIA OPEN CONFERENCE BRIDGE AT TIMES OF CONVERSION.

9. DEDICATED TEAM IDENTIFIED AND CONTRACT DETAIL SHARED (INCLUDE ESCALATION DETAIL - WHO/HOW).

- TECHNICIAN.

- PROJECT MANAGER.

- ESCALATION CHAIN.

10. DEFINE ANY SPECIAL ORDERING INSTRUCTIONS.

11. PROCESS ORDERS VIA SPREADSHEET IDENTIFYING ALL PERTINENT CUSTOMER/LINE DETAIL. NOTE: AT&T WILL PROVIDE ONE LSR PER CUSTOMER LOCATION FOR CONVERSION.

12. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF SPREADSHEET AND COMMITMENT TO SCHEDULED BULK CONVERSION DATE.

13. IDENTIFY ALL POTENTIAL CUSTOMER/LINE REJECTS IN TIME TO RESOLVE PRIOR TO THE BULK CONVERSIONS.

- BUSY CFA.

- DATA MISMATCH.

- FACILITY QUALIFICATIONS, INTEGRATED SLCs - TIMEFRAME TO AVOID FOC REJECTS?

14. DETERMINE/AGREE UPON LAST DATE TO FREEZE TARGET BULK CONVERSION LIST - 5 DAYS (NO MORE CUSTOMER/LINES ADDED).

15. 24-48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONVERSION PERFORM READINESS TESTS AND RESOLVE ANY IDENTIFIED ISSUES.

- ANI VERIFICATION AT MDF OF NEW CIRCUIT AND EXISTING ILEC CIRCUIT.

- PRE-WIRE.

- LOOP QUALIFICATION TEST.

- DIAL TONE CHECK.

16. AT NIGHT OF CONVERSION:

- PARTICIPATE IN PRE-CUT CALL

- MAINTAIN AVAILABILITY DURING CUTS

- CUT ONE LINE AT A TIME.

- COMPLETE ALL SCHEDULED CUTS AND ACKNIOWLEDGE PROJECT COMPLETION

- RESPOND TO ALL SERVICES OUTAGE CONDITIONS THAT RESULT FROM CONVERSION (WILL ROLL BACK TO UNE-P IF NO RESOLUTION).

17. PROCESS TO RESTORE ALL SERVICE OUTAGE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED POST-CONVERSIONS.

18. DO NOT INCLUDE P TO L BULK CONVERSION LINES AT ILEC LOSS AND COMPLETION REPORT.

Expected Deliverable:

Modify CR # PC090401-2 with expected process in place with documentation by June 2003.

Status History

Project Meetings

12/17/03 December CMP Meeting Russ Urevig – Qwest provided status and the dates that this process was implemented. Russ asked if it was okay to close this CR. Carla Pardee – ATT advised it is okay to close. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked if the regional Batch Hot Cut process will replace this process? Russ advised yes. John Berard – Covad asked if Line Splitting is also being reviewed by the TRO? Russ advised yes. Carla Pardee – ATT advised they are aware that the TRO will address this process so that is why they are okay with closing this CR. The status will move to Closed.

11/19/03 November CMP Meeting Russ Urevig – Qwest advised the PCAT change was submitted and the comments cycle has ended. This CR will move to CLEC test.

10/15/03 October CMP Meeting minutes Russ Urevig – Qwest advised on September 22 updates were made to the UBL General section. The Notification went out October 2, 2003. The comment cycle ends October 23, 2003. No comments have come in as of yet. Russ asked if we could move this to CLEC Test. ATT requested we leave in Development until the comment cycle ends. The notification dates were reviewed after the October Meeting and it was determined the correct date that the comment cycle ended was October 9, 2003. Carla Pardee – ATT was advised and Carla agreed to issue an informal comment. The status of this project will move to CLEC Test.

9/17/03 September CMP meeting minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised the documentation team is currently reviewing the document and they hope to have this out for review by the end of the month.

8/20/03 August CMP meeting mintues Russ Urevig-Qwest advised the document should be available at the end of the month for CLEC review. This CR will stay in Development. Carla Pardee-ATT advised this is okay.

7/16/03 July CMP Meeting Minutes Russ Urevig-Qwest advised that Qwest is continuing to work on all items on this CR except 3, 4, 9, 11, 12 and 18. Qwest is in progress of updating the Migrations and Conversion PCAT to include the Bulk Conversion process and links to existing procedures that support the Bulk Conversion process. Russ advised PC061803-1 was opened to track the denial items of 3, 4, 9, 11, and 12. Item 18 is a system change and if ATT wants to pursue this item they should issue a systems CR. Carla – ATT advised she is okay with this response. This CR will stay in Development status.

6/18/03 June CMP Meeting Minutes Russ Urevig – Qwest explained there are 18 items on this CR and we want to accept the CR and document the bulk conversion process and work together on performing bulk conversions. There are some items that we can’t provide within our process; such as accepting LSRs with a spreadsheet and provided a dedicated team. Other items we will implement. The response provides details for each item. Carla Pardee advised ATT is disappointed with Qwest’s response but we do not choose to pursue it any further. Carla advised the spirit of the request was to process conversions in a bulk manner via a spreadsheet, after hours, with a dedicated team. Qwest is not providing a bulk conversion. Carla advised she will submit a systems CR for the Loss and Completions report. Russ advised we will move forward on the items that we agreed to. Bonnie asked if this is a denial or not. ATT advised they will not pursue this any longer. Kit advised we can open a CR and deny the items we will not provide and move these items into Development. Bonnie advised we need to add language into CMP for a partial denial or change in CR description or create a new status. Bonnie will open a new CR.

5/21/03 May CMP Meeting Minutes Russ Urevig – Qwest advised we have looked at this process and believe we can provide documentation updates and links in the Migrations and Conversion PCAT. There were 18 items listed on this CR. Some of the items requested we can provide and some items we will not be able to provide. A systems CR needs to be issued for item #18. ATT agreed they would look at this. Qwest is still evaluating this CR. Cindy Macy – Qwest will schedule another meeting to review the CR.

4/16/03 April CMP Meeting PC022703-1 UNE P to UNE L Bulk Conversions Russ Urevig – Qwest reviewed the response and advised we are currently investigating what it will take to implement some of the process steps identified in the CR. As a result of our internal meetings Qwest will be able to determine what can be supported and review that process with ATT. Qwest will move this CR to Evaluation status.

03/19/03 March CMP Meeting Carla Pardee ATT reviewed and clarified the CR as a Walk On. This CR is similar to another CR that ATT submitted 1 ½ years ago. We now want to modify the CR and make sure the process is documented as a package for UNE P to UNE L Conversions.

Clarification Meeting March 17, 2003 1:00 – 2:00 PM MST 1-877-572-8687 3393947# PC022703-6

Attendees Carla Pardee – ATT Mitch Menendez – ATT Ervin Rea – ATT Vicki Faber – ATT Lisa Tyler – ATT Lydell Peterson – Qwest Kit Thomte – Qwest Russell Urevig – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest

Meeting Agenda: 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Attendees Introduced

2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change Carla Pardee – ATT reviewed and clarified the CR. Carla advised ATT does not need this CR to be proprietary and would like to Walk On the CR at the March CMP Meeting. Qwest – Cindy Macy advised that the Service Management team as a Project can handle this CR and does not need to go through the CMP Process. It was agreed we would review the CR and then make the determination on how to handle it.

ATT advised they would prefer to leave the CR in the CMP Process, as they would like the process formally documented. Mitch – ATT asked if Qwest sees this as something unique for ATT? Qwest replied no, most of the items are standard process. We have not done bulk LSO conversion out of hours. Carla asked about #11 – Process orders on a spreadsheet and Qwest agreed that was not a standard item either.

Carla reviewed the CR in detail. #1 – Russ advised today the CLEC has the ability to validate the CFA in the Pre-Order overview – Loop Qual, Appendix F.

#2 – Russ advised the process for resolving a discrepancy of a busy CFA assignment is via Escalations. Mitch asked if this process is documented and Russ advised he would check.

ATT advised they would like to cut down the number of transactions. This is why Bulk Activity is requested.

3-6 no comments

#7 – Window of time to do bulk conversions (post 5pm). Russ advised this might be handled as a CHC – OOH conversions. Ervin advised ATT is not interested in having each one a CHC or paying for CHC. They would want to negotiated this item. Russ advised we do not have a Bulk Rate for cuts. We would have to look into this.

8-10 no comments

#11 Russ advised Qwest would expect an LSR per customer. Ervin advised they would like to process via a spreadsheet. Russ advised our systems would need individual LSRs but the spreadsheet could be used as a backup / tracking document.

12 – 17 no comment

#18 – Do not include lines in the Loss and Completion report. Russ advised the SOPS generate a report today. Any activity triggers items to this report. Ervin explained they do not want to have these accounts show up on the report, as we are not loosing them. Mitch asked if the SOPS would generate a loss and completion report. Russ advised yes, we would have to match the RSID/ZCID, the loss on the UNE P side would occur, and the completion on the UNE L side would occur. Ervin asked if we could use a Project number and identify these on the report. Russ advised this would be a SOP system change. Vicky said she would check on, as they would prefer this not to show on the report. Ervin said we are creating activity but not creating revenue for anyone. It is really a wash in actual customer impacts. Lisa advised ATT is concerned about the message CLECs get from this data showing up on the Loss and Completion report. Russ confirmed the IMA notification would provide enough to show the LSR is complete. ATT asked if the cycle time for the Loss versus the Completion is the same. Russ advised both reports are run at the end of the day. He is not sure if the cycle times are exact to each other.

Ervin advised ATT would like a ‘New Process’ documented to pull this process all together, instead of reviewing multiple piece part processes.

Russ asked if a dispatch to the Demarc would be required – Ervin advised no.

Qwest asked when are the cuts planned? ATT advised most likely Monday – Friday, as Saturday or Sunday would impact cost and resources and overtime rates.

ATT explained they would like one document to use that tells them: How to do this Where to go (what systems to use) Identifies contacts

Cindy Macy Qwest advised ATT that other CLECs may want to provide input to this process. ATT advised that is okay.

3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted UNE P

4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved May need to include Monica Manning

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Single Process documented

6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None

7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) ATT will walk this on to the March CMP Meeting Qwest will meet to determine our response

CenturyLink Response

For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the June 18, 2003 CMP Product Process Meeting

AT&T Ervin Rea Manager

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR PC022703-6 UNE-P to UNE-L Bulk Conversion

This letter is in response to ATT Change Request PC022703-6 UNE P to UNE L Bulk conversion. This CR requests that Qwest provide a process to perform UNE P to UNE L Bulk Conversions within a single LSO for a single CLEC, and document the process on the Wholesale Web site.

This CR has prompted several internal department meetings to discuss the 18 items listed. Qwest agrees with the basic context of the CR and accepts the CR request to create an informational guide section in the PCAT for Bulk Conversion.

This information would be best located in the Migrations/Conversion PCAT, providing direction for both normal hour and out of hour conversion. The information provided will be general rules to follow for planning, scheduling, escalating, monitoring and completing a Bulk Conversion. Product specific information or process specific information on creating requests will be available through links to those respective PCATs.

We have included the 18 separate requests that were made on this CR and we have responded to each item separately. (See below)

Change Description Request: Qwest Response: 1. PROVIDE ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO AT&T TO CHECK ILEC CFA INVENTORY PER EXISTING CFA PROCESS. This functionality currently exists in IMA as a pre-order tool: Validate CFA. Additional information about this pre-order functionality can be found in the Pre-Order Overview PCAT. 2. PARTNER TO RESOLVE CFA INVENTORY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO BULK CONVERSION PROJECT PLAN DEFNITION. There is a process for Busy CFA, this process was developed in response to a previous CR 5464735 to handle CFA discrepancies via the escalations desk. This process is called Confirming Busy CFA, links can be found in the Pre-Order Overview PCAT. These links will place you in the Loop Qualification and Raw Loop Data Job CLEC Job Aid. This section will provide step by step information on who to call and the required information to resolve the issues.

3. AGREE ON FORMAT/PROCESS TO TRANSMIT PROJECT TRACKING PLAN (WHEN AND WHAT).

The Qwest process for conversion requires individual LSRs for each end user address. Additional fields on the LSR enable project tracking by the CLEC (e.g., LSR field number 22 PROJECT - Project Identification).

4. ESTABLISH PROJECT TEAM AND DEDICATE RESOURCES (AT&T AND ILEC). Qwest will utilize the current work force trained to handle conversions of this kind.

5. DEFINE "BULK CONVERSION SCOPE" (I.E., LINES PER LSO, LSO’S PER NIGHT). Because Qwest will use the standard process for conversions, no scope definition is required.

6. ESTABLISH PROJECT TRACKING NUMBER AND KEY MILESTONES. The Project Identification field on the LSR is used to keep the requests associated together. The CLEC can populate the project identification field and use this information for their tracking.

7. STANDARD WINDOW OF TIME TO DO BULK CONVERSIONS (POST 5:00 PM LOCAL TIME). This is negotiated based on resources available for out of hour cuts. Normal business hour cuts are based on product type. (e.g. UBL hours of business are 8am to 5pm, for out of hours cut times are 5:01pm to 7:59 am.) The type of installation determines the specific cut time.

8. ESTABLISH COORDINATION OF BULK CONVERSIONS VIA OPEN CONFERENCE BRIDGE AT TIMES OF CONVERSION. Qwest will participate on a CLEC provided conference bridge to advise acceptance of loop, testing requirements, etc. The conference bridge number would be required as the number for the IMPCON contact number. This contact number will flow to the tester as part of the CLEC contact information.

9. DEDICATED TEAM IDENTIFIED AND CONTACT DETAIL SHARED (INCLUDE ESCALATION DETAIL - WHO/HOW). - TECHNICIAN. - PROJECT MANAGER. - ESCALATION CHAIN. Qwest will utilize the current work force trained to handle conversions of this kind. If there is a need to contact the escalation desk, Qwest has defined contacts for each type of escalation. Additional information is located in the Expedites & Escalations Overview PCAT

10. DEFINE ANY SPECIAL ORDERING INSTRUCTIONS. No special ordering instructions are required, as the CLEC will use existing order instructions. These LSRs will follow the normal process by product, with project identification optionally included by the CLEC.

11. PROCESS ORDERS VIA SPREADSHEET IDENTIFYING ALL PERTINENT CUSTOMER/LINE DETAIL. NOTE: AT&T WILL PROVIDE ONE LSR PER CUSTOMER LOCATION FOR CONVERSION. The Qwest process for conversion requires individual LSRs for each end user location. Additional fields on the LSR enable project tracking by the CLEC (e.g., LSR field number 22 PROJECT - Project Identification).

12. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF SPREADSHEET AND COMMITMENT TO SCHEDULED BULK CONVERSION DATE. The Qwest process for conversion requires individual LSRs for each end user location. Additional fields on the LSR enable project tracking by the CLEC (e.g., LSR field number 22 PROJECT - Project Identification).

13. IDENTIFY ALL POTENTIAL CUSTOMER/LINE REJECTS IN TIME TO RESOLVE PRIOR TO THE BULK CONVERSIONS. - BUSY CFA. - DATA MISMATCH. - FACILITY QUALIFICATIONS, INTEGRATED SLCs - TIMEFRAME TO AVOID FOC REJECTS CLEC’s have the pre-order tools to do this today. We will provide links in the to these existing procedures e.g., Pre-Order Overview PCAT, Loop Qualification and Raw Loop Data CLEC Job Aid, etc. These activities should be done during pre-order to make sure the request meets the requirements for the product ordered.

14. DETERMINE/AGREE UPON LAST DATE TO FREEZE TARGET BULK CONVERSION LIST - 5 DAYS (NO MORE CUSTOMER/LINES ADDED). Conversion interval dates are based upon standard intervals for the product the CLEC is converting to. Refer to the SIG (standard intervals guide) for the product you are converting to.

15. 24-48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONVERSION PERFORM READINESS TESTS AND RESOLVE ANY IDENTIFIED ISSUES. - ANI VERIFICATION AT MDF OF NEW CIRCUIT AND EXISTING ILEC CIRCUIT. - PRE-WIRE. - LOOP QUALIFICATION TEST.

- DIAL TONE CHECK. Existing procedures located in the Unbundled Local Loop - 2-Wire or 4-Wire Analog (Voice Grade) Loop - V15.0 PCAT states: Conversion or Change request with new CFA: Qwest verifies for dial tone at your CFA 48 hours after Qwest's APP (application) date. If Qwest finds No Dial Tone (NDT), Qwest will retest 48 hours prior to due date. If dial tone is still not present, Qwest will email the NDT results to you through Qwest's Provider Test Access (PTA) email system. You will receive the NDT PTA email notification approximately 24 to 36 hours prior to the due date. Qwest will email only when there is No Dial Tone. You will need to supply the dial tone by the due date or supplement the LSR, changing the due date. Performance testing available on 2-Wire or 4-Wire Analog (Voice Grade) Loops is also defined with this PCAT.

ANI – The testing capability is not available 24-48 hours in advance as the line is not available until cut time. .

Pre Wire = Yes Loop Qual = Qwest performs all standard testing to qualify the loop; additional testing will only be performed if requested and would result in additional charges. Dial Tone = Yes

16. AT NIGHT OF CONVERSION: - PARTICIPATE IN PRE-CUT CALL

- MAINTAIN AVAILABILITY DURING CUTS

- CUT ONE LINE AT A TIME.

- COMPLETE ALL SCHEDULED CUTS AND ACKNIOWLEDGE PROJECT COMPLETION

- RESPOND TO ALL SERVICES OUTAGE CONDITIONS THAT RESULT FROM CONVERSION (WILL ROLL BACK TO UNE-P IF NO RESOLUTION). -Qwest always performs a pre-cut call to validate the CLEC is ready for the lift and lay to happen.

-If the CLEC provides a continuous conference bridge number on the LSR, Qwest can provide staff at the start and completion of each cut. Qwest will not stay on the call for 24 hours but will be available when needed.

-Coordinated Hot Cuts (CHC=Y) provide for a specific time if the CLEC would like to request that capability. CHC=N or blank allows the cut to start during normal hours or out of hour conversions.

Roll Back to UNE-P is not an option if the circuit has been accepted by the CLEC. Qwest works with the CLEC in normal lift and lays, until the circuit is accepted. The CLEC needs to make sure the correct translation path is selected to the co-location point prior to conversion. This is normal business operation.

17. PROCESS TO RESTORE ALL SERVICE OUTAGE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED POST-CONVERSIONS. If there is a need to contact the escalation desk, Qwest has defined contacts for each type of escalation. Additional information is located in the Expedites & Escalations Overview PCAT.

18. DO NOT INCLUDE P TO L BULK CONVERSION LINES AT ILEC LOSS AND COMPLETION REPORT. This item needs to be re-submitted through a system CR; there would be coding changes required on the Loss/Completion reports generated by the service order processors.

Sincerely,

Russell Urevig Sr Process Analyst Wholesale Service Delivery

April 8, 2003

For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the April 16, 2003 CMP Product Process Meeting

AT&T Ervin Rea Manager

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR PC022703-6 UNE-P to UNE-L Bulk Conversion

This letter is in response to ATT Change Request PC022703-6 UNE P to UNE L Bulk conversion. This CR requests that Qwest provide a specific process to perform UNE P to UNE L bulk Conversions within a single LSO for a single CLEC, and document the process on the Wholesale Web site.

Qwest held a clarification meeting with AT&T on Monday March 17 to discuss the individual items on CR PC022703-6 UNE-P to UNE-L Bulk Conversion. Further clarification of the CR identified this method would include but not be limited to: inventory discrepancy corrections per conversion, test requirements, dedicated resources, conference bridges, conversion volume size, hours of conversions, outage conditions, and Loss and Completion reports.

During our discussion several items were found to be duplicates from a previous CR PC090401-2 which was moved to complete status on March 20, 2002. Qwest identified several items that required additional discussion with several key departments within Qwest, such as Test and Turn-up, Central office Technician, Circuit Design and Product Management.

Qwest has schedule internal meetings to discuss the following items:

*Availability to provide dedicated people to coordinate out of hour cuts for specific LSO’s. (Loop/Local Service/Switching Office )

* Ability to perform pre-cut readiness testing to identify and resolve installation issues.

* Determine quantities per LSO, which can be cut during out of normal hour operations.

* Can cuts occur on a one line at a time basis to minimize problems?

* Can the Loss/Completion reports be stopped, when a CLEC is changing an end user from UNE-P to UNE-L and the CLEC is not changing?

* Installation options and or associated rates with out of normal hours cuts.

These are all items which need to be discussed interactively with departments as re-scheduling of personnel may be require to meet the needs of these conversions. Qwest would like to place this CR in Evaluation Status until we finish our investigation of the items identified above.

Sincerely,

Russell Urevig Sr Process Analyst Wholesale Service Delivery

Open Product/Process CR PC032603-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

3rd quarter 2003.

Status History

Project Meetings

The CLECs requested that instead of denying this request we cross it over to systems to work the hunting request as a Systems CR. An Action Item will also be opened to gather and track other products / usocs that could be streamlined. A notification will go out requesting the CLECs to send ‘usocs in need of streamlining’ and ‘top problem usocs’ to cmacy@qwest.com. A meeting will then be scheduled to review the list and determine next steps. Additional CRs may be opened to address items on the list. Bonnie Johnson suggested that Qwest also make a recommendation identifying which usocs could be combined. Call Forwarding / Busy / DA is one example.

4/16/03 April CMP Meeting - PC032603-1 Standardization of USOCs across regions

Carla Pardee – ATT presented this CR to the CLEC Community. Carla explained that on the Clarification Call discussion took place how it may be helpful to identify specific USOCs that ATT would like standardized. She provided Hunting and Speed dial 8 and 30 as the USOCs she would like included in the scope of this CR. Lynn Powers – Tel West added that many CLECs support this CR. Having multiple USOCs is an expense for the CLECs.

Clarification Meeting 9:00 – 10:00 a.m. April 10, 2003 1-877-572-8687 3393947#

PC032603-1 Standardization of USOCs across regions Attendees Anthony Washington – Qwest Carla Pardee – ATT Dusti Bastian – Qwest Anne Robberson – Qwest Laurel Neher – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest

Meeting Agenda:

1.0 Introduction of Attendees Attendees introduced

2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change Carla reviewed the CR. Carla explained today there are several features that required different USOCs to be used based on what region and/or switch you are ordering out of. Carla provided examples for Hunting and Speed Dial. The hunting requires HTG for Central and HSO for Western. The Speed Dial requires E8C for Central and ESL for Western. The LSR form / IMA asks you to put the USOC on the LSR. Carla explained this CR is similar to the Call Forwarding Simplification CR. Qwest asked Carla if this request is just for Feature USOCs or Class of Service and Line USOCs also? Discussion took place regarding the USOCs are assigned and provided by Telcordia. Qwest has multiple systems by Region and those systems are set up to require different USOCs. This is driven from when there was a Pacific Northwester Bell, Mountain Bell and Northwestern Bell. Qwest also explained that this request is very large and it may be helpful if Carla was able to identify a set of USOCs that are causing ATT the most trouble. Carla advised she would provide the most critical USOCs and limit the scope of the CR. Carla will provide at the April CMP meeting examples of specific USOCs that she would like to have 1 USOC per feature across the Region.

3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Qwest asked about the products impacted and Carla advised UNE P. Qwest explained that these USOCs are also used in other product lines such as Retail and Resale. If a change was made to these USOCs it may impact other product lines also.

4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Yes

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Carla would like specific USOCs to have 1 USOC per feature across the Region. USOCs include (as provided at the April CMP Meeting): Hunting, Speed Dial 8, Speed Dial 30

6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None

7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Carla will present this CR at the April CMP Meeting Qwest will provide our response at the May CMP Meeting

CenturyLink Response

For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the May 21, 2003 CMP Meeting

Carla Pardee AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response – CR # PC032603-1 Standardization of USOCs Across Regions

This is Qwest’s response to AT&T’s Change Request CR PC032603-1 requesting the standardization of the following six USOCs across regions: 1. E8C and ESL (8-Number Speed Calling) 2. E3D and ESF (30-Number Speed Calling) 3. HSO and HTG (Series Hunting)

In evaluating this request, Qwest considered both the technological and the financial impacts of the requested change, and we looked at the two products, Hunting and Speed Calling separately.

The Hunting USOCs are used for billing only—not for provisioning—so Qwest’s network systems would not be impacted by the standardization of these USOCs. The Level of Effort to implement this change for Hunting would be approximately 16,000 hours.

The Speed Calling USOCs are provisioning USOCs and would require changes to Qwest’s network systems as well as the product and process changes needed to implement the Hunting change. The Level of Effort to implement the change for Speed Calling, which reflects the additional costs of network changes, would be approximately 17,000 hours.

This request is denied because it is economically not feasible.

However, Qwest would like to address the difficulty CLECs have in ordering Hunting. Qwest respectfully recommends that AT&T open a Systems CR to have Qwest use the hunting fields on the LSOG 7 HGI form to populate the USOCs on the service order, rather than requiring the CLECs to provide these USOCs in the FEATURE field of the product-specific form. (This would be a solution similar to the solution currently under development for IMA Release 14.0 for blocking USOCs). If AT&T prefers, Qwest can open this CR on their behalf.

Sincerely,

Mallory Paxton Senior Process Analyst Qwest Services Corporation

Open Product/Process CR PC022703-9X Detail

Description Of Change

AT&T is requesting a report for all known IMA EDI & IMA GUI problems.

This report will be a list of IMA EDI and GUI problems currently

identified either internally identified by QWEST or reported by a CLEC

thru the ISC Help Desk or Service/Account Manager. The report will

identify all open issues that are pending investigations. Once an issue

has been reported and determined to be a problem/clarification/defect

issue it should be noted on the report with the appropriate QWEST

Trouble Ticket # as it goes through the phases within QWEST well before

it makes it to the Event Notification process. Once an event

notification issued for the problem, the notification number would be

referenced on this report. This gives CLEC one central point of

reference for all IMA EDI & GUI problems. The CLECs can use this report

to:

(1) find out the current status of their IMA EDI or GUI problem

(2) determine if a new problem has already been identified and the

current status

(3) proactively address problems that have been identified by other

CLECs that have potential impacts to their business

Similar to the SBC's Defect Report, the QWEST report should include

the:(1)Trouble Ticket(TT) Number, (2) IMA Version(s) Impacted, (3)

Indicator whether problem impacts IMA GUI, EDI or both (4)Indicator

whether the defect is impacting production code or code only in the SATE

environment, (5) Date the TT was opened, (6) Short Description used to

identify the Problem - for example the actual message being returned

from QWEST, (7) REQTYP and ACT values impacted,(8) Event notification

Number (9) Status of the Fix(Pending Analysis, In Analysis, Pending

Development, IN Development, Pending Testing, In Testing, Pending Prod

Migration, Pending Prod Validation, CLOSED), (10) Status Comments,

(11)Target Implementation/Resolution Date

All Closed Issues should be moved to a separate document or EXCEL Tab

(similar to SBC's Defect Documentation) and retained for 3 months.

Any IMA problems that are currently in analysis and haven't been

reported via event notification should be placed on this report is

activated.

Description of Change - Submitted 02-27-03

QWEST currently support a Manual Indicator, which is used to indicate that the Remarks field contains information that needs manual attention and this field will also be used on occasion as part of a workaround. However a centralized list doesn’t seem to exist to indicate the known workarounds in place in which the Manual Indicator and Remarks are used.

AT&T is requesting that a Production Defect Issues List separate from the CR log be created and maintained. This reported would indicated:

- States impacted

- Products (REQTYP/ACT) impacted

- QWEST assigned Severity Level

- Current Workaround in Place

- Manual Indicator value for workaround

- Remarks required to identify this specific workaround

- Pending Long Term Solution with CR reference

- Target Implementation

Status History

Project Meetings

February 18, 2004 CMP Meeting Connie Winston – Qwest advised that this CR is the one ATT originally issued. This was discussed during the Global Action Item meetings. IT looked at specific data elements on the request and we are planning on providing these via PC111903-1. Donna Osborne Miller – ATT advised we understood when Carla submitted the other CR, Qwest would deny this CR. Donna said she thought that Qwest would identify the parts of this original CR that would not be met but the new CR PC111903-1. Qwest agreed that we would identify the data elements that are not being met by the new CR and send this information to ATT and populate it in the database. This CR will change to Denied Status.

January 21, 2004 This is the original CR that was written with more depth and was reviewed as part of the Global Action Item meeting. The CLECs requested that Qwest create PC111903-1 Web site Notifier to replace this CR. Connie advised we are still evaluating if any piece parts of this CR can be incorporated. Otherwise, we will deny this CR. We hope to finish this in February. This CR will remain in Evaluation Status.

- December 17, 2003 Connie Winston – Qwest reported that this CR is part of the Global Action Item discussion. We anticipate for those meetings to wrap up in January. We will determine if we have met the intent of this CR or should be closed, withdrawn or crossed over. We will then finalize the action needed. This CR will stay in Evaluation Status.

November 19, 2003 Kit Thomte – Qwest advised that this CR was talked about Tuesday during the Global Action Item meeting. This CR was updated with the new title and description. Carla Pardee – ATT advised they would like to keep the old CR open and use the new CR description and title to open a different/new CR. Cindy Macy – Qwest asked if ATT would like to have the new CR clarified or had this happened during the Global Action Item meeting. Carla advised she would like Qwest to hold a Clarification Call for the new CR.

October 15, 2003 Judy Schultz – Qwest advised this is being addressed as part of the Global Action item that was discussed Tuesday October 14. Qwest is currently developing a hybrid Event Notification report as a resolution. The report would be downloadable and available via a url. The status will be changed to Evaluation.

September 17, 2003 Connie Winston – Qwest reviewed the response to this CR. Donna Osborne-Miller ATT advised that Phyllis Burt-ATT redlined the response and that she would like to review this with the group. Donna explained that ATT Consumer disagrees with the statement that Qwest’s Event Notification process is triggered immediately. An example of this is portrayed by PC032803-1. Clear resolution, timelines and work arounds, specifically for Alphabetical Blocking did not occur. This was first reported on July 11, 2003 and the Event Notification was issued 1 month later. The existing process at Qwest determines what information goes into the Event Notification. Not all issues are captured, Qwest decides what to publish. The CLECs want to be able to share their system issue and work arounds with each other. Connie Winston explained some information on Event Notifications is proprietary. Connie agreed we would include a discussion around Event Notifications in the lock up meeting. Connie suggested we look at the CMP guidelines on timeframes as those guidelines are requiring notification to go out, sometimes before we have completed our investigation, thus making the notification not as conclusive as it would be at a later date. Approximately 1300 tickets are taken in one month. Not all of these fit the Event Notification guidelines. We do not want to send notifications out on all 1300 tickets as that would overwhelm the CLECs and Qwest. We would need to develop criteria around what Event Notification to include. Liz advised they have issued trouble reports that could impact other CLECs that have not been turned into an Event Notification. The CLECs advised there is not an Event Notification tracking mechanism. This report would provide a wide view of Event Notifications. Phyllis Burt-ATT advised she does not feel comfortable that Qwest is tracking and managing trouble tickets. It doesn’t seem as if Qwest has a view of total number of open, closed, severity levels and priorities. Qwest advised this CR will be discussed during the lock up session, held the Tuesday before the next CMP meeting. This date is Tuesday October 14, 2003.

CMP Meeting 08-20-03

White-Qwest stated that there was an ad hoc call on 8/11. Following that call AT&T issued a new description of change. Winston-Qwest stated that Qwest was evaluating the new description and the documents AT&T provided. The CR was moved to Evaluation.

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

Ad Hoc Meeting – 08-11-03

Attendees Matt White-Qwest Beth Foster-Qwest Kyle Kirves-Qwest Randy Owens-Qwest Liz Balvin–MCI Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T Carla Pardee-AT&T Phyllis Burt-AT&T

White-Qwest introduced the attendees and described the purpose of the meeting. He asked Foster-Qwest if she had any questions for AT&T.

Foster-Qwest asked if AT&T could update the description of change for the CR with the information that Burt-AT&T had provided in her 7/30 e-mail to Cindy Macy-Qwest. She also stated that Qwest’s practice is to distribute event notifications in accordance with the CMP document’s timelines and that this usually happened immediately. Burt-AT&T stated that her experience was that this was not always the case. She cited the alphabetical blocking issue as an example of when Qwest had received a trouble ticket from a CLEC and had taken quite a while to initiate an event notification. Foster-Qwest asked if AT&T wanted information on the report for all trouble tickets before they are captured in an event notification. Burt-AT&T stated that she wanted all the issues for IMA that came through the help desk captured on the report. Foster-Qwest and Burt-AT&T discussed the headings used in the SBC report and how they may be applicable to Qwest troubles.

White-Qwest asked if there were any additional questions. There were none. White-Qwest thanked the attendees and adjourned the call.

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

Ad Hoc Meeting 07-24-03

Attendees Matt White – Qwest Mallory Paxton – Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke - Qwest Phyllis Bert – AT&T Sharon Van Meter – AT&T Regina Mosely – AT&T Connie Nelson- USLink Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Kim Isaacs – Eschelon

White-Qwest described the purpose of the meeting. Bert-AT&T stated that the 5/14 Qwest response addressed part of the issue. She explained that AT&T really wanted a a central place to see production issues. She stated that she had forwarded SBC’s defect report that she would like Qwest to create a report similar to. Paxton-Qwest stated that the SBC report looked like a spreadsheet that identifies system defects. Bert-AT&T stated that it was and that Qwest would need to modify it to match Qwest’s event notification processes. Paxton-Qwest stated that it looked like the dates on the report were target dates, not release dates. She asked if the SBC reprot was on line. Bert-AT&T stated that it was. Paxton-Qwest clarified that what AT&T wants Qwest to do is take system problems and create an online tool to give CLECs a holistic view of the troubles. Bert-AT&T agreed. Paxton-Qwest stated that the report looked like a catalogue of event notification that indicates when manual activity is required.

Van Meter-AT&T asked if Qwest will include Bert’s information as additional information in the CR interactive report. White-Qwest stated that he would.

Bert-AT&T stated that she wanted the original acceptance solution as well. Paxton-Qwest suggested that she submit an additional CR requesting that change. Bert-AT&T stated that she would.

======================================= CMP Meeting 07-16-03

White-Qwest stated that AT&T had provided feedback to the Qwest 5/14 response and that he recommended that Qwest hold and Ad Hoc meeting to discuss the issues. Osborne-Miller-AT&T agreed.

============================================= CMP Meeting 06-18-03

Osborne-Miller-AT&T stated that she would send any comments from AT&T about Qwest’s proposed implementation to White-Qwest. ========================================================== CMP Meeting 05-21-03

Paxton-Qwest reviewed the Qwest response. Osborne Miller-AT&T stated that the response sounded interesting and inviting. She stated that she would take it back to her folks and let Qwest know if they had any concerns. White-Qwest stated that he would set up an Ad Hoc meeting to discuss any issues that Osborne Miller-AT&T identified. The CR was moved to Development. ==========================================

04-16-03 - CMP Meeting

White-Qwest described the CR and stated that Qwest would have a response at the May CMP Meeting.

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

March 20, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: SCR022703-09 Support Production Defect Report (Originated by AT&T) Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T presented the CR. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that this is for documentation and we are looking at this CR to be a crossover to Product/Process. John asked if AT&T agreed. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated to Phyllis Burt (AT&T) that there are no systems implications for this request so it will be crossed-over to the Product/Process forum. Phyllis Burt/AT&T asked how the determination is made as to whether a request is systems or product/process. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that if it is determined that there is a manual solution, the business keeps track of the CR and is a Product/Process definition. Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that these things are handled on the operation’s side of the house. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she is in full support of this and asked for the product’s to be expanded to All products. Kit Thomte/Qwest asked if the business was agreeable to the expansion of products. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked if Qwest would revise to All products. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that she would revise the CR to change Impacted Product’s to All. Stephanie Prull/McLeod stated that she would also like this for All products. Mallory Paxton/Qwest stated that she agreed that this should be for All products. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked if there was agreement and understanding that this CR gets crossed-over to Product/Process. Mallory Paxton/Qwest stated that she is in full agreement that this is Product/Process. Mallory stated that she is currently working on something similar to this and this is a documentation issue. Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that this CR would be crossed-over to Product/Process.

-

Clarification Meeting - March 12, 2003 Attendees: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T, Phyllis Burt/AT&T, Regina Mosley/AT&T, Carla Pardee/AT&T, Diane Burt/AT&T, John Blaszczyk/AT&T, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, Monica Manning/Qwest, Terri Kilker/Qwest, John Gallegos/Qwest, Berkley Loggie/Qwest, Lynn Stecklein/Qwest, Wendy Green/Qwest, Jan Martin/Qwest, Denise Martinez/Qwest, Shelley Mason/Qwest, Rob Mitchell/Qwest, Laurel Nolan/Qwest, Shonna Pasionek/Qwest, Mallory Paxton/Qwest, Joan Pfeffer/Qwest, Deb Roth/Qwest, Carl Sear/Qwest, Kerri Waldner/Qwest, Scott Carne/Qwest

Reviewed CR Description: QWEST currently support a Manual Indicator, which is used to indicate that the Remarks field contains information that needs manual attention and this field will also be used on occasion as part of a workaround. However a centralized list doesn’t seem to exist to indicate the known workarounds in place in which the Manual Indicator and Remarks are used. AT&T is requesting that a Production Defect Issues List separate from the CR log be created and maintained. This reported would indicated: - States impacted - Products (REQTYP/ACT) impacted - QWEST assigned Severity Level - Current Workaround in Place - Manual Indicator value for workaround - Remarks required to identify this specific workaround - Pending Long Term Solution with CR reference - Target Implementation

Expected Deliverables: To be compatible with Release 14.0.

Confirmed Impacted Interface: Process & Documentation

Confirmed Products: UNE-P POTS

Discussion: There were no questions or comments.

Action Plan: This CR will be presented by AT&T at the March 20th CMP Meeting and Qwest will be providing the CR response.

CenturyLink Response

For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the February 2004 CMP Meeting Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Revised Response - PC022703-9X-“Support Production Defect Report.”

This response is in regards to AT&T’s CR PC022703-9X. This CR was originally denied in September 2003 due to no reasonable demonstrable business benefit. Upon further discussion with AT&T and other CLECs, Qwest agreed to include this CR in the discussions that were held at the Global Action Item Meetings (held on September 12, 2003; October 14, 2003; November 4, 2003; November 18, 2003; December 16, 2003). AT&T agreed to update this CR in accordance with discussions held between Qwest and the CLEC community for updating the Event Notifications Production Support Website. Initially, AT&T updated the existing CR, PC022703-9X, only to retract their update and request that a new CR, PC111903-1 (Web Site Notifier), be issued. Qwest took the action item of reviewing the original, unchanged CR, PC022703-9X, to determine if any components of the original CR should be subject to ongoing review.

Qwest’s original denial of this request stated the following:

AT&T requests that Qwest provide a log of all IMA EDI and GUI issues identified either by Qwest or by a CLEC (via a Wholesale Systems or ISC Help Desk trouble ticket or Service/Account Manager). AT&T also requests that the report identify all open issues pending investigation.

Qwest reviewed this revised request and determined that items AT&T requested be included in a log are already identified within the Event Notifications. Qwest publishes Event Notifications, according to the CMP guidelines, for each issue identified as either a problem, or an item requiring clarification, when it is a CLEC impacting issue. Qwest's Event Notification process is triggered immediately upon identification of an item as CLEC impacting. Log updates would be produced no sooner than Qwest currently issues Notifications.

The existing process ensures a full review of the issue and prevents CLEC proprietary trouble tickets that do not result in an event notification from being shared with the entire community.

Finally, it would require additional Qwest resources to implement and maintain the AT&T request. Duplication of effort in initial publication and again as updates are made to those issues introduces additional cost and complexity into the negotiated CMP process.

Qwest's existing process of providing notifications with workarounds, business impacts, and channels for escalation works effectively and includes the information AT&T is requesting. Qwest respectfully denies this change request because the change does not result in a reasonably demonstrable business benefit.

Based on the agreements at the Global Action Item meetings, the CLECs have agreed to issue PC111903-1 to address the improvements in Qwest’s trouble ticket reporting, and ongoing discussions will be tracked against that CR. Therefore, this CR remains in a denied status, effective September 2003, for no demonstrable business benefit.

Sincerely, Connie Winston Director, Information Technology

September 9, 2003

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

CC: Lynn Notarianni Beth Foster Kit Thomte

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC022703-9X “Support Production Defect Report (crossed over from SCR022703-09)”

CR Description: AT&T’s revised change request states:

Qwest Response: AT&T requests that Qwest provide a log of all IMA EDI and GUI issues identified either by Qwest or by a CLEC (via a Wholesale Systems or ISC Help Desk trouble ticket or Service/Account Manager). AT&T also requests that the report identify all open issues pending investigation.

Qwest reviewed this revised request and determined that items AT&T requested be included in a log are already identified within the Event Notifications. Qwest publishes Event Notifications, according to the CMP guidelines, for each issue identified as either a problem, or an item requiring clarification, when it is a CLEC impacting issue. Qwest's Event Notification process is triggered immediately upon identification of an item as CLEC impacting. Log updates would be produced no sooner than Qwest currently issues Notifications.

The existing process ensures a full review of the issue and prevents CLEC proprietary trouble tickets that do not result in an event notification from being shared with the entire community.

Finally, it would require additional Qwest resources to implement and maintain the AT&T request. Duplication of effort in initial publication and again as updates are made to those issues introduces additional cost and complexity into the negotiated CMP process.

Qwest's existing process of providing notifications with workarounds, business impacts, and channels for escalation works effectively and includes the information AT&T is requesting. Qwest respectfully denies this change request because the change does not result in a reasonably demonstrable business benefit.

Sincerely,

Connie Winston, Director, Information Technology Qwest

* August 13, 2003

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the August 20, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

Donna Osborne Miller AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR #PC022703-9X

This is an updated response regarding AT&T CR PC022703-9X (Support Production Defect Report – crossed over from SCR022703-9).

Qwest reviewed this request and provided the initial response at the May 21, 2003 Product/Process CMP Meeting. AT&T reviewed Qwest’s response and provided additional information during an Ad Hoc meeting held on July 24, 2003. The additional information that AT&T provided included an example of a report that identifies a listing of ‘Event Notifications.’ AT&T requested that Qwest hold an Ad Hoc meeting with the CLEC Community to review the report. Qwest scheduled and held this meeting on August 11, 2003. During the meeting, AT&T agreed to modify the description of change to clarify this request.

While it assess this CR, Qwest would like to move it into Evaluation Status. Qwest will provide a status update at the September CMP meeting and will outline their response at that time.

Sincerely,

Connie Winston Qwest

========================================================= May 14, 2003

REVISED RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the May 21, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

SUBJECT: AT&T Change Request – CR PC022703-9X

This letter is in response to AT&T Change Request PC022703-9X. This CR is a request by AT&T for Qwest to create a centralized list of known workarounds.

Qwest accepts this CR and is currently working to create an appropriate update to the Resale and Interconnection Ordering Overview PCATs to satisfy AT&T’s request. This update will create a new section in the PCAT that will contain links to documented manual processes or workarounds in product-specific PCATs or other procedure PCATs.

For example, in the Migrations and Conversions PCAT, there is a documented manual process for Courtesy Disconnects. The new section in the Ordering Overview PCAT may read:

“Manual Requests Required” Manual handling (Manual Indicator ‘Y’) is required to process the following types of requests. - Courtesy Disconnects (This hotlink would take a reader to the Migrations PCAT.) - Other Documented Process - Etc.”

This text is a proposed example only and is subject to change. Qwest will provide an update on the documentation change at the June CMP meeting.

Sincerely,

Mallory Paxton Senior Process Analyst

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

DRAFT RESPONSE to SCR022703-09 March 13, 2003

RE: SCR022703-09 Support Production Defect Report

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR022703-09. Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held March 12, 2003) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1050 to 1750 hours for this Change Request.

At the March 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.

Sincerely, Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC042303-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

ATT requests a similar process as described above. (MOU) This would include any system changes necessary by Qwest to be implemented to support this type of process. Implementation of this process/system change would allow both AT&T and QWEST to better manage situations requiring a coordinated dispatch, resulting in fewer "no access" or "vendor meet ,no show" and would reduce missed commitments for these reasons.

Status History

Project Meetings

September 17, 2003 CMP Meeting Craig Suellentrop – Qwest reported that an internal status meeting is scheduled for next week. The development is on track and estimated time frame is December 2003. Liz asked Craig to refresh her memory and Craig advised this is for the joint meet which has to be requested.

CMP Meeting 08-20-03

Suellentrop-Qwest stated that the CR should stay in development because there were a number of internal systems that had to move through the 90 day development cycle. Osborne-Miller-AT&T asked when she could expect delivery. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that he estimated implementation would come in December 2003.

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

CMP Meeting 07-16-03

Sullentrop-Qwest presented the Qwest acceptance. He stated that when Qwest developed the full solution it would follow the appropriate notification process. He stated that this might entail systems changes, but he wasn’t sure if they would be CLEC facing changes. Zimmerman-AT&T asked for Qwest’s tentative implementation date. Sullentrop-Qwest stated that he thought it would take at lease a couple of months. Osborne-Miller-AT&T asked if the systems changes would involve IMA. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that he didn’t think they would involve prioritized systems. He stated that he would have much more information at the August CMP Meeting. He stated that Qwest was looking at a 30 minute meeting window. Zimmerman-AT&T stated that was good. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that this new process would be available for systems other than electronic bonding. Johnson-Eschelon stated that Eschelon had submitted a CR in 2001 (PC092801-2) for the same thing and Qwest denied it. She asked why Qwest was accepting AT&T’s. White-Qwest stated that he would research the reason and correspond directly with Johnson.

=================================== CMP Meeting 06-18-03

Suellentrop-Qwest asked that the CR be moved into Evaluation status. Osborne-Miller-AT&T stated that AT&T would forward their contacts in the other ILECs to Qwest. ========================================================== CMP Meeting 05-21-03

Osborne Miller-AT&T presented the CR. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that UNE-P and resale products are affected by this. Stichter-Eschelon stated that she had opened a similar CR that was denied. Johnson-Eschelon asked if there should be a CMP process to review previously denied CRs. Osborne Miller-AT&T stated that Verizon, SBC and Bellsouth have all converted to a similar process after AT&T presented them with the data. Suellentrop-Qwest asked AT&T to send the appropriate data to White-Qwest. ========================================== Clarification Meeting Friday, May 09, 2003

1-877-550-8686 2213337#

Attendees Matt White – Qwest Craig Suellentrop – Qwest Anthony Washington – Qwest Donna Osborne-Miller – AT&T Craig Zimmerman – AT&T Lydia Braze – AT&T Paulita Moore – AT&T

Introduction of Attendees White-Qwest welcomed all attendees and reviewed the request.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Osborne-Miller-AT&T reviewed the CR. Suellentrop-Qwest verified that this CR was for UNE-P and resale and that the request was for 24 hours advance notification. Zimmerman-AT&T stated that he envisioned a 24 to 48 hour notification. He explained that AT&T submitted the initial dispatch request via electronic bonding system and then followed up with a call. Zimmerman-AT&T asked if any other CLECs have approached Qwest with similar requests. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that he seemed to remember a similar request around 2 years ago. Zimmerman-AT&T stated that this request only applies to only 1-2% of total dispatches in any area.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted White-Qwest confirmed that the attendees were comfortable that the request appropriately identified all areas and products impacted.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved White-Qwest confirmed with the attendees that the appropriate Qwest personnel were involved.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation White-Qwest reviewed the request to confirm AT&T’s expectation.

Identify and Dependant Systems Change Requests White-Qwest asked the attendees if they knew of any related change requests.

Establish Action Plan White-Qwest asked attendees if there were any further questions. There were none. White-Qwest stated that the next step was for AT&T to present the CR at the May Monthly Product/Process Meeting and thanked all attendees for attending the meeting.

CenturyLink Response

July 9, 2003

REVISED RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the July 16, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR PC042303-1

This CR requests that vendor meets for non-designed products be made at a specific date and time. AT&T has suggested that all AM vendor meets could take place at 9:00 am and all PM vendor meets take place at 1:00 pm.

A Joint Meet involves Qwest, CLECs, and possibly third party vendors, meeting at a designated location to isolate hard-to-find faults, verify existing trouble and diagnosis, and resolve chronic and repeat problems. Qwest accepts this change request to allow CLECs to request a joint meet at a specific time. Qwest proposes this CR be moved into development status. Qwest needs to finalize the mechanics of this process, including how far in advance a joint meet request must be made and any system changes that will be required.

Sincerely,

Craig Suellentrop Staff Advocate, Policy & Law Qwest

Cc: Mary Retka, Director-Legal Issues, Qwest Cathy Augustson, Lead Process Analyst, Qwest

========================================== June 11, 2003

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the June 18, 2003, Monthly CMP Product/Process Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR PC042303-1 “AT&T requests that Vendor Meet (coordinated dispatch) requests for non-design POTS service be at specific times.”

This CR requests that vendor meets for non-designed products be made at a specific date and time. AT&T has suggested that all AM vendor meets could take place at 9:00 am and all PM vendor meets take place at 1:00 pm.

The current vendor meet process for non-designed products gives the customer a 4-hour window for the vendor meet. Because of the complexity in evaluating this request, including possible systems changes that may be required, Qwest requests that this CR be moved into Evaluation Status. Qwest will provide an updated response at the July CMP meeting.

Sincerely,

Craig Suellentrop Staff Advocate, Policy & Law Qwest

Cc: Mary Retka, Director-Legal Issues, Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC042303-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Do not call to dispacth on any other that specific scenarios noted in Title of change. Utilize EBTA for "other" dispatch situations.

Status History

Project Meetings

CMP Meeting 11/19/03 Craig Suellentrop – Qwest advised the PCAT has been updated and no comments have been received. Implementation is scheduled for December 1, 2003. This CR will remain in CLEC Test.

CMP Meeting 10/15/03 Craig Suellentrop –Qwest advised pre-dispatch calls will only occur when the CLEC requests them. The notification will go out October 17. This CR will move to CLEC Test Status.

CMP Meeting 9/17/03 Craig advised the notification is almost ready. The documentation team is currently reviewing the documentation. This is a Level 3 change.

CMP Meeting 08-20-03

Suellentrop-Qwest stated that Qwest was finalizing the training and the documentation. He stated that the documentation should be in the review site within the next two weeks. Zulevic-Qwest asked if the change was UNE-P specific. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that the change was for all non-design products.

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

CMP Meeting 07-16-03

Osborne-Miller-AT&T described the Qwest acceptance and asked if the response would apply to MEDIACC. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that MEDIACC users would use the comments field. While CEMR users would have a button to select. Zimmerman-AT&T stated that this sounded good. Osborne-Miller-AT&T and Johnson-Eschelon stated that they were very pleased with Qwest’s acceptance of this CR. CR moved to Development.

================================================= CMP Meeting 06-18-03

Suellentrop-Qwest presented the Qwest response. Johnson-Eschelon stated that she thought Qwest was going to check to see if Qwest could use the Call Before Dispatch option in CEMR and only perform the pre-dispatch call for those CLECs. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that it was Qwest’s policy to call regardless of whether the CLEC checks “Call Before Dispatch” in CEMR. He stated that he will check to see if this was an option. Osborne-Miller stated that AT&T was split on the proposed solution in the response. ========================================================== CMP Meeting 05-21-03

Osborne Miller-AT&T presented the CR. Suellentrop-Qwest asked what the other CLECs thought about this request. Johnson-Eschelon stated that Eschelon wanted the calls to continue. She suggested that there might be a systems solution to determine which CLECs wanted the call. Balvin-MCI stated that she would like to see a list of all calls the AT&T would not want. Zimmerman-AT&T stated that AT&T wanted only the CRs denoted in the CR. Johnson-Eschelon stated that there was a field in CEMR for a call before dispatch. She stated that Eschelon wanted the calls. She stated that this should be the CLEC’s option regardless of the reporting medium. ========================================== CLEC Change Request – PC042303-2 Clarification Meeting Friday, May 09, 2003

1-877-550-8686 2213337#

Attendees Matt White – Qwest Craig Suellentrop – Qwest Anthony Washington – Qwest Donna Osborne-Miller – AT&T Craig Zimmerman – AT&T Lydia Braze – AT&T Paulita Moore – AT&T

Introduction of Attendees White-Qwest welcomed all attendees and reviewed the request.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Osborne-Miller-AT&T reviewed the CR. Suellentrop-Qwest asked if AT&T was asking for this change to apply to all trouble tickets. Zimmerman-AT&T stated that most of the tickets are electronically submitted, but that the intent would be for the change to apply to all. He explained that AT&T has a separate line for LEC technicians to call in to. That line does not get a higher priority than customer calls. As a result, because Qwest calls in status reports that do not require AT&T action the supplier line is flooded with unnecessary calls. This call volume and causes AT&T to miss the important action-required calls. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that he understood the request. He stated that he would also be interested to hear other CLEC opinions of this request. Osborne-Miller-AT&T asked if there was any way Qwest would implement this process only for AT&T. Suellentrop-Qwest stated that Qwest would prefer an universal policy.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted White-Qwest confirmed that the attendees were comfortable that the request appropriately identified all areas and products impacted.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved White-Qwest confirmed with the attendees that the appropriate Qwest personnel were involved.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation White-Qwest reviewed the request to confirm AT&T’s expectation.

Identify and Dependant Systems Change Requests White-Qwest asked the attendees if they knew of any related change requests.

Establish Action Plan White-Qwest asked attendees if there were any further questions. There were none. White-Qwest stated that the next step was for AT&T to present the CR at the May Monthly Product/Process Meeting and thanked all attendees for attending the meeting.

CenturyLink Response

July 9, 2003

REVISED RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the July 16, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR PC042303-2 “AT&T Requests that pre-dispatch calls be limited to specific scenarios, primarily address mismatches, no access situations, and/or vendor meet requests”

This CR requests that the pre-dispatch call made by the Qwest repair technician prior to leaving to the end-user location is only made when there are address mismatches, no access situations, and/or vendor meet requests. AT&T believes that making the pre-dispatch call on all dispatches places an undue burden on their call centers.

The current non-designed repair process for outside technicians requires a courtesy call to the customer of record (both wholesale and retail) prior to leaving to the end-user location. At the May 21 CMP meeting other CLECs requested that this process not be changed and that they want Qwest to make the pre-dispatch call. Therefore, this request was denied at the June CMP meeting.

However, the question was raised about using a box titled, “Call Before Dispatch” in the CEMR application. This function is also available to Qwest’s repair agents on manually reported trouble. The CLEC community was agreeable to the idea of Qwest only performing the pre-dispatch calls when requested via the above mentioned methods. If this is still the case, Qwest accepts this request and will issue a Level 3 notification to implement the modified process.

Sincerely,

Craig Suellentrop Staff Advocate, Policy & Law Qwest

Cc: Mary Retka, Director-Legal Issues, Qwest Cathy Augustson, Lead Process Analyst, Qwest Catherine R. Garcia, Lead Process Analyst, Qwest

====================================== June 11, 2003

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the June 18, 2003, Monthly CMP Product/Process Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR PC042303-2 “AT&T Requests that pre-dispatch calls be limited to specific scenarios, primarily address mismatches, no access situations, and/or vendor meet requests”

This CR requests that the pre-dispatch call made by the Qwest repair technician prior to leaving to the end-user location is only made when there are address mismatches, no access situations, and/or vendor meet requests. AT&T believes that making the pre-dispatch call on all dispatches places an undue burden on their call centers.

The current non-designed repair process for outside technicians requires a courtesy call to the customer of record (both wholesale and retail) prior to leaving to the end-user location. At the May 21 CMP meeting other CLECs requested that this process not be changed and that they want Qwest to make the pre-dispatch call.

Therefore, Qwest respectfully denies this change request because the requested change does not result in a reasonably demonstrable business benefit; this request will negatively impact other CLECs.

However, Qwest would like to address AT&T’s concern regarding placing an undue burden on their call center. As Qwest understands, AT&T has a supplier line and the hold times could be quite lengthy. Qwest would like to propose a process that on the courtesy pre-dispatch calls, the technician would wait in a Voice Response Unit (VRU) for at least a set period of time (say 90 seconds). After this time the technician would drop the call. This would relieve most of the volume into the call center. When there are address mismatches, no access situations, and/or vendor meet requests, the technician would wait on the line until someone is reached. If someone answers the phone, or if the call is routed to voice mail, the process in place today would not change.

Sincerely,

Craig Suellentrop Staff Advocate, Policy & Law Qwest

Cc: Mary Retka, Director-Legal Issues, Qwest Cathy Augustson, Senior Process Analyst, Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC042303-3 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

July 2003

Status History

Project Meetings

Fri 5/2/03 9:49 AM From: Pardee, Carla D, CSLSM [cdickinson@att.com] To: ljsanch@qwest.com; cmacy@qwest.com Linda - Based on our Clarification call today, and the representations from Michael Whitt, AT&T is withdrawing this CR. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Carla Dickinson Pardee AT&T Local Services & Access Management 1875 Lawrence Street, Suite 8-38 Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone: 303-298-6101

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting 9:00 a.m. (MDT) / 5/2/03 1-877-562-8687, 3393947 PC042303-3 Clarification of Service Interval Guide Installation Instructions for UNE-P Conversion as Specified.

Attendees Carla Pardee, AT&T, LSAM Manager Laurel Neher, Qwest, Staff Advocate Policy & Law Kathy Rein, Qwest, Process Specialist Michael Whitt, Qwest, Product Manager UNE-P Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest, Change Request Project Manager

Introduction of Attendees Introductions of the participants on the Conference Call was made and the purpose of the call discussed.

Review Requested (Description of) Change The description of change requested in the CR was reviewed. Carla indicated that AT&T would like to have the Service Interval Guide clearly specify UNE-P conversion installation guidelines.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted UNE-P Conversions

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Qwest confirmed that the right personnel were involved in the conference call.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Michael Whitt explained that there are changes planned to this section of the SIG that will make the language more clear. These changes will be sent out on or around 5/23/03. The language proposed to change is the conversions as specified for existing retail or resale to UNE-P POTS 3 business days. In Colorado and Minnesota only 2 business days. When adding additional lines, new installation guidelines apply. Carla said that AT&T may withdraw this CR because of the already existing action item open for MCI/Worldcom. Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Carla will send Linda Sanchez-Steinke an e-mail to withdraw this change request.

Open Product/Process CR PC050503-4CM Detail

Description Of Change

"Within eight (8) business days after receipt of a complete CR, the CRPM coordinates and holds a clarification meeting with the Originating CLEC and Qwest’s SMEs. If the originating CLEC is not available within the above specified time frame, then the clarification meeting will be held at a mutually agreed upon time. Qwest will not provide a response to a CR until a clarification meeting has been held. The CR originator may invite representatives from other companies to participate on the clarification call. Such participation is not intended to replace the presentation of the CR at the Monthly CMP Meeting."

Expected Deliverable

Allow Originating CLEC to invite other CLECs to its Clarification Meeting for a System CR

Status History

Project Meetings

July 16, 2003 CMP Meeting Minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised the CMP document was updated and published on July 7, 2003. This CR will move to CLEC Test. Conversation took place regarding making additional updates to this section of the CMP document to further clarify the intent. See AI052103-1 for more information.

June 18, 2003 CMP Meeting Minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest read the requested language change to the CMP document and explained what a vote of ‘yes’ and a vote of ‘no’ means. The quorum was 6 CLECs and the voting standard was unanimity. The quorum was established as there were 12 CLECs available to vote. The CLECs included Cox Communications, Eschelon, Tel West, US Link, McLeod, Covad, NcTelcom, North Star Access, AT&T, Allegiance, Qwest and MCI. A vote was taken on this CR and the vote passed with 12 ‘yes’ votes and 0 ‘no’ votes. Matt White-Qwest asked if it was okay to implement this change with a Level 1 Notification. The CLECs agreed. The language identified in the CR will be incorporated into CMP Process Section 5.1.4.

May 21, 2003 CMP Meeting Minutes Sharon Van Meter – ATT presented this CR and reviewed the Red lined changes. The CLECs do not believe they need an input meeting as they understand the request. The Vote for this CR will be scheduled during the June CMP meeting.

Clarification Meeting

May 13, 2003

1-877-572-8687 3393947#

PC050505-5CM Allow originating CLEC to invite other CLECs to its Clarification Meeting for a system CR Attendees Sharon Van Meter – ATT Cindy Macy – Qwest

Meeting Agenda: 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Attendees introduced

2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change ATT reviewed the CR. Sharon explained ATT wants to be able to invite other CLECs to Systems Clarification Meetings. ATT is hoping this will allow the CR to be resolved faster. Cindy – Qwest asked how would this make the CR be resolved faster. Sharon explained that the scope would get clarified earlier and Qwest would not have to wait until the Monthly CMP meeting to start working on the CR. I advised Sharon that the P/P side begins working on the CR as soon as the initial clarification meeting is held. Qwest does not wait until after the Monthly CMP Meeting. Sharon explained that this was talked about in Redesign and it got voted down as some CLECs thought it would be mandatory to invite other CLECs. This is not mandatory; it is options if the originating CLEC wants to invite others. Sharon explained she has talked to the other CLECs and she believes she has their support at this time. Cindy advised Sharon that we need to identify in the CMP Process the section to update and then redline it. Cindy agreed she would do that for Sharon and send it to Sharon. Cindy also suggested that we make the paragraph in P/P section 5.3 match the Systems section 5.1.4. This will involve adding 2 sentences to Section 5.1.4 to make it match Section 5.3. Sharon agreed and will review the red lined paragraph when Cindy sends it. (See Below).

The new Section 5.1.4 would read as below, with the changes identified in Red: Within eight (8) business days after receipt of a complete CR, the CRPM coordinates and holds a clarification meeting with the CR originator and Qwest’s SME(s). If the originator is not available within the above specified time frame, then the clarification meeting will be held at a mutually agreed upon time. Qwest may not provide a response to a CR until a clarification meeting has been held. The CR originator may invite representatives from other companies to participate on the clarification call. Such participation is not intended to replace the presentation of the CR at the Monthly CMP Meeting.

3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted All CR Clarification Meetings

4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Cindy advised she would check with the Systems CMP team to see if we are missing anything.

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Sharon would like the paragraph referenced in the redline document in the Systems section 5.1.4 to match the same paragraph in section 5.3.

6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests none

7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) ATT will present the CR at the May CMP Meeting Qwest will review the Vote process and set this CR up for a vote. Voting involves sending out a vote notification, offering 3 meetings times to hold the vote, establishing a quorum, ballot, unanimous vote, and vote disposition. This will be discussed at the May CMP meeting.

Open Product/Process CR PC050703-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

-- 2/18/04 CMP Meeting Kit Thomte and Doug Andreen, Qwest said the prototype will be available 3/25 and will be located next to the existing Interactive Report on the Qwest Web Site. It will contain six different sorts for the data. The format is somewhat changed although the content remains the same. Kit asked if the CLECs would agree to move this CR to test since the prototype will be available in a week. The CLECs agreed to move the CR to test.

- CMP Meeting 1-21-04 Thomte Qwest indicated that hopefully we might have a prototype for the meeting next month. The issue is continuing to be worked. The CR will remain in Development status.

-- CMP Meeting 12-17-03

Thomte Qwest indicated that hopefully we might have a prototype for the meeting in January. The issue is continuing to be worked. The CR will remain in Development status.

- CMP Meeting 10-15-03 Thomte Qwest indicated that this CR is still being worked. Qwest is trying to find the appropriate vendor to handle these updates. This CR will reamin in Development status.

CMP Meeting 09-17-03 Thomte indicated that Qwest is continuing to pursue improvements to this web site. CMP Meeting 08-20-03

Van Meter-AT&T stated that she liked the new report format but she would still like to be able to search by CR number. Balvin-MCI stated that she would like the ability to copy from the report and paste into other applications. White-Qwest stated that Qwest was still working on developing a more robust report format.

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

CMP Meeting 07-16-03

White-Qwest stated that the new report format would be posted on 7/16. He recommended that the CR be left in Development status because Qwest was developing a more robust solution. Van Meter-AT&T agreed.

================================================== CMP Meeting 06-18-03

White-Qwest presented the response. Van Meter-AT&T and Hines-MCI stated that they were fine with the proposed change. Van Meter-AT&T asked that Qwest distribute a notice when the change became effective. White-Qwest agreed and asked to move the CR into Development. ========================================================== CMP Meeting 05-21-03

Van Meter-AT&T presented the CR. White-Qwest confirmed that the CLECs used the “sort by originator” option in the interactive report the most. All attendees agreed. ============================================

Clarification Meeting Monday, May 12, 2003

1-877-550-8686 2213337#

Attendees Matt White – Qwest Sharon Van Meter – AT&T Liz Balvin – MCI Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Mike Zulevic – Covad

Introduction of Attendees White-Qwest welcomed all attendees and reviewed the request.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Osborne-Miller-AT&T reviewed the CR. She stated that she most frequently used the Sort by Originator button to find a CR when she didn’t know the number. She stated that it would be helpful if the buttons to link to the CR details were contained within that report. White-Qwest asked the other CLEC representatives if they also used the Sort by Originator function most frequently. All attendees responded that the most frequently used sort was the Sort by Originator. Van Meter-AT&T suggested that Qwest implement some sort of GUI front end that allows users to find a specific CR by inputting the number or to sort the CRs by originator/CRMP/status/title/etc. White-Qwest stated that he would query the attendees at the upcoming meeting to find out if all the CLECs used Sort by Originator most frequently.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted White-Qwest confirmed that the attendees were comfortable that the request appropriately identified all areas and products impacted.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved White-Qwest confirmed with the attendees that the appropriate Qwest personnel were involved.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation White-Qwest reviewed the request to confirm AT&T’s expectation.

Identify and Dependant Systems Change Requests White-Qwest asked the attendees if they knew of any related change requests.

Establish Action Plan White-Qwest asked attendees if there were any further questions. There were none. White-Qwest stated that the next step was for AT&T to present the CR at the May Monthly Product/Process Meeting and thanked all attendees for attending the meeting.

CenturyLink Response

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the June 18, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

Sharon Van Meter AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR #PC050703-1

This is an initial response to AT&T CR PC050703-1. This CR requests that Qwest Change Qwest Wholesale CMP Website to make it easier to search, retrieve and view CRs.

Qwest accepts this Change Request. Qwest recommends that the changes to implement this request be implemented in with a phased approach. Qwest is still researching an appropriate means of providing more comprehensive linking in the current report and the possibility of providing a GUI front-end to the report. However, to meet the CLECs’ stated need, Qwest is prepared to immediately modify the existing Interactive Report as attached.

Sincerely,

Matt White Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC061103-1ES Detail

Description Of Change

There are several reasons for this request: AT&T customers should not be speaking to a Qwest representative; it would be much more efficient to route the call directly to AT&T; it eliminates potential representative errors, and; it reduces the number of calls to the Qwest center.

Expected Deliverable:

August 2003

Status History

Project Meetings

8/18/04 CMP Meeting Mark Gonzales reported that the work was complete and that a notice was sent on July 28 effective July 29. The CR will be moved to Test status.

7/21/04 July CMP Meeting Denny Graham – Qwest reviewed the response and advised that Qwest is looking at the process and products impacted. Qwest will move this CR to Evaluation status. We will provide an updated status in August.

-- 06/16/04 June CMP Meeting Jamal Boudhaouia with Qwest said that the changes are on track for implementation in third quarter. Carla Pardee with AT&T said that after looking over the changes being made to the VRU, it is not clear how this is different from what is currently done. Jamal said that we want to identify the CLEC end user as not a Qwest customer when a CLEC end user calls the VRU unintentionally. Upfront checks will be done to determine if the end user is Qwest’s or a CLEC’s and convey the message that they are not Qwest’s customer if they are a CLEC end user. Carla asked Jamal to explain the series of checks. Jamal said that the number input by the end user is checked to determine if Qwest, AT&T, Sprint, other CLEC, etc., is the service provider for the end user and then provide the CLEC number if we have it. Carla Pardee with AT&T agreed to the changes being made after the explanations given by Jamal. This CR will remain in Development status.

05/19/04 May CMP Meeting Jamal Boudhaouia with Qwest said that we are in the process of starting to code and implementation is tentatively scheduled for third quarter 2004. The VRU response for Option 2 will be changed. Jamal summarized the VRU changes that will be made and a document summarizing the changes will be attached to this CR. Carla Pardee with AT&T said we thought the call would be intercepted and go to the CLEC serving the account, but since we agreed in September to what Jamal explained it will be accepted. We would like commitment that the implementation will take place during July, August or September 2004. Jamal said the implementation is scheduled for third quarter 2004. Liz Balvin with MCI said it should be taken into consideration the number of times Qwest is used in the VRU because we would not want a CLEC end user customer to talk with a Qwest representative. Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon suggested that the VRU options be written and attached to this CR and Jamal agreed to provide. This CR will remain in Development status.

04/21/04 April CMP Meeting Jamal Boudhaouia with Qwest said that implementation is scheduled for third quarter 2004 and that he will give an update at the May meeting. This CR will remain in Development status.

03/17/04 March CMP Meetng Ev Montez with Qwest said the funding for the project has been approved and that a firm date for implementation has not been provided because IT has not prioritized projects. Carla Pardee with AT&T said that the CR has been out there for a long time and AT&T wants to get the implementation date. Ev said she would provide an update at the April meeting or before if available. This CR will remain in Development status.

-- 02/18/04 February CMP Meeting Jamal Boudhaouia with Qwest said that funding for the project has been approved and will provide a date for implementation as soon as available. Bonnie Johnson said that she has asked several times and has not received an answer about the Qwest retail VRU project and when that is scheduled for implementation or has it been implemented. Jamal said that the project hasn’t been implemented and all changes will be incorporated and will include the CR requested changes. Bonnie said that Qwest hasn’t made clear what the implementation date will be. Carla Pardee with AT&T said that the changes were supposed to be effective in April. Jamal said there is currently no date for implementation. Carla said that the CR is important to AT&T and would like to see solid dates next month adding that the CR was escalated previously and did not do any good. Judy Schultz with Qwest said that we had just received word that funding was approved on Friday and IT will determine the dates as soon as possible. The dates will be provided, if available, before the March meeting. Bonnie said that Qwest had already provided the implementation date of April, (comment begin from Eschelon) 2004 but now states that this was just approved. Judy said all changes had to be reevaluated by Noteabart. (comment end from Eschelon). This CR will remain in Development status.

01/21/04 January CMP Meeting Jamal Boudhaouia with Qwest provided an update that there is no date for implementation. Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon thought this was going to be worked in conjunction with a Qwest retail project. Judy Schultz with Qwest said that this is one of the projects subject to the funding approval process. Even projects that had previously been approved are subject to the new approval process. Qwest will find out when the internal project for the VRU will be worked and how these two projects are connected. This CR will remain in Development status. (Begin comment from Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon) Qwest took an action to review this CR. Bonnie said this CR was waiting for an update already underway for the VRU. That was the delay after this was opened in June 2003. (end comment).

12/17/03 December CMP Meeting Jamal Boudhaouia with Qwest said that the CR is in development status and have no update on timeframe for implementation. Carla Pardee with AT&T said they would like to see progress on this CR by next month or AT&T will escalate the CR. This CR will remain in Development status.

11/19/03 November CMP Meeting Craig Suellentrop said that Qwest has accepted this CR and will make changes to the VRU. Work will be going on in the Qwest VRU and will provide implementation dates as soon as available. Carla Pardee with AT&T said that this CR has been open since June and AT&T would like a formal commitment on the timeframe. This CR will remain in Development Status.

10/15/03 October CMP Meeting Craig Suellentrop said that Qwest is looking at redesigning the repair VRU and plan to include changes for this CR at the same time. Carla Pardee with AT&T said AT&T is anxious to get the changes in place and asked for the implementation date. Craig said he hopes to have implementation dates for the November CMP meeting. Carla asked if the changes Qwest is looking at to make to the VRU should be included in a Qwest initiated CMP CR. Craig said it is still being looked at and determination has not been made if a CR will be required. This CR will remain in Development Status.

09/17/03 September CMP Meeting Craig Suellentrop said that Qwest accepts this CR with an implementation expected in 90 - 120 days. When a customer calls into the repair VRU between 11:30 p.m. - 5 a.m. the system accessed by the VRU to perform the ownership check may be down and the caller will automatically be transferred to a repair agent. However, during this time the system used by Qwest’s repair agents can still identify if a line is owned by a CLEC and will be able to direct the end-user to their local carrier. This CR will be moved to Development status.

08/20/03 August CMP Meeting Craig Suellentrop with Qwest reviewed the draft response to this CR. Craig said that Qwest has mapped the different ways that end users can get into repair VRU and now need the LOE. Qwest will have an update at the September meeting. This CR will be moved to Evaluation status.

07/16/03 July CMP Meeting Carla Pardee with AT&T presented this CR. Craig Suellentrop with Qwest explained the current repair VRU process. When an end user calls into repair they enter the telephone number they are calling about. If the end user presses 1 for a repair agent the VRU does no ownership check and the repair agent inputs the telephone and if the telephone number is CLEC owned the repair agent refers the end user to their alternate provider. If the end user presses 2 for automatic ticket entry and the number is CLEC owned, the VRU will respond that the number is not serviced by Qwest. Then the end user can press 1, if they are the customer for the account. If it is a TN owned by an alternate service provider, the VRU reads the repair number for end user to call for repair services. If the VRU does not recognize the TN, it reads contact your service provider for assistance. Carla with AT&T would like the VRU to respond when the end user enters a telephone number owned by alternate provider, by intercepting the call and routing it to the correct company. Craig will provide the VRU process to the CLEC Community for input on changes.

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

2:00 p.m. (MT) / Tuesday, June 24, 2003

1-877-572-8687 PIN 3393947 # PC061103-1 Intercept CLEC customer calls to Qwest Repair Center

Name/Company: Donna Osborne-Miller, AT&T Dave Fane, AT&T Lydia Braze, AT&T Cathy Garcia, Qwest Craig Suellentrop, Qwest Michael Whitt, Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed.

Review Requested (Description of) Change The description of the change requested in the CR was reviewed. Currently, when an AT&T UNE-P end-user customer calls the Qwest repair line (800-573-1311), the call is routed to a Qwest representative, who then provides the customer with an AT&T 800 number. AT&T requests that Qwest change this procedure so that the call is intercepted when the customer enters their TN, and the customer should hear a branded message to the AT&T 1-800 repair number (800-288-2747). There are several reasons for this request: AT&T customers should not be speaking to a Qwest representative; it would be much more efficient to route the call directly to AT&T; it eliminates potential representative errors, and; it reduces the number of calls to the Qwest center. Dave Fane clarified that the intercept should be implemented for all CLEC customers, not just AT&T customers, and that the end user should be routed to the correct CLEC branding. In the testing, Dave used an AT&T test number and called into repair 6 or 8 times with different results.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Product impacted UNE-P

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Qwest confirmed that Craig Suellentrop & Cathy Garcia are correct personnel to resolve the CR.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation AT&T would like this change to be effective in August 2003 .

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests No dependent change requests were identified.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) AT&T will present this CR at the July CMP Meeting and Qwest will provide response at the August CMP. Donna Osborne-Miller requested that Qwest provide a response or an update if available at the July CMP.

06/18/03 June CMP Meeting Carla Pardee, Lydia Braze and Dave Fane with AT&T reviewed the walk on CR PC061103-1. Dave said that customers within the Qwest territory without Qwest local service call Qwest repair and AT&T would like the IVR to have the ability to route customers to AT&T and identify that the TN does not belong to Qwest. Other ILECs have this ability and it reduces calls to the repair center, mistakes made by repair representatives, and reduces call time for end users, who sometimes are involved in a call taking up to 3-4 minutes before the repair representative recognizes that the customer is not a Qwest customer. Eschelon, U S Link and McLeod all said they support this change request. Lynne Powers with TelWest asked if the end user would be inputting their telephone number and Dave said that is what occurs in the PacBell region. There will be a clarification call on this change request.

CenturyLink Response

For Review by the CLEC community and discussion at the September 17, 2003 CMP Meeting

Carla Pardee AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR PC061103-1 "Intercept CLEC customer calls to the Qwest Repair Center"

This CR requests that when a CLEC end-user calls into Qwest repair “the call is intercepted when the end-user enters their TN, and the customer should hear a branded message to the [CLEC] 1-800 repair number.

The August response illustrated Qwest’s current Voice Response Unit (VRU) scripting when an end-user calls into Qwest repair. For this CR Qwest investigated the possibility of performing the ownership check and replaying the same scripts for Option 2 as are performed for Option 1.

Qwest accepts this CR and will make the changes indicated above. The systems accessed for this ownership check may be down for maintenance nightly between 11:30 pm and 5:00 am Mountain Time. Therefore, during this period, it may not be possible to perform the ownership check. However, the system used by Qwest’s repair agents will still detect if a line is owned by a CLEC and the agent will direct the end-user to call his or her local carrier.

Sincerely,

Craig Suellentrop Staff Advocate, Policy & Law Qwest

Cc: Mary Retka, Director-Legal Issues, Qwest Catherine R. Garcia, Lead Process Analyst, Qwest Cheryl Rock, Senior Process Analyst, Qwest

August 13, 2003

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the August 20, 2003 CMP Meeting

Carla Pardee AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC061103-1 "Intercept CLEC customer calls to the Qwest Repair Center"

AT&T’s CR requests that when a CLEC end-user calls into Qwest repair "the call is intercepted when the end-user enters their TN, and the customer should hear a branded message to the [CLEC] 1-800 repair number."

The attached document illustrates Qwest’s current Voice Response Unit (VRU) scripting when an end-user calls into Qwest repair. For this CR, Qwest investigated the possibility of performing the ownership check and replaying the same scripts for Option 2 as are performed for Option 1.

The direct number to get into repair for all 14 states in Qwest’s local service region is 1-800-573-1311. However, other Qwest VRU systems have options allowing the caller to transfer to Local Network repair. Callers coming from these other systems do not always input their TN into the repair VRU. Because of this, Qwest has to map all of the various methods of getting into the repair VRU and determine how/if an ownership check can be conducted. Qwest is now in the process of getting an estimate for feasibility to perform the ownership check.

Qwest will provide a revised response at the September CMP meeting with the findings of this research.

Sincerely,

Craig Suellentrop Staff Advocate, Policy & Law Qwest

Cc: Mary Retka, Director-Legal Issues, Qwest Catherine R. Garcia, Lead Process Analyst, Qwest Cheryl Rock, Senior Process Analyst, Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC062603-03 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected deliverable: Adoption of SBC process relative to Business Rules Clarification and event notificattionupdates through the Addendum process

Status History

Project Meetings

06/16/04 June CMP Meeting Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T said that AT&T is migrating to 15.0 and the business partners submitted questions to the Q&A process and responses were received. The Qwest responses asked that the questions be submitted through the external documentation process and the response was sent within 14 days. Regina Mosley is not on the call today and is available tomorrow to discuss during the systems meeting. Randy Owen with Qwest said that the questions submitted were not determined to be related to EDI. Liz Balvin with MCI said there were USOC driven questions and the business rules are not in the EDI disclosure. This CR will remain in CLEC Test status.

05/19/04 May CMP Meeting Randy Owen with Qwest said that the CR is in CLEC test with 15.0 and that we are waiting for feedback. Carla Pardee from AT&T said they would start 15.0 in June. Randy asked if they could look at other CLECs information. Amanda Silva with VCI said there was a business rule for conversion on TN and the business rule is there but got rejected. There was supposed to be an event notification regarding the work around. Randy took the two trouble ticket numbers and will provide information at Thursday’s meeting. Liz Balvin with MCI said she attended one of the conference calls and has recommendations for improvement: 1) Highlight in the ticket that a conference call will be taking place. Put in bold type. 2) On the call Qwest should bring forth what the changes were, what it is changing from and what is it changing to. Unless you have the event notification during the call it is hard to understand what is changing. Add what interface is impacted by this change. Randy said he would take this back and can probably accommodate the request. Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon said this is AT&T’s CR and they could be viewing the CR differently than Qwest. This CR should be allowed to go into a different status. Eschelon had submitted a CR to change the CMP document to add a re-open status and Qwest voted no. (Begin Bonnie’s comment) Bonnie said that Eschelon will not be closing CR’s until we go into the release that the CR was implemented in. Bonnie recommended that Qwest and the CLECs find a status that appropriately reflects this situation. (end Bonnie’s comment) Linda Sanchez-Steinke said that the CR is not ready to be closed. This CR will remain in CLEC Test status

04/21/04 April CMP Meeting Randy Owen with Qwest advised that we have held conference calls with the release as a trial and we are drafting the implementation notification that will include a comment cycle and plan to have the notification out at the end of this week. Donna Osborne-Miller asked for an update on the action item opened for the escalation process. Randy said that this was related to the question log and he was still researching the action item on the system side. This CR will remain in CLEC Test status.

03/17/04 March CMP Meeting Randy Owen with Qwest said that the combined question log will be provided with 15.0 and two or three event calls have taken place. Donna Osborne-Miller said that discussion on the wrap-up of the global action items would take place during the Systems meeting tomorrow. Phyllis Burt with AT&T said she would provide feedback on the question and answer log and the event log. This CR will move to CLEC Test status. -- Thu 2/19/04 3:59 PM From: Sanchez Steinke, Linda To: 'Osborne-Miller, Donna, NKLAM' Subject; RE: Phyllis's items for documentation

Thank you Donna, I forwarded to Beth Foster, Kyle Kirves, and Randy Owen.

Linda Sanchez-Steinke 303-382-5768

Thu 2/19/04 2:55 PM From; Osborne-Miller, Donna, NKLAM [dosborne@att.com] To: Sanchez Steinke, Linda cc: New Cr, Cmp Subject; Phyllis's items for documentation

Hi Linda, Can you be sure to give this list to Beth Foster? It pertains to our conversation pertaining to PCO62603-03 and the Q&A log breakout of categories.

thank you, Donna

Attachment Category breakdown based on IMA Appendix Categories for Collective Q&A Migration

A.1 ADDRESS VALIDATION A.2 APPOINTMENT RESERVATION A.3 TN APPOINTMENT CANCELLATION A.4 CONNECTING FACILITY ASSIGNMENT A.5 CUSTOMER SERVICE RECORDS A.6 DESIGN LAYOUT RECORD (DLR) RETURN A.7 FACILITY AVAILABILITY QUERY A.8 LISTINGS RECONCILIATION A.9 LOOP QUALIFICATION A.10 MEET POINT A.11 RAW LOOP A.12 SERVICE AVAILABILITY A.13 TELEPHONE NUMBER ASSIGNMENT B.1 END USER B.2 LOCAL SERVICE REQUEST C.1 CENTREX RESALE SERVICES C.2 DIRECTORY LISTING C.3 DID RESALE SERVICE C.4 HUNT GROUP INFORMATION C.5 LOOP SERVICE C.6 LOOP SERVICE WITH NUMBER PORTABILITY C.7 NUMBER PORTABILITY C.8 PORT SERVICE C.9 RESALE C.10 RESALE FRAME RELAY C.11 RESALE PRIVATE LINE C.12 RESALE SPLIT C.13 UNE CENTREX 21 (P OR STAR) SPLIT D.1 BILLING COMPLETION NOTICE D.2 COMPLETION RESPONSE D.3 DIRECTORY SERVICE CONFIRMATION AND ERROR DETAIL (DSRED) RESPONSE D.4 LOCAL RESPONSE D.5 PROVIDER NOTIFICATION D.6 SERVICE ORDER STATUS INQUIRY D.7 STATUS UPDATES D.8 PENDING SERVICE ORDER NOTIFICATION GENERAL/OTHER

02/18/04 February CMP Meeting Beth Foster with Qwest said that this CR has been discussed at the global action item meetings and last week Qwest met with AT&T and Liz Balvin with MCI. Qwest took action items from that meeting and determined that meeting minutes will be provided and posted on the production support page along side the trouble ticket information which is currently populated on the Wholesale Web site. There was discussion regarding the timeframe of posting meeting minutes. Connie Winston with Qwest said they would post the minutes within 3 days and would strive to get completed as soon as possible. Connie also said that Qwest would capture necessary information, necessary action items and a general re-cap of the meeting intent. Phyllis Burt mentioned that issues of importance to Qwest might not be the same as those that are important to the CLEC. Connie suggested that the CLEC could provide a red-line of meeting minutes back to Qwest.

Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T said that we could put this CR into CLEC test and see how the process works.

Beth said that another action item was to look at how to handle the business rules clarification piece of the request, and noted that AT&T had initially asked that the Disclosure documentation be updated when CLECs ask for clarification. Qwest would like to start a single Q&A log with 15.0 release and provide the log on the wholesale website out where the EDI Documentation FAQ pages currently resides. This single Q&A log will provide needed clarification to documentation, a way to see documentation before the addendum is posted, and, will allow everyone to see what questions other CLECs have had and how Qwest has responded. Beth explained that the process for EDI will be covered by the CLECs EDI Implementation Teams, and included in the body of the Q&A document that will be posted.

Randy Owen with Qwest said an e-mail address would be set up for CLECs to send questions.

Phyllis Burt requested the Q&A log be categorized by topic, such as Appointment Scheduling. Randy Owen will take that action item to see if this is feasible. Donna Osborne-Miller said the Q&A log would be cumbersome if not broken out by fields.

Beth asked if everyone agreed that the process trial could begin with 15.0, and once the documentation was posted the CR could move into CLEC test for AT&T feedback. All agreed and Beth said that a Systems Notification will be sent stating that the Q&A log will be located on the Wholesale Web Site, under OSS, IMA, EDI Documentation under the FAQ link. This CR will move to Development Status.

Fri 2/13/04 8:38 AM From; Linda Sanchez-Steinke To; 'dosborne@att.com' Subject; Updated Draft Response PC062603-03

Hi Donna -

As a follow up to yesterday's meeting regarding PC062603-03, attached is the updated draft response.

As we discussed, Qwest took the following action items; documentation addendum notification meeting minutes, question and answer log. We will give an update at the CMP meeting.

Thank you

Linda Sanchez-Steinke CRPM Qwest 303-382-5768

Meeting Minutes PC062603-03 Business Rules Clarification calls and event notification update through the Addendum process CMP Product & Process February 12, 2004 1-877-572-8687, Conference ID 3393947# 2:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. Mountain Time

PURPOSE

This meeting was held to discuss CR PC062603-03. The following is the write-up of the discussions, action items, and decisions made in the working session.

List of Attendees: Liz Balvin - MCI Regina Mosley - AT&T Phyllis Burt - AT&T Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T Beth Foster - Qwest Randy Owen - Qwest Kyle Kirves - Qwest Lynn Stecklein - Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke - Qwest

MEETING MINUTES

Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest welcomed all attendees and explained that Qwest scheduled this meeting to discuss changes that have been implemented to address this CR.

Kyle Kirves said that Qwest has made progress in the following areas; providing clearer information in the event notifications, revisited the event notification template, provide additional reasons behind severity issues, schedule conference calls on major impacts, and have initiated a CR to change the CMP document Section 12. A good example of Qwest’s effort to improve is the 2/13 conference call clarifying Event Notification 674340. AT&T said they appreciated these efforts.

Phyllis Burt with AT&T asked when clarification calls would take place. Kyle said they would take place for addendum changes. Phyllis Burt and Donna Osborne-Miller asked about meeting minutes from the clarification calls and Kyle said that minutes would be recapped in disclosure. Phyllis added AT&T prefers to get minutes as soon as possible because of the impacts to production. Randy Owen and Kyle Kirves agreed to address this action item and respond at Product Process CMP.

Phyllis Burt asked about the question and answer log and said that with IMA 11 AT&T had lots of questions. Kyle said that in the addendum there will be a "change from" and a "change to" identification. Beth Foster added that the event notification would be in disclosure. Donna asked what the timing would be and Kyle answered that it may be two weeks after notification.

Phyllis Burt said that when working with Wendy Green last year they wanted to have the ability to have clarifications added to the document about how the system behaves and didn’t want to wait until the next IMA release to get clarification updated.

Beth Foster suggested that documentation changes could be made via the documentation request website. Kyle stated the website is for everything but disclosure document changes. Randy added that many times documentation changes have coding changes and is concerned about that. Kyle said that documentation rejects are not representative of what the system is doing, for simple clarification that represents enhancement to documentation. Phyllis said that AT&T builds systems from the documentation and then it will become a production problem. Beth said a trouble ticket should be opened for production problems. Phyllis said that AT&T asks questions and looks at the question log and gives them a good clarification and this is not in the Qwest disclosure document. Liz Balvin with MCI said we would want to assure that clarifications don’t get lost in the flow of the next release. Phyllis will provide examples of clarification questions and answers. Randy Owen said that Qwest had been considering a single Q&A log with all CLEC questions and clarifications. Liz added that the while Qwest might think clarification, it may be CLEC code impacting to have the update in the addendum especially from the EDI standpoint.

Qwest will provide an update to the open action items at the Product Process CMP.

01/21/04 January CMP Meeting Connie Winston with Qwest said that this issue has been worked through oversight and in the emergency meetings. Qwest can initiate a quick meeting and CLECs are also able to initiate meetings. Carla Pardee with AT&T said that there had been a meeting held on loss and completion. Connie also said there are potential CMP language changes being proposed. Qwest will have an updated response in February. This CR will remain in Evaluation status.

12/17/03 December CMP Meeting Connie Winston with Qwest said this CR has been discussed in the Global Action Item meetings and expects that the Global Action Item meetings will be wrapping up in the January timeframe. This was also discussed at the Oversight meeting and whether the new process will meet the intent of this CR.

11/19/03 November CMP Meeting Kit Thomte with Qwest said that this CR was being discussed with the Global Action Item meeting 11/18/03. This CR will remain in Evaluation status.

10/15/03 October CMP Meeting Kit Thomte with Qwest said that this CR was discussed at the 10/14/03 Global Action item meeting. It was agreed this CR would remain in Evaluation status.

09/17/03 September CMP Meeting Connie Winston with Qwest provided an update and said that Qwest is reviewing what we can do better. Qwest has implemented calls to appropriate CLECs. When faxing becomes only solution Qwest is raising the severity level because there is no way for the CLEC to Communicate with Qwest. Liz Balvin said that a severity level 1 or 2 is fine and that 3 or 4 is not acceptable. Bonnie Johnson said there is a difference in the definition of immediately. Connie said that at Event Notification closure Qwest is providing clearer information about what we did and what we are doing. Monica Avila with VarTec provided an example that when Qwest end user fields went from optional to conditional, it required coding outside of the release. Liz Balvin said that because the fields were optional, had Qwest lifted the edits as emergency patch, then CLEC coding wouldn’t have to change. Connie said there was concern not knowing documentation was wrong CLECs didn’t know the CR made it into the release. Liz said by TN and SANO didn’t know back end changes were taking place. Liz said that address information needs to match SAV response. SAV needs to be in disclosure and in addendum for optional to conditional. Connie said that we are reviewing when it makes sense to reference the PCAT. Liz said that if it impacts coding then is should be in disclosure. Connie would like to roll this CR into the discussion of the Global Action item. It was determined that 10/14 from 10 a.m. –5 p.m. would be a good timeframe to discuss the CRs. This CR will remain in Evaluation Status.

Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes PC062603-03 Business Rules Clarification calls and event notification updates through the Addendum processs CMP Product & Process September 9, 2003 1-877-572-8687, Conference ID 3393947# 8:00 a.m. - 8:45 a.m. Mountain Time

PURPOSE

At the August CMP Meeting, participants agreed to hold a conference call to provide additional clarity and explain Phyllis Burt’s series of questions and statements about intent and meaning of the change request. The following is the write-up of the discussion.

List of Attendees: Julie Pikar - U S Link Jen Arnold - U S Link Kim Issaacs - Eschelon Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T Phyllis Burt - AT&T Regina Mosley - AT&T Tom Hyde - Cbeyond Byron Dowding - Alltel Stephanie Prull - McLeod Randy Owen - Qwest Kyle Kirves - Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke - Qwest

MEETING MINUTES

The meeting began with Qwest making introductions and welcoming all attendees.

Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss and get further clarification about the AT&T CR PC062603-03. At the August CMP meeting, Qwest provided the draft denial response and Phyllis Burt with AT&T provided a counter proposal at the CMP meeting and asked that Qwest provide an updated response at the September meeting.

Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T provided the denial response red-lined with a series of questions and statements written by Phyllis Burt. Kyle Kirves with Qwest had received the questions/statements. Phyllis Burt with AT&T said that the purpose of the CR was to provide clearer information in event notifications. Phyllis said that when event notifications are not clear, AT&T goes to their implementation manager and then calls the help desk and try to get answers, but production problems are not clear. Phyllis said that with the SBC process there is a clarification call where questions can be asked. The issue is, if workarounds conflict with other business rules, then something else can fail. When AT&T Consumer converts from IMA 12 to 13 Phyllis will have to go back through the event notifications for the 13.0 release and look at to see if there is anything they would need to consider.

Phyllis said that the purpose behind the CR is to make sure there are not long gaps in time on production impacts. AT&T suggests that there is a need for good clarification and AT&T has hundreds of questions in their Q&A log, and weeks go by and questions linger and wait. AT&T wants to find other avenues to head off production problems.

Stephanie Prull with McLeod will not go back and look at Event Notifications for releases. McLeod will only do what is documented in the Disclosure and try to code to the business rules. McLeod stated that they should not have to implement to anything other than the business rules. If McLeod has a CR or UR when going in then will code to it.

Phyllis reiterated that there are two big things in the red-lined response: 1) AT&T wants to make sure that they understand the work around and that it is not conflicting with other rules so they don’t have to re-word the workaround. 2) AT&T would like clarification around the current impact and if they will receive rejects or jeopardies based on that impact.

Kim Issacs said that Eschelon uses EDI and GUI (used for resale & UNE-P) and if they receive a work around notice and it conflicts with business rules Kim will call the help desk. Kim sometimes can wait up to two days to get an answer on what the product impact and issues are. In addition, they get communication of workarounds and then get rejects from the centers.

Phyllis and Stephanie both have concerns with the PCRM ticket 167601 (LNUM) and still can’t explain what the impacts are to their companies. Randy Owen with Qwest said that he didn’t have specifics, and knows that the issue is discussed every day trying to get to a solution.

U S Link said they are not on EDI, but share frustrations with process and support the AT&T CR. Randy said that we would take this information back and look at it further. Randy said that the CLECs should call the technical escalations if they are waiting too long on open trouble tickets that are severity level 3 and should escalate to severity level 2.

Phyllis said that she suggests Qwest look at the proposal of having CLEC calls because questions and problems will be brought up as a group and would trigger discussions. With the technical escalation process, McLeod may raise an issue and AT&T may raise another issue, but discussion as a group would help.

Randy said that he would like to know the rules and timing of the potential CLEC call. Kim said that having all CLECs on a call (for LNUM issue) would have helped. Stephanie Prull said that a call would not be needed on every event notice, but suggested that on event notices that the CLECs send an e-mail saying they want a call and if several CLECs sent an e-mail then Qwest should have a call.

Phyllis said that AT&T just requests calls on workarounds event notifications that change a business rules and documentation appears not to be working the way Qwest says it is working.

Phyllis also said that the second part of the red-lined document that with IMA 11 have Q&A log with major gaps. The next major release these will be worked into the addendum process.

Randy said that we will take that back also and that if there is a bug identified or is this enhancement which would have to be in the next major release.

Phyllis discussed the documentation for service address validation when look at Qwest Documentation it appears copied from pre-order, order and SANO populated. Phyllis said that what needs to be done is a documentation change.

Linda asked if there were any other questions or additional information to provide. There were no additional comments or questions.

08/20/03 - August CMP Meeting Connie Winston with Qwest reviewed the draft response for this CR. Connie said that the information provided in the Event Notification Closure should include additional information that identifies the change, what was changed and what it was changed to. CLECs can also use the Technical Escalations to get more clarity in Event Notification. Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T said that Phyllis Burt has provided documentation to the CLEC Community on Event Notifications and Donna will e-mail to Linda Sanchez-Steinke. Discussion continued when Connie Winston came into the CMP meeting. What AT&T would like is to hold an Ad Hoc meeting and provide additional clarity and explain Phyllis Burt’s counter proposal’s intent and meaning. Liz said that CLECs see the addendum as changes to EDI / GUI and want the ability to comment on the addendum. This CR will be moved to Evaluation status and Qwest will provide a revised response at the September meeting.

8/20/03 4:53 p.m. Sent by: "Osborne-Miller, Donna, NKLAM" To: Linda.Sanchezsteinke@qwest.com> cc: cmpcr@qwest.com> Subject: Phyllis's counterproposal to documentation CR Linda,

Here is the redline document Phyllis composed that I spoke with Connie about this morning.

Thank you, Donna

ATTACHMENT - PC062603-03 Response - FEEBACK.doc

AT&T is seeking a clear understanding of the problem via a clarification call so all CLECs have a clear understanding of the problem/issue and the impact to their business so that they can make the appropriate business decisions. Currently, the event notification issued today are very vague as to the actually QWEST problem and the impact to the CLEC business. How can I identify this problem in production today? Is QWEST currently rejecting these orders, sending jeopardies or are the orders completing successfully but not being provisioned correctly?

AT&T is requesting whenever a workaround is document that a clarification call to clearly communicate (1) the workaround in detail (2) the current impact to the CLECs order or service in production Example: (a) A notification for PCRM Ticket Number: 167601 has been issued several times. Initially it was not clear which Products were impacted. The extent of the change required and what happens to our orders when this occurs is still unknown. I’ve personally tried getting an answer via the contact number provided on the notification. A QWEST TT has been open since Friday August 15.

AT&T is not requesting that the entire CLEC Q&A log be provided. QWEST has requested that AT&T provide the exact disclosure document update in the Q&A log. AT&T is requesting that CLECs that request documentation of clarifications provided in the Q&A and provide the exact wording required for the update to the Disclosure Document should be able to get these worked into the next Addendum update issued.

AT&T Consumer disagrees that the current process is working effectively. If this were the case, I would not be making this request. The current notification process only provides confusion due to the lack of in depth analysis

Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes PC062603-03 Business Rules Clarification calls and event notification update through the Addendum process CMP Product & Process July 31, 2003 1-877-572-8687, Conference ID 3393947# 9:00 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. Mountain Time

PURPOSE

At the July CMP Meeting, participants agreed to hold a conference call to discuss and gain input from CLECs on this CR. The following is the write-up of the discussions, action items, and decisions made in the working session.

List of Attendees: Liz Balvin - MCI Stephanie Prull - McLeod USA Regina Mosley - AT&T Phyllis Burt - AT&T Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T Kyle Kirves - Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke - Qwest

MEETING MINUTES

Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest read the change request description: AT&T requests that the Business Rules be opened up for clarification and that event notification updates be incorporated into the Addendum process. We seek Qwest adoption of SBC's process of a standard conference be established to address issues or concerns with the event notification and addendum updates. This SBC process includes conference call logistics: date, time and bridge number. They also send out a notification capturing the questions and answers provided during the conference call.

Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T said there were copies of the e-mail handout provided at the July CMP meeting and asked if CLECs on the call had the opportunity to look at the documentation. Liz Balvin asked if AT&T would give an overview. Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest said the handout is also included in the body of the CR in the interactive report.

Phyllis Burt with AT&T provided an overview of the handout. Phyllis explained how the SBC process of event notification is different from the Qwest process. In the Qwest event notifications there is an e-mail address to send questions to. SBC’s process for appending business rules documentation includes a set conference call within 3-5 days of the notification. This set conference call time is convenient because it allows everyone to have an hour free on their calendar and the opportunity, during event notification, to discuss issues or questions and understand how business rules are impacted. The meeting minutes from the conference calls are included in the final notification and that allows everyone unable to attend the conference call ability to read the minutes for additional information. AT&T is looking for Qwest to provide this type of process. Phyllis also said that if Qwest had this type of conference call it would provide the opportunity to discuss the change and the impact. That way everyone would understand how to communicate and what the business rule is. In addition, sometimes CLECs get different answers from different people at Qwest and we are all trying to understand and seek clarity to the blocking issues.

Liz Balvin with MCI said the SBC process seems to be a more expeditious approach.

Kyle Kirves with Qwest asked if CLECs were talking about providing PCAT and LSOG updates or addendum and disclosure document impacts. Phyllis Burt with AT&T said the Qwest notification explains that something is happening but there is no addendum. Kyle Kirves asked if CLECs were looking for information in the disclosure notification and if they want the notification to provide what the documentation change will be. Phyllis said yes.

Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest asked if there were any additional questions. There were no questions.

07/16/03 July CMP Meeting Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T presented this CR. Donna stated that AT&T would like Qwest to adopt the SBC process to address issues and concerns with event notifications and addendum updates. Donna said that they receive many event notifications from Qwest and the SBC process includes a clarification call 1-3 days after the notification to understand impacts. In addition, meeting notes are posted with a question and answer log. With EDI implementation 250-300 questions have been asked and some of the questions are not answered. Today, CLECs share their logs with other CLECs, MCI shares their log and McLeod shares their log. Judy Schultz with Qwest asked if the clarification call would take place during the production support timeframe. Donna said she is not sure if there is commonality between this CR and the CR for System Defects. Liz Balvin with MCI commented that if the Q& A logs were made public then they may not have to go to EDI teams which would be less work for Qwest. The CLEC community agreed to hold an ad hoc meeting to discuss this CR and Donna Osborne-Miller will provide the dates available for AT&T SMEs to Linda Sanchez-Steinke.

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

2:00 p.m. (MDT) / Friday, July 11, 2003

1-877-260-8255 7616533# PC062603-03 Business Rules Clarification calls and event notification updates through the Addendum processs

Name/Company: Donna Osborne-Miller, AT&T Carla Pardee, AT&T Phyllis Burt, AT&T Regina Mosley, AT&T Kyle Kirves, Qwest Dan Busetti, Qwest Wendy Thurnau, Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed.

Review Requested (Description of) Change AT&T’s CR requests that Qwest adopt SBC’s process of a standard conference to address issues or concerns with event notification and addendum updates. Phyllis Burt with AT&T read the e-mail below at the Clarification Meeting for participants on the call:

(1) Several Event Notifications have come out that required discussion (see below). This CR is requesting that QWEST provide a clarification call for notifications that impact CLECS. The call should be held within 1-3 business days after the announcement at a set standard time for example (11am Mountain/12pm Central/1pm Eastern). (a) The initial notification should include the addendum summary if impacts the disclosure documents. (b) The appropriate SMEs should attend the clarification call to answer any issues/concerns and a walkthrough of the appropriate documentation should be completed. (c) The closure notifications should include meeting minutes from the clarification call and the new addendum version should be posted on the Disclosure document website with a reference to the closure notification #.

Event Notification: 85434 IMA EDI GUI Initial Closure 061803 "Description of Trouble: CLECs may be experiencing difficulty processing POTS and UNE-P POTS orders on the Resale form when attempting to change a line level USOC and a non-line level USOC on the same order. Business Impact: CLECs may not be able to process POTS or UNE-P POTS orders on a single form when a line level and a non-line level USOC is changing. Qwest Proposed Work Around: CLECs should send the requests for line and non-line level USOCs separately. Alternatively, CLECs may submit their orders, mark the request for manual handling, and provide instructions in the REMARKS."

Event Notification: 75800 IMA EDI GUI 060503 Initial-Closure Description of Trouble: CLECs may be experiencing difficulty processing conversion LSRs with a Block Activity (BA) = N (no change to existing blocking). Business Impact: CLECs may be experiencing difficulties retaining existing blocks during conversion. Qwest Proposed Work Around: CLECs should use the Feature Activity (FA) = V to recap blocking USOCs.

(2) QWEST/CLEC Q&A log clarification should be captured in the Addendum. There should be a monthly process to submit clarification updates. Followed by a standard monthly event notification and review as discussed above.

Phyllis also said that MCI had quite a few questions when migrations were done and it would have been helpful to have Q & A logs for other CLECs to refer to. SBC identifies a timeline when the answers to questions will be given and includes center personnel and OSS personnel in their clarification calls for notifications that impact CLECS.

Phyllis said that it would have been helpful for the April release to have included a Qwest/CLEC Q&A log because code wasn’t in the business rules. In addition, Phyllis has a concern that if IMA 10 or 11 had a clarification log then they could refer back to it for IMA 12 and 13. Whatever other CLECS have learned has not been documented in the disclosure document.

Donna asked Kyle to provide an overview of the addendum process Qwest currently practices. Using the example above ( event 85434), Kyle described how this notification would justify an addendum. Specifically, he stated that, in this case, if the system were not functioning as documented, and the issue compromised the CLEC’s ability to process transactions, then a notification would be issued, and an addendum published. Situations that Qwest finds worthy of an addendum are those instances where the system is not functioning as documented. Clarification types of issues do not necessitate an addendum.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted The area of this Change Request impacts addendum notifications.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Qwest confirmed the correct personnel were on the call to resolve the CR.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation AT&T’s expectation is that Qwest adopt the SBC process relative to Business Rules Clarification and even notification updates through the addendum process.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests No systems change requests.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) AT&T will present this CR at the July CMP meeting.

To: Sanchez Steinke, Linda, Donna Osborne-Miller From: Burt, Phyllis S, CSCIO [phyllissburt@att.com] Sent: Fri 7/11/03 1:56 PM Subject: RE: Clarification call for the documentation CR Here's some additional information for our call today.

(1) Several Event Notifications have come out that required discussion (see below). This CR is requesting that QWEST provide a clarification call for notifications that impact CLECS. The call should be held within 1-3 business days after the announcement at a set standard time for example (11am Mountain/12pm Central/1pm Eastern). (a) The initial notification should include the addendum summary if impacts the disclosure documents. (b) The appropriate SMEs should attend the clarification call to answer any issues/concerns and a walkthrough of the appropriate documentation should be completed. (c) The closure notifications should include meeting minutes from the clarification call and the new addendum version should be posted on the Disclosure document website with a reference to the closure notification #.

Event Notification: 85434 IMA EDI GUI Initial Closure 061803 "Description of Trouble: CLECs may be experiencing difficulty processing POTS and UNE-P POTS orders on the Resale form when attempting to change a line level USOC and a non-line level USOC on the same order. Business Impact: CLECs may not be able to process POTS or UNE-P POTS orders on a single form when a line level and a non-line level USOC is changing. Qwest Proposed Work Around: CLECs should send the requests for line and non-line level USOCs separately. Alternatively, CLECs may submit their orders, mark the request for manual handling, and provide instructions in the REMARKS."

Event Notification: 75800 IMA EDI GUI 060503 Initial-Closure Description of Trouble: CLECs may be experiencing difficulty processing conversion LSRs with a Block Activity (BA) = N (no change to existing blocking). Business Impact: CLECs may be experiencing difficulties retaining existing blocks during conversion. Qwest Proposed Work Around: CLECs should use the Feature Activity (FA) = V to recap blocking USOCs.

(2) QWEST/CLEC Q&A log clarification should be captured in the Addendum. There should be a monthly process to submit clarification updates. Followed by a standard monthly event notification and review as discussed above.

Thanks,

Phyllis

CenturyLink Response

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the March 2004 CMP Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Revised Response - PC062603-03 "Business Rules Clarification calls and event notification updates through the Addendum process"

This response is a supplementary response to AT&T’s CR PC062603-03. Originally, Qwest denied this CR at the August CMP meeting. In response to a series of questions and statements provided by AT&T, and as a result of an ad hoc call held on 09/09/03, Qwest reviewed the points raised by the CLECs.

As a result of the discussions held at the Global Action Items Meetings (held on September 12, 2003; October 14, 2003; November 4, 2003; November 18, 2003; December 16, 2003), Qwest believes that the spirit of the original request has been met.

Qwest is using this document to supplement its response to the request dated February 11, 2004. Subsequent to the February 11 response, a meeting was held to discuss any gaps between Qwest’s understanding of the request, and the request’s intent. During that meeting, two gaps were discussed. They were:

- AT&T requested that meeting minutes from any discussion around “Addendum to Disclosure Documentation” notifications be provided to the CLECs. Qwest committed to provide meeting minutes for these sessions no later than three (3) business days after the meeting. As the notification form itself is not designed to capture meeting minutes from the discussion, Qwest will record minutes from the meetings and publish them to the Production Support web site under the notification number. CLECs will have an opportunity to provide redlined edits to the minutes back to Qwest. - If any updates to the notification itself are required, Qwest will make those changes and republish the notification within one (1) day. - Regarding clarification to business rules, Qwest stated that it will continue to observe its established process for addendums and clarifications. Where “bugs” are identified, Qwest will publish a notification, documenting the bug, to be followed up by an addendum. For clarifications that do not constitute bugs, Qwest will capture the clarification in its Question/Answer log. Further, Qwest will start a single Q&A log with the15.0 release and provide the log on the wholesale website where the EDI Documentation FAQ pages currently reside. This single Q&A log will provide needed clarification to documentation, a way to see documentation before the addendum is posted, and, will allow everyone to see what questions other CLECs have had and how Qwest has responded.

It was agreed that the process trial could begin with 15.0, and once the documentation was posted, the CR could move into CLEC test for AT&T feedback.

Qwest maintains that the original request has been satisfied.

Sincerely,

Connie Winston Director, Information Technology Qwest

February 11, 2004

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the February 2004 CMP Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Revised Response - PC062603-03 "Business Rules Clarification calls and event notification updates through the Addendum process"

This response is a supplementary response to AT&T’s CR PC062603-03. Originally, Qwest denied this CR at the August CMP meeting. In response to a series of questions and statements provided by AT&T, and as a result of an ad hoc call held on 09/09/03, Qwest reviewed the points raised by the CLECs.

As a result of the discussions held at the Global Action Items Meetings (held on September 12, 2003; October 14, 2003; November 4, 2003; November 18, 2003; December 16, 2003), Qwest believes that the spirit of the original request has been met.

Qwest responds to these items by stating that, since the implementation of IMA EDI Release 14.0 on December 8, 2003, Qwest has made best efforts to invigorate the notification process. Qwest maintains that by revisiting its process, providing training to notifications authors, and revising the notification template itself. Qwest itemizes its actions taken to address this CR as follows:

- Qwest is endeavoring to provide clearer information in the event notifications; and positive feedback from the CLECs indicates that Qwest has made significant progress on this front. - Qwest has a contingency plan in place to initiate calls with CLECs for high-profile, major impact event notifications and announce the conference calls in the body of the event notification. Qwest does not recognize the feasibility of initiating calls for every event, but will comply with major impact events, as stated. - As always, Qwest has worked to mitigate issues quickly; however, some production gaps will always exist due to prioritization of issues for resolution. - Qwest’s new internal process allows for event notification authors to work with the Interconnect Service Centers to generate appropriate, working workarounds that are approved by both Qwest and the CLEC. - Qwest now provides complete descriptions of impacts and error messages resultant from the issue, and has a separate place on the event notification form for capturing the error message verbatim. - Qwest now captures changes in documentation resulting in the body of the notification itself, in a “Change From:” and “Change To:” format. - As part of change request PC010704-1CM, Qwest is working toward language changes in the CMP document. The language change describes process improvements regarding notifications and documentation changes that cover some of the requests in this CR. Specifically, Qwest has updated the CMP document to demonstrate the following commitment regarding notifications, workarounds, and conference calls to CLECs:

Qwest will attempt to make a software patch when the system is not working as defined in the technical specifications and/or the GUI systems documentation, and issue an event notification clearly defining the change.

If Qwest determines that a software patch is not feasible, and/or Qwest or any CLEC identifies a Patch Release of software or related systems documentation changes that may impact CLEC production coding, Qwest will issue an event notification, initiate a Technical Escalation, and request a joint meeting between Qwest and the CLECs in order to discuss the particular Patch Release. Qwest will notify CLECs of the joint meeting in which Qwest will review the Patch Release, the proposed solution, and the variables which affect the resolution. In all instances, these joint meetings are exempt from the five (5) business day advance notification requirement described in Section 3.0. At this joint meeting, Qwest and the impacted CLECs will discuss how the pending Patch Release will affect their code. Qwest and the impacted CLECs will discuss any potential resolution options and implementation timeframes. In the event that agreement cannot be reached between Qwest and the impacted CLECs regarding the type of Patch Release to be implemented, the parties will attempt to negotiate an appropriate workaround.

Qwest maintains that the original request has been satisfied.

Sincerely,

Connie Winston Director, Information Technology Qwest

September 10, 2003

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the September 2003 CMP Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

CC: Lynn Notarianni Beth Foster Kit Thomte

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC062603-03

This response is a supplementary response to AT&T’s CR PC 062603-03. Originally, Qwest denied this CR at the August CMP meeting. In response to a series of questions and statements provide by AT&T, and as a result of an ad hoc call held on 09/09/03, Qwest is currently reviewing the points raised by the CLECs.

Qwest proposes moving this Change Request into Evaluation Status while we continue to investigate to provide workable solutions. Qwest would like to add this item as a topic for discussion for the meeting on September 19th. Qwest will then provide an updated response no later than the October CMP Meeting.

Sincerely,

Connie Winston Director, Information Technology Qwest

August 12, 2003

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the August 20, 2003 CMP Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

CC: Lynn Notarianni Beth Foster Kit Thomte

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC062603-03

CR Description: AT&T’s original change request states:

AT&T requests that the Business Rules be opened up for clarification and that event notification updates be incorporated into the Addendum process. We seek Qwest adoption of SBC's process of a standard conference be established to address issues or concerns with the event notification and addendum updates. This SBC process includes conference call logistics: date, time and bridge number. They also send out a notification capturing the questions and answers provided during the conference call.

Qwest Response: AT&T requests that Qwest adopt a regular call to address notifications issues that pertain to documentation changes or addenda to the Disclosure Documentation, and provide SMEs to answer the questions on the calls. In many cases, Qwest has not identified specific, word-for-word documentation impacts with the publication of the initial notification. Nor is that information available with the publication of the closure in all cases (in some cases, we are able to insert the Disclosure Documentation change into the closure, but this is typically a “documentation only” change notification). This is due to the fact that all documentation changes are reviewed by our System Requirements team. This System Requirements review is thorough and time consuming and would not be able to be completed during the timelines required by the notifications process in the CMP Document, Section 12.7. It involves research into field impacts, review of every instance to the field, cross-document impacts, systems and code impacts, and more. It is conducted over a period of time far greater than those involved in the notifications process.

Qwest maintains that both a.) the initial notification cannot include the documentation impacts and b.) the clarification call would not be able to clarify the documentation changes, as there would be insufficient detail available at the time of the proposed call. Moreover, the Qwest resources who would be needed on the calls are those who would be working to remedy the issue. Having them on the calls removes them from working to effectively solve the problem, and would lengthen the time to resolve.

If AT&T is requesting that all, or individual CLEC QA logs be provided as a part of the addendum process, this is not a logistically feasible business practice, because publishing these logs would require edits to every QA log for confidentiality.

Qwest's existing process of providing notifications with workarounds, business impacts, and channels for escalation works effectively, and allows for targeted responses to customer concerns. Publishing the clarifications made to each individual CLEC to all other CLECs does not add a demonstrable business benefit to the process, to the CLECs, and would require Qwest to assume an additional two to three resources to implement the solution AT&T is proposing. Qwest will, however, endeavor to enhance its notifications pertaining to Disclosure Documentation by including the change in the body of the closure notification. For Disclosure Documentation changes that would constitute an addendum, Qwest will include the documentation change in a “Change From—Change To” format similar to the change summaries in the addenda themselves.

Qwest respectfully denies this change request because the change does not result in a reasonably demonstrable business benefit and is economically not feasible.

Sincerely,

Connie Winston, Director, Information Technology Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC062603-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Other CLECs have no plans to discontinue this facility. In fact many are making enhancements with parameters, making this a viable facility for AT&T needs.

AT&T request that this facility be metallic only, unloaded and have a maximum distance of 12,000 feet using 24 gauge copper, or 9,000 feet using 26 gauge equivalent copper. In addition, it is requested that this facility have a maximum total bridge tap of no more than 2,500 feet, with no single bridge tap being longer than 2,000 feet.

Expected Deliverable:

Qwest to retain and enhance this facility

Status History

Project Meetings

07/16/03 July CMP Meeting Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T presented this CR. AT&T would like Qwest to maintain the NCI code for this facility. Kate Pedersen with AT&T said that in a conversation with Bill Wycoff with Qwest he had stated the facility offering would be eliminated. Cindy Buckmaster with Qwest said that her understanding was that in the migration to Industry Spectrum Management Standards, those services would not be eliminated but would be merged into a specific spectrum class. Kate indicated that analysis matched her understanding.

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

10:00 a.m. (MDT) / Friday, July 11, 2003

1-877-562-8687 3393947# PC062603-1 Industry Compliance Request LX-N 02QB9.00H Loop

Name/Company: Donna Osborne-Miller, AT&T Sharon Van Meter, AT&T Kate Pedersen, AT&T Lydia Braze, AT&T Phil Law, AT&T Jen Arnold, U S Link Cindy Buckmaster, Qwest Denny Graham, Qwest Bill Wycoff, Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed.

Review Requested (Description of) Change AT&T’s CR requests that Qwest not eliminate the LX-N 02QB9.00H loop. Many other ILECs offer this loop as an option and this option works well for AT&T. AT&T had heard that Qwest may be eliminating the option and would like to have the option continued.

Cindy Buckmaster with Qwest said that the designation of the HDSL facility (provided by the NCI code) defines the capability of a non-loaded loop, and further clarified that an HDSL capable loop is not a product offering. This is important to understand in determining if AT&T would like a new product announced or the maintenance going forward of the availability of the specified HDSL facility. AT&T said that they are fine with the continuation of the availability of the facility offering with the changes that would contain the following loop limiting parameters; 12,000 ft. maximum loop length for 24 gauge cable that includes Bridged Tap (BT), 9,000 ft. maximum length for 26 gauge cable that also includes BT. BT would be limited to 2,000 ft. maximum length for an individual BT, and a total bridge tap limit of 2,500 ft.

Cindy Buckmaster further explained that the NCI code identifies the facility and the NC is the classification of the product. The designation of LX-N tells Qwest that the customer wants a non-loaded loop. Prior to widespread availability of HDSL, Qwest selected the facility for the CLEC, and now, the CLEC has the ability to choose the facility by specifying the 02QB9.00H NCI code. Neither of these parameters limits the loop length or amount of bridged tap.

Phil Law with AT&T asked Bill Wycoff with Qwest if the .00H designator means that Qwest applies spectrum for HDSL so they know how to manage. Bill Wycoff said the LX-N triggers the facility and the .00H is the electrical interface. The interface code is informational to Qwest for possible spectrum management purposes and does not affect loop design or performance.

Bill Wycoff with Qwest asked Phil if AT&T orders a facility to a premises and there are no loops that meet the limitations set by AT&T above, if they want to receive a reject. Phil answered yes, AT&T would prefer a reject rather than get a loop with 5,000 feet of bridged tap.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted The area of this Change Request impacts Unbundled loop, and UNE

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Qwest confirmed the correct personnel were on the call to resolve the CR.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation AT&T’s expectation is that Qwest keep and enhance the LX-N 02QB9.00H facility.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests No systems change requests.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) AT&T will present this CR at the July CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the August 20, 2003 CMP Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC062603-1 "Industry Compliance Request LX-N 02QB9.00H Loop"

This CR requests that Qwest retain and enhance the LX-N 02QB9.00H unbundled loop facility.

In the interpretation of NC/NCI (Network Channel/Network Channel Interface) codes as provided by AT&T (LX-N 02QB9.00H), CLECs must refer to the UBL Technical Publication 77384. As indicated in Section 3 of this publication, the primary point of reference is the NC Code, which tells Qwest what facility type the CLEC is requesting. In the case of an NC Code equal to LX-N, the CLEC is requesting a metallic facility free of Load Coils. Where that facility is available in the Qwest inventory, or where incremental facility work can be accomplished to create such a facility, the non-loaded loop will be provisioned for the CLEC.

The secondary point of reference is the NCI Code, which provides operational information ONLY regarding the number of conductors the CLEC will be connecting at the interface (ICDF). Contrary to the proposal of AT&T, Qwest does not assign the facility for the NCI Code specified based on Loop Length or Bridged Tap. Rather, the loss parameter, of the facility requested, is measured at the interface and can be influenced by a number of elements, including Loop length and Bridged Tap length. Qwest processes are in place to ensure that the loss limits of the facility requested are in compliance with the specifications of the Technical Publication.

The Protocol Option part of the NCI, i.e., 00H, is informative to Qwest of the CLEC applied, electrical signal. This is used for spectrum management information.

None of these elements provide the limitations defined by AT&T (loop length, segment gauge, bridged tap limits). Therefore, these NC/NCI codes alone will not provide AT&T the specific facility they desire.

Qwest reviewed current assignment and inventory systems to determine if the necessary information can be gleaned and aggregated to accommodate this request. As Qwest systems currently consider only segment information and can’t aggregate the segments, this is not a viable option. Qwest would require System modifications that are expected to cost in excess of $1M to accommodate this request. Once the capability was installed, the system would logically need to be enhanced to accommodate specifications of each CLEC as their equipment may have facility needs different than the HDSL equipment in focus.

Qwest reviewed the manual process required to fill in where the system modification would be too costly. This manual process is likely to include expenses associated with: - Development of a means to identify a CLECs technical specifications - Additional assignment personnel to research potential facilities matching restrictions identified by the CLEC - Engineering time to review unqualified loops and create jobs to qualify the loops - Construction jobs may be required involving more construction personnel. - Additional network involvement to condition the loop (remove Load Coils and Bridged Taps) where applicable - A process to identify the required work on the customer’s records (perhaps on the CLECs bill)

A conservative estimate of the annual cost of providing this loop would be in excess of $250,000. Again, the identification of unique technical specifications, due to CLEC specific equipment and services requested, would only exaggerate this cost as well.

It is recommended instead that CLECs can use the Raw Loop Data Tool to provide the visibility to the likelihood that facilities are available to meet their request.

Although the CLEC can continue to order the LX-N Unbundled Loop, the technical specifications indicated by the CLEC, (maximum distance of 12,000 feet using 24 gauge copper or 9,000 feet using 26 gauge copper and a maximum total bridged tap of no more than 2,500 feet, with no single bridged tap being longer than 2,000 feet), cannot be guaranteed by Qwest. Therefore, Qwest respectfully denies the request because it is economically not feasible due to the cost to implement the request as identified above.

Sincerely,

Cindy Buckmaster Manager Product Management

Open Product/Process CR PC061803-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

July P/P CMP Meeting: Russ Urevig – Qwest reviewed the response to this CR. This CR was opened to track the denial items from PC022703-2. Qwest is unable to support items 3, 4, 9, 11, and 12. ATT advised they do not have any further questions. This CR will move to Denied status.

CenturyLink Response

For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the July 16, 2003 CMP Product Process Meeting

AT&T Ervin Rea Manager

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR PC061803-1 (PC022703-6) UNE-P to UNE-L Bulk Conversion

Qwest’s response to this CR was presented to the CLEC Community at the June 18, 2003 Product Process CMP Meeting. This CR requested 18 different functions in the Bulk Conversion process. Qwest’s response was to accept the CR and most of the functions identified, but not all 18 items.

After Qwest presented the response at the June CMP meeting, AT&T advised they do not wish to pursue the functions that Qwest will not support. Qwest recommended splitting the CR and putting the denial items on a separate CR.

Qwest opened CR PC061803-1 to track the denial. Qwest is unable to support items 3, 4, 9, 11 and 12 due to economically not feasible reasons.

Items 3, 11 and 12 pertain to processing requests via a spreadsheet. This would be a manual process for Qwest as we have mechanized systems in place that require each LSR to be entered individually. This type of request currently flows through without manual handling. Items 4 and 9 pertain to having a dedicated team assigned to work Bulk Conversions. Qwest will use our current employees as required to maintain our dialy work schedules, all employees have been trained on UNE-P and pots conversions to Unbundled loop. Qwest feels that creating a dedicated force for these conversions may impact our overall installation preformance. At the June Product Process CMP Meeting Qwest advised item 18 would be a systems change and a system CR should be opened by AT&T. Carla Pardee - AT&T advised she will open a systems CR if they wish to pursue.

Qwest will implement the other changes requested on this CR. Those items include 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. Please see PC022703-6 for status and response information.

Sincerely,

Russell Urevig Sr Process Analyst Wholesale Service Delivery

Open Product/Process CR PC071103-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Monthly report of trouble codes by frequency

Status History

Project Meetings

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

1:00 p.m. (MDT) / Tuesday, July 22, 2003

1-877-572-8687 3393947# PC071103-1 Histogram of cleared troubles UNE-P New Circuit Failure

Name/Company: Sharon Van Meter, AT&T John Blaszczyk, AT&T Jeanne Whisenant, Qwest Kit Thomte, Qwest Dan Busetti, Qwest Danelle Haynes, Qwest Kathy McBride, Qwest Doug Slominski, Qwest Craig Suellentrop, Qwest Michelle Thacker, Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Linda read the title and description of the change request. In summary AT&T’s CR requests that Qwest provide a report that will provide the number of trouble tickets for service established during the previous 30 days, closed by trouble cleared code.

John Blaszczyk with AT&T said that he wasn’t sure that a CR is needed and explained that AT&T and the Qwest Service Management Team had a Service Improvement meeting two weeks ago. AT&T would like to see new circuit failure improvement. Qwest new circuit failure is 4-6% compared to 1-2% for other ILECs. John said that AT&T would like to understand the root cause of the failure and looking at data in a histogram is the beginning of analyzing the data. AT&T would like to understand if the failures are associated with something AT&T is doing in the ordering and provisioning process, or translations. Kathy McBride with Qwest asked if the definition of new circuit failure is the same for other ILECs. John answered yes the definition is the same.

John also said that AT&T receives analysis from Qwest on Access products and the purpose of this request for UNE-P is to derive initiatives to lower circuit failure and get numbers down to a reasonable level. Danelle Haynes with Qwest said the service management team was providing an analysis of 35 UNE-P failures per month and understood that Ervin submitted the CR because the report would be required monthly going forward. John said the report would not be needed going forward, but may take data for 3-5 months. Doug Slominski with Qwest said that Ervin wanted all closed codes for every new circuit failure by trouble codes and the underlying data is located in the OP5 PID. Doug has provided this type of report for one month to AT&T utilizing underlying PID data and information in CEMR by trouble ticket. This effort took approximately 2 days. John said that it would be less time consuming to have a mechanized report on a monthly basis to monitor what is causing failures.

Kit, Linda, John and Sharon discussed whether AT&T needed to submit a CR for this request, if AT&T would withdraw the CR, or if AT&T would provide revisions to the CR. Linda will provide Sharon a copy of the submitted CR for updates.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Area impacted is repair.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Qwest confirmed the correct personnel were on the call to resolve the CR.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation AT&T’s would like information on new circuit failures trouble cleared codes .

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests No systems change requests.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) AT&T will present this CR at the August CMP meeting.

-- 07/16/03 July CMP Meeting Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T reviewed the walk on CR PC071103-1. There will be a clarification call on this change request.

Open Product/Process CR PC092203-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

November 19, 2003 CMP meeting Craig Suellentrop – Qwest reviewed the response. Craig advised Qwest will be placing this CR in Evaluation as there are similar CRs in progress and Qwest wants to review these CRs together. Liz Balvin – MCI said MCIs CR is a systems CR requesting MLT and results to be published via CEMR or IMA. Ervin Rea-ATT made additional comments regarding this CR and the similarity to MCI’s CR. Ervin advised he is okay if we perform the test after migration and before the Service Order Completion (SOC) notice is distributed. Ervin would like to see test results if possible also. The test results could be made available either on the SOC, in CEMR or IMA. The CLECs advised they would like the process change implemented first, and if the process change creates positive results, the system change could then be implemented. The CLECs suggested we look at this CR in phases if we need to. Qwest agreed to schedule another CLEC review to discuss the similarities of the CRs. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon verified that she requested for Qwest to look at all UNE P products.

October 15, 2003 CMP meeting Ervin Rae – ATT presented the CR. Ervin recapped that this request is for Qwest to perform a test on the line prior to migrating the customer to the CLEC. This is for UNE-P. ATT has a circuit failure of 4-5% on LSRs submitted to Qwest, which is 2 times more than other LECs. Other LECs have implemented migration testing and the failure rate has decreased 4% (down to 1%). Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked if we can add additional products to this CR. Cindy Macy – Qwest advised it would increase the scope of the CR as additional representatives would need to be involved. We may need to have another clarification meeting. Bonnie advised she would like to include Resale POTS/Centrex 21 and Centrex Plus, and UNE P POTS/Centrex 21 and Centrex Plus. Liz Balvin – MCI advised MCI has asked for DSL test results. Liz asked is this what ATT is asking for? Ervin advised no, they are just requesting a test be perfomed prior to migration. Ervin advise Qwest can determine what type of test but he would like to make sure dial tone is on the line and noise is not on the line. This is a preventative measure test. Bonnie advised this testing is currently done on UBL, and asked why it wouldn’t be done on other products? Cindy agreed to discuss the additional products with the internal team to identify impacts to the scope of this CR. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Clarification Call October 6

Bob Mohr Qwest Russ Urevig Qwest Terri Kilker Qwest Monica Manning Qwest Joy McConnell Couch Qwest Craig Suellentrop Qwest Deni Toye Qwest Ervin Rea ATT

Ervin reviewed the CR and explained the new circuit failure rate is 2 times higher than any other ILEC. Bell South had the same problem and they impemented a process to test their line before they migrated it over to the CLEC. Ervin said this would be done on a migration from POTS to UNE P. Ervin said we should determine the type of test, but basically the request would be to run a MLT test to make sure equipment is okay, the line is not noisy and that the line has dial tone.

Terri Kilker Qwest asked if this is on any type of migration - such as conversion as specified or conversion as is or moves. This would normally be on non design and a C order, possibly a T order. Ervin agreed this would be on UNE-P migrations. Ervin advised this should improve our maintenance and repair as repair tickets would go down.

The team discussed on UNE P we usually do the same day turn up, so the timing of the test could not be 48 hours in advance in most cases. Ervin advised he doesn't care when the test is done, just as long as the line it tested before Qwest does the migration to the CLEC.

Cindy Macy-Qwest advised that ATT will present the CR at the October CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

For Review by the CLEC community and discussion at the December 17, 2003 CMP Meeting

Ervin Rae AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR PC092203-1 "UNE-P Migration Testing"

This CR requests that Qwest perform testing of UNE-P loops prior to migration to a CLEC. It also requests that any degradation of service noted cause a JEP in the order and for Qwest to repair the line. Other CLECs requested that other non-designed products be included in this CR. This would include Resale POTS, Centrex 21 and Centrex Plus, and UNE-P POTS, Centrex 21 and Centrex Plus. The test that Qwest would perform would be an MLT test.

Currently, the large majority of UNE-P orders are conversions, most of which flow through our systems today. There is not a center for non-designed services that performs testing on non-dispatched orders. Qwest receives about 20,000 UNE-P orders per week for conversions. All of these orders would need to be dropped out and manually handled to run an MLT test. Performing these MLT tests is estimated to require over 1600 hours of work per week for UNE-P orders alone. Therefore, Qwest is denying this request because it is economically infeasible.

Sincerely,

Craig Suellentrop Staff Advocate, Policy & Law Qwest

Cc: Mary Retka, Director-Legal Issues, Qwest Terri Kilker, Senior Process Analyst, Qwest

November 11, 2003

For Review by the CLEC community and discussion at the November 19, 2003 CMP Meeting

Ervin Rae AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR PC092203-1 “UNE-P Migration Testing”

This CR requests that Qwest perform testing of UNE-P loops prior to migration to a CLEC. It also requests that any degradation of service noted cause a JEP in the order and for Qwest to repair the line. Other CLECs requested that other non-designed products be included in this CR. This would include Resale POTS, Centrex 21 and Centrex Plus, and UNE-P POTS, Centrex 21 and Centrex Plus. The test that Qwest would perform would most likely be an MLT test.

Currently, the large majority of UNE-P orders are conversions, which flow through. There is not a center for non-designed services that performs testing on orders. This is a major change to process and Qwest requests additional time to fully evaluate the impacts. In addition, MCI change request SCR102803-1: Qwest to perform MLT testing and provide CLEC results for DSL provisioned services appears to be asking for a very similar outcome. Qwest proposes that these two CR’s be evaluated to determine if they can be combined.

Sincerely, Craig Suellentrop Staff Advocate, Policy & Law Qwest

Cc: Mary Retka, Director-Legal Issues, Qwest Terri Kilker, Senior Process Analyst, Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC092903-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable

Qwest and CLECs develop a process to verify existing information or provide additional information associated with a specific Collocation site. This new process should be available by the end of 2003.

Status History

Project Meetings

May 19, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Cindy Macy – Qwest reported status for Steve Nelson. This CR was effective May 7. This CR will move to CLEC Test Status.

April 21, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Cindy Macy – Qwest provided the status for Steve Nelson. The documentation for this process was distributed March 23. The process should be effective May 7. Qwest has been conducting trials with some of the CLECs to test out this process. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon wanted to mention a potential gap in the testing process. Eschelon has a point of contact designated and Qwest was working with some one other than the point of contact. Qwest was working with their normal switching contacts at Eschelon, but we prefer for them to work with the dedicated person assigned to the test. Cindy advised that she would provide this feedback. This CR will remain in Development Status.

March 17, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Steve Nelson – Qwest reported that this CR is in progress and we are working on a Beta trail. We are performing Joint Inventory tests with ATT, TCG, MCI, Eschelon, 180 Communications and Sprint. We have completed the Inventory with 180 Communications in Montana. The CR is in development and moving along quite nicely. This CR will remain in Development Status.

February 18, 2004 CMP Meeting Cindy Macy – Qwest provided status for Steve Nelson. Cindy advised that the team met with the CLECs on February 4, 2004. The process and forms were reviewed. Qwest advised a Joint Inventory process trial would be held with some of the CLECs. Qwest will use the trial to work out any gaps in the process. This CR will remain in Development Status.

Joint Inventory Process February 4, 2004 - 1:00 – 2:30 p.m. MST

In attendance: Steve Nelson – Qwest Steve Kast – Qwest Bill Fellman – Qwest Rene Lerma – Eschelon Mary Ann Wiborg – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest Lillian Robertson – Qwest Teresa McKenzie – Qwest John Waltrip – Qwest Kathy Battles – Qwest Cheryl McCombe – ATT Peggy Englert – Qwest

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and reviewed the agenda. Steve Nelson – Qwest reviewed the four documents at a high level and asked if there were any questions or concerns with the forms or process. Eschelon and ATT advised they are okay with the forms and process.

Steve Nelson – Qwest explained we would like to start the trial and perform a joint inventory on 2 sites per CLEC. Qwest would like to do this on a mix of locations and a mix of types of collocation sites (virtual, cageless, caged, etc). The trial will be done at no cost, as it will help Qwest with our cost pricing study. Our draft cost estimate is approximately 19.25 hours at $1500.00.

Steve reviewed each section of the Joint Inventory form; service level, virtual equipment, grounding, synchronization, power, administrative lines, space, and notes. Rene – Eschelon asked if we included CLEC to CLEC direct collocation sites? Qwest advised no, we don’t keep records of CLEC to CLEC facilities.

Steve reviewed the process flow diagram. This process is a 60-day process. Qwest has tried to be responsive to the CLECs needs. The CLECs advised they are okay with the flow and intervals and the process looks good. Steve Nelson advised that we would update the process if needed after the trial.

Steve reviewed the PCAT. Steve advised an amendment would be required. Steve reminded the team that there is not any time to repair or test during the inventory. Steve reviewed the description, terms, ordering , and procedures. Steve advised that if the CLECs have more than one site per location and they want them both inventoried, it would be best to schedule them together, however each site would require a separate application.

Steve advised that Qwest will be using Telric based pricing, instead of market based pricing. This allows Qwest to bill a set amount and get the process completed faster and at the lowest cost to the CLEC customer.

Bill Fellman – Qwest asked Steve to clarify what the ‘maximum of two scheduled visits’ means. The team advised this is regarding the reschedule / cancellation / charge policy if the CLEC has to reschedules a joint inventory two times. The CLECs on the call stated this seemed fair.

Steve Nelson – Qwest advised if there are discrepancies between billing and actual equipment located at the site, the billing will be corrected.

Steve Nelson and Peggy Englert – Qwest discussed the trial. Peggy’s team will contact the four CLECs that expressed and interest (180, ATT, Sprint, Eschelon) to obtain a proposed and prioritized list of sites to inventory. Qwest would like a mix of locations and types of sites to inventory.

Next Steps: Collocation Service Managers will contact and work with CLECs to obtain a proposed and prioritized list of sites to inventory CLECs will have a target date of February 13 to submit an application form to Qwest (this would start the process) Steve Nelson will prepare Amendment by February 20 Steve Nelson will start the documentation process by February 20 Qwest will work with the CLECs during the trial The team will get back together after the trial to discuss results Final pricing studies will be prepared.

January 21, 2004 CMP Meeting Steve Nelson – Qwest advised they have developed the preliminary price structure. Qwest will do a trial with four CLECs and two Collocation sites each to help determine the correct pricing. The Amendment is in progress and it will be posted to the web site soon. The Application form, Inventory form, processes, and Product description will be available for the meeting that is scheduled next week on January 30. This CR will remain in Development Status.

December 19, 2003 Ad Hoc Meeting PC092903-1 Joint Inventory Process

In Attendance: Bob Alex – Qwest John Waltrip – Qwest Steve Nelson – Qwest Stacy Meisenhiemer – Sprint Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Lillian Robertson – Qwest Kathy Battles – Qwest Rene Lerma – Eschelon Cindy Macy – Qwest Peggy Englert – Qwest Mary Simon – 180 Communications

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and reviewed the agenda for the meeting. We will be reviewing the Application form, the Inventory form, and the high level flow and critical intervals.

Steve Nelson – Qwest began by reviewing the draft intervals: Day 2 Quote Day 20 Identify Inventory participants Day 35 Perform Joint Inventory Day 55 Distribute the results of the Joint Inventory Day 60 Hold follow up call to review the results

Steve advised the pricing study is not completed as of yet. The preliminary cost is $1250.00. Steve would like to conduct Beta tests with CLECs to get a better judge of time and effort. Steve advised next steps are to finalize the forms and cost. The team will meet again the 3rd week in January.

John Waltrip – Qwest reviewed the Inventory and Application forms. John explained the engineer fills out the Inventory form and gives it to the SICM. Rene – Eschelon asked if Qwest could mirror what is on the APOT sheets. John advised Qwest will review the APOT form, if inventory differs than what is on the current APOT, we will then update the APOT. Kathy Battles – Qwest advised for ATT some jobs are old or they bought out another customer, so ATT may not have current APOT forms.

Rene – Eschelon asked if this process applies to a CLEC to CLEC connection. John advised no, as Qwest does not inventory that equipment.

Rene – Eschelon commented about the price and asked why managers will be gathering all the information. If managers are gathering the information the cost would be higher, and that is basically administrative work. Steve Nelson reviewed how the work is broken out between groups and explained that is how we have the work assigned. Steve would like to do a Beta trial for free with 3-4 of the CLECs, on 1-2 Collocation sites each. The trial will allow us to refine our time, cost and forms. Steve would like to do the trial in the January time frame. Steve advised he would work with Peggy Englert’s team to contact the CLECs to arrange the Beta trial. The CLECs participating in the calls advised they would be interested in the Beta test. That would include ATT, Eschelon, 180 and Sprint.

Cindy Macy – Qwest asked Steve to consider that the timing of the trial and the release of the documented process can occur at the same time. Steve advised they would target publishing the document so it can be reviewed in the February time frame.

December 17, 2003 CMP Meeting Steve Nelson – Qwest reported that the team held a meeting on December 9 to review the process. There was a lot of participation and good discussion took place. The team agreed to meet again on December 19 to review the Application form and Inventory form. Steve explained the process will include a joint inventory of collocation sites that look at everything that is at the site. Liz Balvin – MCI asked if we made any progress on the cost analysis? Steve reported that the cost estimate is available but the final cost study will take 3-4 weeks to complete. The team will meet again in January to discuss the cost study more. This CR will stay in Development status.

PC092903-1 Joint Inventory Process Ad Hoc Meeting December 9, 2003

In attendance: Eric Yohe – Qwest Peggy Englert – Qwest Carla Pardee – ATT Cindy Roni – Eschelon Rene Lerma – Eschelon Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Liz Balvin – MCI Cheryl McCombs – ATT Michelle Brandt – ATT John Waltrip – Qwest John Lawrence – Qwest Bob Alex – Qwest Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Steve Nelson – Qwest Kathy Battles – Qwest Louis Ruiloba – ATG Paul Hansen - Eschelon

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and advised the purpose of today’s meeting is to review the draft Joint Inventory Process and gather input from the CLECS and make sure we are on track with expectations.

Steve Nelson – Qwest reviewed in detail the Process Flow, which was distributed as part of the notification of the meeting. Steve advised the Application and Inventory form are under development and will be reviewed at our next meeting. Steve advised Qwest would offer a Joint Inventory application for virtual sites also.

Steve Nelson – Qwest asked if the CLECs would like to identify what inventory they think they have at each site, or if the CLECs would like Qwest to identify what is actually at the site. Rene Lerma – Eschelon advised Qwest should identify what inventory is at each site. The CLECs agreed.

Rene Lerma – Eschelon asked for timeframes and intervals to accomplish the different steps in the process. Steve Nelson – Qwest advised the draft timelines are expected to be as follows:

Application submitted by CLEC Up front work that Qwest needs to do to schedule the Joint Visit: 15–20 days after receipt of application Schedule and conduct the Joint Visit: 20-45 days Review results: 55-60 days Schedule and hold wrap up call: 7-10 days

Other actions based on results of visit: Billing changes Database changes Augment work (if needed)

Steve Nelson – Qwest discussed pricing. The plan is that pricing will not include a QPF. An amendment will be done. Steve will look at a Telric Pricing study to determine price and present this to the team. Qwest would like to charge one rate to have a Joint Inventory done. This simplifies the process and pricing and allows the CLECs to budget appropriately for the work. Billing would be done in BART.

Rene Lerma – Eschelon asked what would the results of the inventory look like, what would be sent to the CLECs? Steve Nelson – Qwest advised there is an Inventory Form that will be used. We will review this at the next meeting. It is a 3-page form, that would include items such as termination feeds, power feeds, fused locations, BDFB locations, frame id, block locations, DSC bay panel, etc.

Steve Nelson – Qwest advised that Qwest would not do testing at the same time of the Joint Inventory. No additional work would be done at the same time. This is to keep costs low for performing a Joint Inventory.

The team also discussed that Qwest could accept the application form to begin the inventory process without advance payment. The request would be irrevocable. Payment should be made by good faith. If the process is requested, then the payment will be made.

Liz Balvin – MCI asked if there would be time for additional questions. Cindy Macy – Qwest advised the team will meet again, and after the process is documented it will go out for review and comment.

Next Steps: Meet again on December 19, 2003 Review forms (application and inventory form)

November 19, 2003 CMP Meeting Steve Nelson – Qwest recapped the CR request from ATT. ATT would like Qwest to develop a process where Qwest dispatches a person to verify and inventory information related to a Collocation site. Steve reviewed Qwest’s response. Qwest accepts this CR and is working to develop the process to perform a comprehensive inventory of an existing Collocation site. SICMs will be involved with performing the comprehensive inventory. Steve is calling this process a ‘Joint Inventory Process’. As a result of this process billing corrections may be needed. Steve advised he will work with Cindy to schedule another CLEC review meeting. Topics of discussion at the meeting include high-level process flow, deliverables, costing model and ordering process. The CLECs agreed that Qwest could change the title of the CR to ‘Joint Inventory Visit’.

October 15, 2003 CMP Meeting Michelle Brandt – ATT reviewed the CR and explaind ATT is looking for a joint survey process where Qwest would dispatch a person to a Collocation site to help provide information about the Collocation site, such as power information. Steve Nelson – Qwest advised a good clarification call was held and the Qwest team will be meeting internally to work out the details. The status will be moved to Presented.

October 9, 2003 1-877-552-8688 7146042# PC092903-1 New Collocation Process

Attendees Steve Nelson – Qwest Lillian Robertson – Qwest Denise Martinez – Qwest Cheryl McCombs-ATT Rich Powers – ATT Peggy Englert – Qwest Janet Leonard – Qwest Ben Campbell – Qwest Bob Alex – Qwest Doug Andreen – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest

Meeting Agenda: 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Attendees introduced 2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change Rich Powers – ATT reviewed the Change Request. Rich explained ATT is looking for a mechanism to have a joint site survey done on particular Collocation sites. ATT needs to inventory some of their Collocation sites to determine type of space, size of space, and especially the power arrangement. ATT needs to update their inventory so they are ordering correctly, and to improve access planning. Rich explained there is a gap in their power inventory, at the assignment level. They are interested in the BDFB inventory, relay rack, fuse, etc. Cindy Macy – Qwest asked Rich if they need this on all Collocations or only certain sites and certain situations. Rich said they would like to be able to request this ‘as needed’. Steve Nelson – Qwest asked what level of detail is needed? Is this the circuit working level? Rich advised no, the total number of terminations is good. Lillian Robertson – Qwest asked Rich to clarify what was meant by ‘the new process should include the application intervals, RFS and any other components relevant to the new process’. Rich explained they would want to understand the intervals for ordering a site survey, for completing a site survey. Specifically, ATT is requesting A Joint Site Survey –1. The Terminations, 2 – Power Assignment of feeds needed and 3. How the Power is fused. Qwest asked what additional information is needed: Rich explained that for DS0 terminations, Qwest provides entire picture of CFA. If ATT orders power, Qwest only sends information about the power ordered, not the entire power inventory at the collocation. Cindy Macy-Qwest asked if the site survey would be requested before an order is placed? Rich advised normally yes, as they would like to have the records correct before an order is placed. Rich explained if he wanted to do a joint survey with Qwest, how would he go about ordering that? ATT would like Qwest to develop a process to perform a joint survey. Identify such things as intervals related to this request. Kathy Battles – Qwest advised that ATT bought several sites from another company that they do not have complete records on. The SICMs have done some survey of sites but additional help is needed. Ben Campbell – Qwest clarified that ATT is looking for power data first, and then other features are helpful, but the power components are critical. Rich advised power, then cross connects and then space information is needed. (In that order). Rich – ATT explained they are building a database to store this information; power inventory system. 3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Collocation Site Survey 4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Team agreed the right personnel are involved. Ben Campbell / Steve Nelson would be the lead on this CR. 5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Process to request a Joint Sight Survey of Collocation Sites Intervals for this process 6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None 7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) ATT will present the CR at the October CMP Meeting Qwest will provide our Response at the November CMP Meeting

CenturyLink Response

Lydia Braze AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR PC092903-1

“New Collocation Process”

This CR requests “Qwest, with the input of AT&T and other CLECs, develop a process where Qwest dispatches a person to verify information related to a Collocation site. For example, if AT&T needs information related to the APOT/CFA or power terminations or any other element associated with the Collocation site, Qwest will dispatch an employee to the specific Collocation site and verify existing information or provide additional information back to AT&T. The new process should include the application intervals, RFS and any other components relevant to the new process.”

We have many collocation processes and procedures today which meet some of these needs. Qwest currently offers a comprehensive walk-through by a State Interconnect Manager (SICM) with the customer when the final 50% of the non recurring quote is paid. This procedure will still be offered. We provide APOT/CFA which includes a cumulative listing of all CLEC termination cables and entrance facilities. This will continue. Qwest offers a site visit associated with an Available Inventory request before order submission. Qwest offers up to three site visits after payment of the initial 50% on a collocation application. We plan to continue to provide these services. As per the CR, however, it was understood that AT&T wants a comprehensive process to ensure all aspects of the collocation site are accurate including terminations, power, space, type of collocation, APOT/CFA, and billing rate elements and quantities. This process relates to previously completed sites. Qwest accepts this CR and will work with the CLEC community to offer a new comprehensive process which can be submitted at the CLEC’s request. It will be priced out and offered as an amendment. The following is a high level overview of what services Qwest is prepared to offer to meet the CR request. A clarification call was held with AT&T on October 9, 2003. Subsequent to that call a cross-functional team was put together to start to frame what this added process would look like. The process being proposed looks like this in Qwest’s vision: · A separate application will be developed for these requests. · Every effort will be made to minimize the costs for this process. · Inventoried items will include space, power, and terminations. · A knowledgeable Qwest employee will be selected to conduct the joint visit such as a SICM or delegated employee. · Appointments will be jointly scheduled. · The timeframe from application to completion of the joint visit will be discussed and determined as part of the joint planning development of this CR. · Records and billing will be corrected upon completion of the joint visit. Any prior monthly recurring adjustments will be based on the CLEC’s ICA. · Detailed planning prior to the visit will include review of all engineering records. · CPMC will coordinate the overall end to end process. We will schedule calls to jointly develop this process as requested. Qwest will provide a format of the newly proposed process, intervals, deliverables, and pricing. The CLEC community will have the opportunity to partner with Qwest in the development and finalization of the process. An amendment will be prepared for CLEC to participate in this new process offering.

Sincerely, Stephen C. Nelson Product Management Qwest

Cc: Ben Campbell Bill Campbell

Open Product/Process CR PC101303-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

February 2004

Status History

Project Meetings

- Clarification Meeting 3:30 (Mountain Time) / Tuesday October 20, 2003

1-877-521-8688 1456160# PC101303-1; Blocking Feature Request

Attendees Jo Ann Samonek, AT&T Carla Pardee, AT&T Anthony Washington, Qwest Mallory Paxton, Qwest Terri Kilker, Qwest Doug Andreen, Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Doug read and reviewed the CR. The CR requests a feature that would allow AT&T to block customers from making long distance calls by using operator assistance. This feature would allow CLECs to protect itself against customers from continuing to make long distance calls when the customer is in arrears. Carla stated that in discussions with others at AT&T since she had submitted the CR she was given to believe there might be an existing product that would meet the needs of AT&T. AT&T felt that Billed Number Screening combined with CustomNet and Long Distance Restriction could be a solution. She confirmed that UNE-P is the only impacted product. Terri and Mallory explained that Billed Number Screening combined with Long Distance Restriction might provide the needed capabilities. Long Distance Restriction prevents calls being dialed that begin with a 0 or 1. Billed Number Screening covers 3rd number billed calls made from a different phone. The consensus was that CustomNet capabilities would not be needed. The PCAT now reflects which types of call apply to each service. AT&T will test Billed Number Screening and Long Distance Restriction as a possible solution in the next few days and let Doug know of the results. Doug will then advise the group on what further direction this CR will take, AT&T may withdraw the CR after testing or an additional clarification meeting may be scheduled.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted UNE-P

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct personnel were involved in the meeting.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation AT&T would like this feature available by February 2004.

Identify any Dependant Systems Change Requests TBD pending AT&T testing

Establish Action Plan Carla Pardee with AT&T will get information on testing Billed Number Screening and Long Distance Restriction to Doug Andreen within the next few days. If testing is not successful an additional clarification meeting will be held. If testing is successful Carla may withdraw this CR at the November CMP meeting.

Open Product/Process CR PC103003-1CM Detail

Description Of Change

AT&T Proposed language: At the beginning of each month Qwest posts the forecast of the current month and two (2)months of system availability. The three (3) months system availability forecast notes planned changes to standard system availability. This forecast will be posted electronically in a calendar format.

Status History

Project Meetings

February 18, 2004 CMP Meeting Jim Maher-Qwest advised we held several CLEC meetings to discuss this CR. In those meetings, Qwest had agreed to monitor the Planned Outage process during January and February. During this time the three Planned Outage notices had a 19-day advance time frame. Qwest has developed a forecast document ‘Potential Planned Outages’. This was modeled after the example that ATT provided from Verizon. The intent of this document is that Qwest would post the outage dates that they believe are potentially going to occur. The final communication would occur as defined in the current CMP Process. There was a language change requested by ATT, but ATT agreed that was not necessary. Qwest will meet a 15-day advance notification for most of the potential planned outages identified in the CMP document. There may be some emergency outages that will meet the minimum requirements identified in the CMP process. Additionally Qwest will update and post the Planned Outage Forecast calendar to the web site quarterly. Qwest requested for ATT to withdraw the CR. ATT advised they are happy with the document / calendar. Carla Pardee – ATT said she didn’t get a chance to share the final document with other CLECs due to schedule issues. ATT stated they would withdraw the CR and that they believed the other CLECs will be happy with the forecast calendar.

February 17, 2004 Ad hoc meeting PC103003-1CM Planned Outage Notification

In attendance: Pat Moran - ATT Jim Maher- Qwest Carla Pardee – ATT Cindy Macy – Qwest

Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that we wanted to meet again to see how the process is working, to review the draft ‘Potential Planned Outage’ document, and determine if we should withdraw the CR as there would not be a language change, if the Potential Planned Outage calendar is acceptable.

Pat Moran – ATT reviewed the calendar and clarified her expectations. Pat reviewed the March 19, 20 and 21 date scenario. Jim explained that the Friday March 19 outage is less likely to occur, than the Saturday March 20 and Sunday March 21 outage. Pat suggested that we identify this on the calendar.

Jim reviewed that the January notices all provided 19 days of advance notification. IT is working on being more proactive with this process. Pat thanked Qwest for their efforts.

Pat advised that she would like Qwest to provide notification on the items identified on this calendar 15 days in advance. Pat explained that Qwest should be able to do this, as we are already aware of the potential and we should know if the release would impact system availability within 15 days. Jim agreed that this should be possible for items identified on the ‘Potential Planned Outage calendar’. Jim advised that there would not be a change to the language in the CMP, and this was agreed to by ATT. Jim clarified that there could be situations when Planned Outages required a shorter notification interval, and that these would be the exception based on the work Qwest had done. Pat stated she understood those exceptions could take place, but wanted as much advance notification as possible.

The group discussed whether we could withdraw the CR at the February CMP meeting. Carla and Pat Moran – ATT discussed the proposed solution and agreed that if Qwest published this calendar and updates it quarterly, and we provide 15 days advance notification for outages identified on this calendar, than they would agree to withdraw the CR.

Carla and Pat – ATT asked when we would identify 2005 dates. Jim advised this would be a rolling calendar so by the end of the 3rd quarter 2004 we should have a start on 2005 dates.

The team agreed to discuss at the February CMP meeting and withdraw the CR.

January 21, 2004 CMP Meeting Carla Pardee- ATT advised the last Planned Outage Notifications were sent out with much more advance notice and ATT is glad about this. Carla would like to have another meeting scheduled so we can discuss this with her internal representatives that are impacted by this process. Jim Maher – Qwest advised we have had 3 planned outages in January and all three notifications provided 19 days advance notice. Cindy Macy – Qwest will schedule another review meeting to discuss the CR and determine next steps.

December 17, 2003 CMP Meeting Cindy Macy – Qwest reported that we held a CLEC meeting on December 10 to discuss the Planned Outage Notification process. Qwest has met internally and we are reviewing the reasons why Planned Outage Notifications are occurring. Planned Outage Notification are at times related to issues that are uncovered during system releases. Qwest is reviewing the possibility of whether we could provide a quarterly notification that identifies when we think possible Planned Outages would be needed. We could publish that notification and then if the Planned Outage is truly needed we could use the existing Planned Outage Notification process to notify again. Qwest and the CLECs in attendance agreed to meet again in January. This CR will move to Development Status.

November 19, 2003 CMP Meeting Carla Pardee – ATT presented this CR. Pat Moran – ATT recapped the issues ATT has experienced due to short notice of planned outages. Carla advised that ATT would like Qwest to forecast out 90 days and publish their planned outages. This will give ATT advance notice and time to respond to system availability. ATT is looking for a list of scheduled down time 90 days in advance, and 60 days advance notice if there is any changes to that schedule. In mid-October ATT was given 2 days notice on additional downtime.

Clarification Meeting November11, 2003 1-877-552-8688 7146042#

PC103003-1CM Notification of Planned Outage Attendees Par Moran – ATT Liz Balvin – MCI Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Kyle Kirves – Qwest Carla Pardee – ATT Jim Maher – Qwest Randy Owen – Qwest Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Cindy Macy – Qwest

Meeting Agenda: Action 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Attendees introduced 2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change Cindy Macy – Qwest explained this CR is a request to change the Change Management Process document. This CR will require a vote at a monthly CMP meeting. Carla Pardee – ATT reviewed the change request. Carla explained she will be representing all Product Proces CRs. Donna will represent all System CRs. Carla explained they need to have the notification time increased when ever Qwest does planned outage notfications. Carla advised other ILECs provide 30-90 days notice. Qwest provides 2 days notice and this is not enough time to respond and prepare out centers. This causes problems. Jim Maher – Qwest attempted to explain the difference between what Qwest calls Scheduled Maintenance/Scheduled Outages, the OSS Release Calendar, Event Notifications and Planned Outage Notifications. Scheduled Maintenance is what takes place during regular scheduled downtime (night time down time). System Availability time is published on the OSS Hours of Availability document. System Release information is available on the Release Calendar and Release Notification documents. Planned outages are used for correcting system behaviors that are not causing immediate impacts to CLECs but they do need to be corrected quickly. Event Notification are used to notify the CLECs of system issues that impact the CLECs. The CLECs advised they believe Qwest has to know about scheduled downtime more than 2 days in advance. Jim explained part of the confusion is terminology as our scheduled downtime is down in the hours the system is not available. We do not notify about scheduled downtime as that is identified in the OSS Hours of Availability document. Planned Notifications are used to extend regular system downtime. Qwest uses the Planned Notifications to fix system issues that need to be addresses and cannot be accommodated in the regular system downtime. Pat Moran – ATT explained they receive hourly notifications from other ILECs on scheduled downtime. Carla – ATT advised she gets pre-notifications from Qwest and filters them to her people. Carla and Pat can review these notification to see if Pat needs to get additional ones.

ATT advised 2 days is not enough time to react to an extended downtime schedule. More detail on the functions impacted would be helpful as that would save us time in determining the impacts. Carla – ATT advised she would send the schedule that Verizon publishes as they publish downtime several months in advance. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked if Qwest should really be using Event Notifications for these outages. Jim Maher – Qwest explained that these are not CLEC impacting so they are not really Event Notifications. They are correcting system behavior issues that are not currently visible to the CLECs. Qwest agreed we would meet internally to discuss and review data. Qwest would schedule an additional CLEC ad hoc meeting after we do some preliminary investigation. ATT will present this CR at the November CMP meeting. 3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Planned System Outage Notifications 4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct people involved 5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation For Qwest to provide additional time on Planned Outage Notifcations 6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests none 7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) ATT will present the CR at the November CMP Meeting Qwest will schedule another ad hoc meeting after we complete our investigation.

Open Product/Process CR PC110303-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Service for UNE-P will be delivered on the same day as the order is received, if received prior to 3:00pm.

Status History

Project Meetings

Wed 1/14/04 10:18 AM From: Rea, Ervin E, NKLAM [eerea@att.com] To: Sanchez Steinke, Linda Subject: RE: Qwest Revised Draft Response PC110303-1 Linda

Can the final letter be more specific on the below statement?

"Contrary to their assumption, Qwest finds that even though a billing name change is part of the migration, a complex set of systems and resources must interact to ensure orders are completed properly. If an interval of 12 hours or less were attempted, significant system and headcount impacts would put an undue economic burden on Qwest."

Perhaps a list of systems, resources and activities would be helpful.

Ervin Rea Voice mail: 303.298.6306 VO: 303.657.2937 PCS: 720.530.7381 Text messages: 7205307381@mobile.att.net

Tue 1/20/04 4:34 PM From: Sanchez Steinke, Linda To: Rea, Ervin E, NKLAM [eerea@att.com] Subject: RE: Qwest Revised Draft Response PC110303-1 Ervin -

In speaking with Anthony Washington the systems impacted are those identified in the Qwest response.

Thank you

Linda Sanchez-Steinke CRPM Qwest 303-382-5768

12/17/03 December CMP Meeting Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest read the Qwest response and asked that the CR be moved to Evaluation status and Qwest will provide an update at the January meeting. This CR will be moved to Evaluation status.

11/19/03 November CMP Meeting Ervin Rea with AT&T presented this CR and said that currently the SIG relates that UNE-P conversions interval is less than or equal to 3 days and in Colorado and Minnesota is less than or equal to 2 days. Since the UNE-P conversion is a records change and doesn’t require a technician visit it should be accomplished in a .5 day interval. Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon asked if this interval change would apply to conversions with switch changes. Ervin said the CR applies when no technician is dispatched to the customer site. Liz Balvin with MCI said they would like to include "migrate as is" and "migrate as specified". Anthony Washington with Qwest asked if this would include technicians in the central office being dispatched. Ervin said that the central office technicians are not being dispatched to the customer site and the .5 day due would apply on these orders. This CR will be moved to presented status.

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

11:00 a.m. (MDT) / November 12, 2003

1-877-572-8687 3393947# PC110303-1 UNE P SIG

Name/Company: Ervin Rea ATT Ann Adkinson ATT Kim Isaacs Eschelon Carla Pardee ATT Anthony Washington Qwest Craig Suellentrop Qwest Danielle Haynes Qwest Cindy Macy Qwest Liz Balvin MCI Lydell Peterson ATT

Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Cindy Macy Qwest opened the call and reviewed the agenda.

Ervin Rea ATT reviewed the CR with the team. Ervin advised that ATT would like the UNE – P standard interval to be changed to 12 hours. Currently in Colorado and Minnesota it is less than 2 days, and in all other states it is less than 3 days. Ervin advised these are generally billing only changes as they are just migrating the service from Qwest to a CLEC.

Cindy Macy Qwest asked if this request is for all UNE- P products, such as DSL, Centrex etc. Ervin advised it is for all conversions as is, not for new installs.

Anthony Washington Qwest advised we usually migrate the service in one day. If it doesn’t happen in one day, it is normally because there is some kind of problem, either with the order or the service that needs to be corrected first.

Liz Balvin MCI advised she would like the CR to include Conversion as specified also. MCI’s orders are done as ‘Conversion as Specified’ as they usually are disconnecting a feature. Liz advised they don’t usually add features. These are currently 3 days and Liz would like ‘Conversion as specified’ changed to the 12 hours standard interval.

Ervin Rae ATT asked for Qwest to determine if we can change both types of conversions; ‘Conversion as is’ and ‘Conversion as specified’. If each type of conversion requires a different SIG, than Qwest should proceed in that manner.

Ervin Rea ATT advised UNE-P has been in the market for 2 + years so he believes it is time for the interval to be improved.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Provisioning

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct personnel were involved in the meeting.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation AT&T is requesting Service for UNE-P will be delivered on the same day as the order is received, if received prior to 3:00pm.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests No systems change requests.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Next steps are for ATT to present this CR at the November meeting. Qwest will prepare a response for the December meeting.

CenturyLink Response

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the January 2004 CMP Meeting

Ervin Rea AT&T

SUBJECT: "Qwest’s Change Request Revised Response - PC110303-1 "UNE-P Standard Interval Guide"

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request PC110303-1. This CR is a request by AT&T asking Qwest to change the standard interval for non-dispatch UNE-P "As-Is", and "As-Specified" conversions from the current 3 days (2 in CO & MN) to less than or equal to 12 hours.

By way of background, it is important to note that Qwest has already made a change that reduces the interval for UNE-P POTS. As of December 23, 2003 Qwest updated the Service Interval Guide (SIG) to reflect the reduction in the service interval for UNE-P POTS and Resale POTS (Residence and Business) for non-dispatch orders. The change takes effect on January 15, 2004. All non-dispatch UNE-P POTS and Resale POTS (Residence and Business) orders will be completed by 8 a.m. on the due date. Current operational documentation for these products or business procedures are found on the Qwest Wholesale Web Site at this URL: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/guides/sig/index.html

While there have been changes made to the service interval for UNE-P POTS, Qwest is denying the request for a further reduction to a 12 hour or less service interval guideline for this CR due to it being economically not feasible. The following information supports this decision.

AT&T has stated that the current migration interval for all non-dispatch UNE-P orders, whether they are "As Is" or "As Specified", should be changed to 12 hours or less. AT&T contends that these orders are, for the most part, just billing name changes and shouldn’t require 2 to 3 days for completion. Contrary to their assumption, Qwest finds that even though a billing name change is part of the migration, a complex set of systems and resources must interact to ensure orders are completed properly. If an interval of 12 hours or less were attempted, significant system and headcount impacts would put an undue economic burden on Qwest.

After an analysis of the impact to Qwest systems and workforce, Qwest has determined that a minimum of 1,100 hrs/week in ISC staff support would be required. This 15% increase in headcount represents the SDCs necessary to extract "As-Is" or "As Specified" requests, as IMA does not have the ability to do so today, and watch the work queue to ensure that the FOC is received by the customer by the desired due date.

The systems/process modifications would include:

? Significant changes to IMA to identify "As-Is" or "As Specified" requests, and the creation of an external work queue designed to accept the request. Changes to IMA would not diminish the need for an increase in headcount.

? FTS modifications would include service interval table updates.

? The FOC interval for a mechanized "As-Is" request is 24 hours, and the FOC interval for a manual request is 48 hours. These intervals would also have to be shortened in conjunction with the service conversion interval.

Although Qwest is declining this request, Qwest continues to evaluate service intervals associated with UNE-P products.

Sincerely,

Anthony Washington Product Management Qwest

December 5, 2003

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the December 2003 CMP Meeting

Ervin Rea AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response PC110303-1 UNE-P Standard Interval Guide

This letter is in response to AT&T’s Change Request (CR) PC110303-1. This CR requests that Qwest Service for UNE-P be delivered on the same day as the order is received, if received prior to 3:00 pm.

Qwest is currently evaluating this request and proposes moving this Change Request into Evaluation Status while we continue to investigate. Qwest will provide an updated response at the January 2004 CMP meeting.

Sincerely,

Anthony Washington Product Manager

Open Product/Process CR PC110403-1ES Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

December 2003

Status History

Project Meetings

July 21, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Randy Owen – Qwest advised MCI did open a ticket on the FAM file as they identified missing USOCs. A trouble report was called in and Qwest has fixed the problem. Liz Balvin – MCI asked the CLECs to try and review the FAM file to make sure there are not other issues. The CLECs would like to leave this in CLEC Test one more month.

June 16, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Randy Owen – Qwest advised this CR was implemented and is being updated weekly. Randy asked the CLECs if they have any questions or have reviewed the updated FAM file. Carla Pardee – ATT advised the updates look accurate and current. This CR will move to CLEC Test Status.

May 19, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Randy Owen – Qwest advised that we are on schedule with a target date of May 31 to update the FAM file on a weekly basis. Carla Pardee – ATT advised that we are pleased that this is happening. Liz Balvin – MCI clarified that we started the clean up on May 6. Randy Owen advised that the data was updated on May 6, there wasn’t a clean up, but the data is now current as of May 6. We are targeting to start the weekly update in the May 31 time frame. Liz asked what day of the week will the file be updated? Randy advised that we have not determined that yet. It is dependant upon the day the legacy system updates. Qwest needs to confirm the schedule before we can provide the day of the week that the file will be updated. Cindy Macy – Qwest asked the CLEC community if it is okay to release this update with a Level 1 change since this CR was escalated. The CLECs agreed that is okay. This CR will move to Development status.

April 21, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Randy Owen – Qwest advised that we are moving forward on this CR. We are scheduling with our development team. We do not have a target date as of yet. Liz Balvin – MCI advised that they are looking to develop against this file. We are looking forward to having it updated weekly. This CR will stay in Evaluation Status.

March 17, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Randy Owen – Qwest reported that he does not have any additional updates for this project. Qwest is still waiting for funding approval. Carla Pardee – ATT advised that she is upset and doesn’t understand why this is not funded. This CR requires minimal resources. She has expressed her concern for the past few months. ATT has a real need for this file to be updated and she would like to escalate the CR. Susie advised that ATT should go ahead and escalate the CR. This CR will stay in Evaluation Status.

February 18, 2004 CMP Meeting Connie Winston – Qwest advised that we have not gotten approval as of yet for this CR. We are still waiting for approval. Carla Pardee – ATT advised that ATT is disappointed that this did not get approved as it is a critical issue and it doesn’t seem as if this CR requires a lot of resources, so we do not understand the lack of approval. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked is this one is like the ICON database? Connie advised she is not sure. Bonnie advised that her Service Manager (Jean Novak) told her that the fix would take place on March 1, 2004. Connie advised that maybe an update is scheduled but not the entire fix. Cindy Macy – Qwest agreed to check with Jean Novak. This CR will remain in Evaluation Status.

Janaury 21, 2004 CMP Meeting Connie Winston – Qwest advised that this CR is in the same situation as some of the others. We are waiting to schedule and we hope to have a date in February. Carla Pardee – ATT asked what is the current process for updating the FAM file? Connie advised it is not being updated in a timely fashion. It has to be done manually and it is a huge manual effort. The way that we update FAM is that SONAR tracks availability by switch via tables in SONAR. This information is downloaded to a server and it becomes available to Qwest. This data should be published to FAM. We are working to get this update done in a mechanized fashion and looking at SONAR going away. Liz Balvin – MCI asked about the BPL edit that will reject the LSR if the feature is not available, that is part of 15.0. Connie Winston said this edit goes against the SAQ, not the FAM. Bonnie Johnson asked is there a need for the FAM file? Connie advised her understanding is that ATT wants to use it as a sales tool up front. Bonnie asked can it be used just from IMA so we don’t have to maintain two sources. Connie advised FAM is downloadable and in a bulk format, while IMA is an individual selection. The intent is both tools will use the same source in the future. Bonnie advised this is critical to our business as we use this information to offer products. Bonnie advised this is so critical that we will take another route if we don’t get it from CMP.

December 17, 2003 CMP Meeting Connie Winston – Qwest reported that we are still evaluating this CR. We are having a difficult time getting a process built for the updates and determining what that looks like. We are still looking at this CR and will change the status to Evaluation.

December 15, 2003 Ad hoc meeting PC110403-1 FAM File Ad Hoc Meeting

In attendance: Nicole James – Qwest Dave Fane - ATT Liz Balvin – MCI Phyllis Burt – ATT John Gallegos – Qwest Lydell Peterson – Qwest Carla Pardee – ATT Cindy Macy – Qwest Randy Owen – Qwest Kim Chambers – Qwest

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and explained that the purpose of the call is to review the issues associated with the FAM file and how the CLEC community uses the file. ATT requested this additional meeting with Qwest.

Carla – ATT advised that ATT uses the file to figure out which features are available prior to submitting orders. Qwest doesn’t hard reject the LSRs when the data is not accurate. We may or may not get the feature provisioned. We do not know until our customer calls and tells us the feature is not working. Dave Fane – ATT advised that every other ILEC they work with sends and error report back that identifies the feature is not available. Then we update our file and don’t request the feature again. ATT would like Qwest to reject the order when we don’t detect the feature.

John Gallegos – Qwest explained that this feature will be available in 15.0 EDI. This functionality is available today via SAQ in EDI. The CLECs said they do not have that EDI transaction built and they were told to use the FAM file as an alternative until 15.0 is available.

ATT advised they assumed they would get rejects if the feature was not available. Qwest advised we are not billing the CLECs for features they are not getting. ATT advised we are billing our end users as we believed the feature did get provisioned.

John Gallegos – Qwest advised he understands there is a gap in the FAM file data, and that the feature is available via the SAQ in EDI and that 15.0 will reject upfront if features are not available.

Liz Balvin – MCI asked if out of sync conditions are identified in the file so the CLECs can avoid those areas. John Gallegos- Qwest advised the file is too large as there are many switches and features and NPAs available in each state.

Liz Balvin – MCI asked if Qwest is eliminating the FAM file after 15.0. John Gallegos – Qwest advised we are looking at all options. The concern that Qwest has is being able to support the FAM file going forward. We are doing everything we can to update the file. Qwest has manually updated the file. The last update was the end of September. This takes a considerable amount of time and manual effort.

Carla – ATT advised they just wanted to reconfirm their need to access the FAM file. Liz Balvin – MCI advised that it is important to make sure the FAM file is updated. Phyllis Burt – ATT asked what is the correct process if we have trouble using the FAM file? Do we submit a trouble ticket to the Help Desk? John Gallegos advised it would probably be considered a Sev 3 ticket. John advised he can not give a timeframe as to when the trouble ticket / problem would be corrected. John assured the CLECs that Qwest is working on this issue and trying to determine the best action to take.

November 19, 2003 CMP Meeting Carla Pardee – ATT reviewed and presented this CR. Carla advised that ATT uses the FAM file to look at usoc availability by switch. Carla advised the data is not always accurate and ATT attempts to provide these features to their customers. ATT does not find out the feature is not available until their customer contacts them to report the feature is not working. This creates billing errors also. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked if this was the ICON database. Carla advised you can access ICON and FAM on the web. Liz Balvin – MCI advised that MCI has also experienced situations when the SOC notice says the feature was provisioned, when it really isn’t available.

PC110403-1 Clarification Call Update Accuracy of FAM file November 14, 2003

In attendance: Monica Manning – Qwest Gary Berroa – Qwest Leo Demitriadis – ATT Nicole James – Qwest Doug Andrean – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest Carla Pardee – ATT Michael Whitt – Qwest

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call, introduced attendees and reviewed the agenda.

Carla Pardee – ATT reviewed the CR. Carla advised ATT has had problems with the FAM file not being up to date. The file shows inaccurate USOC feature availability information. ATT uses this file often. We order a feature and if Qwest doesn’t support the feature we don’t receive a reject on the LSR. Qwest continues to provision service. The order completion occurs and billing occurs but we don’t really provision the feature as it is not available. This causes billing errors to our end users. Leo Demitriadis – ATT explained ATT would like to have a change control log file we they know what has changed, or to have the file updated when ever the data changes, or to have it updated on a regular schedule.

The team reviewed how to access the file to make sure we are all talking about the same file. The URL for instructions on how to access the file is;

Doug Andrean – Qwest asked how often is the file updated. ATT advised they do not know.

Micheal Whitt – Qwest asked if UNE –P was the product that ATT is concerned with. ATT advised yes.

Nicole James – Qwest asked if ATT has an example of errors that you have found? Carla advised she will send Qwest an example. She believes she has an example in Minnesota.

Mallory Paxton – Qwest asked how does ATT know when it is not accurate. Carla advised they do not know until their customer calls them back to advise they did not get the feature provisioned.

The team agreed they understand the request. Cindy Macy – Qwest advised this CR will be on the agenda for the November CMP meeting and ATT will present the CR. Qwest will provide a response at the December meeting.

CenturyLink Response

December 9, 2003

AT&T Carla Dickinson Pardee LSAM Manager

SUBJECT: CR # PC110403-1 Update accuracy of FAM records

This letter is in response to AT&T’s Change Request (CR) PC110403-1. This CR requests that: - Qwest update the accuracy of FAM records

Qwest is currently reviewing the processing and functionality provided by the FAM file. Qwest requests that this CR be placed in Evaluation status. AT&T has also requested an additional meeting be held to discuss the FAM file in more detail. Qwest will schedule the additional meeting.

Sincerely,

Connie Winston Qwest Communications

Open Product/Process CR PC111103-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Improvement of performance measures regarding OP-5 performance indicator (% trouble within 30 days). Improved customer satisfaction as a result of no loss of dial tone.

Status History

Project Meetings

Open Product/Process CR PC111903-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

By January 2004, AT&T expects the following deliverable: A website listing all Event Notifiers sent by Qwest for the past 90 days. The website will provide, at a minimum: 1) event number; 2) complete description of event; 3) date submitted; 4) system type with Version number; 5) status; 6) severity level; and 7) region effected.

Status History

Project Meetings

9/15/04 CMP Meeting Mintues: Randy Owen – Qwest advised that we are still on track for deployment September 30, 2004. This CR will remain in Development Status.

8/16/04 CMP Meeting Mintues: Randy Owen – Qwest advised that last month the CLEC Community identified some issues and changes associated to this CR. Randy advised that Qwest will be able to make changes to the following fields: Status Column, Combine GUI/EDI when both are affected, Work Around Section, Notices affecting the release, and Patch date. Qwest is targeting implementation near September 30. Cindy Macy – Qwest asked the CLEC Community if it is okay to implement these with a Level 1 Notification. The CLEC Community agreed that was okay. This CR will remain in CLEC Test Status.

July 21, 2004 CMP Meeting Notes Randy Owen – Qwest advised that this was deployed on July 2. Qwest has not received any comments as of yet. Donna Osborne-Miller ATT advised that she does have feedback from Phyllis Burt. When you export the report the status field is not available. The field needs to identify ‘common’ if the event impacts both EDI and GUI. Liz Balvin – MCI said she also identified this same issue. In addition, MCI would like the ‘Work Around Solution’ identified on the spreadsheet, also would like to know what release is impacted, and would like the Patch Date information. Stephanie Prull – Eschelon noticed on a ticket that it says ‘Qwest will initiate a call on XX date’. Steph asked if this is accurate as she thought that verbiage would only appear on tickets that warrant a call. Randy Owen – Qwest advised this is a bug that we are working on. Randy summarized the issues as Status Column, Common/EDI/GUI, work around on spreadsheet, release number, and patch date. Randy will check on these items and provide an update as to what Qwest can do. This CR will move to CLEC Test Status.

June 16, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Randy Owen – Qwest advised we have had some challenges in the development stage of this CR. The target date is June 30. We are making progress and plan on delivering in the June 30 timeframe. This CR will remain in Development Status.

May 19, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Randy Owen – Qwest advised that the development team has provided a target date of June 14 for this CR. Randy advised this will provide a download, with sort capability and a more complete picture of outstanding items. This CR will remain in Development Status.

April 21, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Randy Owen – Qwest advised that we are working with our development team on this CR. We do not have a firm date as of yet, but development is targeting May. Liz Balvin and Bonnie Johnson asked if this included the downloading capability. Randy advised yes. This CR will stay in Development Status.

March 17, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Randy Owen – Qwest advised that funding for this CR has been approved. This is an update from last month. We are waiting to schedule this CR. Carla asked for the schedule information to be sent to her as soon as possible. This CR will move to Development Status.

February 18, 2004 CMP Meeting Connie Winston – Qwest advised this CR also did not get approved as of yet. We are working on this and should have an update soon. This CR will remain in Evaluation Status.

January 21, 2004 CMP Meeting Connie Winston – Qwest advised this is the CR that was opened as part of the Global Action Item meetings. The work is not scheduled as of yet. Carla Pardee-ATT asked when is this planned for scheduling. Connie advised she does not have a definite date as of yet but hopes to have a schedule in February. Liz confirmed that this report would look like a spreadsheet of the Event Notification Report. Connie agreed. Liz asked about the additional details and root cause analysis information that was discussed. Connie advised we did not agree to provide that information. That information would be very labor intensive to provide. Liz advised it would be helpful to know what the problem was. Carla agreed that more detail is better. Bonnie said they want to know what made it break, how did we stop it (work around), and what is going to fix it going forward. Connie said that it takes a lot of over head to put together that level of detailed information on the event notification. The CLECs asked if Qwest looks at the reject code to find out if multiple CLECs are impacted. Connie advised Qwest does this, and looks at the global picture and sometimes the data does show a different perspective. This CR will move to Evaluation Status.

December 17 CMP Meeting Carla Pardee – ATT presented this CR. Connie Winston – Qwest advised that this CR is related to the Global Action Item meetings and was opened as a result of PC022703-9X. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Clarification Call PC111903-1 Website for Event Notifiers

December 4, 2003 11: 00 – 11:30 a.m. MT

Attendees: Jim Recker – Qwest Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Kyle Kirves – Qwest Steph Prull – Eschelon Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Carla Pardee – ATT Randy Owen – Qwest

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and clarified for the users that this CR was opened as a result of decisions made at the Global Action Item meeting. PC022703-9X originally requested similar functionality, but through the Global Action Item meetings agreement was reached that a new CR would be opened (PC111903-1).

Carla Pardee - ATT reviewed the CR. Carla described the functionality that ATT is looking for. A website that displays all event notification, with event number, complete description of event, date submitted, system type and version number, status, severity level and region affected.

The CR also states that this website would display event notifications that have been submitted in the past 90 days. The team clarified the better way to display event notifications is to make them available for 30 days after they have been implemented. The clock would start when they are implemented.

Kim Isaacs – Eschelon asked if the description included the work around information. Randy Owen said they should be able to include this in the description, or include it as a field on the report. The plan is to use the event notification form. There may be an issue to the amount of space available on the web site. The original event notification is always available to view the work around information.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon suggested we show a field work around ‘yes or no’ and then if yes is populated you could view the work around information on the original event notification.

Discussion took place regarding sorting by system. Randy Owen – Qwest advised that system is a separate field on the event notification, so you should be able to sort by that field on the report. Sort functionality would be provided so users could sort by any specific field.

The CLECs asked on average how many event notifications are there in a 30 day period? Randy estimated at less than 30 and greater than 10.

Steph Prull – Eschelon requested the ability to sort by ‘individual version’. For example, if an event impacted multiple versions, to list the versions individually so the CLECs could view events by version. If a CLECs wanted to see all events that affect V13, they could sort by individual version.

The team agreed the right personnel were involved and that Qwest understood the CLECs expectations. This CR impacts all products and any area that an event notification could be issued on.

Next steps are for this CR to be presented by ATT at the December CMP meeting. Qwest will prepare a response at the January CMP meeting.

11/19/03 CMP Meeting Kit Thomte – Qwest advised that this CR was talked about Tuesday during the Global Action Item meeting. This CR was updated with the new title and description. Carla Pardee – ATT advised they would like to keep the old CR open and use the new CR description and title to open a different/new CR. Cindy Macy – Qwest asked if ATT would like to have the new CR clarified or had this happened during the Global Action Item meeting. Carla advised she would like Qwest to hold a Clarification Call for the new CR.

CenturyLink Response

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the January 21, 2003 CMP Meeting

January 14, 2003

AT&T Carla Dickinson Pardee LSAM Manager

SUBJECT: CR # PC111903-1 Web site for Event Notifier

This letter is in response to AT&T’s Change Request (CR) PC111903-1. This CR requests that Qwest provide a web site for Event Notifiers.

Qwest understands the requested change and the enhancements are under evaluation. Qwest will move this CR to Evaluation status.

Sincerely,

Connie Winston Qwest Communications

Open Product/Process CR PC112403-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

Mark Coyne-Qwest stated that Qwest contacted AT&T and they agreed to withdraw this CR. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked for the description and status of this CR. Lynn Stecklein-Qwest stated that this CR is in a deferred status and is a request for a blocking feature for 411 and 555-1212. She said that AT&T completed testing and no longer needed this request. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that they would like to take a look to see if there is any interest in sponsoring this CR. She said that she may be thinking of another CR that was denied. Laurie Fredricksen-Integra stated that she could not find the CR on the agenda. Lynn Stecklein-Qwest stated that we just found out yesterday that AT&T wanted to withdraw so it is not in the package. She said that this discussion will be in the meeting minutes for their review

E-mail From AT&T

Hi Lynn, Sorry for the delay in responding to you.... it's taken awhile to find someone to provide input to this issue. Since it seems there is no longer support for this change and there is an existing solution, I would support withdrawing this CR. Thanks for your patience. Kathy

- From: Stecklein, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.Stecklein@qwest.com] Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 11:49 AM To: LEE, KATHY T, ATTCORP Cc: Esquibel-Reed, Peggy Subject: FW: PC112403-1 Request for blocking feature for 411 and 555-1212

Hi Kathy, The attached CR is currently in a deferred status. In January of 2006, AT&T stated that they were checking internally to determine if the testing with CustomNet Option 1 would satisfy the needs of this CR. (see below) Can you let me know if that testing is complete and if you want this CR to remain in a deferred status or if the testing met the needs of the request? If it has, we can place the CR in a Pending Withdrawal status for the October CMP Meeting. Thanks for your help in advance. Lynn Stecklein Qwest Wholesale CRPM

Lynn, I've finally found a person who is interested in this. We need to keep this open for now. We are checking on the testing. I'll try to get more status in a few days - after this specific person checks on the testing. Thanks. Sharon

- From: Stecklein, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.Stecklein@qwest.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 10:09 AM To: Van Meter, Sharon K, NEO Subject: RE: PC112403-1 Request for blocking feature for 411 and 555-1212

Hi Sharon,

Have you heard anything on whether AT&T has completed their testing?

Thanks,

Lynn Stecklein

Qwest Wholesale CRPM

303 382-5770

--Original Message-- From: Van Meter, Sharon K, NEO [mailto:svanmeter@att.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 11:26 AM To: Stecklein, Lynn Cc: Esquibel-Reed, Peggy Subject: RE: PC112403-1 Request for blocking feature for 411 and 555-1212

Lynn,

I'm checking internally - I'll let you know as soon as I hear something.

Sharon

E-mail send to AT&T 11/2/05

Hi Sharon,

We have been researching change requests that are currently in deferred status. The attached CR PC112403-1 (Request for blocking feature for 411 and 555-1212) is currently in deferred status. The project meeting minutes dated 2/18/04 states the following:

‘Carla Pardee, Qwest said that she is waiting for AT&T to conclude their testing with CustomNet Option 1 to see if this will satisfy the needs of this CR. She would like to move the Status to Deferred until AT&T completes testing.’

Can you let me know if AT&T has concluded the testing of the Customer Net Option 1? And, is so, does it meet your needs?

Thanks,

Lynn Stecklein

Qwest Wholesale CRPM

303 382-5770

2/18/04 CMP Meeting Carla Pardee, Qwest said that she is waiting for AT&T to conclude their testing with CustomNet Option 1 to see if this will satisfy the needs of this CR. She would like to move the Status to Deferred until AT&T completes testing.

-- 1/21/04 January CMP Meeting Aaron Smith, Qwest stated a Clarification Call was held on January 8 and that Operator blocking had just been added to the CR at that time. On the call it was felt CustomNet option 1 might meet the requirements of the CR. Carla Pardee, AT&T said that AT&T had evaluated CustomNet before but wanted something simpler. AT&T is now re-evaluating. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon stated Eschelon would submit a separate CR for a 411 block only. The CR will stay in Evaluation.

- Clarification Meeting 2:00 p.m. (MDT) / Thursday January 8, 2004 1-877-521-8688 1456160 PC 112403-1Request Blocking Feature for 411 and 5551212.

Attendees Carla Pardee, AT&T Dave Fane, AT&T Liz Balvin, MCI Kim Isaacs, Eschelon Patti Leo, Qwest Doug Andreen, Qwest Aaron Smith, Qwest Marty Cruze, Qwest Jo Wees, Qwest Carolyn Vance, Qwest Rose Bochnicek, Qwest John Gallegos, Qwest

Meeting Agenda: 1.0Introduction of Attendees

Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed.

2.0Review Requested (Description of) Change

Doug Andreen, Qwest read the CR description: AT&T is requesting a single USOC, territory wide, that will block 411 and 555-1212. And added that recently AT&T had requested to add blocking operator (O) calls which is why we wanted to have a second clarification call with a wider audience than the first.

Carla Pardee, AT&T added that the intent is to block long distance call completion on customers that have delinquent bills.

Dave Fane added that this is a customer by customer block for customers not paying their bills.

Carolyn Vance, Qwest asked if the object was not to complete the call.

Dave answered yes with the same messages that are normally used.

There was much discussion around appropriate blocks to 411, 555-1212, O+ and 0- calls with the following outcome. CustomNet option 1 will block will block 411and 555-1212. 0+ calls are routed to an operator for alternate billing but cannot be billed to the owner TN. This was acceptable to AT&T. O- calls are completed to an operator but the operator’s screen indicates that calls cannot be charged to the owner TN and that the call may not be transferred to DA. However, calling card calls will not be blocked. This would have to be blocked separately in LIDB as done today.

AT&T agreed to test option 1 CustomNet to see if it would fully meet their needs and to let Doug know.

Kim Isaacs, Eschelon expressed a desire to have this CR appended to for a 411 block only.

Doug advised in order to not confuse the testing of CustomNet option 1 by AT&T and a block for 411 only that a new CR should be submitted.

Kim will submit the new CR.

3.0Confirm Areas & Products Impacted UNE-P

4.0Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct personnel were involved in the meeting.

5.0Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation AT&T will test CustomNet option 1 to see if it meets their requirements for this CR.

6.0Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None

7.0Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) An update on testing will be made to Doug and also at the January CMP meeting.

- 12/17/03 December CMP Meeting Carla Pardee, AT&T presented this CR asking for a territory wide USOC that gives the ability to block a customers ability to reach a 411 or 5551212 DA operator. Carla realizes that Custom Net and Toll Block Restriction provides several features but not a single USOC as described above. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon supports the CR saying Eschelon has customers who need to block the ability to reach DA operators without interfering with long distance capabilities. The CR was moved to Presented status.

- CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting 12:30 p.m. (MDT) / Thursday December 11, 2003 1-877-521-8688 1456160# PC 112403-1Request Blocking Feature for 411 and 5551212. Attendees: Name/Company: Carla Pardee, AT&T Yolanda Bennett, AT&T Doug Andreen, Qwest Mallory Paxton, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Doug read the CR description: AT&T is requesting a single USOC, territory wide, that will block 411 and 555-1212.

Carla Pardee, AT&T added that she realizes that Custom Net and Toll Blocking offers a variety of features but AT&T desires a single USOC that blocks 411 and 555-1212.

Mallory Paxton, Qwest asked Carla if they want this only to block these two features.

Carla said yes.

Mallory asked if this was an option in other RBOCS?

Yolanda answered that it was available but she was unsure if it was a single feature.

Doug asked if the purpose was to block customers who owed bills from making long distance calls?

Carla answered yes.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted UNE-P

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct personnel were involved in the meeting.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation By February 2004, AT&T requests that Qwest implement a single USOC, Qwest territory wide, that will block 411 and 555-1212.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Carla will present for AT&T at the December CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the January 2004 CMP Meeting

Carla Pardee LSAM Manager AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response PC112403-1 Request for blocking feature for 411 and 555-1212

This letter is in response to AT&T’s Change Request (CR) PC112403-1. This CR requests that Qwest provide a single USOC territory wide to block access to DA operators using 411 and 555-1212. Recently, AT&T added to the original CR a request to also block access to Operator (O) calls using the same USOC.

Qwest is currently evaluating this request and proposes moving this Change Request into Evaluation Status while we continue to investigate. Qwest will provide an updated response at the February 2004 CMP meeting.

Sincerely,

Aaron Smith Manager Product Management

Open Product/Process CR PC120803-1 Detail

Description Of Change

When a CLEC submits a move order (M) Qwest creates two orders, a to (T) and from (F) order. The problem resides in the fact that these orders are associated with each other but no action is taken when the T order is placed in jeopardy and the F order is not stopped. Clarification calls with Qwest has indicated that the F order is "always" worked prior to the T order. This process is a guarantee that the customer will be taken out of service prior to the T order being completed regardless of jeopardy, and the jeopardy will cause the the customer to be out of service for a longer period of time. When Qwest works the T order and the technician determines that the order cannot be completed as expected (either jeopardized for some reason or there is no access to the new site) there is no electronic/mechanical means of associating the T order to the F order. Some scenarios are:

1) customer has X number of TN's and is moving within a building and retaining the same TN's.

2) customer has X number of TN's is moving to another building within the same rate center and retaining the same TN's.

3) Customer has X number of TN's and is moving within the same rate center but does not want to keep all of the TN's.

4) customer has X number of TN's and is moving and wants to change TN's and have a forwarding message on the old TN's.

In each of these instances the customer is taken out of service with the creation of the two orders and the F order being worked, or batched, prior to the T order being completed. Since it is a Qwest process to create two orders it would be Qwest responsibility to ensure a process that would prevent taking the customer out of service.

Revised Expected Deliverable (02-03-04):

That no customer would be taken out of service on any move order.

Original Description of Change (12-08-03):

When a CLEC submits a move order (M) Qwest creates two orders, a to (T) and from (F) order. The problem resides in the fact that these orders are not associated as related orders. It is an industry standard that related orders be associated in the RORD field in an effort to ensure that service is not interrupted. When Qwest works the T order and the technician determines that the order cannot be completed as expected (either jeopardized for some reason or there is no access to the new site) there is not electronic/mechanical means of associating the T order to the F order. Since these orders are not associated as RORD the F order is completed and the customer is taken out of service resulting in a disconnect in error.

Original Expected Deliverable (12-08-03):

Expected Deliverable: Processes be changed to associate all T&F orders to each other. That systems be modified to ensure that if a related T order is jeopardized that the F order is automatically placed in a jep status and the work to disconnect the order is stopped. Expected result will reduce, if not eliminate, disconnects in error because of a jeopardized T order. In the month of November AT&T had 10 disconnects in error because of jeopardized T orders. In the event the F order is completed before the T order on the due date and the T order is jepped, Qwest should immediately re-instate the service in an effort to prevent an out of service condition .

Status History

Project Meetings

06/16/04 June CMP Meeting Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest said the PCAT update was effective on 6/4/04. This CR will move to CLEC Test status.

05/19/04 May CMP Meeting Qiana Davis with Qwest said there was one comment received on the Pre-ordering PCAT. Qwest will provide a response back today. The proposed effective date is 6/4/04. This CR will remain in Development status.

04/21/04 April CMP Meeting Qiana Davis with Qwest said there will be level 3 changes made to the Pre-ordering PCAT that will include the interim manual process and the can be reached number. Tomorrow at the Systems meeting the CR for the systems solution will be presented. Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon said she was really excited that the changes were being made because recently Eschelon had a customer move and the customer was out of service for an entire day. Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T said that she will alert Ervin Rea that the PCAT will be coming out soon and to make any comments. This CR will move to Development status.

03/17/04 March CMP Meeting Qiana Davis with Qwest said the T & F process is used for both Retail and Wholesale orders. In researching the T & F process, Qwest has initiated an MCC because in rare instances, technicians were not adhering to the process of calling the customer to find out the disposition of the F order when the T order is held. Qwest is updating the PCAT process for the can be reached number because sometimes the number forwards to voice mail. In addition, Qwest will be sending a level 3 notification for a manual interim process allowing population of the FDT field. This interim process will allow the F order to be delayed if the T order will be held. Qwest will also submit a systems CR for the 17.0 release to mechanize the manual process. Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon asked what IMA changes need to be made. Qiana said the details are still being worked out and that the DFDT field edits will be lifted to allow a value to be input and that will be used to inform the technician to hold the F order. Bonnie asked if this would give the ability to communicate if the T order is held the F should be held. Qiana said the field is currently used for a time value and the edit will be lifted to indicate hold the F order. Bonnie asked what work is being done in the backend systems to force the holding of the F order. Qiana said the technician would be informed to hold the F order until a call is received and this will be an interim manual handling process. Bonnie asked Qiana to keep everyone updated of the progress. Ervin Rea with AT&T said he was surprised and glad that Qwest had found a way to associate the T & F orders, and asked if orders would no longer be disconnected at 12:01 a.m. Qiana said yes, if the order has the DFDT field populated it will allow the F order to be held. This CR will move to Development status.

- 02/18/04 February CMP Meeting Qiana Davis with Qwest reviewed the draft response and said that AT&T had revised the CR on 2/3/04 and that Qwest is evaluating the modifications and require additional time to respond to the CR. Qiana added that Qwest would provide an update in March. Carla Pardee with AT&T said AT&T had determined that a process does exist, however AT&T has had several examples where the orders are disconnected. Carla also said they have been working with their service management team on this issue as well. Qwest will provide an update in March. This CR will be moved to Evaluation status.

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

2:30 p.m. (MDT) / Friday February 6, 2004

1-877-572-8687 3393947# PC120803-1 Associated Move Orders

Name/Company: Ann Adkisson, AT&T Carla Pardee, AT&T Ervin Rea, AT&T Cheryl Peterson, AT&T David Belanger, AT&T Joyce Perry, AT&T Jim Recker, Qwest Mike Lanoue, Qwest Jerry Jenson, Qwest Qiana Davis, Qwest Pat Torkelson, Qwest Brenda DeFilippo, Qwest Doug Slominski, Qwest Lydell Peterson, Qwest Danelle Haynes, Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Qwest welcomed all attendees to the meeting.

Review Requested Change Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest said that we are holding this clarification call to discuss the revisions AT&T made to the CR on 2/3/04.

Linda read the description of change; When a CLEC submits a move order (M) Qwest creates two orders, a to (T) and from (F) order. The problem resides in the fact that these orders are associated with each other but no action is taken when the T order is placed in jeopardy and the F order is not stopped. Clarification calls with Qwest has indicated that the F order is "always" worked prior to the T order. This process is a guarantee that the customer will be taken out of service prior to the T order being completed regardless of jeopardy, and the jeopardy will cause the the customer to be out of service for a longer period of time. When Qwest works the T order and the technician determines that the order cannot be completed as expected (either jeopardized for some reason or there is no access to the new site) there is no electronic/mechanical means of associating the T order to the F order. Some scenarios are:

1) customer has X number of TN's and is moving within a building and retaining the same TN's.

2) customer has X number of TN's is moving to another building within the same rate center and retaining the same TN's.

3) Customer has X number of TN's and is moving within the same rate center but does not want to keep all of the TN's.

4) customer has X number of TN's and is moving and wants to change TN's and have a forwarding message on the old TN's.

In each of these instances the customer is taken out of service with the creation of the two orders and the F order being worked, or batched, prior to the T order being completed. Since it is a Qwest process to create two orders it would be Qwest responsibility to ensure a process that would prevent taking the customer out of service.

Expected Deliverable: That no customer would be taken out of service on any move order.

Ervin Rea with AT&T said that this CR was revised as a result of the CMP clarification meeting 1/28/04 and the CMP meeting 1/21/04. If Qwest always works the F order first and if the F order is in a batch that is disconnected shortly after midnight on the due date then the business customer is always going to be out of service. Additionally, if there is a jep on the T order, then the business customer will be out of service for an extended amount of time.

Cheryl Peterson with AT&T said that when she did a search on the Qwest web site, searching for “Move” she found three processes that say the F order is due the day after the due date of the T. The port within process http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/downloads/2003/030513/DNLDPortWithinProcess1005-13-03.doc

Cheryl asked if there is an existing ordering process in place, would there be a need for a CR. Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest said that she was not sure if a CR would be required for adherence of the process and would take the question back.

Ervin said that he would still want to have adherence to the process through Service Management. Jim Recker with Qwest asked if we find the process is correct would that satisfy the request. Ervin said no it would not satisfy the request. The process should say that there should not be a disconnect of the F location.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Primarily UNE-P and POTS Residence and Business. Other products include Resale, Unbundled Loops and any products T&F orders are issued for when there is a move and there is a jeopardy situation.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct Qwest personnel were involved in the clarification meeting.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Expected Deliverable: That no customer would be taken out of service on any move order.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None identified.

Establish Action Plan This CR will be discussed at the February 18, 2004 CMP Meeting

Tue 2/3/04 11:46 AM From: Pardee, Carla D, NKLAM [cdickinson@att.com] To: Sanchez Steinke, Linda cc: Rea, Ervin E, NKLAM, Adkisson, Ann B, NKLAM, Perry, Joyce M, NKLAM, Peterson, Cheryl J, NKLAM, Peterson, Lydell Subject: Amended PC 120803-1 Linda - per the Audix I left you a few minutes ago, please find the amended language to PC 120803-1. AT&T would like to set up another meeting to discuss this, at your earliest convenience - if possible this Friday, or early next week. I know we discussed submitting a new CR, but AT&T prefers to amend the language so that we don't lose any additional time resolving and implementing this CR. Please feel free to call me at 303-647-2234 if we need to discuss further. As usual, thanks for your assistance and help with this change request!

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

8:30 a.m. (MDT) / Wednesday January 28, 2004

1-877-572-8687 3393947# PC120803-1 Associated Move Orders

Name/Company: Ann Adkisson, AT&T Carla Pardee, AT&T Irvin Rea, AT&T Sheryl Peterson, AT&T David Belanger, AT&T Joyce Perry, AT&T Jim Recker, Qwest Mike Lanoue, Qwest Jerry Jenson, Qwest Jeanette Barns, Qwest Qiana Davis, Qwest Kit Thomte, Qwest Pat Torkelson, Qwest Brenda DeFilippo, Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Qwest welcomed all attendees to the meeting.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest said that we are holding a second clarification call to discuss this CR and the CR may be amended as a result of this clarification meeting. Linda read the description of change; When a CLEC submits a move order (M) Qwest creates two orders, a to (T) and from (F) order. The problem resides in the fact that these orders are not associated as related orders. It is an industry standard that related orders be associated in the RORD field in an effort to ensure that service is not interrupted. When Qwest works the T order and the technician determines that the order cannot be completed as expected (either jeopardized for some reason or there is no access to the new site) there is not electronic/mechanical means of associating the T order to the F order. Since these orders are not associated as RORD the F order is completed and the customer is taken out of service resulting in a disconnect in error.

Expected Deliverable: Processes be changed to associate all T&F orders to each other. That systems be modified to ensure that if a related T order is jeopardized that the F order is automatically placed in a jep status and the work to disconnect the order is stopped. Expected result will reduce, if not eliminate, disconnects in error because of a jeopardized T order. In the month of November AT&T had 10 disconnects in error because of jeopardized T orders. In the event the F order is completed before the T order on the due date and the T order is jepped, Qwest should immediately re-instate the service in an effort to prevent an out of service condition.

David Belanger with AT&T said the description of change sounds like what the UNE-P group is looking for and if Qwest relates the T&F orders the issue will be resolved. Irvin Rea with AT&T said that the problem is the two orders are not related beyond creation of the orders. Joyce Perry with AT&T said the problem is that Qwest works the F order around mid-might before the T order is worked. AT&T wants the T order worked first, then if the T is jeoped the F be jeoped at the same time. Irvin clarified that AT&T doesn’t want the F order worked until the T order is completed.

Brenda DeFilippo with Qwest asked if the T & F orders have different phone numbers. AT&T said that in some cases there would be different phone numbers. David Belanger said the T order must complete when worked before the F order and then the F order should have 24 hours to complete.

Sheryl Peterson with AT&T asked her group if they really understand the process.

Mike Lanoue with Qwest gave examples of different types of orders 1) if in same central office, same telephone number same wire center 2) in different central office, different telephone number Irvin said if the CLEC issues a move order, RORD has to be filled out by Qwest

Qiana Davis with Qwest asked if the only type of orders that we would be concerned with were move orders and the activity of T. Irvin answered yes. Qiana asked if the orders are residence or business accounts and if the business is still located at the from address. Irvin said both Business and Residence. David Belanger said that the business is not always still located at the old address and sometimes someone goes back to the old address to answer phones. Qiana asked if the T order is jeoped would remote call forwarding help the situation. Irvin answered that partial remote call forwarding and David added that the disconnect recording is played.

Sheryl Peterson with AT&T asked if the normal Qwest process was to batch down stream the orders worked at night. Sheryl clarified her question and said not batch as CLEC sending volumes, but talking about on due date working in the appropriate central offices. Jim Recker said that if frame due time is not requested, the F will be worked shortly after midnight on the due date.

Brenda DeFilippo with Qwest said if T&F and the same TN, those are worked together. If T&F with different TN then the F comes through as disconnect. Irvin said that when issuing a move order with action of T, then create 2 orders, the F order should have a disconnect date of the day after the T is due. Brenda asked if same TN at different location. Jeanette Barns asked if the customer has vacated the location.

AT&T had further discussion on whether or not all the products with scenarios were captured in the CMP CR submitted; same TN, different TN, customer has already moved from location and intercept message.

As a result of this clarification meeting, AT&T will meet internally and determine what exact change they are requesting; and identify products and scenarios for this change request. AT&T will either submit revisions and scenarios to this change request or submit a new change request.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Currently CR reads: UNE-P, All POTS, Resale, Unbundled Loops and any products T&F orders are issued for when there is a move and there is a jeopardy situation.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct Qwest personnel were involved in the clarification meeting.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None identified.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) AT&T will meet internally meet determine what revisions are needed to the current CR or submit a new CR.

01/21/04 January CMP Meeting Ervin Rea with AT&T presented this CR and said when a CLEC submits a move order, Qwest creates two orders, an install and a disconnect. These two orders should be associated so that if something goes wrong with the install then the disconnect does not get worked. Ervin asked if the F order is worked first thing in the morning. Qiana Davis with Qwest said yes, Qwest works the disconnect order first. Ervin said that if the T is jeoped then AT&T wants to put the customer back in service. Qiana said that the F is worked to release the facilities. Ervin asked why the TN can’t be working in both locations. Qiana said that Qwest does offer Dual Service.

Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon said that she sent an e-mail concerning when a dispatch is required on T&F orders, a technician working on the T order that is jeoped and the F is worked in the switch. Bonnie’s concern is connected to this CR and her service manager had called about the question. Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest said she did not understand that the question was related to the CR. Bonnie also said that Dual Service requires two different due dates (Begin comment from Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon) and that is not what we are asking for. Bonnie said that for example, if the ”F” side of the T&F is flow through the customers service would be disconnected at the old location after midnight on the due date because of the way Qwest service orders flow through the system (D’s and F’s or disconnects go first) and Qwest agreed. Then if the “T” side required a dispatch and the tech could not instal until 5PM on the due date, the customer could be out of service for serveral hours. (end comment). Jim Recker with Qwest asked if AT&T requests frame due time on their orders. Ervin said that the orders may not be designed services. Liz Balvin with MCI added that DFDT is desired, and is not guaranteed that disconnect will be completed at the desired time. Qiana asked AT&T to identify the products. Ervin said that the products are Resale, UNE-P, Unbundled Loops.

Qwest will arrange an additional clarification meeting for additional questions and the CR may need to be modified based on the clarification meeting output. Mike Zulevic with Covad said that when he worked on UNE-P orders if they resided in the same central office the same person did the work. If there was an F in another central office, the F was worked at midnight on the due date. Bonnie said there are two pieces to the CR; What should be done when the T order goes into jeopardy status and what needs to be done to relate the two orders. This CR will move to Presented status.

Wed 12/24/03 9:01 AM To: Sanchez Steinke, Linda From: Pardee, Carla D, NKLAM [cdickinson@att.com] cc: Rea, Ervin E, NKLAM Subject: RE: PC120803-1 Move Orders Associated Sorry for the delay in getting back to you Linda - been getting kicked off of my computer. I believe we agreed to change it to "Associated Move Orders." Thanks for taking care of this. Happy Holidays

From: Sanchez Steinke, Linda Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:15 PM To: Pardee, Carla D, NKLAM Subject: PC120803-1 Move Orders Associated

Carla -

During the CMP meeting did AT&T agree to change the name of this CR to "Associated Move Orders" or something different than currently titled?

Would you let me know the title and I will change in the database.

Thank you

Linda Sanchez-Steinke CRPM Qwest 303-382-5768

Tue 12/16/03 9:24 AM From; Johnson, Bonnie J. [bjjohnson@eschelon.com] To: Sanchez Steinke, Linda cc: Subject; Question for AT&T CR

Linda, Here is my question: As it relates to a T&F order, excluding a jeopardy on the "T" order, does Qwest always keep the "F" side of the order (customers service at the old location) working until the "T" side is installed. I would like the answer for tech dispatch and flow through orders that do not require a dispatch.

It was always my understanding that the Qwest tech had the "F" order worked (switch) after he installed the new line at the prem Can you confirm and tell me how it works when there is no tech?

I am asking the question because I hear the CLECs continue to talk about their customers being impacted and out of service with moves even if a jeopardy condition does not exist. Perhaps we could address both issues if there is one.

Thanks!

Bonnie J. Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom, Inc. Phone 612 436-6218 Fax 612 436-6318 Cell 612 743-6724 bjjohnson@eschelon.com

12/17/03 December CMP Meeting Ervin Rea with AT&T discussed this CR and said when a CLEC submits a move order, Qwest creates a T&F order. The T order is to install at the new location and the F order is to disconnect at the old location. If something happens to the T order, the F order completes. When the F order completes, then the CLEC has to scramble to get the service back up at one of the locations. AT&T would like the T & F orders linked so that if anything happens to the T order then the F order is jep’d at the same time. Carla thinks there are system implications and wants this addressed as soon as possible to identify. Connie Winston will work with the business to see how systems are effected. CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

8:30 a.m. (MDT) / Monday December 15, 2003

1-877-572-8687 3393947# PC120803-1 Move Orders Associated

Name/Company: Ann Adkisson, AT&T Patty Garnier, AT&T Carla Pardee, AT&T Colleen Forbes, AT&T Kim Isaccs, Eschelon Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon P.J. Koller, Priority One Telecommunications Shon Higer, Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Qwest welcomed all attendees to the meeting.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest read the description of change from the submitted change request; When a CLEC submits a move order (M) Qwest creates two orders, a to (T) and from (F) order. The problem resides in the fact that these orders are not associated as related orders. It is an industry standard that related orders be associated in the RORD field in an effort to ensure that service is not interrupted. When Qwest works the T order and the technician determines that the order cannot be completed as expected (either jeopardized for some reason or there is no access to the new site) there is not electronic/mechanical means of associating the T order to the F order. Since these orders are not associated as RORD the F order is completed and the customer is taken out of service resulting in a disconnect in error.

Carla Pardee with AT&T & P.J. Koller with Priority One Telecommunications, discussed the products impacted would include; UNE-P, All POTS, Resale, Unbundled Loops and, any products where T&F orders are issued when there is a move and there is a jeopardy situation.

Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon had a question regarding jeopardy conditions, related to dispatch of technician on T & F orders. Bonnie will e-mail the question to Linda Sanchez-Steinke.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted UNE-P, All POTS, Resale, Unbundled Loops and any products T&F orders are issued for when there is a move and there is a jeopardy situation.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct Qwest personnel were involved in the clarification meeting.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Linda Sanchez-Steinke read the Expected Deliverable; Processes be changed to associate all T&F orders to each other. That systems be modified to ensure that if a related T order is jeopardized that the F order is automatically placed in a jep status and the work to disconnect the order is stopped. Expected result will reduce, if not eliminate, disconnects in error because of a jeopardized T order. In the month of November, AT&T had 10 disconnects in error because of jeopardized T orders. In the event the F order is completed before the T order on the due date and the T order is jepped, Qwest should immediately re-instate the service in an effort to prevent an out of service condition.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests Carla Pardee said there may be a systems change request and she would check on any systems change requests issued.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) AT&T will walk on this CR at the December CMP Meeting. Qwest will provide a response in February.

CenturyLink Response

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the March 2004 CMP Meeting

Ann Adkisson AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC120803-1 Associated Move Orders

Description of request (partial): (Revised Description of Change 02-03-04) When a CLEC submits a move order (M) Qwest creates two orders, a (T) and from (F) order. The problem resides in the fact that these orders are associated with each other but no action is taken when the T order is placed in jeopardy and the F order is not stopped. Clarification calls with Qwest has indicated that the F order is "always" worked prior to the T order. This process is a guarantee that the customer will be taken out of service prior to the T order being completed regardless of jeopardy, and the jeopardy will cause the customer to be out of service for a longer period of time. When Qwest works the T order and the technician determines that the order cannot be completed as expected (either jeopardized for some reason or there is no access to the new site) there is no electronic/mechanical means of associating the T order to the F order.

Response: Qwest and CLECs acknowledge the long-standing process for outside moves is a two order process for all non-designed services (e.g., Resale and UNEP POTS) and some designed services (e.g., Unbundled Loops). For non-designed services, the association of the two orders is inherent within the process in that there is always a T order associated with an F order. Designed services utilize "critically related order" (e.g., CRO) entries to relate two orders, (e.g., N and D order types). These order and process designs are used for both Qwest Retail and Wholesale accounts and are an integral part of both Qwest systems and processes. To change these would require a complete redesign of multiple systems, internal processes/documentation and training at an extraneous cost to Qwest without real benefit. Instead, Qwest has reviewed and analyzed the existing process for outside moves and has summarized the processes and findings as follows.

T & F orders in the same central office with no change to the telephone numbers are automatically sequenced and the provisioning is coordinated in the Qwest systems for both dispatched and non dispatched orders. If the T & F are located in different wire centers with same day due date, sequencing does not occur and the F order is worked on due date after 12:01 A. M.

There are two basic reasons for "jeopardizing" the T & F orders; Qwest reasons or Customer reasons. When an order is jeopardized for Qwest reasons (e.g., CF - Qwest Facilities are not available), the T order is delayed until Qwest facilities become available. At the point Qwest determines the T order is going to be delayed, the customer of record is contacted to determine if the F order should continue through the process to disconnect the existing service. Qwest makes every attempt to contact the customer of record to determine the disposition of the "F" order. If the T portion of the order is CF'd (held for no facilities), and the customer of record is not contacted the F order will be put on hold until the customer of record is contacted.

The Designed service process generates various order types within Qwest and is dependent upon the product type. If a designed service order is jeopardized, Qwest will contact the customer to determine if the customer wants to continue forward with disconnect activity. The orders are critically related and are worked together.

Additionally, in response to Cheryl Peterson’s finding within the PortWithin process document (http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/downloads/2003/030513/DNLDPortWithinProcess1005-13-03.doc), which states "On a full conversion, Qwest will issue the disconnect of the trunks and facility at the old location, due one business day after the port order DD". This process acts as a product process guide specifically for the DID product.

Findings: In reviewing/analyzing the processes and associated examples, Qwest determined: - Qwest technicians, on rare occasions, were not adhering to the process of contacting the customer of record a jeopardy situation. - the "can be reached" information provided by the CLEC does not provide the technician with a "live person" with whom the technician can work the issue of the pending disconnect.

Conclusion: Qwest accepts this CMP CR and has identified the following activities to enable closure: - We are in the process of enhancing the CLEC documentation (PCAT) for T&F orders to reinforce the importance of supplying a can be reached number which allows Qwest to contact the customer of record. - We have issued a Communicator to selected Network groups to reinforce the process of contacting the customer in jeopardy situations to determine the disposition of the F orders (disconnect). - Qwest currently offers specific optional services to the CLECs that may remedy some of the unique requirements of some move activities, e.g., dual service, overlapping service, etc. Qwest’s PCAT(s) will be updated by 4/19/04 to provide CLECs with more detailed information about these options. - Qwest will continue to review its current processes and seek opportunities for improvement.

Sincerely,

Qiana Davis - Sr. Process Analyst, Wholesale Service and Delivery Jim Recker - Staff Advocate, Qwest

February 6, 2004

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the February 2004 CMP Meeting

Ann Adkisson AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC120803-1 Associated Move Orders

AT&T is requesting process and system changes related to T and F orders. "The problem resides in the fact that these orders are associated with each other but no action is taken when the T order is placed in jeopardy and the F order is not stopped".

On January 28, 2003, a second clarification meeting was held to review the description of the requested change. As a result of this meeting, AT&T decided to meet internally and amend the initial CMP CR to now include the exact change requested along with detailed scenarios.

On February 3, 2004, Qwest received the amended version of CMP CR PC-120803-1 and are currently evaluating the change request. Therefore, we require additional time to investigate and will provide a response at the March CMP meeting.

Sincerely,

Qiana M. Davis FTS Process Specialist

Open Product/Process CR PC112603-1X Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

11/17/04 November meeting minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised the PCAT was effective November 6. This CR will move to CLEC Test Status.

10/20/04 October meeting minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised the notification went out September 22 and the effective date is November 6. This CR will remain in Development Status.

9/15/04 CMP Meeting Minutes: Cindy Macy – Qwest provided status and advised that the documentation should be available next week for review and comment. This CR will remain in Development Status.

8/20/04 Ad hoc Meeting

Anne Trees - Qwest Elizabeth Hamilton - Qwest Donna Osborn Miller - ATT Cindy Macy - Qwest

Cindy introduced the team and advised the purpose of this call is to review the draft process and address Donna's question regarding mechanizing the solution. Anne and Elizabeth reviewed the process. Donna advised that she has talked with representatives who perform this function and they are okay with implementing the process as described in the Clarification Call notes and then if needed, later, issue another CR to request mechanization of the process. Donna explained they thought it would be cumbersome to fill out forms for multiple special needs customers. Donne asked if they had a large number of customers to set up, could it be done via a spreadsheet so they do not have to fill out 2000 forms. Elizabeth advised Donna that if this occurs we can discuss the best way to accomplish the large update. Elizabeth was open to a spreadsheet type of update. Potentially the accounts could be broken down between the Regions (Central, Western and Eastern) and that may help. If this is needed you should contact and work with your Service Manager first. Donna asked how soon do the updates occur. Anne and Elizabeth advised generally within a 48 hour time frame and this includes the receipt and turn around. Donna thanked the team for having the call and advised she is okay with the process.

8/16/04 CMP Meeting Mintues: Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that an ad hoc meeting is scheduled for Friday August 20 to review the process. Donna Osborne-Miller ATT asked for a systems person to be at the meeting as they would like to have the form mechanized. It is a labor intensive process to fill out the form and send it in manually. Cindy advised Qwest will try to invite a systems person, and will discuss this at the ad hoc meeting. This CR will remain in Development Status.

7/21/2004 CMP Meeting Minutes: Jill Martain – Qwest advised that this CR was crossed over from systems to product process this month. Anne Trees – Qwest advised that effective with the August CRIS release the DUF records will be rated. This is step 1 of the process. The screen codes will be updated at the operator station. The operator will know that the customer is a special needs customer. Qwest will handle and rate the call appropriately and pass the information to the DUF file. The PCAT and Operator Services Questionnaire will be updated. The target date for implementation is in September. Donna Osborne-Miller verified that the CLEC will have to identify the customer as special needs. Anne advised that the Directory Assistance Questionnaire is filled out by the CLEC and that is where the CLEC identifies which customers need this service. These questionnaires are forwarded to the operator services group, which enter the codes into their system, and that drives the correct handling of the call. Liz Balvin – MCI asked how long does Qwest anticipate for this process to take? Anne advised she would check on this and advise Cindy Macy. Cindy advised she will include this information in the notes. Anne provided the following update: The CLECs will only be filling out an attachment to the OS/DA Questionnaire to implement the Special Needs screening codes. They will fax the completed attachment directly to the OIS group. This is the same process they do today for other screen code updates. So the special needs screening code updates will follow the existing process. Once the complete and accurate attachment is received by the OIS group they will implement within a two business day timeframe. They will not need to complete the OS/DA questionnaire to add, change or delete screen codes including the Special Needs screen codes. This CR will move to Development status.

5/20/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the LOE for this CR is 2350 to 2600 hours. This action item will be closed.

12/17/03 CMP Systems Meeting

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that the clarification call was held and presented the CR. Donna said that AT&T would like the operator to stay on the line until the call is completed. Judy Schultz/Qwest said that we may have to split this CR into a System and Product/Process CR. Judy stated that the request to have the operator stay on line until the call is completed would most likely be a process change. Connie Winston stated that the interface needs to change from ‘other’ to IMA Common. Liz Balvin/MCI asked if ‘other’ interface is really the operator platform. Connie Winston/Qwest said that if we set this up it would be IMA. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T also want the DDD call rated. Connie Winston/Qwest stated the rate is based on the code given to us. Liz Balvin/MCI said that the rate would be populated on the order via IMA.

12/8/03 Clarification Meeting

Attendees: Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T, Jo Ann Symenec - AT&T, Al Paris - AT&T, David Fane - AT&T, Kim Isaacs - Eschelon, Ann Trees - Qwest, John Gallegos - Qwest, Shonna Pasionek - Qwest, Connee Moffat

Review Description of Change AT&T is requesting that Qwest identify and rate AT&Ts Special Needs Customers for OS/DA assisted calls.

Discussion Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T stated that they would like the Operator to stay on the line until the call is completed. Anne Trees - Qwest asked what kind of request is this associated with - IXC, Facility Based, UNE-P. Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T said that it is UNE-P. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that Qwest understood this request and had no other questions.

Identify/Confirm CLECs Expectation AT&T would like to invoke the use of the DI and SOE LSOG fields in order to provide OS/DA service to AT&T Special Needs Customers.

Establish Action Plan AT&T will present this CR in the December CMP Systems Meeting.

CenturyLink Response

April 22, 2004

RE: SCR112603-01 Qwest to identify and rate AT&T's Special Needs Customers for OS/DA assisted calls

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR112603-01). Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held December 8, 2003) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 2325 to 2600 hours for this IMA Change Request with no SATE impacts.

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 17.0 prioritization vote.

Sincerely, Qwest

DRAFT RESPONSE December 11, 2003 RE: SCR112603-01

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of AT&T's Change Request SCR112603-01. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification meetings (held November 18 and December 8, 2003) Qwest is still examining the issue. Qwest will continue to research the problem and provide an updated response at the March Systems CMP Meeting.

At the December 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

Open Product/Process CR PC031203-2X Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

- From: Stecklein, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.Stecklein@qwest.com] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 1:49 PM To: LEE, KATHY T, ATTCORP Subject: Question on PC031203-2X Resolve Disconnect of Account Number

Hi Kathy, I believe you missed the discussion in the June Product/Process CMP Meeting on SCR031203-2X Resolve Disconnect of Account Number. Here is what was discussed: PC031203-2X Resolve Disconnect of Account Number (Cross Over from SCR031203-02)

Mark Coyne-Qwest stated that this CR was a crossover from Systems and was implemented on 6/4/07. Mark asked if AT&T was ok to close.

No one from AT&T was on the bridge.

Mark Coyne-Qwest stated that we would work offline with AT&T.

I wanted to check with you to determine if this CR can be closed. I have attached a copy of the CR.

Thanks!

Lynn Stecklein

Qwest Wholesale CMP

-- 6/20/07 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Mark Coyne-Qwest stated that this CR was a crossover from Systems and was implemented on 6/4/07. Mark asked if AT&T was ok to close. No one from AT&T was on the bridge. Mark Coyne-Qwest stated that we would work offline with AT&T.

5/16/07 Systems CMP Meeting

Mark Coyne-Qwest stated that this CR was crossed over from Systems and is scheduled for implementation on June 4th. Mark then noted that the Level 2 Notice would be going out on May 14th. Mark asked if there were any questions or comments. There were none.

-- 4/18/07 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Mark Coyne-Qwest stated that this CR was a crossover from Systems and was discussed in the March CMP Meeting.

Lynn Stecklein-Qwest stated that a notification will be sent to update the documentation.

3/21/07 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Mark Coyne-Qwest stated that this Systems CR was submitted by AT&T and will be crossed over to a Product/Process CR.

Lynn Stecklein-Qwest stated that this System CR, as Mark said, was submitted by AT&T requesting a solution for when a CLEC migrates a multi-line account and then sometime later their customer requests to disconnect the main number. AT&T stated that disconnecting the BTN on a multi-line account means that a new account number may have to be assigned and that they did not know what the rules were for when this happened. Lynn said that during the requirements review for this CR it was determined that this request can be accommodated with a Process change instead of a System change. She said that a clarification call was held with AT&T and other CLECs on March 1 to communicate the process solution. Lynn said that during that meeting, Qwest stated that when a customer has a multi-line account and the main BTN is being removed from the account, the customer has the option of using specific fields (i.e. NAN) to select what remaining TN they would like to use as the new BTN. If no notification is received from the CLEC then the next logic line number will be assigned as the new BTN. Lynn stated that AT&T agreed that this process would work for them and stated that they preferred this to a system change. She said that that this process is documented in various PCATs and updates will be made for this CR.

Mark Coyne-Qwest stated that the system CR will be closed and will cross over to a Product and Process CR.

3/1/07 Additional Clarification Meeting

SCR031203-02 Resolve Disconnect of Account Number

Attendees: Chris Terrell-AT&T, Kathi Lee-AT&T, Leo Dimitriatis-AT&T, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Anne Pent-Qwest, Lynn Stecklein-Qwest

Lynn Stecklein-Qwest stated that the purpose of this meeting was to communicate a solution for this change request that would require no system work. If everyone agreed with this solution we would cross this CR over to a Product/Process CR.

Anne Pent-Qwest cited the example of a 5 line account with the main billing TN (BTN) being removed from the account. Anne said that you have the option of using the NAN field on selecting what remaining TN you would like to use as the new BTN.

Leo Dimitriatis-AT&T reviewed the scenario of a 5 line account and 4 TNs are being left behind and belong to Qwest. Leo said that they would have the option of choosing the BTN.

Anne Pent-Qwest stated that we would take the next logic line number if no notification is received from the CLEC. She said that the TNs on the CSR may not be sequential.

Leo Dimitriatis-AT&T said that the next logic line number would then become the BTN and asked if the account would be updated with the 4 remaining TNs.

Anne Pent-Qwest stated that happens prior to completion.

Leo Dimitriatis-AT&T said that after the migration occurs, they will see the newly assigned BTN. He said that this is a good scenario.

Kim Isaacs-Eschelon asked what happens to the listing associated with the old BTN.

Anne Pent-Qwest said that we don’t make the listing change. She said that the FOC on a ported number has a remarks section to indicate if the listing is to be changed.

Kim Isaacs-Eschelon said that with a Resale or QPP account, you have 1 CSR with the Main Listing and the other number on another CSR with no listing. Kim asked if the listing would apply to the BTN. Kim also asked if the phone book would have a different listing.

Anne Pent-Qwest said that they would.

Kim Isaacs-Eschelon asked if a new account number could be requested as non- published.

Anne Pent-Qwest said no and that the customer would have to make a change.

Leo Dimitriatis-AT&T asked if the listings still belonged to Qwest in the scenario discussed above with the 4 remaining TNs.

Anne Pent-Qwest said that the listings do belong to Qwest. She said that the decision was made not to assume and that the end user would have to call Qwest to make a change.

Chris Terrell-AT&T said that she understood that Qwest would use the next logical number on the CSR for the new BTN. She asked how the customer would know.

Leo Dimitriatis-AT&T said that after the BTN was migrated the BCN will have that information and the customer can look at the CSR and that the rules will be reflected in the CSR. He asked how Qwest would handle the scenario where you have 5 lines migrating to AT&T on one order and the customer wants to disconnect the TN that happens to be the BTN.

Anne Pent-Qwest stated that you can designate if the customer has a preference for the main line or the next number to be the BTN and this information will be on the FOC.

Leo Dimitriatis-AT&T asked about listing treatment with using the next logical number.

Anne Pent-Qwest stated since you own the account in this instance the listing would have to ‘O’ and ‘I’ ‘d for the remaining TN.

Chris Terrell-AT&T asked if this was done on a disconnect order.

Anne Pent-Qwest said that this would be done on a partial C order with an ACT of ‘C’.

Leo Dimitriatis-AT&T said that on the change order for the account they could include the listing. He also said that if they don’t use the FOC, they will assume that Qwest has used the next logical line number and that no listing treatment is applicable.

Chris Terrell-AT&T asked if Qwest would do anything with the listing for the TN.

Anne Pent-Qwest said that if the main TN is disconnected the listing will stay the same.

Leo Dimitriatis-AT&T stated that they do support this solution. He said that Verizon Business uses the next logical number and automatically assigns the main listing when a BTN is disconnected.

Anne Pent-Qwest said that is what we will do and said that if you want a change to let us know.

Leo Dimitriatis-AT&T said that with this solution there are no changes for AT&T except to let their operations people know.

Chris Terrell-AT&T said that the ‘NAN’ field is a good thing and that they would prefer to let Qwest know what they prefer.

Leo Dimitriatis-AT&T asked if this process was documented.

Anne Pent-Qwest stated that this process is documented in various PCATs and will be updated with the Product/Process CR.

Lynn Stecklein-Qwest stated that this CR will be discussed in the March Product/Process CMP Meeting on March 21, 2007.

10/31/06 Additional Clarification Meeting

Chris Terrel - AT&T, Kathy Lee - AT&T, Leo Dimitriatis - AT&T, Chuck Anderson - Qwest, Anne Pent - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest Communications

Lynn Stecklein - Qwest stated that the purpose of this meeting is to further clarify this change request.

Chuck Anderson - Qwest asked if this request was associated with a migration request on a number that is a BTN that is disconnected between the time the conversion happens.

Leo Dimitriatis - AT&T stated there are 2 cases - the 1st is when a customer wants to disconnect the BTN that has a WTN. Leo asked what the process is for the WTN and how to obtain the WTN housing. He said that 2nd scenario is when you migrate a multi-line account with a WTN and BTN and the BTN migrates to Qwest and the WTN belongs to AT&T.

Chris Terrell - AT&T asked what if you have one BTN with multiple WTNs on the account - what is the BTN to WTN status.

Chuck Anderson - Qwest stated that he needed to investigate the WTN with the next highest sequence.

Leo Dimitriatis- AT&T asked what the CLEC needs to do when the BTN has been elevated. He said that they need to know what happens to the remaining WTNs and which WTN is elevated to BTN.

Chuck Anderson - Qwest said that we just need to figure out the notification or disclosure process when the BTN has been taken off the account and which WTN becomes the BTN.

Leo Dimitriatis - AT&T asked what happens if you have 1 BTN and 1 main listing.

Chuck Anderson - Qwest stated that we need to talk with the Listing SME. He said that this may not require system work and would just be a process change.

Chris Terrel - AT&T stated that they would prefer an enhancement without system work.

2/16/05 Systems CMP Meeting - IMA 18.0 Candidate Discussion

Chris Terrell-AT&T stated that they would like to leave this CR open and is a medium priority for AT&T.

7/22/04 CMP Systems Meeting

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.

Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated this was low for AT&T.

8/21/03 CMP Systems Meeting

Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that AT&T’s interest was moderate.

4/17/03 CMP Systems Meeting Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T reviewed the description of change. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that the LOE is 1700 to 2800 hours for this request. The status will be changed to presented.

4/3/03 Clarification Meeting Introduction of Attendees Phyllis Burt - AT&T, Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T, Curt Anderson- Qwest, Berkley Loggie - Qwest, Joan Pfeffer - Qwest, Shon Heiger, John Gallegos - Qwest, Mark Early

Review Requested Description of Change When a CLEC migrates a multi-line account and then sometime later the customer requests to disconnect the main number, this must be supported through system or operation. Disconnecting the BTN on a Muliline account means that a new Account Number may have to be assigned and these rules must be known. One of the remaining numbers may have to attain BTN status with Directory Listing treatment applied to it.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted UNE-P Pots, IMA Common

Confirm Right Personnel Involved All appropriate personnel were involved in the clarification call.

Identify/Confirm CLECs Expectation When a BTN has been disconnected, one of the remaining TNs will have to be the BTN.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests NA

Establish Action Plan This change request was a walk on in the March CMP Systems Meeting and will be presented in the April Meeting by AT&T.

4/1/03 Clarification Meeting Customer not present, meeting rescheduled.

3/20/03 CMP Systems Meeting Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T presented the CR. Phyllis Burt/AT&T said that she was not real familiar with this CR but thought that the description of change was self explanatory. If you lose the main number how do you get a new main listing. It currently doesn’t allow us to do a new main listing. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that they have run into this with EDI. The answer is that when you migrate the BTN, regardless if you identified the new BTN you want, Qwest says that it’s an optional field. It is automatically processed as non-published. We have no say of what it should be and if the customer wants it any different they have to call Qwest Retail. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that it sounds like the request is for after the fact. Connie Winston/Qwest noted that Qwest will schedule the clarification call and that this CR will be eligible for the 15.0 release Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T suggested that AT&T send out the information regarding the clarification call to the other CLECs.

Open Product/Process CR PC112003-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

Date: 6/1/04 7:55 a.m. To: 'tom.hyde@cbeyond.net', 'stephan.calhoun@cbeyond.net' From: Sanchez Steinke, Linda Subject: FW: CMP CR PC112003-1

Tom & Stephan -

As a follow up to the e-mail message attached, I will be closing change request PC112003-1 on Thurdsay 6/3/04. If you have any questions, please respond back to me before 6/3/04.

Thank you

Linda Sanchez-Steinke CRPM Qwest 303-382-5768

--Original Message-- From: Sanchez Steinke, Linda Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 8:03 AM To: 'Stephan.Calhoun@cbeyond.net'; 'tom.hyde@cbeyond.net' Subject: CMP CR PC112003-1

Stephan & Tom -

As a follow up to yesterday's CMP meeting, we discussed closing this CR. The CLEC community suggested that I e-mail and find out if Cbeyond agrees to close. Please let me know.

Thank you

Linda Sanchez-Steinke CRPM Qwest 303-382-5768

Date: 5/20/04 8:03 a.m. From; Sanchez Steinke, Linda To; 'Stephan.Calhoun@cbeyond.net'; 'tom.hyde@cbeyond.net' Subject: CMP CR PC112003-1

Stephan & Tom -

As a follow up to yesterday's CMP meeting, we discussed closing this CR. The CLEC community suggested that I e-mail and find out if Cbeyond agrees to close. Please let me know.

Thank you

Linda Sanchez-Steinke CRPM Qwest 303-382-5768

05/19/04 May CMP Meeting Pat Finley with Qwest reported during the April meeting Stephan Calhoun with Cbeyond said that a USOC appeared on EEL and LMC bills that had a UNE-P definition. This USOC is shared between UNE-P, EEL and LMC. Service Delivery has requested that this description be corrected. Pat said that the USOC will have a new description. Liz Balvin with MCI asked if notification would be provided. Susan Lorence with Qwest said there usually is no notification. Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon said the billing folks would need to know. Susan said if there is a product change or product name change, then there could be PCAT changes. Liz asked if the USOC would continue to say NRC for UNE-C. Pat said that the USOC will remain the same, but the description will be more generic. Susie Bliss with Qwest asked Liz if her question was, is something going to look different on the bill. Liz agreed. Bonnie said that people who are processing bills will see one thing one month and another the next. Susie asked Sami Hooper if the bill phrase is going to change. Sami Hooper with Qwest said that the USOC FID finder is generic and that the central CRIS bill singled out UNE-P. Bonnie and Liz both said that Qwest may receive questions for that change in the definition of the USOC and would be good to get a notice. Susan Lorence asked if Bonnie and Liz were concerned the billing reps would need to be provided information so they know that this is the reason for the change. (Bonnie’s comment insert here) Susie Bliss said that Qwest billing SDCs could notify the CLECs of changes of this nature. Do we have an action item open for this issue? (end Bonnie’s comment) Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest will e-mail Cbeyond for approval to close this CR.

04/21/04 April CMP Meeting Pat Finley with Qwest said that during last month’s meeting some items discussed need to be corrected. Qwest has developed the TRAK FID, which uniquely identifies EEL & LMC. PCAT changes identify the USOCs used for LMC and EEL. Last month Liz Balvin with MCI had asked if monthly training could be provided to the center. In speaking with the process specialist, training is provided on an as needed basis when we identify a problem, and won’t be done on a monthly basis. Also last month, Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon had asked if a review was done on all customer’s bills, and that was not the case. Specific questions Cbeyond had on their billing, when their circuits were converted to EEL and LMC were researched.

Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon asked why, if there is a known problem, and if there was not a review of all CLEC accounts, that the expectation is the CLECs prove there is a problem. Pat Finley responded there is not a widespread problem and Cbeyond had given specific instances where EEL and LMC conversion orders were issued. Bonnie asked if service management could notify their customers, that Qwest should do notification. Bonnie asked if other customers had these conversions done. Pat said that if any company has problems they could contact their service manager for resolution. Bonnie said that since a problem has been uncovered that you may want to get with service managers, who could contact their customers. Kit Thomte with Qwest said that Linda Sanchez-Steinke will contact the directors over the service management team to make them aware.

Stephan Calhoun with Cbeyond joined the call and said that as Cbeyond was investigating, they found that circuit IDs with inconsistencies. They found circuit IDs that have no relationship to what Qwest provisioned and the circuit ID has been changed to fit with EEL or LMC. Further, Cbeyond is concerned that the circuit ID has no connection to what is in the provisioning system and asked how do Eschelon or other CLECs know that their circuit IDs are correct. Pat Finley said that the Cbeyond issue was corrected. Stephan said he is suspicious and concerned that this could happen elsewhere and the circuit ID has been altered and is out of sync with billing and provisioning. Stephen added he is unsure how to protect Cbeyond. Pat said that she did not know of other instances where this was occurring and that the problem was isolated to one or two individuals in the center who were then covered on the correct procedures.

Stephan said reconciling the invoice, knowing that potential is there not to reflect the correct circuit IDs, and there is not a dedicated rep for the Cbeyond orders. Pat said there is not a way to compare the provisioning system against the billing system because they are separate operating systems and would be glad to work on specific examples. Stephan said that the examples of the circuit ID not matching the FOC and SOC were given to their Service Manager.

Stephen asked if the TRAK FID was as far as Qwest would go to resolve this CR. Pat answered that separate classes of service would not be provided and the PCAT changes identifying the USOCs used for LMC and EEL and the TRAK FID were done to address the CR.

Stephan asked if certain USOCs descriptions would be included in the billing because they are seeing inconsistencies. On EEL orders they see UNE-P USOCs. Pat said that some USOCs used may be private line and borrow many USOCs. Stephan said he sent the examples but these may have gone only to the service manager. Kit said we would get with the service manager to investigate.

Jen Arnold with U S Link said the man number on the circuit ID changes and they are finding, particularly in a re-use situations, the man number may be the same for more than one circuit ID. This was brought to service management and has not been answered yet. Kit said there was no one on the call to answer the question and said they should wait to hear from service management.

Bonnie Johnson said she is generally frustrated whenever there is an issue or problem that the CLEC must submit a CR, ask for documentation, etc. and would like to see Qwest take a more active role is resolving issues. Qwest has an obligation to let CLECs know when something has been found through the discovery process, or through researching a CR, and should get the problem fixed for all CLECs. Donna Osborne-Miller said this seems to be a reasonable request and Qwest should notify the CLECs. Bonnie said we can discuss off line where to go to get Qwest to take a more active approach. This CR will move to CLEC Test status.

03/17/04 March CMP Meeting Pat Finley with Qwest said that an ad hoc meeting was held on 3/5/04 to address concerns raised by Stephan Calhoun with Cbeyond. Tom Hyde with Cbeyond attended the call for Stephan. Pat reviewed that the CR was submitted asking for separate classes of service for EELs and LMCs. Pat explained that the TRAK FID uniquely identifies EEL & LMC. Cbeyond had 14 instances where the conversion of circuits from private line was done incorrectly and orders were issued to correct the circuit IDs. Pat said Interstate classes of service are not being assigned on new installations of service and the interstate classes of service were used for the conversion of private line. Qwest has no plans to charge higher rates for interstate vs. intrastate and UNE’s are billed at TELRIC rates. PCAT changes were issued in February to provide a download to map USOCs and class of service. During the ad hoc meeting, Tom said he had not reviewed the changes. Liz Balvin with MCI asked if training would be reinforced to eliminate errors from occurring. Pat said that training has been provided to the center to make sure the correct processes are followed. Liz added that monthly training might be helpful because of turnover in representatives inputting the orders. Pat said that she would suggest monthly training to the process person. Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon said that if Cbeyond had problems with inaccuracies in circuit IDs that there may have been other CLECs with the same problem and asked if a review was done. Pat said that a report was pulled for all customers. Bonnie asked if corrections and credits had been done. Pat said corrections and credits were given if appropriate. This CR will move to Development status.

- Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes PC112003-1 March 5, 2004 1-877-572-8687, Conference ID 3393947# 9:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. Mountain Time

List of Attendees: Tom Hyde - Cbeyond Kathy Stichter - Eschelon Kim Isaacs - Eschelon Rodney Johnson - SBC Pat Finley - Qwest Robyn Libadia - Qwest Gayla Samarripa - Qwest Sami Hooper - Qwest Jennifer Fisher - Qwest Susie Johnson - Qwest Sue Kriebel - Qwest Peggy Esquibel-Reed - Qwest Lynn Stecklein - Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke - Qwest

The meeting began with Qwest making introductions and welcoming all attendees. Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss CR PC112003-1 agenda topics: - Qwest will not establish separate Class of Service for EEL & LMC - Qwest assigning interstate Classes of Service on new EEL/LMC requests - Determine if EEL/LMC services established as new connect or conversion - Jurisdiction of EEL/LMC - EEL/LMC XUMAX Interstate, UBNWN Intrastate Rates - PCAT updates

The following is the write-up of the discussions and action items from the working session.

- Qwest will not establish separate Class of Service for EEL & LMC. Pat Finley with Qwest explained that separate classes of service will not be provided for EEL and LMC. Qwest has developed the TRAK FID on the CSR which identifies EELs and LMC circuits. Pat added that Qwest will not count LMCs in the calculation of LIS trunking to EEL ratio.

- Qwest assigning interstate Classes of Service on new EEL/LMC requests. Pat Finley said that Qwest did have a deviation from the process and orders for the conversion were issued with Interstate classes of service. Additional training has been provided to the center and the center is in the process or writing orders to correct. Tom Hyde with Cbeyond said that he is concerned that UNE billing deviates from Telcordia standards with respect to USOCs. Pat said the EEL and LMC PCATs have been updated to include a download of USOCs for interstate and intrastate. Tom said that he has not reviewed the PCAT. Sami Hooper with Qwest said that the Chan Term is the same as special access but has a unique class of service and ZCID. Tom Hyde said that the rate is driven by the ZCID. Sami said that the rate is driven by class of service, USOC and the company code or ZSID makes the rate unique. Tom said he is concerned that class of service is irrelevant to billing of basic Chan Term which is a finished service. Pat said that the company code makes rating unique and several UNEs borrow retail USOCs. The interconnection agreement provides rates. Tom said he was concerned that the PCAT will be ambiguous, an audit of billing will provide different information and the only method to audit is a manual method. The interoffice mileage and fixed charges are charged incorrectly. Pat said the USOC definitions will be the same and this is not unique to LMC and EEL. The rating is done per the interconnection agreement. Susie Johnson said that Gia is correcting the incorrectly billed multiple fixed mileage charges.

- Determine if EEL/LMC services established as new connect or conversion. Tom said that Qwest has asked him to identify which were new connect circuits and which were converted circuits and that everything was being assigned Interstate. Pat said that Qwest knows how the services were established, either new connect or conversion.

- Jurisdiction of EEL/LMC. Pat Finley said that 14 circuits have the incorrect circuit ID and are being corrected via record orders.

- EEL/LMC XUMAX Interstate, UBNWN Intrastate Rates. Pat Finley said that Qwest has no plans to charge a higher rate for interstate vs. intrastate and UNE’s are billed at TELRIC. Tom Hyde said he doesn’t care for CRIS billing for UNE-P, that it was probably ok a couple years ago and is causing grief because of the lack of consistency and manual work involved to audit bills. CRIS billing is not part of CMP CR PC112003-1 and was not discussed further.

- PCAT updates. Pat Finley said the PCAT was updated and provides a download to map USOCs and class of service. Tom said he has not reviewed the changes made to the PCAT. Pat said that the combination of USOCs are unique. Sami said that is correct and the PCAT identifies the nonrecurring USOCs and the FID identifies if EEL or LMC. LMC has no mileage. Tom said that the bill will subtract LMC mileage and it was billed in error, identified in manual audit. Pat said that if orders are issued correctly the ZCID, etc. drives billing. Pat explained that establishing a new unique classes of service for LMC is cost prohibitive due to the conversion required to the embedded base. Tom said that a new USOC can’t be cost prohibitive. Tom added that the circuit ID is being corrected and has helped.

There were no additional questions and Linda said that meeting minutes would be provided in the body of the change request.

02/18/04 February CMP Meeting Pat Finley with Qwest said the examples Cbeyond provided following the January meeting were examples of circuits with jurisdiction based on the class of service. There were hundreds of circuits converted correctly via record orders and the 10 circuits provided as examples were issued incorrectly, and required record orders to fix. Pat explained that the PCATs for EEL and LMC were updated and now contains a downloadable list of USOCs for interstate and intrastate. The USOC list, combined with the TRAK FID on the CSR differentiates LMC and EEL and there is no need to establish separate classes of service. The work associated with establishing separate classes of service is prohibitive because of the conversion to the embedded base.

Pat said that the e-mail received from Stephan Calhoun on 1/22/04, confuses the request with other CRs requesting billing changes and believe that this CR can be closed.

Stephan Calhoun with Cbeyond said the PCAT updates are appreciated and that he was only able to review the Qwest response on this CR yesterday. Stephan said he has concerns with the 2/3/04 Qwest response and asked that Pat read through the response.

Pat read the draft response. Stephan said that his understanding is that usually classes of service define the product but not the jurisdiction. Pat disagreed saying that the jurisdiction of many Qwest products is identified by class of service.

Stephan also said that interstate class of service was assigned to conversion orders that were issued last year, are also being assigned on new requests for EEL and LMCE. Pat said that the interstate EEL and LMC classes of service are only used to convert to Special Access circuits.

Stephan said that he doesn’t understand the reason UMX was changed to new EEL and LMC. Cbeyond has not made any changes in the way the services were ordered. Pat Finley said that interstate was only used for conversion orders only.

Stephan said that Cbeyond is concerned that billing doesn’t support the Qwest response. The billing department was not able to identify what was converted and what was a new order. There seems to be a disconnect with the policy and what is actually done. Pat explained that the Billing Center is able to access history information on the services, and to tell what is new and what was converted. Stephen said that the billing manager, service manager and process manager were unable to determine and planned to contact the product manager. Stephan has provided examples to their service manager.

Stephan is also concerned that the recurring interstate and intrastate EEL do not bill the same as UNE. Pat said that PLT has different rates and is a finished service. Interstate and intrastate EEL and LMC are billed the same recurring rates. Stephan said LMC jurisdiction is based on FCC definition and doesn’t seem to fit. Stephan said the concern is not the rate itself, but the rate elements, and asked what would keep Qwest from applying different rates to interstate and intrastate. Pat asked if the concern is that Qwest may raise UNE rates that are interstate. Pat explained that Qwest is obligated to make these UNEs available to CLECs at TELRIC rates.

Judy Schultz with Qwest said there are many concerns with this CR and suggested that an ad hoc meeting be scheduled to discuss. This CR will remain in Evaluation status.

Thu 1/22/04 3:41 PM From; Stephan Calhoun [Stephan.Calhoun@cbeyond.net] To: Sanchez Steinke, Linda, Finley, Pat J cc; Morgan Halliday, Tom Hyde Subject; RE: Qwest Draft Response PC112003-1 (Differentiate LMC from EEL) - Cbeyond Response Linda/Pat,

I apologize for not getting this to you prior to yesterday's call. I got wrapped up in some other Qwest CRs that we received responses to at the same time. It appears that Qwest has addressed the regulatory concerns raised by the TRO in its response to this CR. Unfortunately, the billing implications on this CR appear to have been forgotten. Cbeyond has 3 specific concerns to Qwest's response:

1. Providing fields on the CSR for services that are billed in CRIS is not the same as for services billed in IABS. In the CRIS system, the CSR is not part of the bill. The CSR is provided as a separate file that is not in the same format as the invoice and is also not an OBF/industry standard format. Even this is a bit of a misnomer, the CSR is actually a collection of files per subaccount on an invoice. If an invoice has 2,000, the CSR is actually comprised of 2,000+ files. This is a partial explanation of why Cbeyond considers the delivery of information on the CSR as insufficient in addressing the billing concern of this CR.

2. Qwest has demonstrated through reports from the billing group (because Qwest doesn't actually put the class of service on the bill), that it uses or appears to use 2 different classes of service and thus 2 different sets of USOCs for the same bandwidth level, product, and jurisdiction as it applies to EELs and LMCs. Please find the attached examples.

3. An even broader concern, and perhaps the subject of another CR, is that Qwest has failed to map the USOCs & Classes of Service that it bills for LMCs & EELs to a product. Conversely, the PCATs for LMCs and EELs do not define the classes of service or USOCs to be applied to the elements that define each product. Obviously, Qwest has this defined somewhere in their system, but has failed to publish it to the CLEC community.

Again, I apologize if my comments caught you off guard as that was truly not my intent. I only saw the Qwest response the morning of the call and grew very concerned about what the response did not address.

Sincerely, Stephan

01/21/04 January CMP Meeting Pat Finley with Qwest said that Qwest held the Clarification meeting on 12/4/03 and that Qwest had sent an e-mail to Morgan Halliday stating that Qwest does not count EELs in the LMC ratio to LIS trunking. Pat reviewed the Qwest response and said that we will not establish unique classes of service for EELs and LMCs and that Qwest has created a way to distinguish EEL and LMC for the TRO by using TRAK FID. The TRAK FID information is available for CLECs on the CSR. Pat said that Qwest needed to distinguish between EELs and LMCs and has no intention of counting LMCs in the LIS trunking ratio.

Stephen Calhoun with Cbeyond said he is confused by the response because in December he received one answer and then in January received another answer. The CSR is not part of the bill and is not populating the difference between EEL and LMC on the bill. It is a different process to view the CSR as opposed to looking at the bill. The Cbeyond concern is based on reports received from the billing team where LMCs and EELs have different classes of service and USOCs. LMCS or EELs could be either class of service. Stephen will provide examples.

Pat Finley said there are 12 classes of service and they vary according to whether service is intrastate or interstate and the bandwidth requested. Stephen said these are brand new DS1 level, local installs and they have different classes of service assigned. In addition, when reviewing the PCAT there is a lack of documentation because LMC and EEL have no USOC mapping available to see the classes of service. Bonnie Johnson said that in reconciling bills, Qwest provides data is in so many different places, and there is a general concern that bills don’t provide enough detail to reconcile. (Begin comment from Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon) Bonnie said all of her personnel vendor bills contain the detail you need to know what you are paying for. (end comment). Carla Pardee with AT&T and Liz Balvin with MCI said they agree with Bonnie’s comments. This CR will move to Evaluation status.

Mon 1/5/04 1:12 PM From; Linda Sanchez-Steinke To; 'tom.hyde@cbeyond.net' cc: Pat Finley Subject; Change Request PC112003-1

Tom -

The attached e-mail was sent to Morgan Halliday a couple of weeks ago regarding change request PC112003-1, titled "Differentiate between Loop-MUX combos and EELs due to different FCC treatment (TRO Order)". I realize that with the holidays Cbeyond may not have had an opportunity to respond.

Would you please let me know if Pat Finley's attached e-mail provides the information needed to resolve the change request or if the change request is still needed.

Thank you

Linda Sanchez-Steinke Change Request Project Manager Qwest 303-382-5768

--Original Message-- From: Finley, Pat J Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 4:43 PM To: 'morgan.halliday@cbeyond.net' Cc: Sanchez Steinke, Linda; Libadia, Robyn; Romano, Anthony Subject: Qwest's response to PC112003

Mr. Halliday, I wanted to provide you a formal response to the primary concerns you raised on the clarification call we had on December 4, 2003, for the Change Request titled "Differentiate between Loop-MUX combos and EELs due to different FCC treatment (TRO Order)." You asked that Qwest provide you in writing, assurances that we will not count Loop-MUX combinations (LMCs) in the calculation of LIS trunking to EEL ratio, to determine service eligibility. Please consider this written confirmation, that Qwest has no intention of counting LMCs in the calculation of the LIS trunking to EEL ratio as specified in the service eligibility criteria of the Triennial Review Order. We hope this satisfies your request. Please contact me at 303 896-8466, if you have any questions.

12/17/03 December CMP Meeting Cbeyond presented this CR and said Cbeyond would like to be able to differentiate LMX and EELs class of service on billing invoices. Liz Balvin with MCI asked how they come on the bills today. Stephen Calhoun said that Qwest provides Cbeyond additional information on a spreadsheet to help differentiate, and Qwest does not have the ability to separate LMX and EEL class of service. Jamal Boudhaouia with Qwest asked if Cbeyond orders LMX by itself, or if it is part of the whole circuit being provisioned. Stephen Calhoun said there are definite differences and if look at two DS1’s there is no differentiation between LMX and EEL and there are many implications, TRO order, Performance Management Plan, Regulatory side and billing. Jamal asked if the CR is based on the TRO order and if Cbeyond is asking for differentiation between the classes of service because of TRO implications. Judy Schultz with Qwest said that we may need another clarification meeting to get clear what the CR is requesting. Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon said that she was at the clarification meeting and felt that the CR request was clear. Kit Thomte said that Pat Finley the SME was not on the call and Kit felt that the discussion wasn’t helpful if she was not involved in the discussion. This CR will move to Presented status.

Tue 12/16/03 4:43 PM From; Pat Finley To; 'morgan.halliday@cbeyond.net' cc: Sanchez Steinke, Linda; Libadia, Robyn; Romano, Anthony Subject; Qwest's response to PC112003 Mr. Halliday, I wanted to provide you a formal response to the primary concerns you raised on the clarification call we had on December 4, 2003, for the Change Request titled "Differentiate between Loop-MUX combos and EELs due to different FCC treatment (TRO Order)." You asked that Qwest provide you in writing, assurances that we will not count Loop-MUX combinations (LMCs) in the calculation of LIS trunking to EEL ratio, to determine service eligibility. Please consider this written confirmation, that Qwest has no intention of counting LMCs in the calculation of the LIS trunking to EEL ratio as specified in the service eligibility criteria of the Triennial Review Order. We hope this satisfies your request. Please contact me at 303 896-8466, if you have any questions.

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

2:00 p.m. (MDT) / Thursday December 4, 2003

1-877-572-8687 3393947# PC112003-1 Differentiate between Loop-MUX combos and EELs due to different FCC treatment (TRO Order)

Name/Company: Morgan Halliday, Cbeyond Tom Hyde, Cbeyond Stephen Calhoun, Cbeyond Kim Isaccs, Eschelon Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon Pat Finley, Qwest Carl Sear, Qwest Tony Romano, Qwest Paul Johnson, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Qwest welcomed all attendees to the meeting.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest read the description of change from the submitted change request; Seperately identify LMCs and EELs on bills. Tom Hyde with Cbeyond said that the primary part of the TRO is the ratio of, or test for EELs (high cap) to LIS trunking with the new service eligibility criteria. Since Qwest uses the same classes of services and USOCs for EELs and LMCs as are used for PLTS. Pat Finley with Qwest clarified that the TRO ratio is the number of interconnection trunks to EELs, however LMCs (Loop Mux Combinations) are excluded from the ratio requirement. Tom answered that Cbeyond would be satisfied if Qwest will acknowledge in writing that LMC is to be excluded from the service eligibility criteria (safe harbor), and therefore would be excluded from the LIS trunking to EEL ratio, that would satisfy Cbeyond’s concern.

In the CPAP Qwest is lumping EELs and LMCs together. Tom said that Qwest is the only ILEC that has EELs and LMCs under the same class of service.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Loop Mux Combo and EEL billing

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct Qwest personnel were involved in the clarification meeting

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Extablish different class of service for LMCs and EELs

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None identified.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Cbeyond will present this CR at the December CMP meeting. Qwest will provide a response in January 2004.

CenturyLink Response

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the February 2004 CMP Meeting

Morgan Halliday Cbeyond Communications, LLC

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Draft Response - PC112003-1 "Differentiate between Loop-MUX combos and EELs due to different FCC treatment (TRO Order)"

This letter is in response to the CLEC Change Request PC112003-1, that requests LMC (Loop Mux Combination) be assigned a unique class of service, to separately identify LMC from EEL (Enhanced Extended Loop) due to requirements in the Triennial Review Order (the Order). Qwest will not establish a separate class of service for LMC. Qwest will provide a link to a downloadable document in both the EEL and LMC PCATs that will identify USOCs that are utilized with XUMAX and UBNWN classes of service. This action will enable our customers to map EEL/LMC classes of service to USOCs for billing. The estimated costs to establish a separate class of service for LMC and convert the embedded base are considerable. Establishing a separate LMC class of service will not solve all of the billing issues Cbeyond has raised in subsequent meetings on this Change Request.

In the email Mr. Calhoun sent to Qwest dated 1-22-2004, he listed examples of EEL and LMC circuits that have two different classes of service (interstate and intrastate) with two different sets of USOCs for the same bandwidth, product and jurisdiction. When Cbeyond’s PLT (Private Line Transport) circuits were converted to either EEL or LMC, the jurisdiction, circuit id, and billing USOCs remained the same as when billed and provisioned as PLT circuits. To prevent service interruptions during the conversion, the class of service on the PLT record is converted to the EEL/LMC equivalent. There is no difference in recurring billing between the inter- and intrastate EEL/LMC classes of service and USOCs. The use of both retail and EEL/LMC product specific USOCs is explained in detail in the LMC and EEL PCATs.

In addition to the downloadable spreadsheet we will make available in the PCATs, we have established the TRAK FID and datasets that allow you and Qwest to differentiate between LMC and EEL. With this differentiation, Qwest will not include LMC circuits in your LIS to EEL ratio requirements per the Order service eligibility requirements. We believe these actions will address your specific concerns with billing associated with EEL and LMC. Your other pending change requests will help resolve the other issues you have raised with Qwest’s bills.

Sincerely,

Pat Finley Product Manager

January 13, 2004

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the January 2004 CMP Meeting

Morgan Halliday Cbeyond Communications, LLC

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC112003-1 "Differentiate between Loop-MUX combos and EELs due to different FCC treatment (TRO Order)"

This letter is in response to the CLEC Change Request PC 112003-1, that requests EELs (Enhanced Extended Loops) and LMCs (Loop Mux Combinations) be assigned unique classes of service, to separately identify the services due to requirements of the Triennial Review Order (the Order). Qwest has researched this issue, and we will not be establishing separate classes of service and USOCs (Universal Service Order Codes) for EELs and LMCs. We have however, provided a method for you to validate, or identify EEL from LMC circuits, by using a FID (Field Identifier) called TRAK, which is a tracking code. If the circuit is an EEL, the dataset, or entry following TRAK FID on the CSR (Customer Service Record) will be IEEL. This entry will be shown following the class of service on the CSR. LMC circuits will be identified by the dataset ILMC after the TRAK FID. This information has been added to all EEL and LMC accounts in our embedded base, and it is a required service order entry on new EEL and LMC requests. We are able to produce reports that display the information, and we are working on producing reports from our order processing system to ensure the entries are appropriately made, when required. We are confident that this will allow us to validate the 24-to-1 EEL to interconnection trunk ratio specified in the Order (paragraph 608). Please recall that the Order provides for tests based on the service eligibility criteria conducted by an independent auditor to insure that high capacity combinations such as DS1 and DS3 EELs are used for local voice service. As noted in the Order, if Qwest requests an audit, the independent auditor will evaluate compliance with the service eligibility criteria. The compliance testing will be designed by the independent auditor, and Qwest will provide all documentation requested to satisfy standard auditing principles. The independent auditor will perform an "examination engagement", and issue an opinion regarding Qwest’s and the CLECs compliance with the service eligibility criteria (paragraph 626).

Sincerely,

Patricia J. Finley Product Manager Qwest Communications, Inc.

Open Product/Process CR PC093003-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Attachments: Overview of Loop Test IVR process and enhancements, Detailed M & P for Covad’s Loop Test IVR

Covad would also like to make this tool available for Qwest Maintenance and Repair Tech’s when trouble shooting a Covad loop.

Status History

Project Meetings

John Berard with Covad said he would respond formally to the denial response. John added that the IVR testing tool would reduce time in the call, and reduces, rather than increases, the testing time. John said he did not understand the $30M figure provided in the denial response because the same system is used today by Qwest to send tone and test a line and it is the same system POTS test use for the retail side. The tool is more efficient and the electronic delivery of demarc information on another CR under development will not have the advantage of the IVR Tool. In addition, the IVR testing could be done 24 x 7. John also said there was no CLEC opposition to the IVR tool when he discussed at the CLEC only call and no CLECs were concerned that Qwest would be doing something special for Covad over other CLECs. Testing the loop with the tool is like getting your balance on a credit card.

Tim Gianes explained that the $30M training issue is related to performing a different test for each CLEC customer across the 14 states. Carla Pardee with AT&T asked if the test is available in other ILEC locations. John answered yes, that Qwest is the only ILEC that has denied. Liz Balvin with MCI asked if Qwest is concerned that if this CR is accepted, then other CLECs may ask that their testing capability be implemented.

Judy Schultz with Qwest said that what Qwest does for Covad would have to be done for other customers and the training for specific customer testing tools is the concern. Tim Gianes said that Qwest doesn’t use the IVR to do testing and Qwest uses standard tests.

John Berard said that the tool adds option 4 for the loop test, which can be done remotely, and the call goes into the same exact IVR. John added that Qwest wasn’t willing to trial the test in one garage. In contrast, SBC has been asking if they can offer this testing to other CLECs. Tim Gianes responded that Qwest did perform a trial and technicians did use the tool. It wasn’t that the tool was not useable, but Qwest did not want to be in a position where other CLECs that had testing tools would request implementation of their testing tool. John said that Qwest should be open to other tools.

Liz Balvin said that the tool may cut down on jeopardies caused by not being able to contact CLECs. Tim Gianes said that Qwest would not gain efficiency when dealing with multiple tools for multiple customers and from a Qwest perspective technicians would have to be trained on multiple customer tools. The reason for the denial was not due to the quality of the tool. This CR will be moved to Denied status. Covad will send a formal response.

10/15/03 October CMP Meeting John Berard with Covad presented this new CR. John said the IVR loop test application. When a Qwest tech is in the field and finished installing a loop at the NID can perform continuity testing on UNE using this front end system. The system asks the tech to input the PONE number and verifies at the right central office and correct loop. The test includes putting a short on the loop and taking the short off, then pressing “0” and getting a Covad agent to get the demar information. Qwest requested that Covad submit this CR because this is a process change and can be used for products. Jim Recker asked if worked for DLC. John said yes. Kit Thomte asked how this CR is different from the CR denied last September. John said the difference is that the previous CR was a tool that required the Qwest tech to be on the line with the Covad agent when the continuity testing was done. The new CR allows the Covad agent to see the test. Jamal Boudhaouia asked if Covad would share the technical parameters, noise level and threshold. John said he will take that question back to Covad. This CR will be moved to Presented status.

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

3:00 p.m. (MDT) / Wednesday October 7, 2003

1-877-572-8687 3393947# PC093003-1 Loop Test IVR application from Covad

Name/Company: John Berard, Covad Denny Graham, Qwest Craig Suellentrop Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Linda Sanchez-Steinke read the Description of Change from the CR; Covad is requesting that Qwest allow it’s field Technicians to use Covad’s Loop Test IVR application when contacting Covad to perform Test and Acceptance on a loop. Currently Qwest Technicians use option number 1 when contacting Covad for loop acceptance, Covad is requesting that the Qwest Technicians now use Option number 4 to contact Covad and perform the loop acceptance testing via the Loop Test IVR application. Once the test has been completed the Qwest Tech will hit Option 0 to be connected to a Covad Agent to provide demarc information and receive a confirmation number. Covad would also like to make this tool available for Qwest Maintenance and Repair Tech’s when trouble shooting a Covad loop. Linda said there was also an Overview of the Loop Test IVR process Power Point presentation and M&P for Covad’s Loop Test IVR attached to the CR.

Linda mentioned there had been a similar CR submitted by Covad last year. John Berard said that this tool will give extra features. This tool will work similarly to credit card companies when calling into customer service, this will enable the ability to get information about the account.

When Qwest wants to do test and acceptance, input the PON number via the IVR, hit 0 to be directed to the agent. The Covad system has captured information and is already pulling up the account. There are seven other features when installing POTS, technicians call into the switch to test on the loop. The features allow testing that can be done without the assistance of a Central Office Technician. Craig asked if Covad requests to have the tool used with unbundled loop with cooperative testing. John said yes and added that other ILECS like it. John said he had gone over the details of the tool with Denny & Craig in a previous meeting.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Maintenance / Repair Provisioning

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct personnel were involved in the meeting.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Covad is requesting that the Qwest Technicians now use Option number 4 to contact Covad and perform the loop acceptance testing via the Loop Test IVR application. Covad would also like to make this tool available for Qwest Maintenance and Repair Tech’s when trouble shooting a Covad loop.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests No systems change requests.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) John will present this CR at the October CMP Meeting. Qwest will provide a response at the November CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

November 11, 2003

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the November 19, 2003 CMP Meeting

Name:John Berard Title:Operations Support Company: Covad

SUBJECT:Qwest’s Change Request Response PC 093003-1 Covad IVR Testing Tool

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request (CR) PC093003-1. This CR requests that Qwest implement Covad’s IVR Testing Tool for use in the field for Unbundled Loop provisioning and repair to warrant Qwest’s Technical Publications parameters. Qwest utilizes its own test tools for Unbundled Loop provisioning and repair. The use of Covad’s IVR tool requires adding an additional and redundant step to the Unbundled Loop provisioning process and Unbundled Loop repair process. Although it appears that the Covad Testing Tool & utilization process has been modified, the fundamental reasons for this rejection are the same as the reasons for the earlier rejection of PC102301-1 submitted in early 2002.

Utilization of Covad’s IVR tool obligates Qwest to stand ready to evaluate and accept any request from other CLECs to trial their respective test platforms into Qwest’s processes in a nondiscriminatory manner. Additionally regulatory requirements prohibit Qwest from providing different levels of service to CLECs. Utilization of a CLEC provided provisioning and repair tool or process may benefit some CLECs over others by creating disparate service levels.

Since acceptance of this request from Covad would open Qwest to accepting similar requests from all CLECs, Qwest has determined that utilization of the Covad IVR testing tool would be cost prohibitive to implement. Qwest would incur additional and unrecoverable costs related to turning up and completing service orders and/or repair tickets. Cost estimates are based on order volumes (300,000) across the 14 states for a minimum of 300 existing CLECs who could each make similar requests of Qwest and which Qwest may have to honor for parity purposes. Qwest would incur additional costs related to initial & required ongoing employee training for any testing tool that could be provided by the CLECs. Depending on the service types included, provisioning and/or repair application, and the complexity of the tool, employee-training costs or initial deployment could run $100,000 per request or potentially $30M if all CLECs made similar requests of Qwest. Considering the increasing complexity of providing comprehensive training to manage multiple CLEC test vehicles, ongoing and refresher training costs would be substantial. Qwest already performs and documents internal tests based on ANSI standards. Utilizing test tools from CLECs would not only duplicate those tests but would require Qwest to spend a minimum of an additional 3-5 minutes per order at a cost of $690,000 - $1,150,000 per year based on regional order volumes. Qwest would also incur additional costs related to required operational trials, process documentation and revisions, and the complexity of managing numerous process requirements for multiple tools. This is not measurable at this point due to the unknown nature of each potential request, but is recognized as a valid concern and real cost to Qwest.

The requested change does not result in a reasonably demonstrable business benefit to Qwest or Covad. In fact performance data during the trial does not support that service levels improved for Covad. Utilizing multiple test platforms requires Qwest to create multiple processes, requiring the Qwest Network Technician to determine which process/platform to use for which CLEC. This creates potential for human error, potentially degrading service quality and performance results.

As stated above, adapting the IVR tool into Qwest’s processes creates legal, economic and service quality performance liabilities for Qwest. Qwest respectfully declines to implement Covad’s IVR tool into its Network processes.

Sincerely,

Tim Gianes Senior Project Manager

cc: Paul Kirchhoffer, Diane Diebel, Mary Retka, Barry Orrel

Open Product/Process CR PC071403-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Qwest revises their current process to provide free of charge a good faith estimate of construction charges. Covad is looking for this process change as soon as possible.

Status History

Project Meetings

John said that the way he understands the Qwest engineer job, that for $1500 the job is fully engineered. When you have someone provide an estimate for work on your house, it is not fully engineered and materials are not purchased. There should be the ability for the engineer to tell in one hour what size cable would be needed how much and then just provide an estimate. If additional information was included in the jeopardy notice; there is no F1 cable CLECs can probably estimate that themselves or there is no F2 distribution. Jamal said that Qwest has not looked at providing that detail of information in a jeopardy notice. Jamal added that the engineers can look at LFACS and could look at the kind of cable required for a job but wouldn’t know if it should be aerial, buried, or if there is a need to bore. In addition, the field engineer needs to survey in order to see any obstacles.

John said that the engineer could look at the cable plat. Jamal said that engineering would need to additionally look at burying the cable or bore etc. Jamal added that the process and proposed changes will be introduced in the SGAT and will be TRO compliant.

Liz Balvin with MCI asked if the QPF is designed. Jamal said that the CR requested a good faith estimate at no cost. Construction will be re-evaluating and will bring in line with the TRO.

John said that he would like the parity issue and how it will be resolved addressed in the denial letter and an Action Item opened to review the retail tariffs. Judy Schultz suggested that Covad send in a new CR regarding the jeopardy process. John asked Qwest to update the denial letter to address the parity concern noted in the CR. This CR will be moved to Denied status.

Eschelon Comments on Meeting Minutes - I made several statements regarding this issue and none are noted. Since it is difficult to talk and write I don’t have my comments noted. If you cannot update the minutes with my comments, I can ask if other CLECs noted them. If not then I would like the minutes to reflect my concern that my comments were not noted.

10/15/03 October CMP Meeting Jamal Boudhaouia with Qwest reviewed the revised draft response. Jamal said that the QPF is closely related to the Crunec process which is not in place. Qwest is evaluating this CR and will provide an updated response at the November CMP Meeting. John Berard asked if Qwest has reviewed the retail process where currently the retail estimate is provided at no charge. Jamal said we are evaluating the retail process. Bonnie Johnson said she disagrees that QPF is related to the Crunec process. This CR will remain in Evaluation status.

09/17/03 September CMP Meeting Denny Graham with Qwest said that Qwest is evaluating this response and will provide an updated response at the October CMP Meeting. This CR will move to Evaluation status.

08/20/03 - August CMP Meeting Mike Zulevic with Covad presented this CR. Mike said that Covad would like to receive an estimate of construction changes up front at no charge. Quote Preparation Fees are between $1100-$1500 for a quote to provide facilities and Covad would like to see the costs up front, without having to spend $1100-$1500 on a non-refundable quote, similar to the Colorado Private Line Tariff. This CR will be moved to Presented status.

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

9:00 a.m. (MDT) / July 23, 2003

1-877-572-8687 3393947# PC071403-1 Good Faith Estimate of Construction Charges

Attendees Name/Company: John Berard, Covad Denny Graham, Qwest Cindy Buckmaster, Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Linda read the description of change from Covad’s CR as follows: Covad requests that Qwest provide a good faith estimate of construction charges (at no cost) for wholesale customers. Qwest’s current process requires that the requesting CLEC provide a non-refundable fee up front in order for Qwest to determine an estimate of the construction costs. In many cases it might cost upwards of $1000 to provide an estimate of these costs to our end users. With non-refundable charges of this magnitude it makes it impossible for us to use the current process which causes us to cancel the order rather than potentially moving ahead with the order. It must also be noted that Qwest currently provides this estimate to it’s retail customers at no charge.

The meeting was opened for questions; Cindy Buckmaster explained that Qwest has a Quote Preparation Fee (QPF) for up front engineering preparation for the quote. Cindy asked John if Covad would like to be billed for the full amount rather than receiving a bill for the quote prep fee and then a bill for construction. John said that Covad would rather receive an estimate within + - 20% and the estimate not be fully engineered.

Cindy explained that if Qwest has DS0 plant to make a DS1 the quote prep fee is $300 as long as Qwest doesn’t have to place plant. There are additional charges for construction and the QPF for this type of charge is not $1500. If Qwest has to construct plant, the QPF is $1500 and again there are additional charges for construction. Conditioning as defined by the FCC is removal of load coil and bridge tap. Removal of those elements doesn’t change the DS0 into DS1 it is just an unloaded DS0. The function Qwest performs to change DS0 plant into DS1 capable goes beyond conditioning and is considered construction.

John said that with a retail estimate there is no up front construction charge and is a parity issue.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Products impacted are DS1 & DS0 UNE Loops.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Qwest confirmed the correct personnel were on the call to resolve the CR.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Provide a construction estimate free of charge on DS1 & DS0 UNE Loops

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests No systems change requests.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Covad will present this CR at the August CMP meeting.

07/16/03 July CMP John Berard with Covad reviewed the walk on CR PC071403-1. There will be a clarification call on this change request.

CenturyLink Response

November 11, 2003

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the November 19, 2003 CMP Meeting

John Berard Director - Operations Support Covad Communications

SUBJECT: Qwest Change Request Response CR # PC071403-1 Good Faith Estimate of Construction Charges

This letter is in response to Covad Communications Change Request (CR) PC071403-1. This CR requests that Qwest provide a good faith estimate of construction charges (at no cost) for wholesale customers.

It is appropriate to evaluate construction charges on an Individual Case Basis (ICB). Few construction projects are the same in terms of scope and nature thus, requiring separate evaluation by Qwest Engineers to determine what elements may need to be constructed. For example, construction costs vary depending on the size and type of cable being placed and the method used to place the cable, as well as the environment where the placing is being done. There currently are no standard placing costs that apply universally. This is why Qwest developed the Quote Preparation Fee (QPF) charge based on Qwest cost studies of the operations required providing the cost of UNE construction. QPF’s allow Qwest to recover the cost of the Engineering work required to complete this evaluation. This element is in-place and approved across jurisdictions for other Wholesale products as well.

Before Qwest begins the evaluation process and expends any resources, the QPF must be submitted. Upon acceptance, this QPF is subtracted from the total cost of the job and the balance is submitted to the CLEC for payment. Upon payment by the CLEC of the identified construction costs, the construction will begin.

The Good Faith Estimate referenced in this CR applies to developing an estimate of construction charges for UNEs that do not exist in the Qwest Network and therefore need to be built. Qwest and the CLEC community have agreed that Qwest can implement a Quote Preparation Fee (QPF) for the work that Qwest Engineers and planners perform to develop such an estimate. This is documented in Section 19.3 of the SGAT, which states: A quote for CLEC’s portion of a specific job will be provided to CLEC. QPF is provided in writing and is binding for ninety (90) business days after the issue date. When accepted, the CLEC is be billed the quoted price and construction commences after receipt of payment. If CLEC chooses not to have Qwest construct the facilities, Qwest reserves the right to bill CLEC for expenses incurred for producing the engineered job design.

To assure an accurate price quote, Qwest engineering must provide diligence to the quote preparation. There is a substantial cost to investigate and prepare an accurate quote. In accordance with the SGAT, Qwest is entitled to recover these costs through the QPF.

Therefore, Qwest respectfully denies the request because it is economically not feasible due to the burden of the cost to provide the construction quote being borne solely by Qwest.

Although Qwest is declining this request, Qwest acknowledges that the definition of construction is changing in light of the TRO and recognizes that it may have an affect on the QPF and the constructions charges.

Sincerely,

Jamal Boudhaouia Staff Advocate

cc:Mary Retka, Barry Orrel, Ev Montez

-- October 1, 2003

REVISED DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the October 15, 2003 CMP Meeting

John Berard Director - Operations Support Covad Communications

SUBJECT: Qwest Change Request Response - CR # PC071403-1 Good Faith Estimate of Construction Charges

This letter is in response to Covad Communications Change Request (CR) PC071403-1. This CR requests that Qwest provide a good faith estimate of construction charges (at no cost) for wholesale customers.

Qwest views this request as related to the recent changes to the DS1 construction policy. The latest CMP notice PROS.09.18.03.01198 DS1CapableLoopProc posted on September 18, 2003 was open for comments until September 30, 2003.

Qwest is currently evaluating the QPF (Quote Prep Fee) and the CRUNEC process and would like to request that this CR be kept in an Evaluation Status. Qwest will provide an update at the November Meeting.

Sincerely,

Denny Graham Staff Advocate Policy and Law

September 9, 2003

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the September 2003 CMP Meeting

John Berard Covad

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC071403-1 "Good Faith Estimate of Construction Charges"

This letter is in response to Covad Communications Change Request (CR) PC071403-1. This CR requests that Qwest provide a good faith estimate of construction charges (at no cost) for wholesale customers.

Qwest is currently evaluating this request and proposes moving this Change Request into Evaluation Status while we continue to investigate. Qwest will provide an updated response at the October CMP meeting.

Sincerely,

Denny Graham Staff Advocate Policy and Law

Open Product/Process CR PC051403-4 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable

As soon as possible

Status History

Project Meetings

07/21/04 July CMP Meeting Heidi Moreland – Qwest advised that this CR was effective June 25. Qwest will move this CR to CLEC Test status.

06/16/04 June CMP Meeting Heidi Moreland with Qwest gave an update that the Loop Splitting PCAT was sent out for review and will become effective on 6/25/04. Heidi asked if this CR could move to CLEC Test and later in the meeting, all decided it could move to CLEC Test after the PCAT is effective, but should remain in Development status until the PCAT is effective. After reviewing the CMP Document, Section 5.8, Qwest believes that the work needs to be completed for each status type (i.e. CLEC Test) before the status is changed. Status should only be changed upon agreement in the Monthly Meeting. This CR will remain in Development Status. This CR would move to CLEC Test in July as the effective date is 6/25/04.

05/19/04 May CMP Meeting Heidi Moreland with Qwest gave an update that the Loop Splitting PCAT was sent out for review and comment on 5/12/04 and the proposed effective date is 6/25/04. This CR will remain in Development status.

-- 04/21/04 April CMP Meeting Heidi Moreland with Qwest gave an update that the Loop Splitting PCAT would be out in the next week or so and will include a comment cycle. This CR will remain in Development status.

03/17/04 March CMP Meeting Heidi Moreland with Qwest gave an update that the Loop Splitting V16 PCAT was ready to be implemented on 2/27 and was retracted because the jep code, S1 used for Sync Test on Line Sharing, will not work for Loop Splitting because Loop Splitting follows the design services flow and new jep code will require work in IMA. The solution identified, and discussed with Covad last week, requires the use of the PTA notice process on DVA, and then if sync testing fails on the due date, Qwest will jep the order C01. John Berard with Covad said that the PTA process would work for their operations group. Ervin Rea asked if CO1, since the jep code effects performance, would be appropriate when sync test fails. Heidi said that if sync test fails it is due to the CLEC equipment not being ready and therefore CO1 would be valid. Heidi said we could hold an ad hoc meeting to discuss the process further. It was agreed that an ad hoc meeting was not needed and Heidi will get the PCAT updated. This CR will remain in Development status.

-- 02/18/04 February CMP Meeting Heidi Moreland with Qwest gave an update that the Loop Splitting V16 PCAT adding sync testing for provisioning and repair requests will become effective on 2/27/04. This CR will remain in Development status.

01/21/04 January CMP Meeting Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest gave an update that the Loop Splitting V16 PCAT adding sync testing for provisioning and repair requests was posted on 1/14/04 as a Level 3 notification. The comment cycle will close on 1/29/04 and the proposed effective date is 2/28/04. This CR will remain in Development status.

12/17/03 December CMP Meeting Heidi Moreland with Qwest said the PCAT changes will be out in the January timeframe for review. This CR will remain in Development status.

11/19/03 November CMP Meeting Heidi Moreland with Qwest reviewed the revised response and said that the process is under development. At the December meeting there will be a status update. This CR will remain in Development status.

10/15/03 October CMP Meeting Heidi Moreland with Qwest reviewed the revised response and said that Qwest will implement this change request. Carla Pardee asked what date this would be implemented. Heidi Moreland said that we do not have an implementation date. This CR will move to Development status.

09/17/03 September CMP Meeting Heidi Moreland with Qwest gave an updated response that Qwest is evaluating this request. Covad agreed this CR remain in Evaluation status.

08/20/03 August CMP Meeting Heidi Moreland with Qwest provided an update that Qwest is investigating providing Sync testing for Loop Splitting. Loop Splitting follows the design flow using TIRKS and the two databases, TIRKS and Switch/FOMS do not communicate with each other. Qwest would like to keep this CR in evaluation status while during further investigation and will provide an update at the September meeting.

07/16/03 July CMP Meeting Craig Suellentrop with Qwest explained that this CR was opened to address Sync testing for Loop Splitting. Craig presented the response for this CR saying that Qwest needs more time to evaluate sync testing for the Loop Splitting product. This CR will move to Evaluation status.

CenturyLink Response

November 11, 2003

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the November 19, 2003 CMP Meeting

John Berard Director - Operations Support Covad Communications

SUBJECT:Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC051403-4 Sync Test for Loop Splitting on Maintenance Trouble Tickets and Sync Testing for provisioning of Loop Splitting

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request PC051403-4. This CR is a request by Covad for Qwest to extend the existing process of Synchronization Testing on Line Sharing requests to include the Loop Splitting product. Covad also requests that Sync Testing be implemented for repair tickets on Loop Splitting. This CR has been accepted and is currently under development. Qwest will expand the current provisioning process to include Sync Testing on Loop Splitting. For Loop Splitting repair, Qwest will perform Sync Testing upon CLEC request..

Sincerely,

Heidi Moreland Staff Advocate Policy and Law Qwest

Craig Suellentrop Staff Advocate Policy and Law Qwest

-- October 1, 2003

REVISED DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the October 15, 2003 CMP Meeting

John Berard Director - Operations Support Covad Communications

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC051403-4 "Sync Test for Loop Splitting on Maintenance Trouble Tickets and Sync Testing for provisioning of Loop Splitting"

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request PC051403-4. This CR is a request by Covad for Qwest to extend the existing process of Synchronization Testing on Line Sharing requests to include the Loop Splitting product. Covad also requests that Sync Testing be implemented for repair tickets on Loop Splitting. Qwest is accepting this CR for Sync Testing on Loop Splitting provisioning and repair and ask that it be moved into the development stage.

Sincerely,

Heidi Moreland Staff Advocate Policy and Law Qwest

Craig Suellentrop Staff Advocate Policy and Law Qwest

September 9, 2003

REVISED DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the September 17, 2003 CMP Meeting

John Berard Director - Operations Support Covad Communications

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC051403-4 "Sync Test for Loop Splitting on Maintenance Trouble Tickets and Sync Testing for provisioning of Loop Splitting"

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request PC051403-4. This CR is a request by Covad for Qwest to extend the existing process of Synchronization Testing on Line Sharing requests to include the Loop Splitting product. Covad also requests that Sync Testing be implemented for repair tickets on Loop Splitting. Qwest is requesting an additional extension of the evaluation period for this CR for Sync Testing on Loop Splitting provisioning and repair.

Today, for central office based Shared Loop DSLAMS, Qwest populates the Synchronization Testing protocol (i.e., DMT, etc.) into our Switch/FOMS database. This works well for central office based Line Sharing and Line Splitting products since they follow the POTS process flow and Switch/FOMS is utilized for POTS services. The Loop Splitting product follows Qwest’s designed service process and as such uses the TIRKS database. Switch/FOMS and TIRKS are not compatible systems nor are they linked to transfer information. Qwest is requesting this CR remain in evaluation status to enable further systems capability analysis. The complexity of the systems issues requires deep analysis from many departments and Qwest continues to explore possible options. Qwest will provide a revised response at the October CMP meeting.

Sincerely,

Heidi Moreland Staff Advocate Policy and Law Qwest

Craig Suellentrop Staff Advocate Policy and Law Qwest

August 13, 2003

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the August 20, 2003 CMP Meeting

John Berard Director - Operations Support Covad Communications

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC051403-4 "Sync Test for Loop Splitting on Maintenance Trouble Tickets and Sync Testing for provisioning of Loop Splitting"

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request PC051403-4. This CR is a request by Covad for Qwest to extend the existing process of Synchronization Testing on Line Sharing requests to include the Loop Splitting product. Covad also requests that Sync Testing be implemented for repair tickets on Loop Splitting. Qwest is requesting an extension of the evaluation period for this CR for Sync Testing on Loop Splitting provisioning and repair.

Today, for central office based Shared Loop DSLAMS, Qwest populates the Synchronization Testing protocol (i.e., DMT, etc.) into our Switch/FOMS database. This works well for central office based Line Sharing and Line Splitting products since they follow the POTS process flow and Switch/FOMS is utilized for POTS services. The Loop Splitting product follows Qwest’s designed service process and as such uses the TIRKS database. Switch/FOMS and TIRKS are not compatible systems nor are they linked to transfer information. Qwest is requesting this CR remain in evaluation status to enable further systems capability analysis. Qwest will provide a revised response at the September CMP meeting.

Sincerely,

Heidi Moreland Staff Advocate Policy and Law Qwest

Craig Suellentrop Staff Advocate Policy and Law Qwest

July 2, 2003

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the July 16, 2003 CMP Meeting

John Berard Director Operations Support Covad

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR 051403-4 "Sync Test for Loop Splitting on Maintenance Trouble Tickets and Sync Testing for provisioning of Loop Splitting"

This CR requests that Qwest extend the existing process of Sync Testing on Line Sharing requests to include the Loop Splitting product. Covad also requests that Sync Testing be implemented for repair tickets on Loop Splitting.

Since the Loop Splitting product follows Qwest’s designed services process while Line Sharing and Line Splitting follow the non-designed process, this request is much more complex than PC051403-1. Different systems are used for designed products and a different process would be required. Because of this complexity, Qwest needs additional time to evaluate this request. This change request should be placed in evaluation status.

Sincerely,

Craig Suellentrop, Staff Advocate-Policy & Law, Qwest Heidi Moreland, Staff Advocate-Policy & Law, Qwest

Cc: Mary Retka, Director, Legal Issues Jamal Boudhaouia, Staff Advocate-Policy & Law, Qwest Debra S. Smith, Product Manager, Qwest Catherine R. Garcia, Lead Process Analyst, Qwest Michael Lanoue, Lead Process Analyst, Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC051403-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverables:

As soon as possible.

Status History

Project Meetings

06/18/03 June CMP Meeting John Berard with Covad presented this CR. Covad would like to have the capability of sync testing for line sharing maintenance and would also like to have sync testing available for line splitting and loop splitting, both provisioning and maintenance. Craig Suellentrop said that he received the e-mail from John about the 102 characters allowed in the remarks section of CEMR and if the character limit would not be enough room to identify the protocol for sync testing. John said that the remarks field is written over and suggested use of another field. John said that as an interim solution, the remarks field could be used until a longer-term systems solution can be implemented. Qwest will provide a response on this CR at the July CMP meeting and this CR will be moved to Presented status.

From: Berard, John [jberard@covad.com] To: Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Craig Suellentrop, Heidi Moreland, Michael Zulevic Subject: RE: PC051403-1 Clarification Meeting Minutes Date: 6/17/03 Linda:

I did check with our repair group and it would be no problem to provide the protocol when a trouble ticket is opened... However, for the lineshare family of products there is only 102 characters allowed in the comment section of CEMR. If you would like Covad to provide this when we open the ticket the comment space limitations would need to be removed. Or allow us to use another field to provide this information.

John Berard Director - Operations Support/Change Mgt - Covad Office # 1 720 208 2109 Cell Phone # 1 303 881 8652 eFAX # 1 707 549-5332 Pager 3038818652@mobile.att.net Mailing Address: 7901 Lowry Blvd Denver, CO 80220

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting 10:00 a.m. (MDT) / Friday, June 13, 2003 1-877-562-8687 3393947# PC051403-1 Sync Test for Line share, Loop Splitting, and Line Splitting on Maintenance Trouble Tickets and Sync Testing for provisioning of Line and Loop Splitting.

Name/Company: Mike Zulevic, Covad John Berard, Covad Craig Suellentrop, Qwest Heidi Moreland, Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Covad request that Qwest extend their existing process of sync testing on provisioning of line share orders to include Sync Testing for Trouble Tickets on Line Sharing and Line and Loop Splitting. In addition, Covad requests that the current process of provisioning for line sharing be expanded to include Line and Loop Splitting. Craig Suellentrop asked if Covad would be able to provide the protocol when a trouble ticket is submitted. John or Mike will check on that and get back to Linda.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Line Sharing, Line Splitting and Loop Splitting Maintenance Trouble Tickets Line and Loop Splitting Provisioning

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Qwest confirmed that Craig Suellentrop and Heidi Moreland are correct personnel to resolve the CR.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Provide sync testing on Line Sharing and Line and Loop Splitting trouble tickets and provide sync testing on Line and Loop Splitting provisioning orders.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests No systems change requests.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Covad will present this CR at the June meeting and Qwest will provide a response at the July meeting.

05/21/03 May CMP Meeting John Berard - Covad reviewed the walk on CR PC051403-1 Sync Test for Line Sharing on Maintenance Trouble Tickets. They want to use the same test capability to isolate trouble in CO. They want this done on Line Sharing, Line Splitting, and all shared services. John Berard with Covad will update the products and areas impacted on this change request and e-mail to Linda Sanchez-Steinke.

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting 11:00 a.m. (MT) / May 20, 2003 1-877-572-8687 Conf. ID 3393947 # PC051403-1 Sync Test for Line sharing on Maintenance Trouble Tickets Attendees Attended Conference Call Name/Company: John Berard, Covad Director Operations Support Jamal Boudhaouia, Qwest Network Technical / Regulatory Craig Suellentrop, Qwest Network Technical / Regulatory Deb Smith Product Management Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest Change Request Project Manager

Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed.

Review Requested (Description of) Change The change request asks that Qwest expand the existing synchronization testing available for line sharing provisioning, to repair. Deb Smith asked if the request was for UNE and said that Qwest offers sync testing on line sharing only. John Berard with Covad said that the change request should be revised to reflect just line sharing product. Craig Suellentrop asked if Covad would expect sync testing on every trouble report and if Covad would provide the protocol type. John said Covad would like the ability to request sync testing on trouble reports and would like Qwest to be able to reference the protocol that was provisioned and if it was not possible, it would be acceptable for Covad to provide the protocol on the trouble report.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Product impacted is Line sharing. The change request will be updated to reflect Line sharing only.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Qwest confirmed that Jamal Boudhaouia, Craig Suellentrop, Deb Smith, are the correct personnel to resolve the CR.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Covad is requesting that Qwest develop a sync testing process for Line sharing maintenance. Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests No dependent change requests were identified. Craig Suellentrop identified that changes may be required for CEMR.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Covad would like to present this CR as a walk-on at the May 21, 2003 CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the July 16, 2003 CMP Meeting

John Berard Director Operations Support Covad

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR 051403-1 "Sync Test for Line sharing and Line Splitting on Maintenance Trouble Tickets and Sync Testing for provisioning of Line Splitting"

This CR requests that Qwest extend the existing process of Sync Testing on Line Sharing requests to include the Line Splitting product. Covad also requests that Sync Testing be implemented for repair tickets on Line Sharing and Line Splitting.

Qwest accepts this change request to perform sync testing in the Central Office for Line Splitting on provisioning, and for both Line Sharing and Line Splitting on repair.

Qwest will perform Sync Testing in the Central Office on Line Sharing and Line Splitting repair tickets upon CLEC request. When the CLEC issues a repair report, the CLEC will need to provide Qwest with the appropriate protocol to test (DMT-T1.413, DMT-G.LITE, DMT-G.DMT or CAP) as well as provide the setting for Rate Limiting and Auto Sync (On or Off). Qwest will also expand the current provisioning Sync Testing process to include Line Splitting.

These changes to the repair process require updates to CEMR/RCE to allow the CLEC or Qwest’s repair agent to select the options noted above. Therefore, this CR will be crossed-over to Systems. Qwest intends to implement the requested changes in mid-August, 2003.

Sincerely,

Craig Suellentrop, Staff Advocate-Policy & Law, Qwest Heidi Moreland, Staff Advocate-Policy & Law, Qwest

Cc: Mary Retka, Director, Legal Issues Jamal Boudhaouia, Staff Advocate-Policy & Law, Qwest Debra S. Smith, Product Manager, Qwest Catherine R. Garcia, Lead Process Analyst, Qwest Michael Lanoue, Lead Process Analyst, Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC051403-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Currently Qwest does not reflect the Zone information on the Bill. USOC rates vary by Zone. Knowing the Zone is needed in order to reconcile our bills. In addition, Covad requests that all one-time charges on our bill include USOC’s.

Original Request

Currently Qwest does not reflect the Zone information on the Bill. USOC rates vary by Zone. Knowing the Zone is needed in order to reconcile our bills.

Expected Deliverables:

As soon as possible.

Status History

Project Meetings

9-17-03 CMP Meeting Terri Kilker – Qwest advised we have worked with Covad to review the additional products and determined those products are not zone billed so zone information would not be shown on the bills. The outstanding problem on this CR regarding non-recurring USOC charges in Western was reviewed. It was determined that systems CR SCR061703-03IG will take care of this problem. John would like to know the implementation date of the SCR061703-03IG. John didn’t want to combine this request with the other request if it would increase the delivery timeframe.

CMP Meeting 08-20-03

Kilker-Qwest presented the revised acceptance response. Stichter-Eschelon stated that there was an open systems CR that covered this same subject. White-Qwest stated that these two CRs were being worked in conjunction. The CR was moved into Development status.

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

Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes PC051403-2 Adding Zone information to Bills CMP Product & Process July 25, 2003 1-877-572-8687, Conference ID 3393947# 10:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. Mountain Time

PURPOSE

At the July CMP Meeting, participants agreed to hold a conference call and include CLEC technical experts for a discussion about products beyond UNE-P CLECs desire rate zone and USOC information. The following is the write-up of the discussions, action items, and decisions made in the working session.

List of Attendees: Mike Olser - Covad Candy Davis - Covad John Berard - Covad Lori Mendoza - Allegiance Liz Balvin - MCI Stephanie Prull - McLeod USA Terri Kilker Qwest Crystal Soderlund - Qwest Carl Sear - Qwest

MEETING MINUTES

The meeting began with Qwest making introductions and welcoming all attendees.

Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest provided brief history of the change request and said that Qwest arranged this meeting to discuss what products CLECs desire rate zone and USOC information in their bill. John Berard with Covad said that Covad had found when performing bill reconciliation they are not getting all zone information they need to receive. Candy Davis with Covad said that some states, Colorado, Minnesota, and Oregon are missing the zone on the spreadsheet provided. Carl said that he had investigated the rate zone examples and determined they were Line Sharing examples. Crystal Soderlund with Qwest said that Line Sharing is billed at a flat rate and not rate zoned. There are missing USOCs for non-recurring charges in the western region. Carl is investigating the missing USOCs.

To clear up confusion about why some accounts have USOCs and some don’t, Crystal explained that BANs for unbundled loop and line sharing were sometimes combined due to the initial implementation timeframes required for the product. As Qwest finds these BANs they are separated and currently the products are billing on separate BANs.

Candy asked if it would be accurate to say they can get USOC and zone information on electronic as well as paper bills. Carl said yes USOC and rate zone information is provided in both formats and that line sharing is not billed by rate zone but is a flat rated charge. Carl asked if Covad gets EDI or ASCII. Candy answered they receive BOS BDT. Carl will ask the BOS BDT SME if USOCs appear on those bills.

Terri asked that Covad provide examples where they are not getting rate zone and USOC information on other UNE products beside line sharing and Qwest will investigate.

Qwest asked if there were any additional comments. No comments were made.

CMp Meeting 07-16-03

Kilker-Qwest presented the response. She stated that Qwest needed more information from Covad because the product list in the CR description did not include many of the products in the example file Covad provided. Berard-Covad stated that he would send White a comprehensive list of all products Covad wanted this change to apply to. White-Qwest stated that there was an Ad Hoc Meeting scheduled for 7/24 to discuss this change.

======================================== CMP Meeting 06-18-03

Berard-Covad presented the CR. =================================================== Clarification Meeting Tuesday, May 27, 2003

1-877-550-8686 2213337#

Attendees Matt White – Qwest Terri Kilker – Qwest John Berard – Covad Mike Osler – Covad

Introduction of Attendees White-Qwest welcomed all attendees and reviewed the request.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Berard-Covad reviewed the CR. Kilker-Qwest asked if this is specific to any particular service. Berard-Covad stated that it would be for UNE Loops and Line Share Loops. Kilker-Qwest asked if Covad was associating line sharing with the loops or UNE-P. Berard-Covad stated that is was for both. He asked if this was a defect or just not a current service. Osler-Covad stated that Covad receives the information for some states but not others. He stated that he had some examples pulled together. Kilker-Qwest stated that she’d like to see the examples.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted White-Qwest confirmed that the attendees were comfortable that the request appropriately identified all areas and products impacted.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved White-Qwest confirmed with the attendees that the appropriate Qwest personnel were involved.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation White-Qwest reviewed the request to confirm Covad’s expectation.

Identify and Dependant Systems Change Requests White-Qwest asked the attendees if they knew of any related change requests.

Establish Action Plan White-Qwest asked attendees if there were any further questions. There were none. White-Qwest stated that the next step was for Covad to present the CR at the June Monthly Product/Process Meeting and thanked all attendees for attending the meeting.

CenturyLink Response

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the August 20, 2003 CMP Meeting

John Berard, Covad

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response – CR # PC051403-2 (Adding Zone Information to Bills)

Qwest amends its earlier acceptance of this change request to now include Unbundled Loop products in addition to UNE-P, based on an Ad-Hoc meeting held on July 25, 2003 with Covad and other interested CLECs.

To briefly recap the events of the meeting, Covad provided a list of additional products for which they were requesting zone and USOC billing detail, in along with the UNE-P products in their original request. The additional products identified were Unbundled Loop (2-Wire Non-Loaded Loop, ISDN Compatible Loop, 2-Wire Digital Loop, ISDN Basic Rate Loop, 2-Wire ADSL) and Shared Loop (Line Sharing.)

In addition to the request for zone and USOC billing detail on the Unbundled Loop and Shared Loop products, Covad clarified that they believe they are currently missing zone or USOC information on some of their Unbundled Loop billing.

Qwest informed Covad and the other CLECs in attendance that Shared Loop (Line Sharing) is not billed based on zones, therefore, zone information cannot be provided. The CLEC representatives in attendance expressed their understanding with Qwest’s position on this issue.

After the meeting concluded, Qwest reviewed additional examples of Unbundled Loop bills that Covad maintained were missing zone or USOC information. As a result of this investigation, Qwest did uncover a condition restricted to the Western region where the English description and rate for any nonrecurring USOC appears on the bill, but the USOC does not appear. Trouble ticket number 197112 has been issued on the condition, and as of this date is pending investigation.

Sincerely,

Terri Kilker Process Specialist Qwest

============================================================= July 9, 2003

REVISED RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the July 16, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response – CR # PC051403-2 (Adding Zone Information to Bills)

This is in response to Covad’s Change Request CR PC051403-2. This change request asks that zone information be reflected on Qwest billing so that Covad can reconcile its bills. Additionally, Covad requests that Qwest include USOCs for one-time charges on its bills.

Qwest has reviewed examples provided by COVAD and finds that for UNE-P products (which may or may not include line splitting), Qwest is currently providing the zone and USOC information; therefore, Qwest accepts this change request for UNE-P.

As a result of its investigation of the examples provided by Covad, Qwest now believes that Covad may have intended this change request to encompass more than UNE-P products. If Covad confirms that it intended for its change request to extend beyond UNE-P products, Qwest recommends that the change request be moved into evaluation status. Qwest would further recommend that Covad revise its change request to provide a precise list of products for which it desires zone and USOC information, and an ad-hoc meeting be scheduled where all appropriate subject matter experts at Covad and Qwest can review Covad’s requirements.

Sincerely,

Terri Kilker Process Specialist Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC051403-3 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

As soon as possible.

Status History

Project Meetings

September 17, 2003 CMP Meeting Cindy Macy-Qwest reported that the first meeting was held on September 11, 2003. There was a good turnout and the meeting was productive. Cindy advised the next scheduled meeting is September 25, 2003. Please be prepared with agenda items for the following meeting so Qwest can prepare and provide the information the CLECs are interested in. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon advised they were told the purpose of the meeting is not to address process issues regarding DSL ordering. Some of the questions they have tie to a process but also related to loop qualification. Cindy Macy explained the intent of this forum is not to replace existing channels that you have. For example, if a change to a process is needed that should come in via CMP, or a change to the system, or if you have a question that your Service Manager would help you with, you should continue to use existing channels. This forum is to provide training and information regarding the Loop Qual tools and documentation. Bring questions to the forum and if it needs to be redirected it will be.

Qwest Loop Qual CLEC Technical Forum Minutes – September 11, 2003 Meeting

Attendees CLECs/Company: Qwest: Derek Hodges – Allegiance Ken Beck Laurie Mendoza – Allegiance Barb Brohl Jackie Stiles – AT&T Cindy Buckmaster Karen Uchida – AT&T Conrad Evans John Berard – Covad Dave Hahn Shiva Sharif –Covad Cheeron Halpern Kelly Morris – Electric Lightwave Lucy Higley* Chairperson Joanna Brower – Eschelon Cheri Hurless Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Lori Langston Katie James – Eschelon Cindy Macy Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Dave Manica Todd Miller – Eschelon Dennis Pappas Dave Pries – Eschelon Crystal Soderlund Pete Scove – Eschelon Michelle Thacker Liz Balvin – MCI Russ Urevig Chad Warner - MCI Robert Weinstein Kathy McClenahan – Sun River Telecom Eric Yohe Ray Shannon – Sun River Telecom Jennifer Arnold – US Link Kathy Bryant – US Link Jackie Diebold – US Link Donna Dix – US Link Julie Pickar – US Link Jodie Thompson – US Link Kelly Tiegen – US Link

Summary of Meeting Lucy Higley opened the meeting, welcomed the participants to the forum, reviewed the agenda and took roll. Each CLEC and Qwest attendee shared their individual role with the group. The meetings will be held on the 2nd and 4th Thursdays of the month from 9-11 Mountain Time. Minutes and agendas will be posted on the Qwest Wholesale website at: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/training/tradeShow.html

Cindy Buckmaster set the stage for the Forum which was requested by Covad via CMP CR #PC051403-03. She indicated that the forum’s focus is to educate and provide information about all the Qwest tools available for loop qualification. She also noted that the forum’s intent is not to discuss ordering and provisioning issues. Any issues that come out of the forum that result in enhancements to the tools will go through the normal CMP process. John Berard asked that the forum include discussion of upcoming enhancements to the tools.

Lucy Higley then walked through the Qwest Loop Qualification tools available to the CLECs. The review included discussion of: o Qwest DSL for Resale Tool o Unbundled ADSL Tool o Raw Loop Data Tool o Wire Center Raw Loop Data Tool o Manual Loop Make-up Look Up Process Documentation for these Tools can be located at in the Loop Qualification and Raw Loop Data CLEC Job Aid at: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/downloads/lqrldclecjobaid.pdf

Conrad Evans then reviewed the August queries of the Raw Loop Data Tool submitted by Allegiance. One solution that was proposed by Qwest to the “no data found” issue was to ensure address validation is completed prior to submitting a query for the IMA tools. This will result in a higher response rate from the tools. Conrad also recommended that CLECs utilize the Raw Loop Data Tool “unassigned by address” query if identification of spare facilities is required at a location with no working service. Qwest suggested that the Manual Look Up Process can also be utilized if the query response is, “no data found”. John Berard mentioned that Covad had uncovered loops with unusually long/excessive lengths when utilizing the Wire Center Tool and had submitted them to Qwest for analysis. Qwest indicated that this is very helpful and appreciates getting this feedback, so the information in the tool can be made as accurate as possible. Lucy Higley mentioned that the loops in question had been corrected and now should appear with appropriate loop lengths.

John Berard asked if the tool provides data on pending jobs in LFACS and if so if this information is updated. He has seen responses that indicate a job is scheduled for 1997 which seems to be out-of-date. Dennis Pappas indicated that this information is not available for individual pending jobs.

Barb Brohl then did a wrap-up of the discussion and took several action items to be covered in the next few meetings.

Action Items

A follow-up meeting will be set up by Cheri Hurless, the Qwest Account Manager for Allegiance, to review the August queries they submitted in more detail. Laurie Mendoza of Allegiance will communicate to the other CLECs the outcome of that meeting.

Kim Issacs from Eschelon mentioned that they were receiving more responses of “no data found” on the Qwest DSL for Resale queries since Release 13.0 was implemented. She asked if something was added to the tool in 13.0 that would have caused the undetermined response rate to increase. Eschelon will provide their Qwest Service Manager, Jeff Tietz, with examples of this issue for further evaluation by Qwest.

Kelly Tiegen of US Link mentioned that after conversion of a customer from retail to an unbundled loop, they are not able to find the loop using the Qwest DSL for Resale query. US Link will send examples of this to their Qwest Service Manager, Dave Hahn, so that further investigation of the issue can take place. US Link may need to execute a different query to obtain the information they need.

Next Meeting will be in 2 weeks on Thursday, September 25th, 2003 9:00 AM – 11:00 AM Mountain Time; (10:00 – 12:00 Central; 11:00 – 1:00 Eastern; 8:00 – 10:00 Pacific)

Call in Number: 1.877.521.8688 Passcode: 3392394

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ August 20, 2003 Monthly Meeting notes Cindy Macy-Qwest advised we have a person in place that will be facilitating these meetings. Her name is Lucy Higley. We have the first meeting planned for September 11. A notification will go out advising of this. Lori Mendoza-Allegiance advised they have been trying to perform a ‘qualify by address’ using the RLD tool and no data comes up in the tool. She was advised she needs to resubmit these manually to have the tool updated. Liz Balvin-MCI advised they don’t use the qualify by address but they do search by TN and it is difficult to get data sometimes too. The CLECs requested at the first meeting to start going through the logistics and limitations of the tool and then understand the data. The CLECs requested for Qwest to begin investigation on the issue reported regarding no data in the tool. They would like Qwest to provide status on this issue at the first meeting. Cindy Macy-Qwest requested for the CLECs to send issue description and examples to her at cynthia.macy@qwest.com and I will forward those to the team. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon advised she had hoped this meeting would be held earlier as we reported that we would try to set it up for mid-August.

July 16, 2003 Monthly Meeting notes Cindy Buckmaster reviewed Qwest’s response and advised Qwest accepts this CR. Cindy advised Qwest is currently working to identify the person who will lead this meeting. The plan is for Qwest to initially review and clarify the in-place on-line documentation and address any questions. Additional issues that are identified will then be addressed. We anticipate the forum to begin the middle of August. This CR will move to Development.

June 18, 2003 Monthly Meeting notes John Berard – Covad explained they want to meet with the Product and Technical team to discuss and understand the data and issues on PreQual functions. This process is in place with SBC. Meeting would help to drive clarity, review examples directly associated to PreQual questions and functions. All CLECS could attend to go through issues and agenda. Eschelon and ATT are in support of this.

Clarification Meeting

May 27, 2003 1-877-572-8687 3393947# PC051403-3 Request for Bi-Weekly Technical Meetings on Pre-Qual Issues

Attendees Dave Manica – Qwest Dave Hahn – Qwest John Berard – Qwest Craig Suellentrop – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest

Meeting Agenda 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Attendees introduced

2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change John Berard – Covad reviewed the change request. John explained that Covad pulls data from Qwest’s Raw Loop Data tool and then loads the data into Covad’s PreQual too. Covad uses their PreQual tool so their customers can PreQual their line. Covad finds inconsistencies in the data so they would like to meet with Qwest on a regular basis to understand the data. Covad said SBC holds a call with Covad so they can work through technical and data issues. This is a fast way to resolve questions and issues. Covad would like to have a standing biweekly meeting set up with Qwest. Cindy Macy – Qwest asked what Covad would want on the BiWeekly agenda. Covad replied the items might change based on the current issues. The agenda with SBC covers items such as: review of the previous minutes, loop length questions, TN# missing from database, tool / system enhancements, service address level vs. loop level, loop medium codes copper and fiber, technical and product related discussions. John – Covad advised he would like to have Product and Technical representatives from Qwest attend the call. Dave Manica asked if Covad had certain error reports that Qwest could investigate. Covad advised yes and this would be a good agenda item. Covad provided their contact at SBC – John Milan Product Manager. Qwest can contact this person to discuss their process if needed. Cindy – Qwest asked John if all CLECs could attend this meeting. John advised yes it would be open to the CLEC Community.

3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted PreQual tool at a Bulk and Individual Level

4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Dave Manica, Craig Suellentrop, Michelle Thacker

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Qwest to meet with Covad BiWeekly or as needed to discuss Loop Qual issues

6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None

7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Covad will present the CR at the June CMP Meeting Qwest will provide our Response at the July CMP Meeting

CenturyLink Response

July 8, 2003

Covad John Berard

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response – CR #PC051403-1 Request for Bi-Weekly Technical Meetings on Pre-Qual Issues

This letter is in response to Covad’s Change Request (CR) PC051403-1. This CR requests that Qwest establish a Bi-Weekly Technical Meeting on Pre-Qual Issues.

Qwest accepts this CR and is currently developing: * A process and the structure of a Bi-Weekly Technical Forum focused on use and interpretation of the Raw Loop Data Tools * Qwest will chair the calls and we will have resources available to answer questions asked during the forum * Qwest proposes that the first few meetings will be dedicated to bringing the CLECs up to date on where documentation regarding the tool can be found. Subsequent meetings will be structured to fit the CLECs Raw Loop Data needs. * The forum effectiveness will be monitored to determine future meeting need and frequency

Qwest requests this CR be placed in Development Status and will provide an update at the August CMP Meeting.

Sincerely,

Cindy Buckmaster Qwest

Cc: Barb Brohl

Open Product/Process CR PC051903-1 Detail

Description Of Change

The major advantage of this system is that it allows a DLEC/CLEC real time access to LFACS data. This information is critical to the ability of a DLEC to determine early on if the high frequency portion of the loop can handle DSL service. Here is a description of BellSouth’s system:

The information contained in LQS (Loop Qual System) is derived from the Loop Engineering Assignment Data(LEAD) Database and provides a “best effort” response regarding a loop’s ability to support BellSouth’s ADSL service.

The LEAD Database is a once-per-month-per-wire-center “snapshot” of the information

contained in the Loop Facilities Assignment and Control System (LFACS) Database.

1/30th of all wire centers are updated every day. Currently there is a 98% accuracy rate

on returned responses within LQS.

Here's a public link to the LQS (Loop Qualification System, aka SuperLoopy)

document:

http://www.interconnection.bellsouth.com/guides/bpobr/pdf/lqs.pdf

This document is mainly LQS Application focused. The Java API is briefly mentioned,

referencing the following, more technical link (however, it is not public):

http://lqs.bellsouth.com

All the data accessible from the application and more is available via the API.

Eric Fogle is the appropriate BellSouth contact for additional information on this system. The effort via OBF, for which he was the CLEC workshop chair, was very much along these lines.

Eric Fogle can be reached at 404-927-3433, Eric.Fogle@BellSouth.com

Expected Deliverable:

As soon as possible

Status History

Project Meetings

CLEC Change Request – PC051903-1 Clarification Meeting Friday May 30, 2003

Attendees Cindy Macy – Qwest CRPM Michelle Thacker - Qwest Communications Dave Manica - Qwest Communications Craig Suellentrop – Qwest Communications John Berard – Covad Raj – Covad Shiva Sharif – Covad Cindy Buckmaster - Qwest Communications Cliff Dinnwiddie - Qwest Communications

Introduction of Attendees Macy-Qwest welcomed all attendees and reviewed the request.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Berard-Covad reviewed the CR. Berard explained they would like access to the individual TN Loop Qualification data that is the most current via a synchronous API. This data is available in IMA currently but via EDI or GUI and Covad would like to access via an API connection.

Covad currently uses the Raw Loop Data tool to access loop qual data. They download the data to their own tool. This data is not always current or accurate. Covad wants the most current data, at an Individual TN level, via an API connection. Covad would like a Pre Qual API connection to IMA. Currently Covad also has access to Pre Qual EDI but this is not a fast enough response time due to the volume of data they download.

Qwest and Covad discussed if there were certain data elements that were needed. Covad advised they would like access to the same data that they get from Pre Qual IMA EDI today, except in a synchronous API connection. If they want additional data elements added that would be a different CR.

The team discussed that this should be a systems CR. Cindy agreed to check with the systems team and cross this CR over.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted Macy-Qwest confirmed that the attendees were comfortable that the request appropriately identified all areas and products impacted.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Macy-Qwest confirmed with the attendees that the appropriate Qwest personnel were involved.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Macy-Qwest reviewed the request to confirm Covad’s expectation.

Identify any Dependant Systems Change Requests Macy-Qwest asked the attendees if they knew of any related change requests.

Establish Action Plan Macy-Qwest asked attendees if there were any further questions. There were none. Macy-Qwest stated that the next step was to cross this CR over to systems.

Open Product/Process CR PC021403-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

As soon as possible.

Status History

Project Meetings

April 16, 2003 CMP Meeting PC021403-1 Bulk Loop Qual Data refresh Intervals

Paul Diamond – Qwest advised we are still investigating what is involved to answer this request. Qwest would like to leave this CR in Evaluation Status. John Berard-Covad advised that was okay.

March 19, 2003 CMP Meeting Cindy Macy – Qwest advised we are reviewing the system and process impacts for updating the refresh intervals. We are looking at the volume of changes that occur and alternate methods of obtaining current information. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised that John Berard – Covad sent an email that also requested the individual query tool to be included in this CR. I advised the same data updates the Bulk and Indivual queries so by default the individual query would be impacted. This CR will move to Evaluation status.

Clarification Meeting February 26, 2003 10:00 – 11:00 1-877-572-8687 3393947#

PC021403-1 Bulk Loop Qual Refresh Intervals Attendees John Berard – Covad Paul Diamond – Qwest Michelle Thacker – Qwest John Gallegos – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest

Meeting Agenda: Introduction of Attendees Attendance was noted

Review Requested (Description of) Change John Berard Covad advised the data in the Bulk Loop Qual tool is not fresh (current) enough. Other ILECs (Bell South) refresh this data every 2 weeks and they have a real time interface. All other ILECs refresh weekly. Qwest updates data every 20 days and sometimes it takes up to 2 months. On occasion Covad has to issue a trouble report to get the data refreshed. Covad would like Qwest to refresh data weekly.

Michelle Thacker-Qwest verified we are not talking about the IMA interface. The IMA interface is a single telephone number qualification.

John explained they pull a download of the data (flat file) and load it into their own tool. They look at the data by wire center and look for a current refresh date. Paul Diamond-Qwest verified Covad goes to the ecom.qwest site and access the Raw Loop Data (RLD) Tool from a url. A digital certificate is needed. Cindy Macy-Qwest asked if the data is bulk updated every 30 days or if it is a ‘rolling 30 days’. John Berard-Covad explained each wire center gets updated on its own 30 day schedule so there are new updates each day based on all the different wire centers. Each individual wire center only updates around every 30 days. John would like the wire center data updated on a rolling 5-10 business day period.

Cindy Macy-Qwest recapped the comments from Mike Zulevic from the February CMP meeting when Mike presented the CR to the CLEC community. Mike Zulevic said they find errors in the data, positive and negative tests, the loops really is or isn’t qualified, they want the data updated every 2 weeks or weekly. Mike also asked if the bulk data is the same as the TN view data. Qwest advised ‘yes’.

Michelle Thacker-Qwest advised she does not support the ECOM site. Most of this support comes from the IT side. John Gallegos-IT agreed he would identify a resource to help the team. John would provide to Cindy Macy-Qwest that person’s name by 2-27-03. Paul Diamond advised David Manica-Qwest from Product Management is knowledgeable on the RLD tool.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted UNE Loop, Line Sharing

Confirm Right Personnel Involved The team discussed we need to find additional resources to help us understand the Raw Loop Data Tool and the impacts from this CR. John Gallegos advised he would identify an IT resource. John Berard-Covad advised he would be glad to meet with us again and invite one of his technical people from Covad . Cindy Macy agreed she would check further to identify another business resource knowledgable on RLD tool. Paul Diamond advised he contacts David Manica for questions on RLD tool.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation To provide more current data in the RLD tool (refresh every 2 weeks)

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests John Berard-Covad advised SCR112002-1 is open to add 3 new data fields to the IMA PreQual tool.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Qwest will meet to begin investigation of CR and our Initial Response will be provided at the March 19, 2003 CMP Meeting.

2/19/03 February CMP Meeting - This CR was discussed as a walk-on CR at the February CMP Meeting. Mike Zulevic- presented it for John Berard and explained Covad was interested in a more current refresh of data to be every 2 weeks or weekly, to prevent errors in data, invalid determinations of positive and negative, the loop is or isn't really qualified. The question was asked if the data is the same in bulk and individual form and Qwest- Houston replied it was.

CenturyLink Response

May 14, 2003

Covad Communications John Berard

SUBJECT: Covad’s Change Request Response – CR #PC021403-1 Bulk Loop Qual Data Refresh Intervals

This letter is in response to Covad Communications Change Request (CR) PC021403-1. This CR requests that Qwest revise their Bulk Loop Qual data refresh interval from the current 1 month to every two weeks with a preference of once a week.

Qwest has completed the investigation and identified system impacts for changing the data refresh intervals. The impact to make this change is estimated at 6,000 hours and hardware and software costs of $1.7M. The total of hardware, software and resource costs would be a more than $2.0 million and could grow based upon capacity requirements.

As a result of this investigation, Qwest respectfully denies this change request due to it being economically not feasible based on the system impacts.

Sincerely,

Jamal Boudhaouia Technical Regulatory

April 9, 2003

For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the April 16, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

John Berard Covad Communications

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR #PC021403-1 Bulk Loop Qual Data Refresh Intervals

This letter is in response to Covad Communications Change Request (CR) PC021403-1. This CR requests that Qwest revise their Bulk Loop Qual data refresh intervals from the current one month to every two weeks with a preference of once a week.

There are a number of issues to be analyzed in answering this request. For this reason, Qwest would like to leave this Change Request in Evaluation Status.

Qwest will provide a status update at the May CMP meeting.

Sincerely,

Paul Diamond Qwest Corporation

CC: Mary Retka

For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the March 19, 2003 CMP Meeting

March 11, 2003

Covad Communications John Berard

SUBJECT: Covad’s Change Request Response – CR #PC021403-1 Bulk Loop Qual Data Refresh Intervals

This letter is in response to Covad Communications Change Request (CR) PC021403-1. This CR requests that Qwest revise their Bulk Loop Qual data refresh interval from the current 1 month to every two weeks with a preference of once a week.

Qwest is currently investigating and reviewing the following impacts from this request.

- The refresh process that updates the data (system and process impacts) - The volume of change - Alternate methods of obtaining current information

Qwest will schedule an additional Clarification Call with Covad to ensure we understand how this data is viewed after it is extracted from the Raw Loop Data Tool.

Qwest requests this CR be placed in Evaluation Status and will provide an update at the April CMP Meeting.

Sincerely,

Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC031103-1 Detail

Description Of Change

To facilitate the CLEC’s option to perform maintenance, Covad requests the following changes.

1. Qwest allow the CLEC to access the front of the splitter shelf for testing thereby permitting test of a splitter card by the CLEC (Diagram A).

2. Qwest will allow the CLEC to perform maintenance on the splitter cards including replacement as necessary.

3. Qwest will continue to provision the CAS and will control the engineering configuration database for CAS. For new circuits, Qwest will install and provision the new splitter cards as necessary.

4. Qwest will continue to maintain the splitter shelves and Common Area Splitter bays.

5. CLEC’s will have the option to perform maintenance on the splitter cards or continue to have Qwest control all maintenance.

6. If the CLEC impairs a Qwest voice customer during the maintenance of the splitter cards Qwest may temporarily remove the data portion of the circuit.

7. The monthly recurring fees will be adjusted to remove the maintenance cost for those CLECs electing to perform the CAS splitter card maintenance.

8. The CAS shelves will be clearly designated to identify those shelves maintained by Qwest or the CLEC.

Original Description of Change (03-11-03):

Covad requests to be allowed to convert any or all existing Common Area Splitter Collocation arrangements to Cageless Shelf at a time Collocation. The current arrangement, being a type of Virtual Collocation, requires Qwest technicians to perform all maintenance associated with the splitters and splitter cards. While this process has worked in some central offices, Covad continues to experience problems related to improperly performed maintenance including splitter cards removed in error, splitter cards not installed properly, splitter cards replaced unnecessarily and cards removed as defective which cannot be located. Further, Covad and Qwest have not been able to jointly develop and document a workable process for the replacement of defective splitter cards. Covad has been trying to resolve these problems for over three years but continues to have the same experiences. These problems, coupled with the high non-recurring costs, have caused Covad to begin placing splitters in its own collocation arrangements, as additional capacity is required. It is Covad’s hope that by converting the existing splitter capacity from Common Area Splitter Collocation to some form of Cageless Shelf at a time Collocation, most of the maintenance problems will be resolved. This proposal would remove the splitter maintenance responsibility from Qwest and place it with Covad. This conversion may also require adjustments to existing monthly recurring charges applicable to the current product.

Expected Deliverable:

As Soon As Possible

Status History

Project Meetings

- 03/17/04 March CMP Meeting Steve Nelson with Qwest gave the update that the PCAT changes were effective on 2/26/04 and the contract amendment is available. This CR will move to CLEC Test status.

-- 02/18/04 February CMP Meeting Dave Williams with Qwest said that the PCAT changes will be effective on 2/26/04 and a contract amendment will be available at the same time. This CR will remain in Development status.

1/21/04 January CMP Meeting Dave Williams with Qwest provided an update to this CR and said changes for the PCAT were released 1/12/04 and the proposed effective date is 2/26/04. Mike Zulevic asked if the change would be available across the board on 2/26/04. Dave said yes. This CR will remain in Development status.

12/17/03 December CMP Meeting Dave Williams with Qwest provided an update to this CR which allow the CLEC to maintain POTS splitter cards. Dave said changes for the PCAT should be out soon. This CR will remain in Development status.

11/19/03 November CMP Meeting Dave Williams with Qwest provided an update to this CR and said we will be submitting level 3 changes for the PCAT and plan to have available in the December timeframe. Dave will send a copy to Mike Zulevic and John Berard for comments. This CR will remain in Development status.

10/15/03 October CMP Meeting Dave Williams with Qwest provided an update to this CR which provides CLECs the option to do maintenance or have Qwest do the maintenance on splitter cards. There will be changes made to the PCAT in November. This CR will remain in Development status.

09/17/03 September CMP Meeting Dave Williams provided an update to this CR and said that we have moved forward with a trial beginning 8/25 in Seattle areas and the trial has been well received by both Qwest and Covad. There will be a process change written in the next few weeks. This CR will remain in Development status.

CMP Meeting 08-13-03

White-Qwest presented the Qwest acceptance of the revised Covad Description of Change. Zulevic-Covad stated that Qwest and Covad were testing the process in 15 Central Offices in Washington state. He stated that it looked as if the process was progressing very well.

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

CMP Meeting 07-16-03

White-Qwest presented the status and stated that Covad had submitted a revised description of change that Qwest was working on. Williams-Qwest stated that Qwest would probably start a trial with Covad on August 1. Berard-Covad stated that this was good progress. CR remains in Development. ============================================== CMP Meeting 06-18-03

Williams-Qwest presented the Qwest response. Zulevic-Covad stated that he had reviewed the response and that the Qwest recommended solution addressed a majority of his concerns. He asked how to proceed. White-Qwest recommended that Covad revise their description of change to align with the Qwest recommendation. He stated that he could forward a suggestion to Zulevic for approval. Zulevic-Covad agreed. White-Qwest stated that the change request would move into Development.

========================================================== CMP Meeting 05-21-03

White-Qwest presented the Qwest response and suggested the CR be moved to Evaluation status. ==========================================

04-16-03 - CMP Meeting

Zulevic-Covad presented the CR. Williams-Qwest stated that another option would be to move the splitters to the cageless lineup. Zulevic-Covad stated that this was to difficult logistically. Williams-Qwest asked if Covad expected Qwest to develop a per shelf collocation cost. Zulevic-Covad stated that he expected a monthly recurring rental rate. Williams-Qwest asked if Covad had discussed this issue with any other CLECs. Zulevic-Covad stated that he had not and that this would probably create a bifurcated process for Qwest. Williams-Qwest stated that he would query other DLECs for interest. Van Meter-AT&T stated that AT&T would like to be involved in any development calls for this CR.

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

Clarification Meeting Wednesday, March 26, 2003

1-877-550-8686 2213337#

Attendees Matt White – CRPM Dave Williams – Qwest Jeff Cook – Qwest Mike Zulevic – Covad John Berard – Covad Becky Neesen - Covad

Introduction of Attendees White-Qwest welcomed all attendees and reviewed the request.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Berard-Covad reviewed the CR. Zulevic-Covad this has been a tough issue for both companies and that Covad was just looking for a possible solution.

Williams-Qwest asked if Covad was intending to physically move splitters. Zulevic-Covad stated that there was no move necessary; Covad would just take over maintenance of splitters. Williams-Qwest stated that the issue was that when Covad provisions loops Qwest sometimes makes mistakes.

Cook and Williams had no further questions.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted White-Qwest confirmed that the attendees were comfortable that the request appropriately identified all areas and products impacted.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved White-Qwest confirmed with the attendees that the appropriate Qwest personnel were involved. He stated that Lillian Robertson would also be involved in analyzing this CR. Williams-Qwest stated that he would work with Robertson on this CR.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation White-Qwest reviewed the request to confirm Covad’s expectation.

Identify and Dependant Systems Change Requests White-Qwest asked the attendees if they knew of any related change requests.

Establish Action Plan White-Qwest asked attendees if there were any further questions. There were none. White-Qwest stated that the next step was for Covad to present the CR at the April Monthly Product/Process Meeting and thanked all attendees for attending the meeting.

CenturyLink Response

August 12, 2003

REVISED RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the August 20, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

John Berard Covad Communications

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR #PC031103-1

Qwest accepts this revised CR and proposes offering an optional maintenance program for Common Area Splitter configurations.

Diagram A, attached, depicts a typical configuration for a CAS

In this configuration Qwest maintains the common area splitter configuration and all provisioning of loops. Presently Qwest also performs all maintenance on the splitter shelf including splitter card installation and replacement. Qwest also keeps records of CAS in the administrative/engineering system SWITCH/FOMS.

The current DMARC separating the CLEC controlled cabling from the Qwest network is the rear of the splitter shelf as shown in Diagram A. The CLEC also has access to the ICDF frame and specifically the voice block for testing purposes (Diagram A).

Under this revised plan, the CLEC would have the option to have Qwest perform the maintenance, as is currently the practice, or the CLEC could perform the splitter card maintenance.

To facilitate the CLEC’s option to perform maintenance, Qwest proposes the following changes.

1. Qwest will allow the CLEC to access the front of the splitter shelf for testing thereby permitting test of a splitter card by the CLEC (Diagram A). 2. Qwest will allow the CLEC to perform maintenance on the splitter cards including replacement as necessary. 3. Qwest will continue to provision the CAS and will control the engineering configuration database for CAS. For new circuits, Qwest will install and provision the new splitter cards as necessary. 4. Qwest will continue to maintain the splitter shelves and Common Area Splitter bays. 5. CLEC’s will have the option to perform maintenance on the splitter cards or continue to have Qwest control all maintenance. 6. If the CLEC impairs a Qwest voice customer during the maintenance of the splitter cards Qwest may temporarily remove the data portion of the circuit. 7. The monthly recurring fees will be adjusted to remove the maintenance cost for those CLECs electing to perform the CAS splitter card maintenance. 8. The CAS shelves will be clearly designated to identify those shelves maintained by Qwest or the CLEC.

This solution addresses Covad’s primary concern of maintenance of the CAS and enables Covad and other CLECs to dispatch their technicians to correct a defective splitter card without having to generate a trouble/maintenance ticket through Qwest.

For Qwest, the proposed solution will require training and process updates but will not require the introduction of an entirely new product that would be cost prohibitive.

The CLECs also have the option to place the splitters in their collocation site eliminating any maintenance issues.

Sincerely,

David Williams Qwest Wholesale Product Manager 303-896-8166

================================================ June 11, 2003

REVISED RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the June 18, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

John Berard Covad Communications

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR #PC031103-1

Covad has requested a change to the common area splitter product as follows: “Covad requests to be allowed to convert any or all existing Common Area Splitter Collocation arrangements to Cageless Shelf at a time Collocation.” In response to this CR Qwest provides the following response.

1. Issue 1. Covad requested to convert all existing Common Area Splitter Collocation arrangements to Cageless Shelf at a time Collocation. In order to change what now is a virtual collocation product to a cageless product, Qwest would require the development of a brand new product. Qwest's cageless collocation process is based on a per bay basis so this would not follow as a simple variation to the existing cageless collocation process. The Common Area Splitters are currently provisioned and maintained by Qwest. In a proposed conversion to a cageless product, a new provisioning process would be required in addition to a reconfiguration of the network to redefine the DEMARC. Qwest billing software changes would also be required. All of these changes would require significant funding from Qwest and none are practical when Common Area Splitter collocation is an optional process and experiences low ordering volumes. The CLEC always has the option to locate the splitters into their collocation space. The chart below summarizes the required effort to implement a new common area splitter (CAS) proposed by Covad.

Task Person Months Define New Product 4 Create M&P 1 Define Provisioning Process 4 Create M&P 1 Implement software changes for billing system 3 Update PCAT and documentation 2 Create Amendment Language 2 Total 17

Qwest rejects this portion of the request because it is not economically feasible.

2. From Qwest’s further evaluation of this change request, it appears that Covad’s primary issue is maintenance of the splitter and, specifically, the splitter cards. While there was no documentation provided with this CR to indicate that any maintenance issues exist, Qwest proposes offering an optional maintenance program for Common Area Splitter configurations to address Covad's apparent concern.

Diagram A, attached, depicts a typical configuration for a CAS

In this configuration Qwest maintains the common area splitter configuration and all provisioning of loops. Presently Qwest also performs all maintenance on the splitter shelf including splitter card installation and replacement. Qwest also keeps records of CAS in the administrative/engineering system SWITCH/FOMS.

The current DMARC separating the CLEC controlled cabling from the Qwest network is the rear of the splitter shelf as shown in Diagram A. The CLEC also has access to the ICDF frame and specifically the voice block for testing purposes (Diagram A).

Under this revised plan, the CLEC would have the option to have Qwest perform the maintenance, as is currently the practice, or the CLEC could perform the splitter card maintenance.

To facilitate the CLEC’s option to perform maintenance, Qwest proposes the following changes.

1. Qwest will change the DMARC for CAS and allow the CLEC to access the front of the splitter shelf for testing thereby permitting test of a splitter card by the CLEC (Diagram A). 2. Qwest will allow the CLEC to perform maintenance on the splitter cards including replacement as necessary. 3. Qwest will continue to provision the CAS and will control the engineering configuration database for CAS. For new circuits, Qwest will install and provision the new splitter cards as necessary. 4. Qwest will continue to maintain the splitter shelves and Common Area Splitter bays. 5. CLEC’s will have the option to perform maintenance on the splitter cards or continue to have Qwest control all maintenance. 6. If the CLEC impairs a Qwest voice customer during the maintenance of the splitter cards Qwest may temporarily remove the data portion of the circuit. 7. The monthly recurring fees will be adjusted to remove the maintenance cost for those CLECs electing to perform the CAS splitter card maintenance. 8. The CAS shelves will be clearly designated to identify those shelves maintained by Qwest or the CLEC.

This solution addresses Covad’s primary concern of maintenance of the CAS and enables Covad and other CLECs to dispatch their technicians to correct a defective splitter card without having to generate a trouble/maintenance ticket through Qwest.

For Qwest, the proposed solution will require training and process updates but will not require the introduction of an entirely new product that would be cost prohibitive.

The CLECs also have the option to place the splitters in their collocation site eliminating any maintenance issues.

Sincerely,

David Williams Qwest Wholesale Product Manager 303-896-8166

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

May 14, 2003

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the May 21, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

John Berard Covad Communications

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR #PC031103-1

This is a preliminary response regarding Covad CR PC031103-1. This CR requests that CLECs be allowed to convert any or all existing Common Area Splitter Collocation arrangements to Cageless Shelf at a time collocation.

Qwest is currently working internally to identify a solution to this request. Because there are a large number of issues Qwest must analyze, Qwest proposes moving this Change Request into Evaluation Status while Qwest prepares a complete answer to this request.

Qwest will provide a status update at the June CMP meeting.

Sincerely,

Dave Williams Product Manager Qwest Corporation

Open Product/Process CR PC012703-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable

Covad requests that Qwest reduce its current provisioning interval for Loop Conditioning to a standard of 5 days

Status History

Project Meetings

Moreland-Qwest presented the Qwest denial response. Berard-Covad stated that Covad was evaluating whether to escalate this issue. The CR was moved to denied status.

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

03-19-03 - CMP Meeting

Smith-Qwest stated that Qwest would like to continue to evaluate this CR. CR moved to evaluation status.

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

02-19-03 - CMP Meeting

Zulevic-Covad presented the CR. He stated that Qwest is currently processing orders in less than the 15 day interval; in many cases in fewer than 5 days. He stated that this caused both Qwest and Covad excess work. He stated that if Qwest established a 5 day interval, Covad understood that there would be instances when Qwest could not meet the interval. White-Qwest stated the CR would move to Presented status.

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

Clarification Meeting 3:00 PM (Mountain Time) / Monday, February 3, 2003

1-877-550-8686 2213337#

Attendees Matt White – CRPM Deb Smith – Qwest Bob Mohr – Qwest Neil Houston – Qwest John Berard – Covad

Introduction of Attendees White-Qwest welcomed all attendees and reviewed the request.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Berard-Covad reviewed the CR. Smith-Qwest asked which products this CR was for. Berard-Covad stated that it was for the products that Covad ordered: UNE unbundled loops and line sharing. White-Qwest asked which ILECs Covad was referring to in its description. Berard-Covad stated that SBC and Bell South had 5-10 day intervals and that Qwest had the longest interval at 15 days.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted White-Qwest confirmed that the attendees were comfortable that the request appropriately identified all areas and products impacted. Confirm Right Personnel Involved White-Qwest confirmed with the attendees that the appropriate Qwest personnel were involved.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation White-Qwest reviewed the request to confirm Covad’s expectation.

Identify and Dependant Systems Change Requests White-Qwest asked the attendees if they knew of any related change requests.

Establish Action Plan White-Qwest asked attendees if there were any further questions. There were none. White-Qwest stated that the next step was for Covad to present the CR at the February Monthly Product/Process Meeting and thanked all attendees for attending the meeting.

CenturyLink Response

REVISED RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the April 16, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

03/28/03

Mike Zulevic Director – GEA Covad Communications

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request – CR PC012703-1

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request PC012703-1. This CR is a request by Covad for Qwest to reduce its current provisioning interval for Loop Conditioning to a standard of 5 days.

Qwest is denying this request because it is economically not feasible. The following supports this decision:

Covad has stated that the current interval causes excess work for both Qwest and Covad. Contrary to that assumption, Qwest finds that the opposite is true for Qwest work. After an analysis of the impact to Qwest workforces, Qwest has determined an additional 150-185 resources would be required to respond to a 5 day interval. This would include: - 25-30 Engineering resources to issue jobs more quickly - 5 resources in the Construction Management Centers to process the jobs through on an escalated basis - A minimum of 120–150 Field resources across the 14 state region to complete the conditioning work

Economic conditions currently do not facilitate an increase in head count to support the proposed interval reduction.

Qwest has voluntarily initiated the use of Line Moves and Removal of UDCs in order to provision Line Sharing, ADSL-capable Unbundled Loops and Qwest retail DSL products (see CR #PC022403-5, PC022403-6, PC022403-7 and PC022403-8). Qwest feels that this initiative will reduce the need for line conditioning for many orders as well as reduce the provisioning interval for those orders utilizing a Line Move.

Qwest has also initiated a new Bulk Deload project, which will be to both the CLECs and Qwest’s advantage in responding to their customers’ service requests by eliminating the need to require line conditioning for many orders. Qwest has notified the CLEC community of this project through the Joint Planning Process.

Covad has stated that SBC and Bellsouth line conditioning intervals are at 5-10 days. Qwest respectfully disagrees. Qwest research of similarly situated ILECs indicate: - SBC has a 10 business day interval - Bellsouth has an 11-12 business day interval: the standard interval of 11 business days and the LSR processing interval of 3-24 hours equals the total service interval - Verizon has a 15 business day interval

Qwest finds the Qwest current line conditioning interval of 15 business days to be within the nationwide standard.

Sincerely, Heidi Moreland Staff Advocate Policy and Law

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

March 12, 2003

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the March 19, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

Mike Zulevic Director - GEA Covad Communications

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR #PC012703-1

This is a preliminary response regarding Covad CR PC012703-1.

Qwest has reviewed the current Loop Conditioning interval. There are a number of issues Qwest must analyze before answering this request. For this reason, Qwest proposes moving this Change Request into Evaluation Status while Qwest prepares a complete answer to this request.

Qwest will provide a status update at the April CMP meeting.

Sincerely,

Debra Smith Product Manager Qwest Corporation

Open Product/Process CR PC012703-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable

As soon as possible.

Status History

Project Meetings

August 20, 2003 CMP Meeting Minutes Crystal Soderlund-Qwest advised the scenarios are available as direct links in the document. This is more user friendly. Crystal advised she also added one additional scenario that wasn’t requested before. The document is available on the web. The CLECs agreed to move this CR to CLEC test.

July 16, 2003 CMP Meeting Minutes Crystal Soderlund – Qwest advised that Qwest has agreed to change the PCAT to include a direct link to the scenarios within the PCAT. Crystal thanked the CLECs for reviewing the scenarios and providing additional input. Two additional scenarios were received that are not in the matrix. These scenarios are in the LSOG. Crystal advised she will add the scenarios to the matrix and put the direct link into the PCAT. This should be available to review for comment by the end of July via the Notification process. This CR should move to CLEC Test next month.

June 18, 2003 CMP Meeting Minutes Crystal – Qwest advised we had a further clarification call scheduled with the CLECs last week and Qwest agreed to update the document as a direct hyperlink. John Berard-Covad agreed to go through each scenario and determine if any are missing. John will send to Cindy Macy any additional scenarios that he would like added to the document. Qwest requested the CLECs to have this review done by Wednesday June 25. Covad agreed that would be acceptable.

PC012703-2 Data Migrations

Ad Hoc CLEC Input Meeting June 12, 2003 10:00 – 11:00 a.m. 1-877-572-8687 3393947#

In Attendance: Chad Warner – MCI Jeremy Mead – Covad John Berard – Covad Kit Thomte – Qwest Stephanie Prull – McLeod Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Donna Osborne Miller – ATT Susan Lorence – Qwest Sharon Van Meter – ATT Crystal Soderlund– Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest Eric Yohe – Qwest Linda Miles – Qwest Dave Hahn – Qwest Russell Urevig – Qwest Monica Manning – Qwest Deb Smith – Qwest Hiedi Moreland – Qwest Mike Johnson – Qwest

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and explained the purpose of this call was to review the updates that have been made to the Migration and Conversion PCAT as a result of PC012703-1. The team reviewed the updates to make sure we understood the logistics of accessing the updated scenarios and also be able to ask questions about the content of the scenarios.

Crystal Soderlund – Qwest advised the team how to access the Migration and Conversion PCAT via the Wholesale Web Site. The team reviewed the document and Crystal pointed out the blue link that would take you to the search engine where you could open the scenario document.

John Berard - Covad asked why does this link take us to another search engine where there are multiple documents to select from? There is a list of 340 documents or exhibits. John questioned why this document is not part of the PCAT and advised it looks like a testimony document as it says Declaration in the title. Covad explained they are not comfortable with the accuracy of the document if it is outside of the PCAT. Crystal advised this document was identified to her by another CLEC and it contains the information Qwest used to roll out the product. Covad requested the document to be included in the PCAT as part of the PCAT and not be viewed via a separate search engine. Crystal agreed she would make a direct link to this document within the PCAT.

Cindy Macy – Qwest asked the CLECs if the content of the PCAT was adequate? Does the PCAT contain all the scenarios and is there enough detail on each scenario? John Berard – Covad explained they have begun looking at the scenarios but have not gone through each one yet. Crystal explained within the PCAT there is a link to the LSOG. The LSOG gives you direction on how to fill out the LSR/forms for the product you are offering. Cindy Macy – Qwest asked if there were any exceptions to the rule for ordering these products in the LSOG? If so those exception may need to be put in the PCAT.

Crystal Soderlund – Qwest agreed to make direct links to the scenario document in the PCAT. John Berard – Covad agreed to review the scenarios and let us know at the June CMP meeting if there are any scenarios that he is missing. If any CLEC reviews the document and has identified missing scenarios please send them to cmacy@qwest.com.

May 21, 2003 - CMP Meeting Minutes Crystal Soderlund – Qwest advised she has responded to the comments that came in. Crystal clarified the procedures and added additional details based on the comments. The Migrations PCAT is a ‘general and procedural’ PCAT, opposed to a product specific PCAT. Within this PCAT Crystal has added links that will bring you to more detailed documents that provide many different product scenarios for Migrations. This approach was taken as it would be very cumbersome to include all of the scenarios in the Migrations PCAT. Links are commonly used through out the PCATs. This link is a little different than other links though. The link initially brought you to another list of documents that you then needed to access to view. Crystal has changed it so the links will take you to the actual document, instead of a list of documents.

Covad asked what these documents were and if they fall under the same rules as PCATs, or are they owned by a group outside of CMP/Wholesale? Cindy Macy – Qwest agreed she would check on this item.

Covad expressed their concern that the level of detail for Data Migrations is not the same as Voice Migrations. Crystal asked for Covad to review the scenarios provided and let us know what scenerio is missing and we will then document the missing scenerio. Crystal explained the scenerios identify the type of LSR to submit, and then you have to go to the LSOG to get information on how to submit the LSR.

Cindy Macy – Qwest agreed to schedule a meeting to review the Migrations PCAT: logistics on how to get to the document and the content of the document will be reviewed. The Service Manager should also be invited.

April 16, 2003 - CMP Meeting PC012703-2: Data Migration Process

Crystal Soderlund – Qwest advised this process will be available on April 17, 2003. Qwest has issued updates to theMigrations PCAT. A url for two separate job aides on the web is provided. We have implemented an internal process to tie the two orders together. Mike Zulevic asked if this process includes Line Sharing and Line Splitting. Crystal advised yes. Cindy Macy – Qwest asked Crystal if this was done using a Level 1 Notification. Crystal advised yes. Qwest confirmed with the CLECs that it was okay to issue this as a Level 1 so the process is available for use asap. Mike Zulevic advised Level 1 is okay. If he has any questions on the document he will be able to get those answered since the CR is still open.

March 19, 2003 - CMP Meeting Cindy Macy Qwest reported the team met again on March 18 to clarify the Loop Splitting impacts to the CR. The differences between Loop Splitting, Line Sharing and Line Splitting were discussed. Agreement was reached that this CR will address multiple order situations as that is what causes the line to be down, opposed to a lift and lay move. Qwest is working to develop the process to tie multiple orders together to limit the amount of down time. Qwest also agreed to review the Data Migrations process and make it more clear, using the Voice Migrations process as an example. Mike Zulevic requested Qwest provide clarity on the steps to perform the Data Migration.

February 19, 2003 - CMP Meeting

Mike Zulevic–Covad presented this CR and explained the process associated with moving data line customers is not documented and causes confusion. Covad explained when data lines are converted the lines go down and the customer looses data that is being transmitted. Covad would like this process documented on the web site. Brett Fesler–Qwest asked if Loop Splitting was included with this CR. Zulevic agreed to discuss this with John Berard and let us know. Qwest agreed to continue working on the CR without Loop Splitting. If Loop Splitting is added we will meet again to clarify.

Comment from Mike Zulevic: I did discuss excluding loop splitting from the migrations CR with John Berard. Although loop splitting is not as critical for Covad right now as line sharing and splitting, it could be in time. It will still need to be documented, in my opinion, as there could well be migrations between a loop splitting service and a line sharing or splitting service where the same cable pair will be reused and possibly the same common area plitter. If Qwest wishes to have a seperate CR opened just for loop splitting, I think we would agree to do so, if it would make things easier for you in moving forward more quickly with the other migrations scenarios. Let me now if this would help.

Clarification Meeting CR PC012703-2 Data Migrations February 5, 2003 1-877-572-8687 3393947#

Attendees Name/Company: John Berard – Covad Crystal Soderlund – Qwest Brett Fesler – Qwest Deb Smith – Qwest Eric Yohe – Qwest Hiedi Moreland – Qwest (covered via notes) Linda Sanchez-Steinke – Qwest Cindy Macy - Qwest

Meeting Agenda:

1.0 - Introduction of Attendees Attendance was noted

2.0 - Review Requested (Description of) Change The group reviewed the CR Description in detail. The group clarified the products/services impacted and discussed the scope of the CR. The group determined the differences between this CR (PC012703-2 Data Migrations) and CR PC012703-4 Coordinated Hot Cuts for Data Migration. The key difference is this CR PC012703-2 is requesting a Process improvement and CR PC012703-4 CHC for Data Migrations is requesting a Product offering.

Brett asked John to clarify what a Data Migration order/service includes? John advised it would apply to an existing Line Sharing Order on an end users line. If the end user wants to go to another 3rd party voice provider but keeps the data with Covad, this would be a change to the Line Splitting account.

Deb Smith clarified Line Splitting is for UNE P POTS and Line Sharing is for Retail POTS.

John said this CR is requesting to minimize the amount of time the line goes down when doing a conversion from one provider to another on the data line. Cindy asked John to clarify the amount of time the lines have been down and how often this is happening. John advised the volume of this product offering has potential for increasing. John didn’t have a specific expectation of an acceptable down time during a cut over. CR PC012703-4 is for a CHC that would designate a specific cut over time.

Brett asked if we were able to build the process so there was no down time would there not be a need for CR PC012703-4. John advised potentially that CR would not be necessary if there was not any down time for the customer who is migrating.

The group discussed how this process works today. Crystal advised when going from Line Sharing to Line Splitting today a LSR is submitted to migrate the Line Share to UNE-P. At the same time the Service is migrated the Line Share is removed. The 2nd order is placed to make UNE-P. The LSR is submitted by the CLEC asking for Line Split to be added to the account. Because 2 orders are created the data line portion can be down for a period of time.

This CR applies to when there are 2 orders. On UBL DLEC to DLEC conversions there is only one order so this CR would not apply to one order situations. DLEC to DLEC is a ‘lift and lay’ process.

Crystal clarified that CLEC to CLEC UBL Migrations are available today and there is a PCAT in place. Because this is already in place, the reference to ‘second line’ in this CR does not apply. The group verified Loop Splitting is a Facility Based Provider service (existing UBL adding a splitter to a new provider). This scenerio does not fit within this CR either. John advised it is okay to remove Loop Splitting. John advised he will confer with Mike Zulevic to make final determination.

3.0 - Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Line Splitting and Line Sharing

4.0 - Confirm Right Personnel Involved All agreed the correct personnel are involved

5.0 - Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation John said this CR is requesting to minimize the amount of time the line goes down when doing a conversion from one provider to another on the data line.

6.0 - Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests CR PC012703-4 Coordinated Hot Cut on Data Migrations

7.0 - Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Covad will present this CR to the CLEC Community at the February CMP Meeting Qwest will work to determine our response to this CR and have an initial response due March 12.

CenturyLink Response

March 11, 2003

Covad Communications John Berard

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response – CR #PC012703-2 Data Migrations

This letter is in response to Covad Communications Change Request (CR) PC012703-2. This CR requests that Qwest reduce the CLEC down time during a Data Migration Order, and to clarify external documentation.

Qwest accepts this CR and is currently investigating and reviewing: ? Ways to internally tie the orders together to decrease the down time of the data portion of the loop ? External documentation for potential updates (LSOG and PCAT)

In addition, Qwest will schedule a subsequent clarification call with Covad to discuss the Loop Splitting product and the impacts to this CR.

Qwest requests this CR be placed in Evaluation Status and will provide an update at the April CMP Meeting.

Sincerely,

Crystal Soderlund

cc: Linda Miles

Open Product/Process CR PC012703-3 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable: Provide as soon as possible. Amend existing product to include this request.

Status History

Project Meetings

Nelson-Qwest presented the Qwest response. Zulevic-Covad stated that he had no questions but that Covad and Qwest differed in opinion in this issue. He stated the CR should be closed as denied because Covad’s description of change inferred that they wanted pricing similarities. Zulevic-Covad stated that he disagreed with Qwest’s assessment that this was a service that should be performed for a charge. The CR was moved to denied. Subsequent to the CMP Meeting, Zulevic-Covad contacted Nelson-Qwest by phone. Zulevic-Covad has stated that Qwest could close the CR as partially accepted because Covad can partially decommission a site, but not at the terms Covad requested. Zulevic-Covad asked that Qwest capture in the minutes Covad’s disappointment that Qwest was unwilling to perform this work without charge.

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

03-19-03 - CMP Meeting

Nelson-Qwest presented the Qwest response. Zulevic-Covad stated that the current Qwest process the Nelson described meets Covad’s needs, but that Covad is also seeking a reimbursement similar to total decommissioning when another CLEC picks up unused collocation elements. Nelson-Qwest stated that this facet was not included in the description of change or mentioned on the clarification call. He stated that he would analyze that request. Zulevic-Covad stated that he was not satisfied with the high costs Qwest was charging. Nelson-Qwest stated that Qwest’s charges were approved by a commission or negotiated in Covad’s interconnection agreement, and were not part of CMP. The CR was moved to evaluation.

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

02-19-03 - CMP Meeting

Zulevic-Covad presented the CR. Nelson-Qwest asked if Covad expected the partial decommissioning service to be performed at no charge. Zulevic-Covad stated that he expected it to be a small charge, because, in many cases, Qwest would only be updating its records. White-Qwest stated that the CR would be moved to Presented status.

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

Clarification Meeting 1:00 PM (Mountain Time) / Monday, February 3, 2003

1-877-550-8686 2213337#

Attendees Matt White – CRPM Steve Nelson – Qwest John Waltrip – Qwest Jeff Cook – Qwest Lillian Robertson – Qwest John Berard – Covad

Introduction of Attendees White-Qwest welcomed all attendees and reviewed the request.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Berard-Covad reviewed the CR. Waltrip-Qwest asked if the request was to give up space, power, etc on a partial basis. Berard-Covad responded that it was. Nelson-Qwest asked if the request was to the bay level or to the shelf level. Berard-Covad stated that he was primarily concerned with individual bays or terminals. Waltrip-Qwest asked if Berard was familiar with the Inverse Augment Product. Berard-Covad stated that he was not intimately familiar with it but would ask Neesen-Covad if that product addressed this request.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted White-Qwest confirmed that the attendees were comfortable that the request appropriately identified all areas and products impacted. Confirm Right Personnel Involved White-Qwest confirmed with the attendees that the appropriate Qwest personnel were involved.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation White-Qwest reviewed the request to confirm Covad’s expectation.

Identify and Dependant Systems Change Requests White-Qwest asked the attendees if they knew of any related change requests.

Establish Action Plan White-Qwest asked attendees if there were any further questions. There were none. White-Qwest stated that the next step was for Covad to present the CR at the February Monthly Product/Process Meeting and thanked all attendees for attending the meeting.

CenturyLink Response

REVISED RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the April 16, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

Mike Zulevic Director - GEA Covad Communications

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Revised Change Request Response - CR #PC012703-3

This memo is in response to Covad CR PC012703-3. This CR requests “…that Qwest provide a partial decommissioning product similar to the current decommissioning product that will include all collocation components to include but not be limited to space, termination, bays, and power.”

Qwest Response: Accepted

The request is accepted for the following reason: Qwest currently allows CLECs to reduce portions of an existing collocation site. To request this service a CLEC must complete the collocation application form “New/Change/Augment Application”. On this form, the CLEC must specify the work to be performed. In response to this form Qwest will issue a quote per the ICA or established timelines in the SGAT, as appropriate. Commissions, through cost docket hearings, arbitration, or through negotiations, approve the rates associated with this service.

Qwest also has an existing product that allows CLECs to power down DC power at a lesser cost, when an amendment is signed between Qwest and the individual CLEC.

Key work steps associated with reducing terminations, bays, or space is as follows: Receive application, validate, schedule, and distribute. (CPMC) Conduct 48 hour call where requested or needed. (Team of Network SMEs) Open a planning document and procure funding to process the job. Space planning and power engineering review to determine potential impacts. Determine feasibility. Begin IOF engineering job. Route to OSP if anything involving entrance facilities removal. Assign floor space changes, terminations, power changes. Monitor payment for timely acceptance. Request field visit to validate existing and changes (reductions or removals) Develop quote input. Enter job into COE-FM or OSP-FM. Schedule installation forces. Monitor payment and timely acceptance. Procure material as required. Track job progress and project manage all work steps, timelines, and resolve gaps or jeopardies. Complete field work and complete an Installation Completion Notification. Update applicable data bases such as TIRKs and SWITCH. Issue a revised APOT(s).

Qwest has a legitimate business reason to be compensated for these work functions and has no plans to reduce pricing which is based on cost models filed with the commissions or negotiated rates through Interconnect Agreements. This portion of the request (partial decommissions at no cost like full decommissions) which was identified during the clarification call on Feb. 3, 2003 is outside the CMP process since pricing is subject to commission ordered rate elements and or negotiations.

In the March 19, 2003 CMP Meeting, Covad asked whether any partial decommissioned infrastructure could be reused and, thus, be reimbursable. This request significantly changes the scope of this CR. By definition, Qwest’s decommission product and available inventory product descriptions require fully decommissioned sites for posting and reimbursement, if a subsequent CLEC requests the site. In situations where a CLEC occupies a cage, Qwest only posts vacated collocation space to the Web site if the CLEC completely vacates the space and the CLEC termination cable remaining in the cage meets applicable engineering standards. When a CLEC still occupies a portion of their cage space, any “partially decommissioned” site termination cable would be useless to other CLECs because the original CLEC is still occupying the site where the cable terminates. Qwest occasionally mines out partially decommissioned cable, but only in situations where it is necessary to relieve cable rack congestion. In a situation where a CLEC occupies cageless space, Qwest brings power and terminations to a cageless bay lineup and installs them to the equipment bay. This installation requires H-taps for power to be placed on each bay, and the cable and ground cable to be cut to length. Power cable running to a CLEC site is not CLEC cable nor is it reimbursable today under available inventory. Partially decommissioned power can not be reimbursed. Cageless bays are removed by the CLEC in most cases.

In summary, Qwest currently allows CLECs to reduce portions of an existing collocation site but has no plans to reimburse CLECs for a partial decommission.

Sincerely, Steve Nelson Qwest Product Manager

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

March 12, 2003

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the March 19, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

Mike Zulevic Director - GEA Covad Communications

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR #PC012703-3

This memo is in response to Covad CR PC012703-3. This CR requests “…that Qwest provide a partial decommissioning product similar to the current decommissioning product that will include all collocation components to include but not be limited to space, termination, bays, and power.”

Qwest Response: Accepted

The request is accepted for the following reason: Qwest currently allows CLECs to reduce portions of an existing collocation site. To request this service a CLEC must complete the collocation application form “New/Change/Augment Application”. On this form, the CLEC must specify the work to be performed. In response to this form Qwest will issue a quote per the ICA or established timelines in the SGAT, as appropriate. Commissions, through cost docket hearings, arbitration, or through negotiations, approve the rates associated with this service.

Qwest also has an existing product that allows CLECs to power down DC power at a lesser cost, when an amendment is signed between Qwest and the individual CLEC.

Key work steps associated with reducing terminations, bays, or space is as follows: Receive application, validate, schedule, and distribute. (CPMC) Conduct 48 hour call where requested or needed. (Team of Network SMEs) Open a planning document and procure funding to process the job. Space planning and power engineering review to determine potential impacts. Determine feasibility. Begin IOF engineering job. Route to OSP if anything involving entrance facilities removal. Assign floor space changes, terminations, power changes. Monitor payment for timely acceptance. Request field visit to validate existing and changes (reductions or removals) Develop quote input. Enter job into COE-FM or OSP-FM. Schedule installation forces. Monitor payment and timely acceptance. Procure material as required. Track job progress and project manage all work steps, timelines, and resolve gaps or jeopardies. Complete field work and complete an Installation Completion Notification. Update applicable data bases such as TIRKs and SWITCH. Issue a revised APOT(s).

Qwest has a legitimate business reason to be compensated for these work functions and has no plans to reduce pricing which is based on cost models filed with the commissions or negotiated rates through Interconnect Agreements. This portion of the request (partial decommissions at no cost like full decommissions) which was identified during the clarification call on Feb. 3, 2003 is outside the CMP process since pricing is subject to commission ordered rate elements and or negotiations.

Sincerely, Steve Nelson Qwest Product Manager

Open Product/Process CR PC012703-4 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable: As soon as possible.

Status History

Project Meetings

02/19/03 February CMP Meeting Mike Zulevic with Covad presented this CR. Mike said that Covad is looking for a specific time to cut service for data migration and provide the customer with very little interruption in service. Mike said that Line Sharing, Line Splitting, Loop Splitting are the products Covad would like to be able to specify cut time. Brett Fesler with Qwest asked if the end user would have the same data provider. Mike said the end user may want to change data providers; an example would be that a Qwest end user may want to go to a different voice provider and have Covad as their data provider. The CR status was changed to Presented.

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

2:00 p.m. (MT) / February 3, 2003

1-877-572-8687 PIN 3393947 # PC012703-4 Coordinated Hot Cuts for DATA Migrations

Name/Company: John Berard, Covad Director Operations Support Crystal Soderlund, Qwest Sr. Process Analyst Heidi Moreland, Qwest Network Technical / Regulatory Neil Houston, Qwest Network Technical / Regulatory Laurel Neher, Qwest Network Technical / Regulatory Russ Urevig, Qwest Sr. Process Analyst Brett Fesler, Qwest Product Management Rosemarie Ferris, Qwest Lead Process Analyst Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest Change Request Project Manager

Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed.

Review Requested (Description of) Change The change request asks that Qwest develop a process similar to the UNE-P Hot Cut process that can be applied to DATA Migrations. Laurel Neher said that Qwest has a Hot Cut Process for Unbundled Loop and does not have a Hot Cut Process for UNE-P. John Berard said that Covad is asking for a coordinated cut in the center that will minimize downtime for the customer. Neil Houston stated that the Unbundled Loop hot cut process takes a matter of minutes. Laurel asked what product Covad would be ordering. John responded that it would be a Line Shared Loop, a Qwest Voice Grade that has linesharing and Covad is migrating to another carrier. Crystal Soderlund asked what the difference was between change request PC012703-2, DATA Migration Process and this change request, PC012703-4 Coordinated Hot Cuts for DATA Migration. John explained that the difference is that PC012703-2 is asking for a process and PC012703-4 is asking for a Coordinated Hot Cut process. Rosemarie Ferris asked if we have a Qwest voice grade linesharing with Covad, the linesharing is going to another carrier, or another carrier is loosing it, or it is moving over to a line shared loop.

Crystal Soderlund asked if the request is for DLEC to DLEC changes, then it appears the two change requests are asking for the same thing, when changing from DLEC to DLEC data portion doesn’t go down. John said Covad would like a coordinated process for moving from one DLEC to another DLEC, with the new connect and disconnect happening at the same time, someone assigned to take responsibility for both orders and a minimal period of down time. Crystal said that with Line sharing to Line splitting the end user doesn’t experience data going down and there is a coordinated installation option. Crystal said that Linesharing has only a basic option and wanted to clarify which products are involved: Linesharing, UNE-P Linesplitting, Loop splitting. All of them per John. Crystal asked if this would be on line share to loop split orders and Johns replied yes. Laurel asked if when changing voice provider, but data provider is the same, there is a period where that is open. When changing DLECs Line Sharing to splitting voice provider changing and keeping the DLEC or changing the DLEC. Per John that is accurate. John said that this CR is for a coordinated hot cut process as a premium service which will ensure that it makes it through the process without downtime. Heidi asked if this is just a basic offering or if there would be a selected time. Crystal said yes coordinating of orders when changing DLEC or changing sharing to splitting. Would be ok if systems would be coordinated and orders worked at the same time. John will go back to Covad folks and determine if it is enough to offer with minimum down time to make sure the data portion stayed up or if the CR should be asking for a specific point in time for a coordinated cut. John will e-mail to Linda Sanchez-Steinke.

During the Clarification Meeting for PC012703-2, John said the difference between CR’s is that PC012703-4 is asking for a Hot Cut process with a specific time for the Hot Cut to take place.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Products impacted are Linesharing, UNE-P Linesplitting, Loop splitting, when changing DLECS line sharing to splitting voice provider changing and keeping DLEC or changing DLEC.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Qwest confirmed that Heidi Moreland, Crystal Soderlund, are the correct personnel to resolve the CR.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Covad is requesting that Qwest develop a coordinated Hot Cut process for DATA Migrations

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests No dependent change requests were identified. Change Request PC012703-2 is similar and Covad will confirm that PC012703-4 is not the same request.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) John Berard will present this CR at the February CMP Meeting.

CenturyLink Response

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the March CMP Meeting

John Berard Director Operations Support Covad Communications

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR #PC012703-4 This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request PC012703-4. This CR is a request by Covad to do Coordinated Hot Cuts on Data Migrations for Line Sharing, Line Splitting, and Loop Splitting.

Qwest has investigated the creation of a new installation option that would allow coordinated hot cuts to take place at a particular time to be specified by the CLEC.

This request would require an additional installation option that would take all Line Sharing and Line Splitting products out of their non-design flow. As a result of the change in flow, Qwest internal system changes would be required to allow orders to go to the designed services flow. Additionally, order intervention would be required, with significant resources in the QCCC to handle the increased volume.

As a result of this investigation, Qwest respectfully denies this change request due to it being economically not feasible because the economic magnitude of adding additional resources is too large for the number of orders.

Sincerely,

Brett Fesler Associate Product Manager

Open Product/Process CR PC072203-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Currently when Qwest sends the CLEC a Jeop Notice, the CLEC is only given 4 business hours to respond. If the CLEC does not respond, meaning supping the order, within those 4 hours, the order is internally canceled with Qwest. Most often, the CLEC is required to supp out the due date when this happens because Qwest has canceled the internal order and requires standard interval to re-work the order.

Qwest does not take in to consideration that the CLEC has called within that 4 business hour time frame and tried to resolve the jeop. Qwest does not consider this a response within the 4 business hours, even when Qwest opens a trouble ticket for the CLEC. Qwest also needs to take into consideration the time zone differences when expecting the CLEC to respond within 4 hours. If the CLEC is in the Pacific time zone, and the jeop notice was sent from a Qwest center in the Central time zone, the CLEC may only have 2 hours to respond depending on the time the jeop notice was sent to the CLEC.

Expected Deliverable:

ELI proposes that the jeop notice response time be revised and implemented immediately.

Status History

Project Meetings

9/17/03 CMP Meeting Jill Martain – Qwest reviewed the response. Jill requested this CR move to Evaluation. Liz Balvin-MCI asked if ELI is working with Qwest on this CR. Cindy Macy-Qwest advised that Kelly Morris-ELI did reply to my email when I sent her the response.

8/20/03 CMP Meeting Kelly Morris-ELI explained she is asking for Qwest to extend the Jeop respond time from 4 to 8 hours. Kelly explained they are Pacific Time and if the Jeop comes in at end of day they actually only get 1 hour to work to Jeop. They loose up to 3 hours of the Jeop response time based on time zone and working hour differences. Stephanie Prull-McLeod and Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon agreed and advised they support this CR. Stephanie explained they have Saturday provisioning issues. Integra also stated that they believe the majority of CLECs would support this request. This CR will move to Presented status.

CLEC Change Request – PC072203-1 Clarification Meeting Wednesday, July 30, 2003

1-877-572-8687 3393947#

Attendees Cindy Macy – CRPM Jill Martain – Qwest Denise Martinez – Qwest Phyllis Sunins – Qwest Kelly Morris – ELI Shaby Bellow – ELI Nicole Johnson – ELI Lynn Kellas - ELI

Introduction of Attendees Cindy Macy-Qwest welcomed all attendees and reviewed the request. Cindy went through the CMP process steps so the team is aware of what to expect.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Kelly Morris – ELI reviewed the CR. ELI explained the difficulty they have with a 4 hour JEP response. Because their office hours are 8:00 – 5:00 and they are in the Pacific time zone they generally only get 2 hours to respond.

Jill explained Qwest JEP process is from 7 am to 7pm. So if a JEP goes out at 7pm MST the customer would have until 11am MST to respond.

Kelly advised this equates to a customer response by 10am PST. That only gives ELI 2 hours to process the JEP. Generally it takes ½ hour to discuss this with the centers so there is minimal time to handle the JEP.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted Cindy confirmed this CR applies to all products that have a 4 hour JEP response time. Some JEP times are different (30 days) but this CR applies to 4 hour response time frame JEPS.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Cindy confirmed with the attendees that the appropriate Qwest personnel were involved.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation The team agreed they understand the CLECs expectation.

Identify any Dependant Systems Change Requests No dependant CRs are open.

Establish Action Plan Cindy asked attendees if there were any further questions. There were none. Cindy stated that the next step was for Kelly Morris - ELI to present the CR at the August Monthly Product/Process Meeting and thanked all attendees for attending the meeting.

CenturyLink Response

For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the October 15, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

Kelly Morris ELI

SUBJECT: CLEC Change Request Response - CR #PC072203-1

This CR is asking for Qwest to extend the time frames in which the CLEC has to respond to an error condition identified after a FOC from four to eight business hours.

Qwest reviewed jeopardy notices that were issued after a FOC that utilized a Jeopardy Code of C05 and SX from August 1 to September 8, 2003, to see what the impacts could be if we were to extend the time frames of the jeopardy notices from 4 to 8 business hours.

Extending the time frame to 8 business hours in essence allows one extra business day for the CLEC to respond to the jeopardy notice and potentially shortens Qwest provisioning interval by approximately 4 business hours (as we already allow a 4 hour response window for these types of jeopardies.) We looked to see what the impacts would be in the Wholesale side if the time frames were extended.

Meetings were held to determine what would need to transpire in order for the customer to maintain the due date. It was determined that additional hand-offs within the Service Delivery organization would need to take place to manually track and monitor each of the orders if the time frames were extended. Manual hand-offs between organizations and potential supplements of the service orders may need to occur to ensure that the orders do not get completed in error while we are waiting for a response from the CLEC. Additionally, when the supplemental LSR is received, manual handling would be required to contact the Network organization to advise them that the order is now ready to be installed and get the order back into the provisioning process. For certain designed services, escalations may be required to get the design complete, the DLR issued and the central office and outside technicians rescheduled.

Qwest’s estimate for the manual work required within the Wholesale organizations alone is $400,000.00 annually to be able to maintain this process. This does not take into consideration the manual time and additional resources that would be required from the Network organization to ensure that the due date could be met. Due to the economic impacts and the fact that orders will require additional manual handling due to the risks of either completing the order early or not being able to meet the due date when the supplement is received on the same day as the due date, Qwest denies this request for economically not feasible reasons.

Jill Martain Wholesale Markets Process Organization

September 9, 2003

For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the September 17, 2003, CMP Product/Process Meeting

Kelly Morris ELI

SUBJECT: CLEC Change Request Response - CR #PC072203-1

This is a preliminary response regarding the ELI CR PC072203-1. This CR requests an extension of the time frames required to respond to jeopardy notices from four to eight business hours.

Qwest is currently working internally to identify if a solution or a different option to this request can be implemented. Because there are a number of complex issues involved with extending the existing timelines, Qwest proposes moving this Change Request into Evaluation Status while Qwest prepares a complete answer to this request.

Qwest will provide a status update at the October CMP meeting.

Sincerely, Jill Martain Wholesale Markets Process Organization

Open Product/Process CR PC072203-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Currently Qwest and ELI have agreed on auto acceptance (PTA) for all DS1 circuits ordered on ASR’s. ELI would like to have auto acceptance (PTA) for UNE Loop and EEL/LMC circuits ordered on LSR’s. ELI was told auto acceptance (PTA) was not an option for these LSR products. However 50% of ELI’s UNE Loop and EEL/LMC circuits had been auto accepted by Qwest. Once ELI took this issue to Qwest for resolution, all auto acceptance for these products was stopped. ELI would like Qwest to auto accept all UNE Loop and EEL/LMC circuits, not just some. ELI has provided Qwest with orders that were auto accepted by Qwest, and can provide CMP with those examples.

Expected Deliverable

ELI proposes that auto acceptance (PTA) be made available for all UNE Loop and EEL/LMC Products immediately

Status History

Project Meetings

9/17/03 CMP Meeting Joy McConnell Couch reviewed the response. Joy advised this is a complex process and Qwest would like to move the CR to Evaluation.

8/20/03 CMP Meeting Kelly Morris-ELI presented the CR and explained they are requesting the same Auto Accept process on UBL/EEL and LMC orders that is in place for private line services ordered via an ASR. Kelly explained on (PTD) Plant Test Date the circuit is installed and tested. If it tests okay, an email PTA goes out and the CLEC is given 24-48 hours to respond. If no response is received the circuit is accepted. No further questions were asked. This CR will move to Presented status.

Clarification Meeting

Thursday July 31, 2003 10:30 – 11:30 1-877-572-8687 3393947# PC072203-2 Auto Accept PTA for UNE Loop / EEL

Attendees Kelly Morris – ELI Lynn, Gayla and Marlene - ELI Ann Binkley – Qwest Jeanne Whisenant - Qwest Robin Libadia-Qwest Denny Graham – Qwest Kathy Ocken – Qwest Joy McConnell Couch – Qwest Deni Toye – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest

Meeting Agenda: 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Attendees introduced. Cindy Macy – Qwest reviewed the process and explained what to expect from the call and next steps in the CMP process.

2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change Kelly Morris ELI reviewed the change request. Kelly and the ELI team explained Qwest is doing Auto Acceptance for PLT services currently. Occasionally Qwest was also performing Auto Acceptance for UNE products. Qwest later told us that Auto Acceptance was not available on UNE products. ELI would like the same ‘Auto Acceptance’ process that is offered to PLT products for UNE products. Kathy Ocken explained the Auto Acceptance process. This process is available for PLT provisioning; DSO and Non-Muxed DS1 for example. On Plant test date the circuit is installed and tested per national standard. When the circuit is good the PTA form is filled out. The form is sent via email to the customer. If we have not heard back from the customer on FOC’d due date, then the billing begins. If a problem is found the CLEC can call the Provisioning Tech within 30 days to work on or open Trouble report. Kathy explained Auto Accept PTA is only offered on Private Line service ordered via ASR. It is not an LSR offered service. Deni Toye explained Qwest has a UBL PTA process but it is a different process . It is for NDT notification and test results. The test results of the NDT are emailed to the CLEC 24 to 36 hours before the due date. The test results are emailed to the CLEC after verbal acceptance. It is available on DS0 to OCN products. Gayle – ELI NOC Supervisor recommends Qwest offer this service on UNE as it cuts down on phone calls between companies, helps provide server faster to the end user customers and allows ELI to schedule their technicians better. If the line does not test okay, ELI has not had any problems with Qwest being able to fix the trouble on the line. Kathy Ocken advised Qwest does have a generic document for ASR ordered service that offers Auto Acceptance. She advised this was provided to the Service Managers. This is only for ASR services though.

3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted UNE, Unbundled Loop, EEL, LMC I am currently trying to confirm with ELI what the impacted products are. There was a question regarding UNE Loop versus Unbundled Loop and which one ELI is asking for. I will update the database when I get confirmation on this from ELI.

4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Network will take the lead on this CR.

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation ELI would like the same ‘Auto Acceptance’ process that is offered to PLT products for UNE products.

6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests none

7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) ELI will present the CR at the August CMP Meeting Qwest will provide our Response at the September CMP Meeting

CenturyLink Response

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the October 15, 2003 CMP Meeting

Kelly Morris ELI