Wholesale: Products & Services

Archived System CR SCR092501-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

4/5/02 - A meeting with the CLEC community was held to discuss the stategy and direction of this CR that is scheduled for implementation in the 10.0 release. Attendees - Jonathan Spangler - AT&T, Nancy Conant - Telecordia, Monica Avila - Vartec, Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon, Terry Wicks - Allegiance, Butch Stahlberger - XO Communications, Connie Winston - Qwest, Russ Urevig - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

A written summary was provided by Qwest and was reviewed during this call.

History

Up to this point in time, CLECs requesting unbundled loop would submit a request for the loop and once that request is completed, then submit a request for a facility based stand-alone listing. A request from CLECs via the CMP process has requested that Qwest update the current process so a request for an unbundled loop and a request for a facility listing can be requested via the same LSR.

Change Objectives

Allow one LSR for both Unbundled Loop and Facility Based Listings. The following UBL products are in scope for ACT = T, N, C & V, they are DS0 product 2 and 4 wire analog, 2 and 4 wire digital with the REQTYP of either AB or BB. All changes to existing Listing will be required to be modified with the same process that they were originally requested.

IMA entry issues for the CLEC

CLEC submits a request for an Unbundled Loop via normal process, they now have the availability of request a DL form with the REQTYP of AB or BB. The CLEC must now apply a CKR to the LS form, which will match the LTN of the DL form, this will be the only way Qwest will be able to associate the Listing to the circuit. This association will be critical to achieve flow through for Unbundled Loop with directory listing.

The DL form will be populated as normal, the only identified rule will be that the LTN must match a CKR in the same format on the LS form. Example for format is NPA-NXX-LLLL.

IMA will validate that the LTN on the DL form match either the CKR on the LS page or the CSR which is be modified has the matching CKR fid, if not the follow error message will be returned. The LTN on the DL form must match a CKR on LS or CKR fid on CSR.

IMA will reject UBL LSRs with directory listings requested when FBDL stand alone listing exist in LSS for the TN included on the listing request. This error message shall read: FBDL listing already exists; must submit Listing request on separate FBDL LSR. FOC FOC will be returned as normal upon a complete and accurate LSR received.

3/12/02 - A meeting was held with the CLEC Community to provide status and an overall summary of this CR. A written summary will be provided to the CLEC Community so that they can communicate the change internally. A follow-up meeting will be scheduled to discuss any questions.

11/30/01 - Meeting held with the CLEC community to discuss SCR092501-1. Connie Winston reviewed the purpose of this change request: When submitting their UBL order, the CLECs want to submit their Directory Listing at the same time, same order. Currently, the CLEC has to issue the orders separately. Connie reviewed Qwest's proposal to achieve this goal. On AB and BB req. type the CLEC would be able to submit one order for their Loop circuit and the Directory Listing (similar to the resale process that exists today) Simple or Straight Line only Listings will be accepted during this phase. The CLEC would receive one Firm Order Confirmation (FOC) . The listing will also now appear the Customer Service Record (CSR). There is an enhancement to the listing system scheduled to occur at the same time as this change. Any risks or impacts associated with this change request will be evaluated. Allegiance asked about Complex Listings. Connie said that Complex Listings will not be addressed in this phase of the request. The CLECs could re-vote on the complex listing phase of this request. Allegiance would like Connie to provide Qwests postion on the complex listing portion of this change request. A readout will be provided on the December CMP meeting as part of action item #379. 11/15/01- Discussed this CR in CMP meeting. Connie Winston advised that initially this CR had a size of large, however, now it is x-large. If you take everthing into consideration it gets very complex. None of it is impossible it just grows in complexity as we delve into further detail. We can scope it differently for a large size. This CR was ranked at #5 at the prioritization. Connie suggested a different meeting to define the scope of this (what's needed now vs later). The CLECs agreed and that we need to include EDI vendors. We need to go over possibilities so that we can determine how to deliver something feasible in 10.0. L Powers has concerns that there are already so many issues with directory issues - they have full time people to work these issues. She would be curious to find out more about Allegiances difficulty with this issue. Mark Routh will set up the clarification call. 10/8/01 Alignment/Clarification Meeting

9:00 p.m. (MDT) / Monday October 8, 2001

Attendees Terry Wicks - Allegiance Peggy Esquibel Reed, Qwest J J Bradley, Qwest Jerry Mohatt Qwest Lynn Stecklein Qwest Beth Foster Qwest Tracy Gilford Qwest

Interfaces - IMA Common Products - UNE

Process Specialists need to be included in the Clarification Meetings. This concern will be brought to the attention of the CMP system lead.

Allow CLEC’s to process Directory Listing information at the same time the LSR is submitted.

Change Request needs to be prioritized and shirt sized.

11/28/01 - See action item 373 - A special conference call to discuss the CMP CR from Allegiance - Ability to submit Directory Listings at the same time that the LSR is created for UNE orders through the IMA EDI interface. The call will begin at 3:00 pm mountain on Friday, November 30th. The call in number is 1-866-682-6250 and the passcode is 7248183. 11/28/01 - See action item 373.

CenturyLink Response

October 30, 2001

Terry Wicks ILEC Relations Manager Allegiance

CC: Mark Routh Gerald Mohatt Joseph J. Bradley

This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form, SCR092501-1 dated September 25, 2001- Capability to submit Directory Listing information at the same time the LSRs are being submitted through EDI for UNE orders.

Description of Change - On UNE orders, Allegiance want the capability to submit Directory Listings information at the same time the LSRs are being submitted through EDI on New Facility orders, Partial Migration orders, and Move orders. Allegiance wants the option to be able to do this through EDI or to still be able to submit DL information through the IMA GUI separately from the EDI order as is the current capability.

Qwest Response: The clarification meeting with Allegiance to discuss this Change Request was held on October 8, 2001. From this meeting, the level of effort was determined to be Large. This change request is an eligible IMA 10.0 candidate.

Sincerely,

John I. Gallegos Information Technologies Manager

Archived System CR SCR092501-2 Detail

Description Of Change

This current practice required by Qwest greatly increases the processing time and hard dollar expense to the CLECs to have to submit separate LSRs for multiple TNs. Qwest is the only ILEC that requires separate LSRs for multiple TNs for the same End User at the same location. Allegiance is requesting that Qwest develop the ability to allow CLECs to process multiple TNs on one LSR.

Also, Qwest does not allow for the migration of existing facilities from Qwest and the addition of new facilities for the same end user at the same location to be processed on the same LSR. Allegiance is requesting that Qwest develop the ability to allow the CLECs to be able to do this as well.

Status History

Project Meetings

Attendees - Jonathan Spangler - AT&T, Nancy Conant - Telecordia, Monica Avila - Vartec, Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon, Terry Wicks - Allegiance, Butch Stahlberger - XO Communication, Connie Winston - Qwest, Russ Urevig - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest 1. History

The Unbundled Loop (UBL) product initial implementation requirements were that a request for disconnects, changes, and moves would require the CLEC to submit a request for each circuit individually. The change request was made to allow these types of activities involving multiple circuits be allow on a single Loop service request (LSR) when the changes being made to the circuits are the same and at the same end user (EU) address. Change Objectives

Changes to the IMA (Interconnect Mediated Access) and FTS (Flow Through Services) will allow multiple circuit requests to be processed from one LSR for the same activity and EU. FTS will process up to 10 requests in a mechanized format, greater than 10 requests on an LSR will drop to the SDC to be handled manually. This does NOT restrict the CLEC from requesting more that 10 disconnect, changes and move on a single LSR.

IMA entry issues for the CLEC

The CLEC submits an LSR for disconnect, change, and moves with the REQTYP = AB only, the ACT field can equal D, C, T, and M.

REQTYP = AB and ACT = D (Disconnect)

The CLEC will follow the normal entries for the disconnect requests, IMA will allow the entry of additional circuits on the LS form (loop service page). Flow through will handle up to 10 disconnect request, greater than 10 will drop to manual handling for the SDC’s within Qwest. The FOC’s for greater than 10 requests will follow the manual time lines not the mechanized time lines. NO manual indicated will be set by the CLEC, this will be handled through edit coding internally. All disconnect request will be basic disconnects.

REQTYP = AB and ACT = C, T, M

The CLEC will follow the normal entries for these for these types of requests, editing will be preformed to verify the circuits on the LS page match the EU address. If the address does not match the requested change will not be allowed.

The FOC will contain information for all service orders, also loss/completions reports will remain the same.

3/12/02 - A meeting was held with the CLEC Community to provide status and an overall summary of this CR. A written summary will be provided to the CLEC Community so that they can communicate the change internally. A follow-up meeting will be scheduled to discuss any questions.Alignment/Clarification Meeting

9:00 p.m. (MDT) / Monday October 8, 2001

Attendees Terry Wicks- Allegiance Peggy Esquibel Reed, Qwest J J Bradley, Qwest Jerry Mohatt Qwest Lynn Stecklein Qwest Beth Foster Qwest Tracy Gilford Qwest

Confirm Interfaces & Products Impacted Interfaces - IMA/EDI Product - UBL

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Change the current practice to allow the CLECs to submit multiple SBNs on one LSR.

3/12/02 - A meeting was held with the CLEC Community to provide status and an overall summary of this CR. A written summary will be provided to the CLEC Community so that they can communicate the change internally. A follow-up meeting will be scheduled to discuss any questions.

CenturyLink Response

Terry Wicks ILEC Relations Manager Allegiance

CC: Mark Routh Gerald Mohatt Joseph J. Bradley

This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form, SCR92501-2 dated September 25, 2001 - Eliminate Multiple LSRs for Moves, Changes and Disconnects of TNs.

Description of Change - On unbundled loop ordering, once an end user has been established with the CLEC, all subsequent order activity for the end user must be on a separate LSR for each TN involved even when all TNs are at the same end user location. This order activity includes Move orders, Change orders, and Disconnect orders. Allegiance wants the ability to put multiple TNs on one LSR without having to supply each separate SBN for each circuit. There is no place to put multiple SBNs on one LSR. There are fields to put multiple TNs and circuit Ids. This current practice required by Qwest greatly increases the processing time and hard dollar expense to the CLECs to have to submit separate LSRs for multiple TNs Qwest is the only ILEC that requires separate LSRs for multiple TNs for the same End User at the same location. Allegiance is requesting that Qwest develop the ability to allow CLECs to process multiple TNs on one LSR. Also, Qwest does not allow for the migration of existing facilities from Qwest and the addition of new facilities for the same end user at the same location to be processed on the same LSR. Allegiance is requesting that Qwest develop the ability to allow the CLECs to be able to do this as well.

Qwest Response: The clarification meeting with Allegiance to discuss this Change Request was held on October 8, 2001. From this meeting, the level of effort was determined to be Extra Large. At this time Qwest will not provide the functionality to allow the addition of new facilities at the same time a migration is done. This Change Request is a candidate for IMA Release 10.0.

Sincerely, John I. Gallegos Information Technologies Manager

Archived System CR SCR122701-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

01/17/02 CMP Meeting Discussion: Wendy Green/Qwest presented CR and stated that this CR came out of the SATE User’s Group and is co-sponsored by Qwest and the CLEC’s. Wendy advised this is for new documentation to provide examples based on test data. Bill Micou/AT&T Will not use SATE examples? Other ILECs provide EDI associated with test cases. Wendy responded - will populate EDI and not use SATE data, the CLEC’s know how to populate own data before move into production. Wendy advised level of effort is Large. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that this CR will move into Presented status and the ranking of SATE requests will take place at February CMP.

01/08/02 - Clarification Meeting Notes: Attendees were Ian Coleman/Allegiance, Ken Wilson/AT&T, Bob Carias/Nightfire, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, Donna Montarone/Qwest, Jake Perlman/Qwest, Wendy Green/Qwest, Ellen Cross/Qwest, Francois Morel/Qwest. X12 data is the only requirement for this request. CLEC requested Qwest to provide X 12 mapping examples for all products and activities to all CLECS. No other questions were raised. Meeting notes emailed to all participants.

CenturyLink Response

January 10, 2002

Ian Coleman Allegiance Telecom, Inc.

This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form, number SCR122701-1 dated December 27, 2001, CR Title: SATE - X 12 Mapping Examples.

CR Description: Qwest will provide X 12 mapping examples for all products and activities to all CLECS. These examples can be based on a test CLEC and need not utilize production or SATE facilities including Central Offices, circuits or account numbers.

Qwest Response: The Clarification meeting for this request was held on January 8, 2002. There were no questions raised for this request. Based on the above noted information, the level of effort for this request is large. This request is an eligible CR for prioritization in February 2002.

Sincerely, Jeff Thompson Director, Information Technologies

Archived System CR SCR122701-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

May 16, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Wendy Green/Qwest stated that this effort would be deployed on 5/18 and that testing could begin on Monday, May 20th. Status is CLEC Test until June CMP Meeting.

01/17/02 CMP Meeting Discussion: Wendy Green/Qwest presented CR and stated that this CR came out of the SATE User’s Group and is co-sponsored by Qwest and the CLEC’s. Wendy advised that currently use made-up NPA/NXX’s. This CR will use actual NPA/NXXs. Wendy advised level of effort of Large. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that this CR will move into Presented status and the ranking of SATE requests will take place at February CMP.

01/08/02 - Clarification Meeting Notes: Attendees were Ian Coleman/Allegiance, Ken Wilson/AT&T, Bob Carias/Nightfire, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, Donna Montarone/Qwest, Jake Perlman/Qwest, Wendy Green/Qwest, Ellen Cross/Qwest, Francois Morel/Qwest, Nancy Denny/Qwest. All current SATE data must be altered to utilize NPA/NXX’s currently in Qwest’s network footprint. No other data elements are required. Meeting notes emailed to all participants.

CenturyLink Response

January 10, 2002

Ian Coleman Allegiance Telecom, Inc.

This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form, number SCR122701-2 dated December 27, 2001, CR Title: SATE Data - NPA/NXX’s.

CR Description: All current SATE data must be altered to utilize NPA/NXX’s currently in Qwest’s network footprint.

Qwest Response: The Clarification meeting for this request was held on January 8, 2002. Confirmation was received that there were no other data elements involved in this request. This request is for NPA/NXX’s only. Based on this information, the level of effort for this request is large. This request is an eligible CR for prioritization in February 2002.

Sincerely, Jeff Thompson Director, Information Technologies

Archived System CR SCR122701-3 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

August 22 CMP Meeting Discussion for SATE 12.0 Prioritization Review: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T - this CR was sponsored for NightFire. She noted that it is clearly defined in the body of the CR. There were no questions.

01/17/02 CMP Meeting Discussion: Wendy Green/Qwest presented CR and stated that this CR came out of the SATE User’s Group and is co-sponsored by Qwest and the CLEC’s. Wendy advised the level of effort is Medium. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that this CR will move into Presented status and the ranking of SATE requests will take place at February CMP.

01/08/02 - Clarification Meeting Notes: Attendees were Ian Coleman/Allegiance, Ken Wilson/AT&T, Bob Carias/Nightfire, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, Donna Montarone/Qwest, Jake Perlman/Qwest, Wendy Green/Qwest, Ellen Cross/Qwest, Francois Morel/Qwest, Nancy Denny/Qwest. SATE must support Loop Splitting and all its activities. Scenarios for Loop Splitting should be added to the EDI SATE Data Document. Meeting notes emailed to all participants.

CenturyLink Response

January 10, 2002

Ken Wilson AT&T

This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form, number SCR122701-3 dated December 27, 2001, CR Title: SATE - Add Loop Splitting.

CR Description: SATE must support Loop Splitting and all its activities. Scenarios for Loop Splitting should be added to the EDI SATE Data Document.

Qwest Response: The Clarification meeting for this request was held on January 8, 2002. There were no questions raised for this request. Based on the above noted information, the level of effort for this request is medium. This request is an eligible CR for prioritization in February 2002.

Sincerely, Jeff Thompson Director, Information Technologies

Archived System CR SCR122701-4 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

August 22 CMP Meeting Discussion for SATE 12.0 Prioritization Review: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T - this CR was sponsored for NightFire. She noted that it is clearly defined in the body of the CR. There were no questions.

01/17/02 CMP Meeting Discussion: Wendy Green/Qwest presented CR and stated that this CR came out of the SATE User’s Group and is co-sponsored by Qwest and the CLEC’s. Wendy advised the level of effort is Medium. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that this CR will move into Presented status and the ranking of SATE requests will take place at February CMP.

01/08/02 - Clarification Meeting Notes: Attendees were Ian Coleman/Allegiance, Ken Wilson/AT&T, Bob Carias/Nightfire, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, Donna Montarone/Qwest, Jake Perlman/Qwest, Wendy Green/Qwest, Ellen Cross/Qwest, Francois Morel/Qwest, Nancy Denny/Qwest. SATE must support Line Splitting and all its activities. Scenarios for Line Splitting should be added to the EDI SATE Data Document. Meeting notes emailed to all participants.

CenturyLink Response

January 10, 2002

Ken Wilson AT&T

This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form, number SCR122701-4 dated December 27, 2001, CR Title: SATE - Add Line Splitting.

CR Description: SATE must support Line Splitting and all its activities. Scenarios for Line Splitting should be added to the EDI SATE Data Document.

Qwest Response: The Clarification meeting for this request was held on January 8, 2002. There were no questions raised for this request. Based on the above noted information, the level of effort for this request is medium. This request is an eligible CR for prioritization in February 2002.

Sincerely, Jeff Thompson Director, Information Technologies

Archived System CR SCR122701-5 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

August Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Attachment R = Change Requests Committed for IMA Release 11.0 Connie Winston/Qwest - we have one small issue requiring the Sup 2 (SCR013002-8 Flowthrough on Sup 2 Category Due Date) to be a spillover for 11.1. She explained why this will be a spillover into the point release. She noted that resale and UNE sup 2 due date change orders will flow through. The unbundled loop will drop out to the Center and will be updated by the Center until 11.1. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T - that’s line item #4 in the Attachment? Connie Winston/Qwest - yes. Michael Buck/Qwest - stated that the NOTE at the bottom of the page needs to be changed from 'In Definition' to 'Packaged'. Liz Balvin/WorldCom - asked how the 11.0 PO2 CR is different than the one in 12.0. Connie Winston/Qwest - they are just different edits. The edits are noted on each of the 2 CRs. Liz Balvin/WorldCom - with 12.0, would you say that any of the hours devoted to this would lower the 8,000 hours? Are you looking at that when you do the design? Connie Winston/Qwest - we always look at that, but the edits are different so I could expect a reduction in the LOEs. As we get further in design, we do update the LOE. Attachment R = Change Requests Committed for SATE Release 11.0 Connie Winston/Qwest - SATE has the same spillover candidate for 11.1, SCR013002-8 Sup 2. Michael Buck/Qwest - noted that items 3, 5, and 7 are SATE specific candidates. The others are IMA with SATE impacts. Wendy Green/Qwest - noted that the SATE side has a shorter list because of the GUI only impacting CRs going into IMA having no impact to SATE. Michael Buck/Qwest - any other questions in the room or on the bridge? None.

June 20, 2002 CMP Meeting Discussion: Wendy Green (Qwest) indicated that Qwest has completed the first phase of the request (the morning hours). She said that Qwest would like to move this CR back to ‘Packaged’ while the second phase of the CR is completed Michael Buck (Qwest) stated that what Qwest is doing could be considered a phased implementation. The initial piece has been completed, and now Qwest is planning to complete the second portion. The CR is in ‘CLEC Test’ as a means of informing the CMP Community that a portion of the work has been completed. Sharon Van Meter (AT&T) asked if Qwest could just update the response to say that it is phased. Then she will make sure that the AT&T team knows about it. Bob Carias (NightFire) asked what the phases are. Wendy Green (Qwest) indicated that, effective May 27th, the current hours were change to: 6am to 6pm MT. The next phase will make the hours extend from 6am to 8pm. as packaged for IMA 11.0. Status will be updated to ‘Packaged’

01/17/02 CMP Meeting Discussion: Wendy Green/Qwest presented CR and stated that this CR came out of the SATE User’s Group and is co-sponsored by Qwest and the CLEC’s. Wendy advised of level of effort of Small. Karen Clauson/Eschelon asked for an explanation as to why these are important. Ken Wilson/AT&T responded - These CR’s are filling out some capabilities not currently in SATE. Will add testing capabilities of OSS products. Was advised in SATE meetings that resources are not the same as other OSS CR’s. Does that mean there are two lists? Jeff Thompson/Qwest responded - in re-design, we agreed to draft language to prioritize OSS candidates on a per system, per release basis. SATE is a test system and does use a different resource team. SATE does need to mirror IMA so that needs to be kept in consideration when putting in SATE. Karen/Eschelon asked if picked these, won’t they take away from IMA? Jeff/Qwest advised that these candidates have to be bounced up against IMA release candidates. Karen/Eschelon asked if there are any or are we catching up? Jeff/Qwest responded - Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that AT&T has several billing systems and asked if they have a separate priority process. Jeff/Qwest responded yes. Bill/AT&T asked . Jeff Thompson/Qwest responded- examples are examples of how EDI mapping works. We are concerned if take all SATE examples and responses, we will render useless any knowledge that CLEC’s have. Want CLECs to code based on their understanding of the requirements. Part of the purpose of this exercise is to allow the CLECs to test their understanding of the changes to be made. Susan Travis/WorlCom asked if loop splitting was added into 10.0. Jeff/Qwest responded - Already in IMA, just adding to SATE. Ken Wilson/AT&T stated that SATE only has ½ of the capabilities of the production system. Has the major elements but needs to add features and capabilities to catch up. If add features to IMA, need to keep SATE in synch. How do we create an overall SATE priority list? Jeff Thompson/Qwest responded - Qwest would not concur that SATE only has ½ the functionality of production. Jeff advised that Qwest will support and work with CLECs to test new products. The direction that Qwest has received on a going forward basis, for a candidate to go into prioritization, Qwest works concurrently with CLEC’s to determine what’s more important. Ken Wilson/AT&T asked - How will decisions be made regarding whether CR’s to IMA will or will not automatically be included in SATE? Jeff Thompson responded - we’ve not done this before and doesn’t know if the CLEC would open a corresponding SATE CR for every IMA CR. Jeff Thompson/Qwest and Ken Wilson/AT&T - will be discussed at the next SATE User Group Meeting. Karen Clauson/Eschelon asked if this is for re-design. Jeff Thompson/Qwest advised that the SATE User Group needs to decide if is 1, 3, or 10 CR’s. Karen/Eschelon asked - from the re-design aspect, is CR the answer? Stated that if that always has to happen, could that be a step in the process and it be prioritized and a CR wouldn’t be needed. It could be part of the process. Do you do a CR each time or build it into the process? Jeff Thompson/Qwest responded - each time Qwest tries to implement new functionality considered above the line, Qwest gets push back. He assumes the CLECs would like control to submit CRs for SATE. He would like it to be an issue discussed at the SATE User Group Meeting. Ken Wilson/AT&T stated that he would also like it at the SATE User Group Meeting. He thinks it may have its own priority list. Bob Carias/NightFire stated that he agrees with Ken Wilson to prioritize SATE on its own, keep separate from IMA CR’s. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that this CR will move into Presented status and the ranking of SATE requests will take place at February CMP.

01/08/02 - Clarification Meeting Notes: Attendees were Ian Coleman/Allegiance, Ken Wilson/AT&T, Bob Carias/Nightfire, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, Donna Montarone/Qwest, Jake Perlman/Qwest, Wendy Green/Qwest, Ellen Cross/Qwest, Francois Morel/Qwest, Nancy Denny/Qwest. SATE’s hours of availability must be increased to Monday through Friday 6 am to 8 pm MST. System support must only be available from 8 am to 6 pm MST. Meeting notes emailed to all participants.

CenturyLink Response

In response to the AT&T submitted CMP CR, SCR122701-5 SATE - Increase Hours of Availability. On May 24, 2002, Qwest extended the hours of SATE to 6 am-6pm mountain time. This fulfills a portion of the functionality requested by this CR. However, because the extension of the evening hours from 6pm to 8pm is not complete, this CR will remain open pending its inclusion in a future release. Sincerely, Jeff Thompson Director, Information Technologies

DRAFT RESPONSE June 20, 2002

In response to the AT&T submitted CMP CR, SCR122701-5 SATE - Increase Hours of Availability, requesting SATE hours to be 6 am to 8 pm MT. Qwest will complete this request in 2 phases. Phase 1 was effective May 27, 2002 and SATE a.m. hours were increased. With phase 1, the SATE hours are 6 am to 6 pm. Phase 2 will be completed with IMA 11.0 and will increase the SATE p.m. hours. With the completion of phase 2, the SATE hours of availability will be 6 am to 8 pm MT.

Sincerely, Jeff Thompson Director, Information Technologies

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

January 10, 2002

Ken Wilson AT&T

This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form, number SCR122701-5 dated December 27, 2001, CR Title: SATE - Increase Hours of Availability.

CR Description: SATE’s hours of availability must be increased to Monday through Friday 6 am to 8 pm MST. System support must only be available from 8 am to 6 pm MST.

Qwest Response: The Clarification meeting for this request was held on January 8, 2002. There were no questions raised for this request. Based on the above noted information, the level of effort for this request is small. This request is an eligible CR for prioritization in February 2002.

Sincerely, Jeff Thompson Director, Information Technologies

Announcement Date: May 24, 2002 Effective Date: May 27, 2002 Notification Number: SYST.05.24.02.F.04067.SATEOpsHours Notification Category: Systems Notification Target Audience: CLECs, Resellers Subject Reminder - IMA EDI SATE Hours of Operation Changing May 27, 2002

This Notification is to remind you that per CLEC request, the hours of operation for the Qwest Stand Alone Test Environment (SATE) will be extended from 8:00am-6:00pm Mountain Time (MT), Monday through Friday, to 6:00am-6:00pm MT, Monday through Friday effective May 27, 2002.

The availability of Qwest support for CLEC testing in SATE will not change from the current hours of 8:00am-6:00pm MT, Monday through Friday. CLECs will be able to begin testing in SATE at 6:00am (MT, Mon-Fri) and CLECs will be able to utilize Qwest support for questions or issues beginning at 8:00am (MT, Mon-Fri).

If you have questions contact Wendy Green at 303-965-2504.

Sincerely,

Qwest

Note: In cases of conflict between the changes implemented through this notification and any CLEC interconnection agreement (whether based on the Qwest SGAT or not), the rates, terms and conditions of such interconnection agreement shall prevail as between Qwest and the CLEC party to such interconnection agreement.

Archived System CR SCR120301-6X Detail

Description Of Change

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

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

53 TSC - Two Six Code

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

Set.

NOTE 1: The code set is unique to each established

trunk group or CCS Link Set and is provided to the

customer on the Firm Order Confirmation or Design and

Order Confirmation. The TSC entry may then be

populated by the customer when ordering changes,

additions or deletions to an existing trunk group or CCS

Link Set.

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

Status History

Project Meetings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INFORMATION FROM PnP CMP CR PC120301-6:

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewed description of Change Request.

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

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

CenturyLink Response

INFORMATION FROM PnP PC120301-6:

REVISED RESPONSE

April 10, 2002

Ms. Kathy Stryczek Manager AT&T

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Susan Bliss Director Process Management Qwest

FORMAL RESPONSE

February 12, 2002

AT&T Ms. Kathy Stryczek Manager

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Linda Kae Olsen Process Specialist - LIS Qwest

Archived System CR SCR111901-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Request for Qwest to separate daily usage files by separating category 01 and 010 from category 011. Categories 01 and 010 separate daily usage records for end users while category 011 tracks billing for other carriers. AT&T separates billing entities by these functions. AT&T believes that other carriers utilize this same process. AT&T believes would be more efficient if the daily usage files were separate in this manner.

Status History

Project Meetings

May 6, 2002 Email from Process Specialist, Carl Sear: The only CLEC that responded was AT&T for their TCG, T02 files. There were no responses received from Allegiance, who does not have a Qwest presence for a DUF, Eshcelon, who asked for something other than what was made available, and MidCo, who Carl had pesonally spoken to twice but has not yet sent the technical file information needed to split the files.

03/21/02 - March CMP discussion: Alan Zimmerman/Qwest -provided a status update; he indicated that the Target deployment date is still April 1 st. Action Item is Closed.

12/13/01 - December CMP discussion: Alan Zimmerman advised for those who wish to participate in the receiving of separate files to send him an email. A general email will be sent announcing Alan's need for email response from those wishing to get separate files.

09/12/01 - Clarification meeting on PCCR 090401-1. In attendance Carla Dickinson Pardee and Troy Smith from ATT. Alan Zimmerman and Kit Thomte from Qwest.

Alan indicated that he was familiar with this subject. He believed it had been submitted once before but did not have the support of the other CLECs at that time. Alan indicated that he thought some of the CLECs might see the need for this now.

Alan stated the issue: In the current environment two usage files containing the same data are sent to two locations. ATT would like to have the file containing message types 01 and 10 split out on one file. The other file should contain message type 11, to be distributed separately.

Carla indicated she would take this CR to the next community meeting to propose this change to other CLECs.

CenturyLink Response

November 6, 2001

This letter is in response to the CLEC Change Request Form #PC090401-1. This Change Request requests that the Daily Usage Feed (DUF) be split into two pieces—with local usage (generally Category 1 & 10 EMI records) on one file, and access usage (Category 11 records) on a separate file.

Today, both local usage and access usage is sent on a single DUF file for each CLEC. It is fairly straight-forward to separate this usage into two files. To do so requires some small programming changes, as well as some JCL and NDM/Connect: Direct changes for every CLEC that chooses to have their DUF split into two pieces. This would be a medium-sized effort. This CR will be moved to the Systems CMP process in order to prioritize this system work.

Qwest would implement this CR in such a way that those CLECs that wish to continue to receive their DUF file as one file (like today) would be able to continue with that implementation. Those that wish to receive two separate files would be able to do so, having those two files sent to two different destinations (assuming connections exist) or to the same destination as the CLEC desires.

Any CLEC who would like to have their DUF split in two as this CR requests may send an e-mail to me at azimmer@qwest.com to be included in the deployment of this functionality. If you have any questions, feel free to e-mail me or call me at the number below.

Sincerely,

Alan Zimmerman (303)896-8346

Archived System CR SCR100101-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

11/15/01 November CMP Discussion: Qwest advised that this work can be done by the end of June 2002.

Alignment/Clarification Meeting 10:00 a.m. (MDT) / Friday 12th August 2001

Attendees: Carla Dickinson Pardee / AT&T Joseph J. Bradley / Qwest Peggy Esquibel-Reed / Qwest Merna Thane / Qwest

Once a report is accessed, it disappears. Qwest has previously advised that reports can be retrieved. AT&T is requesting an archival system available via the web. Requested is the current day’s data plus the data from the previous 30 days. No formatting changes are being requested for the reports. AT&T has advised that this request is not a high priority at this time. Interface - IMA Deliverables - Implement an archival system available via the web. Archived data to be available is the current day’s data plus the data from the previous 30 days.

--

10/18/01: - Discussed at the October CMP Meeting. Carla/AT&T advised that the request is for an archival system on the web. No archival process is being requested for NDM at this time. AT&T is requesting reports to be available on the web for 30-50 days, then can fall-off the web. Qwest IT advised that this request's level of effort would be medium.

CenturyLink Response

February 28, 2002 The Service Delivery Gateway (SDG) is a WEB pickup method of transport. The format for this transport method can be either a report format or a fixed flat file format. The CLEC must obtain a userid and certificate to access the SDG site via Internet. The security at the site limits the CLEC to only their designated reports.

DRAFT RESPONSE For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at November CMP Meeting October 29, 2001

Carla Dickinson Pardee Manager - LSAM A T & T

CC: Connie Winston John I. Gallegos Joseph J. Bradley Merna Thane

This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form, number SCR100101-1, dated October 1, 2001, CR Title: Archive Loss and Completion Reports.

CR Description: Currently the loss and completion reports are not archived by Qwest. Once a CLEC accesses the report, it is no longer available from Qwest. CLECs have the ability to archive the reports once they are accessed, however, if the report is inappropriately accessed by an individual who is not aware of the CLEC archive process, the reports are no longer available from Qwest.

Additional clarification was received from Carla in the Clarification Meeting that was held on Friday, October 12th and at the October CMP Forum. AT&T is requesting an archival system available via the web. Requested is data to be available for 30-50 day’s on the web. No formatting changes are being requested for the reports. AT&T has advised that this request is not a high priority at this time.

Qwest Response: Based on the information noted above, this CR has been determined to have a medium level of effort.

Sincerely, John I. Gallegos Information Technologies Manager

Archived System CR SCR100101-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

11/15/01 November CMP Discussion: Connie clarified that the request was for did it flow through or was it flow through eligible. CLEC's advised request was for did it flow through. Connie will get the definition corrected. Connie & Jeff advised that due to the low ranking from the vote, this may not make 10.0 but would be back on the list for 11.0 or could be a spillover for a point release.

Alignment/Clarification Meeting 10:00 a.m. (MDT) / Friday 12th August 2001

Attendees: Carla Dickinson Pardee / AT&T Joseph J. Bradley / Qwest Peggy Esquibel-Reed / Qwest Melva Harris / Qwest Shon Higer / Qwest

AT&T requesting a yes/no indicator on flow through to identify if FOC was Flow Through eligible. Requesting only for original FOC, not for subsequent FOCs. Interfaces - IMA Deliverables - Provide a yes/no indicator on flow through to identify if an original FOC was flow through eligible.

10/18/01 - Discussed at the October CMP Meeting. AT&T is requesting a non-standard (per OBF) indicator to identify if FOC was Flow Through eligible. No questions from the CLEC community. Level of Effort is medium.

CenturyLink Response

Carla Dickinson Pardee Manager - LSAM A T & T

CC: Connie Winston John I Gallegos Joseph J. Bradley Shon Higer Melva Harris

This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form, number SCR100101-2, dated October 1, 2001, CR Title: Flow Through Indicator on FOCs.

CR Description: Currently Qwest does not have a flow through indicator on Firm Order Completion notices (FOCs). It would be helpful for CLECs to know whether an order flows through or falls out for manual handling.

Additional clarification was received from Carla in the Clarification Meeting that was held on October 12, 2001. AT&T is requesting a yes/no indicator on flow through to identify if the FOC was flow through eligible. This request is only for the original FOC, not for subsequent FOCs.

Qwest Response: Based on the information from the Clarification meeting, the level of effort for this request is medium. This CR is an eligible voting candidate for Release 10.0.

Sincerely, John I. Gallegos Information Technologies Manager

Archived System CR 5396031 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR 5578858 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR 5580037 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR 5580968 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR SCR090601-1 Detail

Description Of Change

interconnection agreements. Therefore AT&T requests that UNE-P orders be billed on a CABS bill. Qwest is in the process of CABS formatting CSRs, however, AT&T needs the entire bill in the CABS format and not just the CSR.

Status History

Project Meetings

- January 16, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that she needs to validate the January bill and will contact Peggy (Qwest) hopefully next week to close the CR. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR would remain in CLEC Test for AT&T’s bill validation.

December 19, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discuaaion: Connie Winston/Qwest said that the trouble ticket associated with this CR just went in a Patch. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T will talk to Carla Pardee/AT&T offline to discuss closure. Connie Winston/Qwest said to advise Kit Thomte/Qwest if this CR can be closed.

November 21, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Carla Pardee-AT&T stated that the rounding fix appeared to be working. Connie Winston-Qwest agreed and stated that AT&T would validate with the December work and that the team hoped to close the CR in December.

October 17, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Michael Buck/Qwest stated that this has been discussed in previous meetings. Jeff Thompson/Qwest stated that the two issues are the rounding issues and the CSR mismatch. We are looking for fixing the rounding issue on November 14th and the CSR mismatch is targeted for December. We have a more robust fix for the rounding issue but requires a change to an interface. While we’ll be fixing the problem in the patch for November, we will open a CR for the more robust fix. Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that AT&T is also anxious to close this CR. The status of this CR remains CLEC Test.

- September Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jeff Thompson/Qwest stated that Qwest has delivered 3 month's of bills and there are a series of issues. Qwest continues to fix these and believe we are down to a rounding error and are working to fix that. Have no target date yet for that out of balance fix. Carla Pardee/AT&T agrees and stated that the paper bills are not balancing with the CSR. At the CLEC forum, Alan Zimmerman and Carl Sear also stated that the fix was in development. Carla stated that she appreciates all of Qwest's efforts and stated that we are getting close.

August 23, 2002 General Meeting Minutes; Attendee's: Carla Pardee/AT&T, Jerri Lancaster/AT&T, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, Tim Bessey/Qwest, Catriona Dowling/Qwest, Fred Howard/Qwest, Diana Jensen/Qwest, Pat Smith/Qwest, Lon Jones/Qwest, Jami Larson/Qwest, Dennis Martinez/Qwest Carla Pardee/AT&T - has received transactions for 3 states, CO, AZ, & WA. There is a problem with being out of balance and matching to the CSR. It appears that the issue(s) are fixed for CO & AZ, WA is still out of balance. For the WA bill - the amount that AT&T is being asked to pay does not match the bill summary total. The total on the CSR also does not match the recurring dollars. Pat Smith/Qwest asked for the record id that was out of balance. Jerri Lancaster/AT&T advised it is the 1005xx records and will forward an email (to Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest) that explains. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest asked for the amount that is out of balance. AT&T respoded that there is an out of balnce amount of 99 cents. Jerri Lancaster/AT&T asked if in the future, will more standard adjustment codes be used? Is currently seeing codes of X15 & X18. Jami Larson/Qwest advised that the codes are generic and is as much detail as can give. Jerri Lancaster/AT&T advised will run any additional problems through Carla Pardee. Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that if the problem is found to be just on the CSR detail, she would be willing to close this CR and open a new one, if necessary. AT&T asked if the data source was different for the state of WA. Qwest responded that the CRIS Systems are different for CO/AZ than for WA. Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that this generally has gone rather smoothly. Dennis Martinez/Qwest advised that Qwest will investigate, check with CRIS regarding the problem raised today, and will communicate information back to AT&T. Email received and copy provided to those on the call. Email details: The totals at the bill summary level are calculated incorrectly. There is an edit in CAB/BOS Vol 3A, 1005XX - page 6 that states: LP Total (10051300) + 0 MAC Tot (10051200) + 201,939.94 Debit Adj Tot (10051250) + 0 Tot OC&C (10051300) + 19,044.23 Tot Usg (10051300) + 21,841.76 Tot Taxes (10051300) + 30.70 Tot Sur (10051300) + 0 Tot Pay Plan (10051300) 0 Total Current Charges (10051300).

If you add the above fields together from their bill, you will get 242,856.63. They say the total current charges are 242,866.64 (from the 10051300), a difference of .99. This is why the bill is out of balance. When they correct this item, they will then need to look at their Tot Balance Due edit because it will not be correct. In regards to the statement that the CSR and MAC $ do not match, the reason they do not match is that the structure of the 'J' CSR is incorrect. We are dropping out 6079 (USOC) records with $ on them because they are using a left handed fid of HTG with no TN under the HTG before they end the group with a 401525 record. See record sequence number of 21350 on the bill and below. If you have further questions, I can be reached at 770-993-8644. Thanks, Yvonne Hopkins ABM Systems Support phone: 770-750-7820 pager: 1-888-858-7243 pin: 135037 email: yhopkins@att.com

--Original Message-- From: Lancaster, Geri L, NCAM Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 11:06 AM To: Pardee, Carla D, NCAM Cc: Hopkins, Yvonne H, NCAM Subject: Washington UNE-P Mech Bill

Carla, We received the Washington UNE-P bill for 8/5/02. The bill is out of balance. I'll ask Yvonne to see if she can find out any further details. Bottom line, we still can't pay by the mechanized bill and they shouldn't be allowed to close the change request. FYI - the CSR total dollars do not match the recurring dollars either. This will not "fatal" a bill, but it is important that they match since the CSR is the supporting detail for the summarized recurring expense on the bill. I'll keep you posted. Thanks. Geri 770-750-8407

August 22, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T - I believe there was still an issue in Washington around this and Peggy has a meeting scheduled for tomorrow. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest - yes, we have a meeting scheduled with IABS tomorrow to review the Washington bill and the out of balance issue. Confirmed that Tim Bessey (Qwest) and Dennis Martinez (Qwest) have been invited to the meeting with AT&T. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T - I would like to keep this open. Michael Buck/Qwest - this CR will remain in CLEC Test.

August 19, 2002 Email to Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest from Carla Pardee/AT&T: I am sorry to report we still can't close this CR. I am waiting to hear back from our client about how they want to proceed. I am attaching an e-mail from our billing group to explain what the problem it. I imagine it is time to set up a meeting to see what we can do to make this work. Thanks. Carla Dickinson Pardee Manager - LSAM (303) 298-6101

August 9, 2002 Email from Carla Pardee: Peggy - just another update. I heard from Tim Bessey today that Jamie Larson had been working with Yvonne Hopkins and all of the issues in the letter have been resolved. Let's keep our fingers crossed. We will hopefully know by the Systems meeting. Carla Dickinson Pardee Manager - LSAM (303) 298-6101

August 7, 2002 Email from Jami Larson to Tim Bessey/AT&T Account Manager: Tim, All of the issues that Tim Boykin cites in his note have already been taken care of by IABS. I did advise Yvonne on 7/30 that the problems with the out of balance on taxes and usage, as well as the dates populated on the adjustment/oc&c BDT records would be corrected for the August bill periods.

August 7, 2002 Email from Carla pardee/AT&T to Scott Schipper/Qwest: Scott - Attached please find a letter from Tim Boykin discussing problems we are having with the first CABs bill AT&T obtained from Qwest for the month of July 2002. Please feel free to contact me and/or Tim if you have questions. Thank you. Carla Dickinson Pardee Manager - LSAM (303) 298-6101 LETTER: RE: Problems Associated with CABs Billing Dear Scott: In response to AT&T’s change request SCR090601-1, Qwest implemented CABS billing for AT&T’s UNE-P bills. AT&T received its first CABS bill during the month of July 2002. However, there are a number of problems associated with this first bill, and as a result, AT&T is not able to process the mechanized CABS bill. We would like to request your assistance to remedy these problems. Without going into great detail in this letter, the problems associated with this bill are two fold. First, the usage/incurred dates are invalid on the Adjustments and OC&C. The bills use a 'from date' and 'thru date' of 00010101 rather than actual usage dates. Secondly, the bills are out of balance. The supporting details do not sum to the total for several categories including taxes and usage. In addition, Qwest still forwards a paper bill - the CABS mechanized bill and the paper bill do not match. Yvonne Hopkins, AT&T, has been working with Qwest representative Jamie Larson to resolve these issues, however, to date, there has been no resolution. AT&T has been patiently working with paper bills for some time. AT&T was excited to finally obtain a mechanized CABS bill and is very disappointed that the bill is incorrect. Early next week, we would like to arrange a meeting with Qwest SMEs to discuss these problems and resolve all issues. Could you assist us in organizing your subject matter experts to close these issues? Qwest CMP managers are very anxious to close this CR, however, until these issues are resolved, AT&T is not able to close SCR090601-1. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, Timothy Boykin District Manager AT&T Local Services and Access Management Cc: Pam Delaittre, Pete Budner, Tim Bessey

August 6, 2002 Email from Carla Pardee/AT&T: Peggy - we can't process July's bill for a few reasons. We are sending a letter to Qwest outlining the issues tomorrow. I will copy you on that letter. For the time being, we do not feel comfortable closing it - unless you have a suggestion for following up with the problems we are having. Carla Dickinson Pardee Manager - LSAM (303) 298-6101

August 5, 2002: Email response from Carla Pardee/AT&T: I have a meeting with the billing people tomorrow. We are getting the bill, but still having some problems. I will e-mail you tomorrow right after our meeting. I would like to close this as much as you, believe me. Hopefully we can tomorrow. Thanks. Carla Dickinson Pardee Manager - LSAM (303) 298-6101

August 5, 2002 Sent email to Carla Pardee & Donna Osborne-Miller asking if has looked at the bill and are okay to close.

July 18, 2002 Tim Bessey email to Peggy Esquibel-Reed: Tim will keep Peggy and Jeff posted.

July 18, 2002 Peggy sent email to Tim Bessey asking him to keep Peggy informed as well.

July 18, 2002 Email response from Carla Pardee (AT&T): Peggy - thanks but we can't close it out. The bill was sent but the suffix record indicator's were wrong. They are supposed to send it again before 7/25/02. As soon as we get a bill through I will let you know and we can close it out. I have been working with our account rep - Tim Bessey. I asked Tim to keep Jeff Thompson in the loop on this as I know Jeff is really anxious to close it. Thanks. Carla Dickinson Pardee Manager - LSAM (303) 298-6101

July 18, 2002 Peggy Esquibel-Reed (Qwest) sent an email to Donna Osborne-Miller and Carla Pardee: SCR090601-1 deployed into production on July 1, 2002 and currently has a status of CLEC Test. At the July Systems CMP Meeting, during the discussion for the 'CRs To Consider For Closure' section, Qwest asked if this CR was okay to close. Carla stated that the bill would be reviewed the following day. Carla and the CLEC Community agreed that this could be an item that could be closed outside the CMP Meeting. So my question is ...... is this CR okay to close? If you are still validating, please let me know when you will have an answer. I appreciate it.

July 18, 2002 CMP Meeting Discussion: This CR will remain in CLEC Test. Qwest will work off-line with AT&T to close, with CLEC Community concurrence. AT&T wanted the opportunity to check the bill.

June 20, 2002 CMP Meeting Discussion: Jeff Thompson (Qwest) explained that this CR is on target for July 1st. Qwest has been working with AT&T to receive those BOSS bills. Carla Pardee (AT&T) indicated that the test files have been transmitted. Jeff Thompson (Qwest) indicated that Qwest hasn’t heard anything negative. Carla Pardee (AT&T) agreed with Jeff.

March 21, 2002 CMP Discussion: Carla Pardee/AT&T - AT&T is extremely disappointed with how this has been handled. AT&T escalated this in January. Qwest said this would be implemented in July. A meeting happened last Friday, and AT&T learned that this was only going in two states. AT&T is concerned that it is taking so long to be worked. AT&T is looking at having two billing systems. This is a huge impact and it affects all CLECs. Carla wants to know why it was decided to be put in only two states (that AT&T isn’t even in) Jeff Thompson/Qwest indicated that he felt there was a misunderstanding. Jeff acknowledged that there was some confusion around what was communicated in the meeting. Alan Zimmerman/Qwest confirmed that the change would be implemented for all 14 states. He indicated that it was just a matter of timing. Carla Pardee/AT&T - it was not made clear last Friday that all states would be implemented Jeff Thompson/Qwest- Qwest will gladly confirm the timing on the states that AT&T is most concerned about. Jeff asked Carla if Qwest knew of the states that AT&T was concerned about. Carla Pardee/AT&T AT&T will send the list of states to Qwest. Carla asked to be notified when the implementation plan for the 3 states has been confirmed. Ok to close this action item. Action Item is Closed.

March 15, 2002 Meeting - Carla Pardee, AT&T Bob Hayes, AT&T Peggy Esquibel-Reed, Qwest Fred Howard, Qwest Jami Larson, Qwest Diane Jensen, Qwest Alan Zimmerman, Qwest Carl Sear, Qwest

A document was provided to all participants of this meeting. Fred/Qwest advised that this is provided at a hi-level and is subject to change. The document’s information is as follows: BOS BILL INVOICE AND CSR OVERVIEW Qwest will format UNE P bill and CSR data into a CAB/BOS format. Qwest will follow TRG, CABS/BOS recommendations for implementation and population of the CABS/BOS records Production Implementation - 7/1/02 (OR, WA only) BOS Version @ production - Version 37 Qwest will provide a test file and Difference List, 30 days prior to the production installation (6/1/02) Data Population of Records Has Not Been Finalized. It is anticipated that this will be completed 4/22/02

Population of records is work in progress at this point and the records and data population of records is subject to change.

ANTICIPATED UNE BILL RECORDS Bill Pack Header (10-01-01-00, 01) Bill Face Heading (10-05-05-00) Balance Due Information (10-05-10) Detail of Current Charges-1 (10-05-12) Detail of Current Charges-2 (10-05-13) Bill Message Record (10-10-05) Detail of Payments (10-15-05) Detail of Payments-Total (10-15-90) Detail of Adjustments (10-20-05) Detail of Adjustments-Total (10-20-90) Detail of Balance Due (10-25-05) Detail of Balance Due-Total (10-25-90) OC&C Service Order/Transaction Identification (10-30-05) OC&C Service Order/Transaction Identification (10-30-05) OC&C Phrase Code Data (10-30-15) Detail of OC&C – Phrase Lines (10-30-16) OC&C USOC Data (10-30-20) OC&C USOC Description Data (10-30-21) OC&C Service Order/Transaction Net Effect (10-30-25) OC&C Total (10-30-90) Unbundled Transport Usage Detail (10-39-05) Unbundled Miscellaneous Usage Detail (10-39-20) Summary of Unbundled Usage by Jurisdiction (10-41-05) Total Summary of Unbundled Usage (10-41-15) Detail of Taxes (10-50-05) Detail of Taxes-Total (10-50-90) Detail of Surcharge (10-55-05) Detail of Surcharge-Total (10-55-90) Bill Pack Trailer (10-99-99)

ANTICIPATED UNE CSR RECORDS 40-01-01 (CSR Pack Header) 40-05-05 (CSR Account ID) 40-10-05 (CSR Bill Name & Address) 40-15-05 (CSR S&F FID) 40-15-10 (CSR USOC) 40-15-16 (CSR S&F USOC Tax Data) 40-15-20 (CSR S&f USOC Amounts) 40-15-21 (CSR S&f USOC Amounts Mileage) 40-15-24 (USOC Amounts - Testing) 40-15-25 (CSR S&F Subtotal) 40-15-25 (CSR S&F Total) 40-20-05 (CSR Remarks) 40-25-05 (CSR Last Activity) 40-25-17 (CSR Summary Unbundled Line Port Inventory) 40-25-30 (CSR Summary - Glossary) 40-99-99 (CSR Pack Trailer)

AT&T asked if this work will be expanded for all states. Qwest stated would look into that, understanding was for OR & MN. AT&T advised that needs for entities of TCG, TPM, LOA, ATX. AT&T asked if Qwest doing by IABS basis or by customer’s requesting UNE-P format? Qwest responded, by customer’s requesting UNE-P format. AT&T stated that other customer’s would want this. Qwest advised that there are 3 separate CRIS environments for UNE-P billing. Retail, Wholesale, and Retail. The 3 CRIS regions are Eastern CRIS for MN, IA, ND, SD, NE. Central CRIS for CO, AZ, WY, NM, ID, MT, UT. Western CRIS for OR, WA. AT&T questioned if for unbundled transport, would CABS BOS group all usage into a global jurisdiction or bill for each jurisdiction. Qwest responded at a global jurisdiction. AT&T responded "that’s good." AT&T requested that they be kept updated as changes will be made. AT&T stated that any changes need to be standard. Qwest stated that will know what the changes are by the end of April. Any upcoming questions from AT&T will be funneled through the CRPM, Peggy Esquibel-Reed.

March 18, 2002 Email from Qwest IT: The ability to produce BOS files for Bill and CSR will be included for all states and all UNE customers that have contracts specifying BOS format and request it of Qwest.

11/05/01 - Received AT&T's responses for clarification meeting action items:

1) Instead of CABS, would an EDI format work. The records could be formatted via ndm, stp or an internet protocol. ABM supports the industry standard CABS for UNE-P expense billing. ABM is not in the position to support any non-OBF compliant formats.

2) They want a definitive list of the items that we want a certain level of details on, such as USOCs, etc. The level of detail requested by ABM is equal to that which is outlined in the OBF guidelines specific to UNE-P billing.

3) I had told them that CABs was the industry standard. They didn't think so, where did we get that information? The Carrier Access Billing System (CABS) guidelines were developed to bring uniformity to access billing in the post divestiture environment. CABS is an industry accepted and industry supported media for billing of access and interconnection charges. Provisions for billing Unbundled Network Elements (UNE) were first included in CABS Version 31 which was implemented 3/1/1999. The CABS guidelines provide a uniform method for billing UNE charges. Compliance with CABS guidelines means AT&T receives the same billing elements, values and record layouts from all bill providers. No special company-specific programming is needed. Although the CABS guidelines are developed by the Technical Review Group (TRG) and owned and published by Telcordia, the guidelines are indirectly supported by the Ordering and Billing Forum (OBF) through referral of resolved issues to the TRG. OBF Billing Committee Issue 1287 - Billing for Unbundled Network Elements - was referred to the TRG for implementation in CABS. The OBF Billing Committee continues to address industry-wide UNE issues -- Issue 1548 Billing Verification Process In An Unbundled Environment. OBF provides forum to address industry-wide UNE issues.

4) They are in the process of putting the CSRs in one file; they need to know if it would work to have the CSRs in one file, and the fill file in CABS. ABMs preference would be within the same file but separate files will work as long as they are received in consecutive transmissions.

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

11/15/01 November CMP Discussion: Jeff Thompson advised that Qwest accepts the CR. This request will be very difficult to do. Mapping between EDI & BOSS is currently taking place. That effort will take 2 more weeks to complete. Qwest cannot yet commit to an implementation date. Is not an IMA candidate since this is a billing interface and not IMA. JAD sessions are taking place with the development team. A target date will be determined after the JAD sessions are completed.

Alignment/Clarification Meeting 1:30 p.m. (MST) / Thursday 1st November 2001 Request that UNE-P orders to be billed on a CABS bill

Attendees: Carla Dickinson Pardee / AT&T Fred Howard / Qwest Alan Zimmerman / Qwest Janey Antal / Qwest Peggy Esquibel-Reed / Qwest

Today all UNE-P orders are billed out of the CRIS billing system. AT&T can only receive CRIS bills via paper, which makes it extremely inefficient and difficult to use. In addition, the CRIS bill does not provide the level of detail required for auditing or for inventory, i.e. USOC, Circuit ID and CRS. The level of detail needed and electronic interface are available in the CABS billing system. Moreover, Qwest negotiated CABS billing in its interconnection agreements. Therefore AT&T requests that UNE-P orders be billed on a CABS bill. Qwest is in the process of CABS formatting CSRs, however, AT&T needs the entire bill in the CABS format and not just the CSR.

Wholesale Billing

AT&T requesting an electronic CABS formatted bill and CSR.

AT&T will provide answer’s to the following question’s from Qwest: 1. What is the level of detail being requested, if other than USOCs & circuit ID’s? 2. Would an EDI format be acceptable? 3. Would a separate bill and a separate CSR be acceptable? 4. Would a phased approach be acceptable?

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

Escalation E-Mail Received 01/23/02

To: cdickinson@att.com cc:

Subject: AT&T CR#SCR090601-1 Development

Escalation Company: AT&T CR#: SCR090601-1 Status Code: Development

Qwest Action Requested: no action selected

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Description: Request that Qwest utilize CABS billing systems for UNE-P bills.

History of Item: SCR090601-1 was initially submitted on 9/6/01. It was declined without a clarification meeting on 9/18/01. The reason it was declined - it was explained that this CR was identical to a CR submitted by Rhythms in January 2001. However, AT&T's request was very different than how Qwest was developing the Rhythms request. After further discussion in the October CMP Systems meeting, Qwest indicated it would work on this CR but that it was tee shirt sized extra large, with no indication of when CABS billing would be implemented by Qwest.

Reason for Escalation / Dispute: The AT&T billing department is experiencing many problems with the billing system Qwest uses, i.e. CRIS. The level of detail is completely insufficient. Furthermore, CABS billing systems were negotiated in the 1997 interconnection agreements.

Business Need and Impact: AT&T does not have the level of detail needed to resolve outstanding billing disputes. Unsusual charges are appearing on the bill without the level of detail needed to determine what the charge is specifically. AT&T cannot electronically process CRIS bills, so using a paper bill is an extremely inefficient process for AT&T, requiring additional resources for billing purposes.

Desired CLEC Resolution: Qwest to implement CABS billing systems as soon as possible.

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

Lead Submitter: Name: Carla Pardee Title: LSAM Manager

Joint Submitters:

CenturyLink Response

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

November 1, 2001

Carla Dickinson Pardee LSAM Manager AT&T

CC: Donna Osborne-Miller, OSS LSAM, AT & T Fred Howard Janey Antal Alan Zimmerman Jon Ecklund This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form, number SCR090601-1 dated September 6, 2001 - CR Title: Request that UNE-P orders be billed on a CABS bill.

CR Description: Today all UNE-P orders are billed out of the CRIS billing system. AT&T can only receive CRIS bills via paper, which makes it extremely inefficient and difficult to use. In addition, the CRIS bill does not provide the level of detail required for auditing or for inventory, i.e. USOC, Circuit ID and CRS. The level of detail needed and electronic interface are available in the CABS billing system. Moreover, Qwest negotiated CABS billing in its interconnection agreements. Therefore AT&T requests that UNE-P orders be billed on a CABS bill. Qwest is in the process of CABS formatting CSRs, however, AT&T needs the entire bill in the CABS format and not just the CSR.

Qwest Response: Based on the above noted information, the level of effort for this request is Extra Large.

Sincerely, Jon Ecklund Information Technologies Manager

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

Qwest Escalation Response Issued

January 30, 2002

Carla Dickinson Pardee LSAM Manager AT&T

Dear Ms. Pardee:

This letter is in response to your formal escalation (SCR090601-1-E05) regarding UNE-P orders to be billed on a CABS bill, dated January 23, 2002.

Qwest has reviewed the formal escalation and is pleased to inform you that we will be able to meet AT&T’s request for providing UNE-P bills in a BOS billing format. This capability will become available in Qwest’s Western, Central and Eastern Regions beginning with the July bill cycle, July 1, 2002. Please contact me by telephone at (303) 896-7276 or by e-mail at jlthomp@qwest.com if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Jeffery L. Thompson Director Business Solution Design

cc: Sara Padula POPP Communications Controller, Treasurer

Jeffrey Harnack OneStar Communications Director Network Optimization

Karen Clauson Eschelon Telecom Inc. Director of Interconnection

Dana Filip Qwest, Sr.Vice President – Customer Service

Dan Poole Qwest, Sr. Director of Legal Issues

Nancy Lubamersky Qwest, Sr. Director of Legal Issues

Archived System CR 5498567 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR 5370845 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR 5370997 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR 5372690 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR 4868276 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR 5464735 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

September 4, 2002 Email from Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon: Hi Peggy, Thanks for your concern. I do not have a problem closing the CR. I have not been provided with any more examples here at Eschelon. Qwest and I suspected that some change was made at some point for something else that impacted this issue quite some time ago. Just surprised Qwest affiliated the two as they are completely separate issues. Thanks again!

-- September 3, 2002 Email to Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon: Bonnie -- Thank you for your willingness to close out your CR, 5464735, at the next CMP Meeting. Qwest certainly does not want you to agree to close it if you feel that the Eschelon CR has not been completed, in conjunction with another CR or not. I am a bit confused as to why Terry's CR does not impact yours. My understanding from the April Meeting was that the completion of Terry's CR would also meet the need of your CR. If that is not the case, are you willing to close the CR because you feel that it has been completed, just not with Terry's? Does Eschelon no longer need the request? Please clarify for me. Although I would love to have a completed CR, I do not want to close it until it is completed to your satisfaction.

- September 3, 2002 Email from Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon: Hi Peggy, Actually these are two totally different issues and the resolution to Terry's CR does not impact ours, however, I am willing to close our CR at the next CMP meeting.

September 3, 2002 Email sent to Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon: Hi Bonnie -- The CMP Systems CR 5464735 'Eliminate Delay Due To Error Message Indicating CFA In Use, When It Is Not' was being worked in conjunction with a Product and Process CMP CR, 5548229, submitted by Allegiance, as discussed in the April Systems CMP Meeting. The Allegiance CR (5548229) was discussed at the August 21st PnP Meeting and was updated to 'Completed' status. I have attached a copy of each of these CR's for your review. Due to the completion of the PnP CR 5548229, is Eschelon willing to close the CMP Systems CR 5464735? If you are not ready to close the Systems CR (5464735), can you please advise what additional information is needed by Eschelon in order to close your CR?

-- May 16, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Michael Buck/Qwest stated that status was provided yesterday at the Product and Process CMP meeting. The process regarding busy CFA will be communicated. This CR will be up for closure at the June CMP Meeting Received okay to close the Action Item. The CR remains open.

April 18, 2002 CMP Discussion: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest presented status: Russ Urevig/Qwest is working this CR in conjunction with a Product & Process CR, 5548229 Same Day Pair Change During Test & Turn-Up (Day of Cut). The documentation and communication are due to be completed by COB April 19,2002 and should close out both CR’s. There were no questions. This CR will be up for closure at the May CMP Meeting.

February 21, 2002 - Discussed at CMP: Russ Urevig will work with Chad Gerity to develop internal documentation for proper escalation steps and communicate to Qwest escalation desk personnel.

In response to the action items from 2-18 call: Reusing disconnected CFA on a new connect prior to IAD - When issuing a new connect, the busy CFA edit in IMA can be bypassed by populating the RPON field with the PON of the disconnect order, stating in the remarkls field 'pls reuse CFA,' and requesting manual assistance. It is the request for manual assitance that actually allows the LSR to be processed. This way the busy CFA edit is bypassed and the ISC representative has the opportunity to look at the LSR, acknowledge the association between the new connect and the disconnect, and allow it to be processed even though the CFA is not showing available.

Reusing CFA from a canceled LSR prior to system showing availability - The same process can be used when issuing a new connect LSR that follows the cancelation of an LSR with the same CFA. The new connect order wil be accepted if the RPON field is populated with the PON of the cancelled LSR, the Remarks field is populated with 'pls reuse CFA,' and requesting manual assistance field is selected.

February 18, 2002 Meeting to Discuss Investigation Results of Submitted Examples Attendees: Kathy Stichter, Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon. Terry Wicks/Allegiance. Chad Gerity, Russ Urevig, Ken Olson, Lynn Stecklein/Qwest The purpose of this meeting was to address 3 questions with Allegiance and Eschelon: Why wouldn’t IMA show the CFA’s available for re-use, how long does it take for Qwest’s systems to update after disconnect due date, and if this a manual process. Chad provided an overview of the process associated with TIRKS receiving the order from the SOP and when the design of the order begins: According to normal procedures, TIRKS receives service orders from the SOPS and begins the design of the circuit according the information provided on the order. This is appropriately called the design phase. Once the circuit is designed, the specifications are distributed to WFA-C where the actual physical wiring of the circuit occurs. Depending on how much of the design or the wiring of the circuit has been completed will determine the time in which it will again become available in the TIRKS system. When a request to cancel an order is received in TIRKS, the request will be distributed to the appropriate departments. A circuit will not show available until after TIRKS receives a 'Cancellation Complete' notice.

Typically, if TIRKS receives a cancellation during the design phase, the appropriate people cancel the design of the circuit in the system. Once the design is canceled and the 'Cancellation Complete' notice is received the CFA will show available. This generally takes one full business day. So if the CLEC does not cancel the LSR until the service orders have been distributed to TIRKS for design , then it will be one full business day before the CFA shows available again.

If TIRKS receives the cancellation request after the order has been distributed to WFA-C for wiring, the request to cancel must be distributed to WFA-C. The WFA-C personnel will then begin to 'un-wire' the CFA. Once WFA-C has completely taken out the wiring, a cancellation completion notification is sent to TIRKS. TIRKS then shows the CFA available. This process normally takes 5 business days after WFA-C receives the cancellation request. Therefore, if a CLEC issues a request to cancel an LSR after the physical wiring of the circuit has begun, it will be 5 business days before the CLEC can issue a new LSR requesting the CFA that was part of the formerly canceled LSR.

The processing of a disconnect follows a similar set of events. TIRKS receives a disconnect and posts an 'Inventory Availability Date,' (this is the date the CFA will be available to the CLEC again) which is 5 business days after the disconnect arrives in the TIRKS system. The request is then sent on to WFA-C. Upon receiving the disconnect, WFA-C will disable the circuit, but will not completely disconnect it. The reason for this is to make sure a cancellation of the disconnect is not received. TIRKS waits until the disconnect is posted complete and notifies WFA-C to completely disconnect the circuit. If the CLEC issues a new connect requesting CFA that is being disconnected on another order it will be rejected, unless the new connect is submitted 5 business days after the disconnect. The CLECs do have the option to issue a new connect at the same time the disconnect order is issued provided that:

1) The disconnect order is related to the new connect order. If this is done, then the CFA will be available for re-use.

2) A disconnect can be related to a new Connect by mentioning in the RPON field the new connect order number and by populating the Remarks field on the disconnect order with the comment "Re-use CFA".

3) The new connect order can not have the same due date as the disconnect order (If a CLEC issues a disconnect order on 01-01-2002 then the new connect should be dated on or after 01-02-2002).

IMA verified that in the case of the three disconnect PONs (708700-D4, 708700-D6, and 708700-D7) Allegiance did not populated the RPON and the Remarks field for CFA re-use. Therefore the new connect LSRs were rejected due to busy CFA.

Bonnie - Eschelon wanted to know when in the process does the order reach Tirks. Chad said the service order has been created.

Chad said that once a circuit is designed, the specs are sent to WFA-C where the actual wiring of the circuit occurs. Depending how much of the circuit is designed is the key as to when the CFA will again become available. A circuit will not show available until after TIRKS receives a 'Cancellation Complete' notice. If cancellation is received during design - CFA should be available in one business day If cancellation is received after the order has been distributed to WFA-C for wiring - CFA should be available in 5 days.

Terry - Allegiance brought up a concern regarding a Pseudo CLEC test (Exception 2079) It took 4 to 33 days for the CFA to show available. Russ will investigate test example and provide an answer to Peggy.

Bonnie - Eschelon wanted to know if they were using the wrong terminology associated with Disconnects. She also asked if there was a documented process. Chad indicated that the CLECs do have the option to issue a new connect at the same the disconnect order is issued. The disconnect needs to be related to the new connect by populating the RPON field and the remarks with re-use CFA.

Russ recommended that Qwest do a true-up and validate if this process is working the way it should be. Is the CFA really available. Russ and Chad will complete investigation and report findings to Peggy

Russ and Chad will provide an update in the Systems CMP meeting.

01/17/02 CMP Meeting Discussion: Jonathan Spangler/AT&T does not want this CR closed. He needs to check into. Jeff Thompson/Qwest responded that if examples can be provided by a week from Friday, Qwest can make a decision if the CR needs to go into Withdrawn status or goes into definition phase. Leilani Hines/WorldCom stated that the busy CFA project may have done something to fix this problem. Jeff Thompson/Qwest stated that there was no systems work done to fix this CR. The CR will be updated to 'Pending Withdrawal'. If Qwest gets examples by January 25, the CR will go into definition. If no examples are received by January 25, the CR status will be updated to 'Withdrawn'.

11-16-01 Alignment Meeting Notes Attendees: Attendees: Kathy Stichter/Eschelon, Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon, Kathy Rein/Qwest, J. J. Bradley/Qwest, Max Pitard/Qwest, Janet Carlson/Qwest, Gerald Mohatt/Qwest, Dallas Morris/Qwest, Chad Gerity/Qwest, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, Monica Manning/Qwest, Russ Urevig/Qwest, Carrie Lousberg/Qwest Reviewed CR description and confirmed is an impact for IMA Common for Unbundled Loop only. CLEC Expectation: When a PON is submitted and the order is rejected for any reason, when the PON is re-submitted IMA responds with an error message that the CFA is in use. The CFA is not in use because the order was rejected. An escalation then needs to be called in to clear it. Eschelon is asking Qwest that if IMA rejects an order to allow the CFA to be unreserved in TIRKS so that the CLEC can resubmit under the same PON., or Qwest can look at the edits giving the CFA in use error to see if they can be modified.

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

11-26-01 - E-mail sent to Eschelon requesting additional information:

1. What are the LSR and PON numbers of the orders that were rejected? 2. What are the LSR and PON numbers of the orders that were resubmitted with the same CFA? 3. We need a step by step recap of exactly what happened. Is there some type of incident or trouble ticket report that Eschelon had to complete that would give us this recap? If not, we need to get detailed steps of exactly what they did prior to, and immediately after receiving the error message. 4. We need numbers/statistics around how often this happens.

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

11/30/01 E-Mail Received from Bonnie Johnson (Eschelon):

Email received from Bonnie Johnson (Eschelon): Eschelon's provisioner has indicated she had an order she had to cancel on 11/28. She then submitted another LSR using the same CFA on 11/29 and she did not receive an error. Is there a possibility that there has been something that happened in one of the point releases that would have corrected or changed this recently.

In addition, she did not save the escalation ticket data on those she had. I asked all provisioners to keep me informed on their experience with this. If you are unable to move forward we may have to wait until we can recreate the situation ourselves.

CenturyLink Response

This letter is in response to your recent request regarding the Escalation process associated with busy CFA. A subsequent request was made to include information to the CLECs regarding how they should initiate an escalation for busy CFA.

Below is the information that is necessary to initiate an Escalation for busy CFA.

Busy Connecting Facility Assignment (CFA) is defined as; When validating the CFA the slot shows that it is currently in use by a circuit in the Trunk Integrated Record Keeping System (TIRKS). The busy CFA can be the result of several different reasons: normal activity, pending service order activity, pending Inventory Availability Date (IAD) issues, and canceled service orders that have not cleared in TIRKS. Should you receive an indicator that the CFA is currently in use, however you records indicate the CFA is NOT in use, an Escalation ticket may be opened.

Information that is required for an Escalation ticket will be for BUSY CFA problems.

1. TERM Z, TYPE LONG CLLI (ex.ALBONMNEHG1)

2. TERM A, TYPE SHORT TYPE CLLI (e.g., ALBQNMNE)

3. CABLE TYPE (e.g., alt01)

4. UNIT NUMBER (e.g., 086)

5. Was there a disconnect request submitted to free CFA location. (EX. Yes, a disconnect request was submitted and an FOC was received. The PON number for the isconnect was AAA121211-MA)

6. Was the Slot changed during installation? If so what was the old slot and what should the current slot be? (EX. Yes, we changed the CFA during test and turn-up the previous CFA was ALT01 slot 89 TCANAZMAHG1 and slot changed to slot 91. The PON number associated to this change was AAA121211-MA)

7. Was there any migration activity on this CFA? (EX. Yes, we should that a migration to another Provider on 06/17/2002)

8. Want type of request were you attempting when you encounter the busy CFA problem? (EX. We were attempting to request a new loop and utilize this CFA, or we were attempting a change activity against circuit 99.LXFU.000111.nw.)

9. Were there any change activity against the circuit, if so PON number for activities. (EX. Our records show a change activity should have taken place on 06/17/2002 from PON AAA121211-MA to free this CFA. Or our records indicate a disconnect request on 06/17/2002 on PON AAA121211-MA which should have freed the CFA.)

If you have any questions regarding this information please feel free to contact me.

Russ Urevig Senior Process Analyst

-

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

November 26, 2001

Kathleen Stichter ILEC Relations Manager Eschelon Telecom Inc.

CC: Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon Chad Gerity, Qwest Russ Urevig, Qwest Carrie Lousberg, Qwest This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form, number 5464735 dated March 26, 2001 - CR Title: Eliminate delay due to error message indicating CFA in use, when it is not.

CR Description: When CLEC submits a loop order to Qwest, the order is rejected for any reason, and CLEC re-submits the order, IMA responds with an error message indicating that the CFA is already in use. The CFA, however, is not in use, because the order was rejected (for reasons that may be unrelated to the CFA). At this time, CLEC then must call escalations to clear this, which results in a 2 to 3 day delay. Only after the issue is cleared up may the CLEC re-submit the order (and only then does the interval begin). Without this delay, the order could be corrected and re-submitted on the same day, which would not extend the interval. Qwest should change the system so that it allows the CLEC to use the CFA in this situation. Alternatively, if that is not possible, Qwest should allow CLEC to use the same request (the rejected request) with an increment (such as 1 or a) to avoid the delay that is currently associated with the escalation process and clearing the CFA.

Qwest Response: Based on the above noted information, the level of effort for this request is large. This CR was on the vote list for 10.0. A User Request was written on November 21, 2001.

Qwest needs additional information from Eschelon in order to continue and not jeopardize this CR for 10.0. Qwest is unable to recreate the error message that Eschelon is receiving. Information needed is: 1. What are the LSR and PON numbers of the orders that were rejected? 2. What are the LSR and PON numbers of the orders that were resubmitted with the same CFA? 3. We need a step by step recap of exactly what happened. Is there some type of incident or trouble ticket report that Eschelon had to complete that would give us this recap? If not, we need to get detailed steps of exactly what they did prior to, and immediately after receiving the error message. 4. We need numbers/statistics around how often this happens.

Sincerely, John Gallegos Information Technologies Manager

Archived System CR 5464798 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR 5464965 Detail

Description Of Change

Qwest Business Description:

Provide dept and location info in partial CSR to satisfy requirement. Orders rejected when LOCN or DEPT fields do not match Qwest's records or if fields are incomplete. Inefficient to pull FULL CSR to extract info.

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

December 3, 2001

Kathy Stichter ILEC Relations Manager Eschelon

CC:John Gallegos Gerry Mohatt Monica Manning Michael Buck

This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form, CR5464965 Provide Location and Department Information in Partial CSR

Description of Change: CLEC ask Qwest to eliminate Qwest’s requirement that CLECs place complete the location and department fields in IMA-GUI (release 6.0). Orders are rejected when the LOCN or DEPT fields do not match Qwest records or if the fields are not completed. The only way to obtain the information for the fields is to pull a Full Customer Service Record (CSR). This is extremely time consuming and inefficient. Only a certain amount of data downloads at one time, and then CLECs must sift through unneeded information to find the LOCN and DEPT information. In a separate CR, Eschelon has asked that Qwest eliminate the requirement altogether. If Qwest does not do so, at a minimum, Qwest should provide the department and location information as part of the Partial CSR.

Qwest Response: The clarification meeting to discuss this Change Request was held with Eschelon on November 19, 2001. From this meeting, the level of effort was determined to be Large. This Change Request was voted #16 as a result of the IMA 10.0 prioritization.

Sincerely,

John Gallegos Information Technologies Manager

Archived System CR 5578937 Detail

Description Of Change

Call Karen Clausen at Eschelon to discuss the fix going I for Mega Bit (Qwest DSL) Loop Qual and make sure that it addresses Eschelon’s concerns

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR 5522887 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

INTRODUCTION The call was conducted in order to finalize the CLECs requirements for the Loss & Completion Report that Qwest provides to the CLECs

MEETING MINUTES The meeting began with introductions of the attendees. Mark Routh-Qwest welcomed the attendees and reviewed the Eschelon CR (CR#5522887)

Bonnie Johnson -Eschelon stated she thought the report had changed since August.

Anita Larson-Andres- Qwest confirmed that it had not changed since its inception.

Bonnie Johnson -Eschelon Confirmed that only the definition had changed. She asked if everything on the Loss Report was on the Completion Report?

Anita Larson-Andres- Qwest Stated that it should be.

Bonnie Johnson -Eschelon stated that she didn’t think that all the losses were on the Loss report. She stated that Eschelon only wants those losses to other CLECs/ILECS on the Loss report.

John Gallegos - Qwest stated that he had received the faxes that Bonnie Johnson had sent but that he needed more information.

Bonnie Johnson -Eschelon Stated that Echelon didn’t have any more information.

John Gallegos - Qwest indicated that the faxes he had received from Bonnie didn’t include the Name and Address information on the report. He added that the web site needed to be updated.

Kathy Stichter - Eschelon asked why they have two reports that are identical (the Loss and the Completion reports)

John Gallegos - Qwest indicated that there are differences in the reports.

Anita Larson-Andres- Qwest indicated the difference is that the Completion report contains the information about the Service Orders that completed to the impacted CLEC. The Loss report contains the loss information to the impacted CLEC. She sited some examples.

Kathy Stichter - Eschelon indicated that she wanted to see any loss to the CLEC on the Loss report.

Kathy Stichter & Bonnie Johnson -Eschelon indicated that they would send an updated Requirement Specification to Mark Routh. Kathy asked if there will be a process in place to provide PON when the PON is not on the report? – List of Attendees

First Last Company Attended Mark Routh Qwest In person John Gallegos Qwest In person Barbara Campbell Qwest In person Curt Anderson Qwest In person Nancy Walker Qwest In person Anita Larson-Andres Qwest Called in Theresa Hubis Qwest Called in Beth Foster Qwest Called in Joshua Nelson Qwest Called in Peter Budner Qwest Called in Kathy Stichter Eschelon Called in Bonnie Johnson Eschelon Called in Marcia Lees SBC Called in Sam Yeung KPMG Called in Scott Simon Premier Called in Joyce Davis Sprint Called in

CLEC-Qwest Loss & Completion Report 10:00p.m. – 11:00p.m. Friday, September 14, 2001 Conference Call

INTRODUCTION

The call was conducted in order to finalize the CLECs requirements for the Loss & Completion Report that Qwest provides to the CLECs

MEETING MINUTES

The meeting began with introductions of the attendees. Mark Routh-Qwest welcomed the attendees and Barbara Cambell – Qwest reviewed the Eschelon CR (CR#5522887)

Barbara Cambell- Qwest stated that the definition of the report has changed but it is still not accurate.

Lynne Powers –Eschelon stated that the definition of the Loss Report should be that a Loss is defined as a Loss to another CLEC. She read the definition of the Loss Report

Barbara Campbell – Qwest stated that Qwest will update the definition.

Curt Anderson – Qwest stated that the definition of the Loss Report as read by Lynne Powers was the second definition.

Barbara Campbell – Qwest stated that it was the definition.

Curt Anderson – Qwest stated that the Qwest Development team is looking at examples of the report that were submitted by Eschelon, but that they have not developed an answer yet.

Bonnie Johnson -Eschelon stated that they wasn’t to see only the losses per the definition prior to August 14th. Eschelon wants the Loss report to reflect only those losses to another CLEC/ILEC. Eschelon does not want to see order account activity that is generated by Eschelon to be included on the Loss report.

Mark Routh-Qwest asked the other participants on the call if they agreed with the Eschelon requirement for the Loss information. They all agreed that they would like to see the same information on the Loss report that Eschelon had requested.

It was requested the Qwest add the Product List to the Loss & Completion Report.

Curt Anderson – Qwest Committed to have the web site updated with the current products by Friday, October 5th.

Lynne Powers - Eschelon stated that she needs to know about the proposed changes in the report to see if it will fill their needs.

Curt Anderson – Qwest indicated that Qwest will only add new products, not change the report.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon indicated that they do get the Loss & Completion report for each product.

Curt Anderson – Qwest stated that he is working with the Documentation group to get the documents for the report updated.

Lynne Powers - Eschelon asked to have a Development representative available to discuss the issues. She stated, “In order to define the requirements, we need to understand the logic and flow of how that happens.”

Anita Larson-Andres – Qwest will provide the real definition of the Loss & Completion report and provide the Flow Chart of how the information gets on to the report.

There were no additional comments and Mark Routh ended the call. – List of Attendees

First Last Company Attended Mark Routh Qwest In-Person John Gallegos Qwest In-Person Barbara Campbell Qwest In-Person Curt Anderson Qwest In-Person Anita Larson-Andres Qwest Called in Lynne Powers Eschelon Called in Kathy Stichter Eschelon Called in Bonnie Johnson Eschelon Called in Marcia Lees SBC Called in Debbie Jewell ATG Called in Lori Nelson Midcontinent Called in Sharon Stettnichs Midcontinent Called in Ellen Neis Sprint Called in Mary Sagelski Premier Called in Oral Larson DSET Called in Susan Dever AT&T Called in Roy Harsila Comm South Called in Gloriann Lowinske New Access Called in Marcia New Access Called in Christy Hicks New Access Called in

Discussion from the September 19 CMP meeting:

Connie Winston/Qwest said this CR is one on which there were some questions around the ACT of D. Qwest did meet with Eschelon off line, and Qwest thought there could have been several issues on the loss and completion report. We did find one ‘people’ issue, we talked to that person. They simply input the incorrect PON and we’ve talked to them and that’s been cleared up. The other issues all result around ACT of D across different product types. Qwest defined that an ACT of D would be an external loss. From Eschelon’s perspective it appears that if they initiated the activity of D, it’s not an external loss to them. They would have thought that it would have had an internal indicator. AT&T was also interested in this discussion. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T — asked for clarification as to what came out of that discussion between Qwest and Eschelon regarding the ACT of D and if there were any conclusions that came out of that discussion. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that the original CR was to have the loss report really truly identify losses, customers that have left Eschelon and have gone to another local service provider. This is really critical in UNE POTS and resale, because Eschelon is not notified via the LSR to release the number. So the loss report is the only report that Eschelon can depend on to be certain that we quit billing the customer. Our initial expectation was that this final step was taken to indicate internal vs. external. Last month, we determined that there is a different view of what was internal vs. external. It’s Eschelon's feeling that if we initiate a disconnect of any type, whether it is a partial disconnect or a full disconnect, whether it’s a C order, a D order, regardless of the order type, that we view that as internal because we initiated it. All we want to show up as external are those losses that we did not initiate. I think that we just need, at this point in time, to move forward and determine impacts to other CLECs, and whether it impacts everybody. AT&T seems to be the only other CLEC that uses the loss and completion reports. We don’t want to impact other CLEC’s process and how they use the report, so if there is agreement with other CLECs, I’ll submit a new CR to change the definition of internal and external. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T — and your request for changing that would define an actual internal loss meaning an order that was initiated by the CLEC just to change one of their customer features, or move orders. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon — it would clearly state that external only applies when the customer is only actually changing local service providers via an LSR request from another carrier. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T — AT&T agrees with that definition. Can Qwest elaborate on what they define a loss as being, because AT&T has always assumed that that was the case. By definition, a loss would be that the CLEC was losing that customer and therefore be able to utilize the information that was on the loss report to be able to disconnect billing on that customer. Connie Winston/Qwest — from Qwest retail perspective a disconnect is considered a line loss. So it is considered a loss. So loss to revenue stream and things like that constitutes a loss. When this CR went into this definition, Qwest thought an ACT of D results in lost customers, lost revenue, so it’s a loss. The customer could have new connected with another CLEC, or they have gone to another state, things like that can happen, that’s where that definition came from. Bonnie’s explanation is also understandable, that’s why we discussed the new CR to change the definition. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T — I can understand the Qwest position too because essentially, except for in a move situation where the customer’s TNs aren’t really changing, if they are within the same switch, the account wouldn’t necessarily change. Connie Winston/Qwest — in all of the ones we’ve researched it has been a true ACT of D. Eschelon indicated that they haven’t had the “Move” situation, but they would look into that. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon — for us, for Centrex plus account, if they're moving from one common block to another there will be one C to move and one C to add. There are occasions for Eschelon when a customer might be moving. The customer might change from resale to facility based. Eschelon uses the loss report to determine if it is appropriate to stop billing our customer. Eschelon wants to ensure that there aren’t other CLECs that are using these reports for a different purpose. Bonnie indicated that she would submit a new CR and then if there is anybody who would have an objection to that or uses these reports for a different reason, that that would come out when she submitted the CR. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T — I still think AT&T would be in favor of the CR that Bonnie is suggesting. Essentially AT&T is looking at that report as being a customer literally leaving AT&T. Liz Balvin/WorldCom — I think WorldCom is using it in the same manner as well. We’ll be sure to get with our folks when the new CR is initiated and see if there are any issues. But I believe we are using it as Eschelon has described. Mike Buck/Qwest stated that Qwest will be looking for a new CR and that this one will be updated to Completed knowing that there is a new CR is on the way. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon — yes

CenturyLink Response

Mark Routh

Announcement Date: May 23, 2002 Effective Date: May 27, 2002 Notification Number: SYST.05.23.02.F.04074.LTypeFinalTechSpec Notification Category: Systems Notification Target Audience: CLECs, Resellers Subject: CMP – Systems Document in Review Loss and Completions – Loss Type Indicator, Final Technical Specifications Associated CR # or System Name and Number: CR 5522887 – Loss and Completions

On May 27, 2002, Qwest will post the Final Technical Specifications for Loss and Completions-Loss Type Indicator, targeted for implementation on July 11, 2002. These will be posted to the Qwest Wholesale Document Review site.

Summary of Change: This will allow CLEC to distinguish Telephone Number lines lost to other CLEC providers from those lines lost for other reasons. A loss type indicator will be added to the Loss Report. For each loss appearing on the Loss Report, the loss type indicator value will be either (I) internal or (E) external. An internal loss identifies a lost line that does not go to another CLEC provider. An external loss identifies a line lost to another CLEC provider.

Final Joint Test Plan: Qwest will deliver the Loss Report test file after 1:00 PM Central Time on June 11, 2002 to the CLEC community. Each CLEC will receive the test file in the same format, via the same transmission mode, as they do today.

Comment Response: There were no comments received during the CLEC Comment Cycle; therefore, Qwest Response to CLEC comments is not required.

If you have any questions on this subject, please submit comments though the following link: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/comment.html.

Timeline:

Final Technical Specifications Loss Type Indicator-CLEC Final Tech Spec Requirements-V01.00 Available May 27, 2002 CLEC Testing Window Begins Available June 11, 2002 Targeted Production Date Available July 11, 2002

Sincerely,

Qwest

Note: In cases of conflict between the changes implemented through this notification and any CLEC interconnection agreement (whether based on the Qwest SGAT or not), the rates, terms and conditions of such interconnection agreement shall prevail as between Q west and the CLEC party.

Announcement Date: July 11, 2002 Effective Date: Immediately Notification Number: SYST.07.11.02.F.04111.LossCompletionSysRel Notification Category: Systems Notification Target Audience: CLECs, Resellers Subject: System Release Loss and Completions – Loss Type Indicator Associated CR # or System Name and Number: CR 5522887 – Loss and Completions

CMP CR5522887 has been released into production effective July 11, 2002.

Summary of Change: A loss type indicator will be added to the Loss Report that will allow customers to distinguish Telephone Number lines lost to other CLEC providers from those lines lost for other reasons. For each loss appearing on the Loss Report, the loss type indicator value will be either (I) internal or (E) external. An internal loss identifies a lost line that does not go to another CLEC provider. An external loss identifies a line lost to another CLEC provider.

Sincerely,

Qwest

Note: In cases of conflict between the changes implemented through this notification and any CLEC interconnection agreement (whether based on the Qwest SGAT or not), the rates, terms and conditions of such interconnection agreement shall prevail as between Q west and the CLEC party.

Archived System CR SCR073001-4 Detail

Description Of Change

Qwest Business Description:

Multiple live accounts with different cus codes for the same TN can be listed in a CSR. Determine which live account to use when issuing the LSR in order to eliminate using an incorrect account, causing flow through issues and delaying provisioning.

Status History

Project Meetings

UR 1433/CR 18889 CSR Match Rework (deployed 11-17-01) - IMA will not return CSRs with a 'FINAL' account status during Pre-Order Review. If all of the found accounts are in 'FINAL' status, an error message will be returned with 'No active account found'.

UR 1433/CR 25362 BPL eliminate CSRs in FINAL from Multi-Match response (deployed 7.0 timeframe) - Accounts with a Final status have been eliminated from a multi-match CSR response.

UR 2295/CR 28259 CSR Disconnect Flag (scheduled 9.0) - IMA GUI and EDI will be modified so that Co-Providers will know if a CSR in a 'LIVE' status is pending disconnection. An 'Account Descriptor ' field will be added to the IMA GUI next to the Line Status on Review Full or Partial CSR Response screens and CSR Multi Match screen. In addition, the 'Account Descriptor field will be added to the EDI CSR Response Administrative section and Listed Name and Address section of Multi Match section of the CSR mapping. The Account Descriptor field will provide an indicator of "DISC" for an account that is pending disconnection.

UR 2797 Edit for closing info on CSR (not targeted) - IMA will reject LSRs submitted for accounts that are pending disconnection. Dependent on UR 2295.

According to Change Request SCR073001-04, Eschelon wants to be able to determine which live account to use, when more than one live account with different cus codes for the same TN is returned for a Review CSR Query. With the work that has already been completed, Final accounts are not returned in the CSR Response. With the implementation of the CSR Disconnect Flag CR in 9.0, IMA will provide a "DISC" account descriptor for accounts that are pending disconnect. This will allow the CLECs to select the appropriate live account for LSR submission. Beyond 9.0, IMA will implement editing to reject LSRs with an account number that is pending disconnection. All of these changes will ensure that the CLEC selects the correct Account Number.

As long as the aforementioned work satisfies Eschelon, I think SCR073001-4 can be closed.

11/29/01 - Eschelon provided additional examples of multiple CSR's - forwarded to Monica Manning for investigation

CenturyLink Response

UR 2439 BOSS Status of Blank (deployed 10-13-01) - BOSS input files to IMA have been modified to provide an account status of "Final" when an account is disconnected, and an account status of "Blank" when an account is new with no current billing record. This allows IMA to filter out Final accounts.

UR 1433/CR 18889 CSR Match Rework (deployed 11-17-01) - IMA will not return CSRs with a 'FINAL' account status during Pre-Order Review. If all of the found accounts are in 'FINAL' status, an error message will be returned with 'No active account found'.

UR 1433/CR 25362 BPL eliminate CSRs in FINAL from Multi-Match response (deployed 7.0 timeframe) - Accounts with a Final status have been eliminated from a multi-match CSR response.

UR 2295/CR 28259 CSR Disconnect Flag (scheduled 9.0) - IMA GUI and EDI will be modified so that Co-Providers will know if a CSR in a 'LIVE' status is pending disconnection. An 'Account Descriptor ' field will be added to the IMA GUI next to the Line Status on Review Full or Partial CSR Response screens and CSR Multi Match screen. In addition, the 'Account Descriptor field will be added to the EDI CSR Response Administrative section and Listed Name and Address section of Multi Match section of the CSR mapping. The Account Descriptor field will provide an indicator of "DISC" for an account that is pending disconnection.

UR 2797 Edit for closing info on CSR (not targeted) - IMA will reject LSRs submitted for accounts that are pending disconnection. Dependent on UR 2295.

According to Change Request SCR073001-04, Eschelon wants to be able to determine which live account to use, when more than one live account with different cus codes for the same TN is returned for a Review CSR Query. With the work that has already been completed, Final accounts are not returned in the CSR Response. With the implementation of the CSR Disconnect Flag CR in 9.0, IMA will provide a "DISC" account descriptor for accounts that are pending disconnect. This will allow the CLECs to select the appropriate live account for LSR submission. Beyond 9.0, IMA will implement editing to reject LSRs with an account number that is pending disconnection. All of these changes will ensure that the CLEC selects the correct Account Number.

As long as the aforementioned work satisfies Eschelon, I think SCR073001-4 can be closed.

Archived System CR SCR073001-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

November 26, 2001

Kathleen Stichter ILEC Relations Manager Eschelon Telecom Inc.

CC: Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon Dallas Morris, Qwest Kathy Rein, Qwest Carrie Lousberg, Qwest This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form, number SCR073001-1 dated July 30, 2001 - CR Title: IMA edits (7-10 digits) for Customer Forwarding Number (CFN) floats for features on Centrex lines.

CR Description: Eschelon requests a systems change to provide IMA edits for 7-10 digits for Customer Forwarding Number (CFN) floats for features on Centrex lines. IMA-GUI currently allows CLECs to use 10 digits, and the SOP edits to the correct number. But, for Centrex products, no edit occurs, and the CLEC provisioner must enter either 7 or 10 digits, as appropriate. Qwest should allow CLECs to use 10 digits on all orders, with Qwest’s system should edit the order if 7 is appropriate for Centrex products, as it does now for 1FB. Qwest’s centers have electronic, up-to-date access to this information and, therefore, CLECs should also have such access.

Qwest Response: This request was on the candidate vote list for the 10.0 Release. Eschelon has since advised that they are no longer in need of this CR due to an edit that was installed in the 7.01 Release and the establishment of a manual process that is working for Eschelon. Eschelon is in agreement to close this CR at the December CMP meeting if there are no other CLECs interested in this request. Currently, there is no sponsor for this CR. If a sponsor is obtained at the December meeting, this CR will be targeted for a later Release.

Sincerely, John Gallegos Information Technologies Manager

Archived System CR SCR073001-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Previously, McLeod made a similar request in CR#5466535. That CR, however, does not appear on the last CICMP log. If that CR remains active, Eschelon does not object to consolidating this CR with that one.

Status History

Project Meetings

INTRODUCTION

The call was conducted in order to clarify the CLECs requirements for the S&E Section on the FOC that Qwest provides to the CLECs

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A – List of Attendees

MEETING MINUTES

The meeting began with introductions of the attendees. Mark Routh-Qwest welcomed the attendees and stated the meeting was intended to confirm the CLEC’s requirements for the information to be returned on the S&E section of the Firm Order Completion (FOC).

Barbara Campbell – Qwest asked if everyone had a copy of the documentation that was distributed for the meeting.

Barbara Campbell – Qwest read through the Eschelon Change Request. Then she reviewed the sample FOC that was sent to the CLECs

Barbara Campbell – Qwest asked if the sample met the CLECs requirements.

The CLECs all agreed that it did.

Barbara Campbell – Qwest asked if the CLECs would agree to receiving the FOC’s outside of the normal response time due to more information being created.

The CLECs said yes.

The CLECs asked if certain information would be on the FOC.

Barbara Campbell – Qwest said that the S & E section on the FOC would be the same information that they would be getting on their completions notices.

The CLECs asked if they would get another FOC if the information changed.

Barbara Campbell – Qwest said that the FOC process was not changing, just the addition of the S & E section to the FOC, so if they were getting FOCs now when data changed, they would continue to receive them. She asked if this change would be for all products.

The CLECs said yes.

The CLECs asked when this would be implemented.

John Gallegos - Qwest indicated that it could not be done prior release 10.0 (pending the CLEC prioritization of this CR)

RESULTS OF THE DISCUSSION

The CLECs agreed to having the same information on the FOC as they are currently getting on completions notifications.

The CLECs agreed to a possible longer response time for the FOC since more data would be provided.

The CLECs agreed that it would be for all products.

The change would go in to the IMA release 10.0

Attachment A – List of Attendees

First Last Company Attended Mark Routh Qwest In-Person John Gallegos Qwest In-Person Barbara Campbell Qwest In-Person Curt Anderson Qwest In-Person Lynne Powers Eschelon Called in Bonnie Johnson Eschelon Called in Jan Stafford AT&T Called in H Fluker AT&T Called in Esther Scherer AT&T Called in T Dwayne AT&T Called in Terry Bahner AT&T Called in Jonathan Spangler AT&T Called in Rose Ann Brown AT&T Called in Kelly Morris ELI Called in Lorna Megasi ELI Called in Lori Nelson Midcontinent Called in Scott Simon Premier Called in Lana Messenger Freetel Called in Bob Carias NightFire Called in

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR SCR073001-3 Detail

Description Of Change

In addition to changing the process (per that CR) for calls, Qwest should also modify CEMR to allow CLECs to enter multiple lines (i.e., the number of lines needing repair for the same customer location) on a single request in CEMR.

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

10/09/01 Mark Routh sent a response to Kathy Sticter stating that POTS circuits (non-design services) are potentially all bundled on one circuit and therefore can be addressed together in one repair ticket. However, an Unbundled Loop (design services) involves taking a current loop and breaking the logical TN and physical equipment and assigning the loop to the CLEC, and tying it to a special frame. Because it is provisioned and identified as a separate entity it can not be grouped together with other Unbundled Loops on a repair ticket.

Archived System CR SCR073001-5 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

INTRODUCTION

The call was conducted in order to clarify the CLECs requirements for the S&E Section on the FOC that Qwest provides to the CLECs

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A – List of Attendees

MEETING MINUTES

The meeting began with introductions of the attendees. Mark Routh-Qwest welcomed the attendees and stated the meeting was intended to confirm the CLEC’s requirements for the information to be returned on the S&E section of the Firm Order Completion (FOC).

Barbara Campbell – Qwest asked if everyone had a copy of the documentation that was distributed for the meeting.

Barbara Campbell – Qwest read through the Eschelon Change Request. Then she reviewed the sample FOC that was sent to the CLECs

Barbara Campbell – Qwest asked if the sample met the CLECs requirements.

The CLECs all agreed that it did.

Barbara Campbell – Qwest asked if the CLECs would agree to receiving the FOC’s outside of the normal response time due to more information being created.

The CLECs said yes.

The CLECs asked if certain information would be on the FOC.

Barbara Campbell – Qwest said that the S & E section on the FOC would be the same information that they would be getting on their completions notices.

The CLECs asked if they would get another FOC if the information changed.

Barbara Campbell – Qwest said that the FOC process was not changing, just the addition of the S & E section to the FOC, so if they were getting FOCs now when data changed, they would continue to receive them. She asked if this change would be for all products.

The CLECs said yes.

The CLECs asked when this would be implemented.

John Gallegos - Qwest indicated that it could not be done prior release 10.0 (pending the CLEC prioritization of this CR)

RESULTS OF THE DISCUSSION

The CLECs agreed to having the same information on the FOC as they are currently getting on completions notifications.

The CLECs agreed to a possible longer response time for the FOC since more data would be provided.

The CLECs agreed that it would be for all products.

The change would go in to the IMA release 10.0

Attachment A – List of Attendees

First Last Company Attended Mark Routh Qwest In-Person John Gallegos Qwest In-Person Barbara Campbell Qwest In-Person Curt Anderson Qwest In-Person Lynne Powers Eschelon Called in Bonnie Johnson Eschelon Called in Jan Stafford AT&T Called in H Fluker AT&T Called in Esther Scherer AT&T Called in T Dwayne AT&T Called in Terry Bahner AT&T Called in Jonathan Spangler AT&T Called in Rose Ann Brown AT&T Called in Kelly Morris ELI Called in Lorna Megasi ELI Called in Lori Nelson Midcontinent Called in Scott Simon Premier Called in Lana Messenger Freetel Called in Bob Carias NightFire Called in

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR SCR100201-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Eschelon continues to provide examples of service order errors that Qwest has made when service orders have not been issued by Qwest SDCs as requested on our LSRs. Qwest’s SDCs use the feature called Cutting and Pasting. CFA information is often incorrect on a service order because augments to our co-locations have different naming conventions. For resale and UNE-P, features including but not limited to CFN (Call Forwarding Number) and PIC (Primary Inter-exchange Carrier) are often omitted completely or essential information pertaining to these features is omitted leaving our end user customer without the functionality requested on our LSR. Since there is no ability to proactively identify Qwest service orders prior to DD (detail available on Service Order Completion only) the customer has been negatively impacted by the time the error is detected. Eschelon asks Qwest to provide TRUE flow through for LSRs submitted.

Status History

Project Meetings

10/18/01 CMP meeting. The definition of Flow Through = When the order goes through the Service Order Processor error free without human intervention. Eschelon and Allegiance brought up examples associated with the CFA and Circuit ID's that are missing or not the same as on the LSR that was submitted. C. Winston and T. Jacobs will take the lead on this issue. L. Powers will send examples to Qwest (T. Jacobs) of LSRs that are not true Flow Through. Qwest will research and determine what the problem is. L. Powers will also meet with Ken Olson to review a report that shows per CLEC why some orders do not Flow Through.

###

11/01/01 Per Kathy Sticher, examples of Flow Through are now being sent to Kathy Rein in the Mim Center. Susie Wells to contact B. Johnson to forward examples to L. Stecklein.

###

To: "Mark T Coyne" cc:"Connie D Winston" , Michael Buck/Mass/USWEST/US@USWEST

Subject:RE: SCR100201-1 Provide "True" Flow Through for UNE-P Resale LSRs

Mark, Here is the response from Bonnie Johnson re: confirmation of what we discussed on our call. Thanks!

- Forwarded by Lynn Stecklein/GROUPWARE/USWEST/US on 02/05/2002 08:27 AM To:Lynn Stecklein , klsticher@eschelon.com, "Johnson, Bonnie J." cc:krolson@qwest.com

Subject:RE: SCR100201-1 Provide "True" Flow Through for UNE-P Resale LSRs

Hi Lynn, You have captured this correctly to my recollection.

Thanks,

Bonnie

--Original Message-- From:Lynn Stecklein [SMTP:lsteckl@qwest.com] Sent:Monday, February 04, 2002 1:38 PM To:klsticher@eschelon.com; bjjohnson@eschelon.com Cc:krolson@qwest.com Subject:SCR100201-1 Provide "True" Flow Through for UNE-P Resale LSRs

Bonnie and Kathy, I want to thank you again for taking the time to clarify SCR100201 with Ken Olson and myself. We both feel that our discussion clarified the intent of this change request.

I am sending this e-mail to summarize the details of our call on February 2. I would appreciate confirmation that I have captured what we discussed accurately and also what we agreed upon going forward.

In November, Eschelon forwarded a spreadsheet of flow through errors for Qwest to research. These errors were supposed to be examples associated with SCR100201-1. Qwest completed this investigation and determined that these examples were not associated with this change request. Eschelon confirmed today that the spreadsheet was not meant to be associated withthis change request. These errors were associated with flow through issues on 1FB, CCMS services. There is a separate effort underway to address these errors.

In SCR100201-1, Eschelon clarified that they were looking for Qwest to provide the definition of "true flow" . In addition, Eschelon would also like Qwest to address the following:

What is the definition of flow through? When is the Manual Handling Indicator used? Is a partial service order created when the Manual Handling indicator is used? What causes the LSR to drop from FTS flow through? If it drops,what portion of the service order is created? Qwest will also provide an updated matrix of LSR's eligible for Flow Through that include exceptions.

Qwest agreed to provide a response to address these questions.Please let me know as soon as possible if we have captured our discussion accurately.

Thanks,

Lynn Stecklein Ken Olson

CenturyLink Response

o:bjjohnson@eschelon.com, klstichter@eschelon.com cc:krolson@qwest.com, Shon Higer/COMPLEX/USWEST/US@USWEST, Michael Buck/Mass/USWEST/US@USWEST

Subject: SCR100201-1 Flow Through Response

On January 31, 2002, Eschelon and Qwest held a conference call to discuss SCR100201-1. Eschelon clarified that the purpose of this change request was to further understand the order flow through process. Eschelon requested that Qwest provide additional information on the following items in order to bring this change request to closure.

What is the definition of flow through?

Any flow through eligible LSR that is processed mechanically, and service orders issued in the SOP without any manual intervention, can be considered as "true" flow through.

When is the Manual Handling Indicator used?

There are some complex scenarios within the boundaries of the flow through eligible matrix that must be manually handled. These more complex scenarios are generally identified by function or type of activity and are product specific. Service managers can answer questions about when it is appropriate to mark a LSR for manual handling.

Is a partial service order created when the Manual Handling indicator is used? What is created on the partial service order?

When manual handling is requested, no portion of a service order is created mechanically so it is important to limit the use of the manual indicator to those appropriate situations.

What causes the LSR to drop from FTS flow through? If it drops, what portion of the service order is created?

The service order error conditions may be caused by LSR input errors or Qwest processing issues associated with service order creation. Qwest automatically creates as much of the service order as possible for ALL products that are listed as exceptions on the attached exception table.

Qwest will also provide an updated matrix of LSR's eligible for Flow Through that include exceptions.

See Attached documents

Once you have had an opportunity to review the above information, let me know if you have any questions. I will schedule a follow up meeting if necessary.

Archived System CR 14886 Detail

Description Of Change

A CLEC should be allowed to submit a request for service using the interval that has been negotiated and is in the CLECs ICA. A CLEC has a contractual right to the intervals it has in its ICA. However, when the CLEC sends a request for service, and the interval the CLEC has negotiated in the CLECs ICA is different from the interval in the Qwest SIG, Qwest changes the CLECs requested due date to the interval in the Qwest SIG. For example, Eschelon has a contractual right to an interval in its ICA for a particular product in some states. That interval is shorter than the interval in the Qwest SIG. Qwest forces Eschelon to use different process when submitting a request for those orders so Eschelon can get the interval that it has a right to in its contract. This process includes marking the LSR for manual handling and actually calling the Qwest center Manager who handles this product to advise Qwest that Eschelon has sent an order with the interval in Eschelon's ICA. Eschelon has a right to the intervals in its ICA and should have to use a different process to get that interval. If Eschelon fails to follow the Qwest imposed process, Qwest changes the due date in Eschelon's ICA to the due date in Qwest's SIG, and uses the CFLAG/PIA field to tell Eschelon it changed the due date it requested. In addition, because this product is flow through eligible, Eschelon's requests are subject to Qwest service order typing errors when the order may have flowed through Qwest's systems because Eschelon has to set the LSR to manual handling. Qwest should change IMA to reflect intervals that a CLEC has in its ICA and not the Qwest SIG.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORIGINAL 9/28/2001 CR DESCRIPTION:

Standard intervals should be mechanized in CLEC electronic interfaces based on standard interval guide (SIG).

Status History

Project Meetings

-- September 16, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that we are still exploring alternatives and that she will contact Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon to discuss further.

- August 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this is still being evaluated and that Qwest is looking into the contractual obligations around the 2-day standard interval. Jill noted that Qwest may ask for ad-hoc calls with the CLECs. Jill stated that a status would be provided in September.

July 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this is being reviewed and the LOE is pending. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR is ‘Other’, not IMA, so it will not be included in the prioritization. This Action Item remains open for status.

-- June 17, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR remains in Evaluation, Qwest research continues. This Action Item remains open.

-- May 13, 2004 Clarification Meeting CR# 14886 (5-6-2004 REVISED TITLE) Qwest Should Apply Interval Edits in IMA and IMA Flow Through Based on the CLECs ICA Intervals and Not the Qwest SIG

Introduction of Attendees: Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, John Gallegos-Qwest, Curt Anderson-Qwest, Nicole James-Qwest, Cynthia Gomez-Qwest, Jim Recker-Qwest, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest reviewed the revised CR Title and description:

5/6/2004 - REVISED DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE: A CLEC should be allowed to submit a request for service using the interval that has been negotiated and is in the CLECs ICA. A CLEC has a contractual right to the intervals it has in its ICA. However, when the CLEC sends a request for service, and the interval the CLEC has negotiated in the CLECs ICA is different from the interval in the Qwest SIG, Qwest changes the CLECs requested due date to the interval in the Qwest SIG. For example, Eschelon has a contractual right to an interval in its ICA for a particular product in some states. That interval is shorter than the interval in the Qwest SIG. Qwest forces Eschelon to use different process when submitting a request for those orders so Eschelon can get the interval that it has a right to in its contract. This process includes marking the LSR for manual handling and actually calling the Qwest center Manager who handles this product to advise Qwest that Eschelon has sent an order with the interval in Eschelon's ICA. Eschelon has a right to the intervals in its ICA and should have to use a different process to get that interval. If Eschelon fails to follow the Qwest imposed process, Qwest changes the due date in Eschelon's ICA to the due date in Qwest's SIG, and uses the CFLAG/PIA field to tell Eschelon it changed the due date it requested. In addition, because this product is flow through eligible, Eschelon's requests are subject to Qwest service order typing errors when the order may have flowed through Qwest's systems because Eschelon has to set the LSR to manual handling. Qwest should change IMA to reflect intervals that a CLEC has in its ICA and not the Qwest SIG.

Additional Discussion: Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that Qwest response to the revision was that it would be a new CR. Bonnie stated that it is not a different CR. Bonnie stated that Eschelon realizes that in the 5.01 Release, Qwest was implementing a change to put edits in IMA based on the Service Interval Guide. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that the challenge for the CLECs is on service orders. Bonnie stated that Qwest flows through its systems and also manually types orders. Bonnie stated that Eschelon is forced to use a different process and noted that it is very manually intensive stated that they should not have to. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that this request is for any product where the interval is different in the SIG vs. the ICA’s. Bonnie stated that the contract always rules. Cynthia Gomez-Qwest asked Eschelon for examples. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that for example; the Eschelon contract has a 2-day interval for UBL in the states of CO, OR, & MN. Bonnie stated that when they submit a service order with a 2-day interval, the process is manually intensive. Bonnie stated that this causes them to only use it occasionally. Bonnie stated that the loops are then removed from the flow through process and they have to call the Duluth Center Manager and give them information so that the order can be worked. Cynthia Gomez-Qwest asked if there were more examples and asked for a complete list. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that some say that standard intervals do not apply. Bonnie stated that all CLECs have negotiated some time, different intervals for different products. Bonnie stated that the first driver is always the ICA, then the SIG, if no standard interval. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she needs this change in IMA and in back-end systems. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that if the manual process is not used, Qwest applies the standard interval and sends a PIA to the CLECs indicating that the standard interval was used. John Gallegos-Qwest asked for the average percentage of orders that fall into this category. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that all Eschelon orders in CO, OR, & MN. John Gallegos-Qwest asked if this varies by stated and CLEC. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon responded yes. John Gallegos-Qwest asked if Eschelon had a percentage. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that they do business in 10 Qwest states and 50% of UBL orders fall-out. (10 Qwest States are AZ, CO, ID, MN, ND, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) There were no additional questions or comments.

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest confirmed that this request is for IMA EDI & GUI

Confirmed Impacted Products: Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest asked for the specific product(s) that this Change Request is for. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that the CR is for UBL 2 & 4-wire

Establish Action Plan & Resolution Time Frame: Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest stated that Qwest will review the revised request and provide a status at the June Systems CMP Meeting. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated okay.

- May 11, 2004 Email Sent to Eschelon: Hi Bonnie, This email is to confirm the Clarification Call details for your CR 14886. They are: DATE: Thursday, May 13, 2004 TIME: 9:00 a.m. MT / 10:00 a.m. CT CALL IN #: 1-877-564-8688, 8571927 Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM-Systems

May 10, 2004 Email Sent to Eschelon: Bonnie, I have revised the CR and attached a copy for your records. I am in the process of scheduling the Clarification Call. I have also created an Action Item on the CR to communicate the Revision to the CLEC Community and for Qwest to provide a Status. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems

- May 6, 2004 Email Received from Eschelon: Peggy, It is not a completely different request than the first. To the contrary, I have E-mails Qwest sent to Lynne Powers stating Qwest would not make the change it did to IMA and Qwest did make the change. Eschelon should not have had to submit a CR to correct something Qwest said it would not do. Qwest said the edits it put in place with the SIG would not have the impact to our intervals and it did. Karen Clauson was involved. I would be happy to include Karen if need be.

Please schedule the clarification call without delay. Bonnie J. Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom, Inc.

- May 6, 2004 Email Sent to Eschelon: Hi Bonnie, In reviewing the revision to 14886, this seems to be a completely different request from the original request. Due to the difference, we would ask that Eschelon submit a new CR for the Interval Edits based on the CLECs ICA Intervals and withdraw the CR of 14886. If you feel that it should be a revision, please send me an email and help me understand why it is a revision and not a separate request. Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM - Systems

May 4, 2004 Email Received from Eschelon: Peggy, Revised Title: Qwest should apply interval edits in IMA and IMA flow through based on the CLECs ICA intervals and not the Qwest service interval guide (SIG).

Revised Description of Change: A CLEC should be allowed to submit a request for service using the interval that has been negotiated and is in the CLECs ICA. A CLEC has a contractual right to the intervals it has in its ICA. However, when the CLEC sends a request for service, and the interval the CLEC has negotiated in the CLECs ICA is different from the interval in the Qwest SIG, Qwest changes the CLECs requested due date to the interval in the Qwest SIG. For example, Eschelon has a contractual right to an interval in its ICA for a particular product in some states. That interval is shorter than the interval in the Qwest SIG. Qwest forces Eschelon to use different process when submitting a request for those orders so Eschelon can get the interval that it has a right to in its contract. This process includes marking the LSR for manual handling and actually calling the Qwest center Manager who handles this product to advise Qwest that Eschelon has sent an order with the interval in Eschelon's ICA. Eschelon has a right to the intervals in its ICA and should have to use a different process to get that interval. If Eschelon fails to follow the Qwest imposed process, Qwest changes the due date in Eschelon's ICA to the due date in Qwest's SIG, and uses the CFLAG/PIA field to tell Eschelon it changed the due date it requested. In addition, because this product is flow through eligible, Eschelon's requests are subject to Qwest service order typing errors when the order may have flowed through Qwest's systems because Eschelon has to set the LSR to manual handling. Qwest should change IMA to reflect intervals that a CLEC has in its ICA and not the Qwest SIG.

Bonnie J. Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom, Inc.

-- April 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Eschelon is still looking to see what the intent and business need is for this request. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that it is because with the implementation in a back-end system that does not accommodate for contract differences with the Service Interval Guide. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that they are battling with those situations. This Action Item remains Open.

April 16, 2004 Email Received from Eschelon: Peggy, I have not forgotten you. I am researching within Eschelon the purpose and what the need and intent of the CR was. I should have a response to you next week. Have a great weekend!! Bonnie J. Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom, Inc.

-- April 9, 2004 Email Received from Eschelon: Hi Peggy, I am still checking with a couple of folks here at Eschelon to determine what the needs are to revise the CR. I should have some response for you soon. Thanks, Bonnie J. Johnson Director Carrier Relations Eschelon Telecom, Inc.

- April 9, 2004 Email Sent to Eschelon, Bonnie Johnson & Kathy Stichter: Hi Bonnie and Kathy, RE: 14886 Pre-order Transaction: Due Date availability & standard Intervals This email is a follow-up to the discussion that took place for this Systems CMP CR 14886, at the March 17th Review of Open Systems CMP CRs. During that meeting, Eschelon stated that a revision to the CR would be made and that another Clarification Meeting would be helpful. Do you have the revision ready to provide to me at Peggy.Esquibel-Reed@qwest.com ? Once the revision has been received, I will schedule the Clarification call. In the email that contains the revised CR, if you would also provide me with several options for that Clarification Call, I would greatly appreciate it. I have attached a current copy of the referenced CR. Thanks much, Peggy Esquibel-reed Qwest CMP CRPM - Systems

- March 17, 2004 Review of CR’s (AI021904-03 Review of Open Systems CMP CRs: March 18, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the intent of this request was to put edits in place that based on the Standard Interval Guide, has something to prevent from asking for a specific due date. Bonnie stated that the question is do you see a value in this. Bonnie stated that this CR does have a large LOE and that is probably one of the reasons why it has been ranked low in the prioritizations. John Berard/Covad asked if this request was only for IMA GUI. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that it is for IMA Common. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the value needs to be evaluated and asked that the LOE be re-evaluated to see if it could possibly be lower due to other functionality that has been previously deployed. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that there appears to be some interest in this request. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that Qwest could re-evaluate the LOE but he needs more clarity and understanding of the request. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she would revise the CR to add more detail of the request. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that once he reviews the revision, he would advise if an additional Clarification Call is needed. Phyllis Burt/AT&T asked Bonnie for clarification of the request. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Eschelon is requesting an edit, in IMA, to enforce the asking of the correct interval. Bonnie stated that she was advised that they need to input the standard interval, then they need to request an expedite of the due date. Bonnie stated that she received a notice that indicated that the interval for Centrex was going to be less. John Gallegos/Qwest asked Eschelon to also please verify the Product scope for this request. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she would confirm if it should be for All Products. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that another Clarification Call would be a good idea. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that once the CR revision has been received, an additional Clarification Call would be scheduled. There were no additional questions or comments on this CR. This CR will be revised and re-evaluated.

February 19, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion Excerpt (Attachments H & J): Judy Schultz/Qwest stated that she wanted to provide an update to the funding approval process that was discussed in the January CMP Systems Meeting. Judy referred everyone to Attachment J in the Distribution Package. She stated that all CRs are being re-evaluated and must be approved. Judy said that CRs could not be scheduled without approval. Judy stated that the CRs with an impact to the IMA interface would follow the existing prioritization process. Judy noted that the funding for IMA 15.0 and IMA 16.0 has been approved, as well as funding to begin work on IMA 17.0.

January Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: There were no comments or questions for this CR.

-- 8/21/03 CMP Systems Meeting Kim Isaacs/Eschelon stated that she would like an IMA edit. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that this CR was a nice to have. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that an edit would require a new CR be submitted.

March 20, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion Regarding IMA 14.0 Prioritization: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that this is not a high priority for Eschelon.

December 19, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Kit Thomte/Qwest reviewed the prioritization process as defined in the CMP document. She noted that December 30th, 2002 is the due date for submitted votes. Judy Schultz/Qwest noted that the due date would be included in the instructions in the notification that goes out with the ballot. Kit Thomte/Qwest reviewed the sample prioritization form. Connie Winston/Qwest said that when you send in a LSR this would do a validation against a standard due date. Qwest initiated this CR for pre-order and withdrew the CR. Eschelon picked it up. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that this is a nice to have and it sounds like you want to know ahead of time that you are going to request the right due date. Our folks know what the intervals are for whatever products they support. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said she thinks it’s a nice to have.

CenturyLink Response

October 13, 2004

Kathy Stichter Bonnie Johnson Eschelon

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request number 14886 - Qwest Should Apply Interval Edits in IMA and IMA Flow-Through Based on the CLECs ICA Intervals and Not the Qwest Service Interval Guide (SIG).

CR Description: 5/6/2004 - REVISED DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE: A CLEC should be allowed to submit a request for service using the interval that has been negotiated and is in the CLECs ICA. A CLEC has a contractual right to the intervals it has in its ICA. However, when the CLEC sends a request for service, and the interval the CLEC has negotiated in the CLECs ICA is different from the interval in the Qwest SIG, Qwest changes the CLECs requested due date to the interval in the Qwest SIG. For example, Eschelon has a contractual right to an interval in its ICA for a particular product in some states. That interval is shorter than the interval in the Qwest SIG. Qwest forces Eschelon to use different process when submitting a request for those orders so Eschelon can get the interval that it has a right to in its contract. This process includes marking the LSR for manual handling and actually calling the Qwest center Manager who handles this product to advise Qwest that Eschelon has sent an order with the interval in Eschelon's ICA. Eschelon has a right to the intervals in its ICA and should have to use a different process to get that interval. If Eschelon fails to follow the Qwest imposed process, Qwest changes the due date in Eschelon's ICA to the due date in Qwest's SIG, and uses the CFLAG/PIA field to tell Eschelon it changed the due date it requested. In addition, because this product is flow through eligible, Eschelon's requests are subject to Qwest service order typing errors when the order may have flowed through Qwest's systems because Eschelon has to set the LSR to manual handling. Qwest should change IMA to reflect intervals that a CLEC has in its ICA and not the Qwest SIG.

ORIGINAL 9/28/2001 CR DESCRIPTION: Standard intervals should be mechanized in CLEC electronic interfaces based on the standard interval guide (SIG).

History: A clarification meeting, due to the CR revision, was held on May 13, 2004 with Eschelon and Qwest representation. At this meeting, it was determined that the request was specifically for the states of Colorado, Oregon, and Minnesota and that there are variations based on each individual Interconnection Agreement, State, and by each CLEC.

Qwest Response Qwest is meeting the CLECs intervals based upon our contractual agreements. At times, manual handling is the most efficient way to meet our requirements and this would be one of those cases. We have determined that this requested change is economically not feasible as it would require system costs and significant investigation. The estimated costs to implement this CR are $74,520.

Additionally, Qwest understands that Eschelon is the only CLEC calling Qwest to have the 2-day due date honored and the Eschelon call can be discontinued. Going forward, Eschelon only has to mark the LSR for manual handling and Qwest will clarify the due date process in the PCAT.

Sincerely,

Qwest

Archived System CR SCR100501-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

11/18/01 - Action Item was discussed in Oct CMP meeting. K. Stichter, Eschelon, Advised that the RLD references provided to them on 10/05 did not provide them with enough information about the data in the fields. Eschelon is looking for a 'cheat sheet' and/or additional information related to the Loop information makeup (i.e. Pair Gain System, etc). J. Thompson advised that the RLD Guide/Tool was just distributed and would like to hold a joint review of the Document/Guide to determine if modifications are necessary to fit the need. The review will be done at the Nov CMP meeting. A handout will be provided for the review that will include examples. K Stichter will also e-mail examples from Eschelon repair.

10/10/01 - A meeting was held with Kathy Stichter and Stephen Sheahan to determine if the information met Eschelon's expectations. Per Kathy, Eschelon needs additional information associated with the loop information makeup (i.e. Pair Gain System etc.). Qwest to determine if this type of information can be provided.

09/05/01 - .Meeting scheduled with Eschelon to discuss this issue. Jeff Thompson (Qwest) to be on the call. Results of call indicated that no comprehensive Qwest documentation is readily available to address data field definitions. Mark Routh to investigate the possibility of establishing a "Raw Loop Data Query" Mailbox for inquiries from the CLECs.

8/30/01 - Conducted a call with Eschelon to understand the requirements. Qwest will set up an e-mail box to receive and respond to any

07/31/01 -: From: Walberg, Loren Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 5:23 PM To: Stichter, Kathleen L. Cc: Clauson, Karen L.; Powers, F. Lynne Subject: RE: RLD Tool Questions and response

There may be a misunderstanding with regard to the request on the last bulleted item listed and contrary to Steve Sheahan's referral to the RLD data dictionary this morning....(I had already reviewed that .pdf file and did not find it useful) What I am looking for is further explanation, not of the data fields that are produced by the RLD tool, rather an explanation of the data that could potentially populate those fields. For example, I have attached an RLD example for our employee Rick Lewis. See attachment.

One field, is called "F1MAKEUPDESC" I understand that field to be a description of the F1 facilities make-up. However the data in that field is: "26NL 0.100kf 24NL 11.707kf 26NL 0.675kf 24NL 0.340kf "

I interpret this data to be 26 gauge non-loaded at 0.100 kilo feet, 24 gauge non-loaded at 11.707 kilo feet, 26 gauge non-loaded at 0.675 kilo feet and 24 gauge non-loaded at 0.340 kilo feet. I think this is a pretty good guess. However there are other fields where I cannot guess at the meaning of the abbreviations and acronyms in the field to make use of the data. For example: Field name: "F1LOADCOILTYPE" Field data: "H88"

What is H88?

Also, does it make a difference that I am not accessing RLD Tool through IMA, but rather through my digital certificate?

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR SCR112101-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

12/3/01 - Clarification Meeting

Attendees: Kathy Stichter, Darlene Barber, Lynn Stecklein Adhoc meetings held with Cheryl Mcmahon and Bud Witte

The purpose of this meeting was to clarify the above request. Eschelon is requesting Qwest to investigate option for modifying the WFA system to address multiple credits for circuit outages per trouble report. Darlene Barber had not questions regarding the request. She did confirm that WFA is a Telecordia system. Also WFA cannot read the narritive. WFA can only give credit on 1 circuit not multiple circuits. This request is related to a Product and Process CR5579345. The Qwest response confirmed that multiple trouble reports will be accepted on a single repair ticket if all 3 of the following criteria was met: Same exact trouble on each line, same end user location and same customer name for end user. However, Qwest uses WFA for all trouble reporting. It was designed to only handle a single circuit per trouble report. Credits for circuit outages are limited to a signal circuit per trouble report. Kathy also advised this request was for designed services.

CenturyLink Response

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

March 15, 2002 Qwest Response

The email below constitutes a deny response for CMP request SCR112101-2 to have WFA-C capable of having multiple circuit troubles entered on a single ticket with all circuits as candidates for credit.

Qwest has obtained vendor estimates to have multiple circuits be applied against a single trouble ticket. This effort was estimated at $1-10M by Telcordia. At this time, Qwest does not intend to proceed with this effort for a mechanized solution, but wishes to re-emphasis that three options exist to accomplish the same goal.

There are three options available to the CLEC if the CLEC trouble includes multiple circuits. The options are as follows:

1) The RSA will put multiple circuits on a single ticket at the CLEC's request. This is dependent on the number of circuits allowed on a single ticket and must apply to the same customer at the same location reporting the same trouble. It should be noted that the CLEC must stay on the line while the ticket is created. Only the lead circuit will be a candidate for a credit. To obtain credit on each circuit the CLEC must contact their account representative.

2) The RSA will issue a separate ticket per trouble, at the CLEC's request, and each circuit is a candidate for credit.

3) The RSA may create a primary ticket, at the CLEC's request, and fax in the remaining circuits. The RSA will create a separate ticket for each circuit and each circuit will be a candidate for credit.

Jon Ecklund

Archived System CR SCR091302-01 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

8/21/03 CMP Systems Meeting Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that she was not sure if Eschelon can measure this and asked if Qwest had done any analysis to determine how many of these orders flow through untouched. Connie Winston/Qwest said that analysis has been done and some patches have been done. Connie stated that she does not have the percentages. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if Qwest could provide the data next month. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we will provide the information in the September meeting.

7/18/02 Systems CMP Meeting Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Eschelon wants Centrex 21 to flow through. 12/17/01 Clarification Meeting Minutes: Attendees were Kathy Stichter / Eschelon, Shon Higer / Qwest, Susie Wells / Qwest, Peggy Esquibel-Reed for Lynn Stecklein / Qwest Reviewed CR description. Request is for Centrex 21, all products. CLEC Expectation is for Qwest to allow flow through of all Centrex 21 products, in both EDI & GUI. No other needed resources were identified. No dependent Change Requests identified.

January Systems Meeting 1/17/02 SCR120301-1 IMA Flow Through for Centrex 21 Orders Originated by Eschelon Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon reviewed the description of the CR, wants flowthrough rather than manually typed. Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that the LOE was Extra Large. Karen Clauson/Eschelon questioned what the factors were to determine the Extra Large level of effort. Jeff Thompson/Qwest responded that was determined due to the draft definition being consistent with the size of candidates. Effects multiple systems and sub-systems. Impacts are major changes to IMA and FTS. To gather data for Centrex 21 order, need to go to sub-system(s) to gather that data. Need to mechanize a human beings effort to flowthrough a Centrex 21 order. Karen Clauson/Eschelon asked what the number of hours is and what was looked at to determine the size. Jeff Thompson/Qwest responded that this is what Qwest would have to do. Hourly estimates are determined after Business and system requirements are completed. Mike Buck/Qwest stated that the status for this CR is now Presented and is ready for February IMA prioritization.

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR SCR102901-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

-- Original Message -- Subject: RE: Test message from Qwest EBTA Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 09:38:26 -0500 From: "Stichter, Kathleen L." To: dbusett@qwest.com

Dan, I received your test message. We did get a report on 5/19/02 dated 5/12 through 5/18/02. It was the first one we received. Thanks Kathy Stichter ILEC Relations Manager Eschelon Telecom, Inc 612-436-6022 klstichter@eschelon.com

> --Original Message-- > From: Dan Busetti [SMTP:dbusett@qwest.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:08 AM > To: qwest.repair.reports@eschelon.com > Subject: Test message from Qwest EBTA > > This is a test message to confirm successful transmission. > Please reply when you receive this message. > thanks, > Dan Busetti << File: Card for Dan Busetti >>

5/16/02 CMP Systems Meeting Kathy Stichter/Eschelon said that she would like to leave this CR open because she has not seen a report yet. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if there had been reports generated and they are just not getting them or have there not been any generated reports as yet? Michael Buck/Qwest said that this CR will remain in CLEC test until June CMP meeting. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon provided email that the reports are to be sent to. (qwest.repair.reports@eschelon.com.)

4/18/02 CMP Systems Meeting Dan Busetti/Qwest reviewed CR. There were no questions.

11/8/01 Clarification Meeting

Kathy Stichter , Eschelon Lynn Stecklein, Qwest Cheryl McMahon Qwest Karrie Waldner Qwest Irene Haskins Qwest

The purpose of the call was to clarify SCR102901-1 dated 10/29/01with Eschelon. Review of Response Description of Change: Eschelon asks Qwest to develop and distribute an accurate monthly report of all tickets enteres into CEMR by Eschelon. The report needs to breakdown the number of tickets entered each month by category. One for resale (non-design) and one for UNE Loop (design). K Stichter advised that the report needs to include just the count of tickets and no other detail. The report would breakdown the count by design and non design and would be requested monthly. Qwest asked Eschelon what type of format would be required. K Stichter said that an e-mail with the counts would work.

January CMP meeting 1/17/02 SCR102901-1 Qwest to develop and distribute a monthly report of all tickets entered into CEMR by Eschelon AI Number 3 Determine method for CLECs to receive new CEMR report: Dan Busetti/Qwest discussed CLEC’s contacting their service manager’s to request the report. The targeted implementation date is March 31, 2002. The CEMR User Guide will also be updated so that they can see that this report will be available. The CEMR User Guide will also state that they need to contact the service manager. Reports will be on a weekly basis. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon asked if as of March 31st, they are to contact their Service Manager for the report? Michael Buck/Qwest responded that Eschelon just needs to provide their email address to Lynn Stecklein. All other CLECs will need to contact their service manager’s. Michael Buck/Qwest advised that the status for this Action Item will be Closed.

Subject: FW: [Fwd: 02/27/02 weekly report for AYD] Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 17:29:11 -0600 From: "Stichter, Kathleen L." To: dbusett@qwest.com CC: "Walberg, Loren"

Dan, I met with our repair director today. What he would like to see at a minimum is each submitted ticket itemized by date, with the TN or CKT ID: Date TN or CKT ID His wish list would be to add to the trouble type for each submitted ticket along with columns showing if a DPO was authorized and if Testing was authorized: Date TN or CKT ID Trouble Report Type DPO Authorized Testing Authorized 3/5/02 612-436-6022 NDT, open outnono 3/5/02XXX-XXX-XXXXXXXXXnono ETC Let me know what you think. Thanks

Kathy Stichter ILEC Relations Manager Eschelon Telecom, Inc 612-436-6022 klstichter@eschelon.com

Kathy, Is this more like you needed? thanks, Dan

-- Original Message -- Subject: 03/12/02 weekly report for AYD Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:31:30 -0700 (MST) From: Matt Hoepfinger

03/12/02 WEEKLY REPORT FOR AYD

There have been 54 successful LMOS create request(s) through CEMR for AYD.

Successful LMOS creates for AYD:

Date CircuitId Status -- -- - 03-08-2002 2067259740 closedOut 03-08-2002 7637671326 closedOut 03-08-2002 2539220334 closedOut 03-10-2002 4808384221 closedOut 03-11-2002 7634330618 closedOut 03-11-2002 6514303385 closedOut 03-11-2002 4257479655 closedOut 03-11-2002 6517628133 closedOut 03-11-2002 7634344772 closedOut 03-11-2002 8012544440 closedOut 03-11-2002 3037336706 closedOut 03-11-2002 4809667198 closedOut 03-11-2002 2534721300 closedOut 03-11-2002 2063650686 closedOut 03-11-2002 6022763466 closedOut 03-11-2002 2067633599 closedOut 03-11-2002 8012808150 closedOut 03-11-2002 4803257944 closedOut 03-11-2002 7637121116 closedOut 03-11-2002 2538404400 closedOut 03-11-2002 7208551948 closedOut 03-11-2002 2538336075 closedOut 03-11-2002 3032868432 closedOut 03-11-2002 4254017188 closedOut 03-11-2002 3032888729 closedOut 03-11-2002 2537350192 closedOut 03-11-2002 3033700919 closedOut 03-11-2002 5203278886 closedOut 03-11-2002 2067831350 closedOut 03-11-2002 3032359773 closedOut 03-12-2002 8014872087 pendingDispatch 03-12-2002 3034412418 closedOut 03-12-2002 3032820808 closedOut 03-12-2002 8019736234 closedOut 03-12-2002 2538338007 closedOut 03-12-2002 5415672335 closedOut 03-12-2002 2538473880 closedOut 03-12-2002 9283439504 closedOut 03-12-2002 8013710901 closedOut 03-12-2002 6514394319 closedOut 03-12-2002 6517027628 dispatchedOut 03-12-2002 4254512453 dispatchedOut 03-12-2002 2062566429 closedOut 03-12-2002 5202926745 closedOut 03-12-2002 9524490896 pendingDispatch 03-12-2002 5032264429 pendingDispatch 03-12-2002 4256379387 pendingDispatch 03-12-2002 2538542770 screening 03-12-2002 2534721300 dispatchedIn 03-12-2002 3039042021 closedOut 03-12-2002 9522499313 pendingDispatch 03-12-2002 2533337848 screening 03-12-2002 2533331736 screening 03-12-2002 8013995840 screening

There have been 0 successful WFA create request(s) through CEMR for AYD.

Successful WFA creates for AYD:

Date CircuitId Status -- -- - Requested response by COB 3/20/02.

CenturyLink Response

-- Original Message -- Subject: RE: Test message from Qwest EBTA Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 09:38:26 -0500 From: "Stichter, Kathleen L." To: dbusett@qwest.com

Dan, I received your test message. We did get a report on 5/19/02 dated 5/12 through 5/18/02. It was the first one we received. Thanks Kathy Stichter ILEC Relations Manager Eschelon Telecom, Inc 612-436-6022 klstichter@eschelon.com

> --Original Message-- > From: Dan Busetti [SMTP:dbusett@qwest.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:08 AM > To: qwest.repair.reports@eschelon.com > Subject: Test message from Qwest EBTA > > This is a test message to confirm successful transmission. > Please reply when you receive this message. > thanks, > Dan Busetti << File: Card for Dan Busetti >>

5/16/02 CMP Systems Meeting Kathy Stichter/Eschelon said that she would like to leave this CR open because she has not seen a report yet. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if there had been reports generated and they are just not getting them or have there not been any generated reports yet? Michael Buck/Qwest said this this CR will remain in CLEC test until the June CMP meeting. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon provided email that the reports are to be sent to (qwest.repair.reports@eschelon.com)

4/18/02 - Dan Busetti/Qwest reviewed this CR at the April Systems CMP meeting. The level of effort is 200-750 hours and the targeted implementation is 5/5/02.

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at November CMP Meeting

November 26, 2001

Kathleen Stichter Eschelon

CC: Connie Winston John I. Gallegos Joseph J. Bradley Merna Thane

This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form, number SCR102901-1, dated October 29, 2001, CR Title: Qwest to Develop and Distribute a Monthly Report of all Tickets Entered into CEMR by Eschelon. Per the CMP meeting on November 15, 2001, the requirement for monthly reports has been changed to weekly reports.

CR Description: Eschelon asks Qwest to develop and distribute an accurate weekly report of all tickets entered into CEMR by Eschelon. The report needs to breakdown the number of tickets entered in each week by category. One for resale (non-design) and one for UNE loop (design).

High Level Requirements: R1:Qwest shall develop a weekly report listing all trouble tickets entered into CEMR by Eschelon. R2:The weekly report shall contain only the Eschelon tickets for the week and no other data such as date tickets were created, status, etc. R3:The weekly report shall provide a count of the number of tickets entered into CEMR by Eschelon and be categorized by Resale: Non-Design UNE-Loop: Design R4: The weekly report shall be identified with the week and year. R5: The weekly report shall be distributed to Eschelon via email. R6: The weekly report shall be provided in a standard business application (e.g., Microsoft WORD, Excel, etc.). Qwest Response: Based on the information noted above, this CR has been determined to have a small level of effort. As discussed in the monthly CMP meeting on November 15, 2001, the CEMR system archives ticket information for a week. Qwest proposed that the report be provided on a weekly basis. Eschelon replied that weekly reports would be acceptable. The implementation date for this change request is to be determined.

Sincerely, Jon Ecklund Information Technologies Manager

Archived System CR SCR100401-1X Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

Clarification call was held on 4/26/02 with Eschelon.

Attendees were:

Kathy Stichter - Eschelon Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon Mark Routh - Qwest Systems CRPM Jerry Mohatt - Qwest IT Project Manager J.J Bradley - Qwest Business SME

Mark opened the meeting and indicated that the intent was to make sure that Eschelon was aware of the fact that this CR had been moved over from the Product & Process CMP and was now being tracked as a systems issue. He mentioned that this CR would impact IMA and would be eligible for prioritization in IMA 12.0. Bonnie clarified that there are two processes; reuse of facilities and new facilities. This CR was to address new facilities. She stated that Qwest retail is creating a new product for Coordinated Hot Cuts that are being moved from the CLECs back to Qwest switch. She wanted to insure that when the product is created for the Retail business, it is also available to the retail business at the same time. Mark mentioned that a new USOC for this product will be created and that there is an action item open to insure that the new product will be made available to the wholesale market when it available to retail.

Product/Process Status History record

10/02/01 - CR received from Eschelon 10/04/01 - CR status changed to Submitted 10/04/01 - CR Updated and sent to Eschelon. 11/05/01 - Clarification Mtg Held with Eschelon. 11/12/01 - Had additional questions for Eschelon which were emailed to Kathy Stichter at Eschelon. 11/12/01 - Need to schedule another meeting with Eschelon. New questions have come up after further investigation. Left message for Kathy S. to call me to schedule. 11/14/01 - CMP Meeting - Eschelon presented the CR. It was determined that UBL with LNP needed to be added and that there should be another clarification meeting 11/19/01 - Received answers back from Eschelon, however Kathy S. is on vacation from 11/19-11/23 and I haven't yet heard back from her to be able to schedule nessessary meeting with her. 11/29/01 - Conducted additional clarification meeting with Eschelon. 11/29/01 - Eschelon provided clarification e-mail. 12/03/01 - Clarification Meeting Minutes issued to Eschelon. 12/12/01 - CMP Meeting - Qwest advised of the coordination effort required in addition to its LNP Managed Cut product and expressed concern in coordination with 3rd party CLEC. Eschelon advised they were only interested in Qwest internal coordination. Qwest to investigate whether the Network coordinated process could be used in-lieu-of developing a new product. Qwest to develop its response. 01/08/02 - Issued Qwest's Draft Response dated January 4, 2002 to Eschelon and posted to dBase. 01/16/02 - CMP Meeting - Qwest presented its draft response. Qwest advised that it would like to present another solution based on partnering with retail. CR will remain in Presented status and Qwest will address the issues from the CMP meeting. 01/31/02 - Received questions from Eschelon to be addressed in Qwest's response. 02/12/02 - Issued Qwest's Revised Draft Response dated 2/7/02 to Eschelon. 02/20/02 - CMP Meeting - Qwest presented its revised response. It was agreed that the CR could be moved to Development. Meeting discussions will be set forth in the Product/Process Draft Meeting Minutes contained in the Product/Process CMP Meeting Distribution Package 03/20/02. 02/22/02 - Qwest's formal response dated 2/7/02 issued to CLEC Community. 03/13/02 - Issued Development status update and answers to Eschelon's questions from the 2/20/02 CMP Meeting. Posted update in the CMP dBase under Qwest Response. 03/20/02 - CMP Meeting - Qwest provided a status update on the process development and responded to Eschelon's questions from February's CMP Meeting. The CR will remain in Development status. Meeting discussions will be set forth in the Product/Process Meeting Minutes to be posted on the CMP Web site. 04/17/02 - CMP Meeting - Qwest provided a status updated and indicated that a Systems CR would need to be created to complete the process development. Meeting discussions will be set forth in the Product/Process Meeting Minutes to be posted on the CMP Web site. It was agreed to issue a Systems CR. 04/24/02 - Issued Systems CR to cmpcr@qwest.com on behalf of Eschelon.

CenturyLink Response

Archived System CR SCR083001-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

October 30, 2001 Draft Response

Ms. Kathleen Stichter Eschelon Telecom

This letter is in response to Change Request Form, PCCR100101-1 – Use NPI (Number Port Indicator) field on LSR for requests for orders requiring Port In and Port Within.

Description of Change: “Currently the CLEC populates the NPI field with data that identifies Port In and Port Within information. The NPI field is not a recognized field for Qwest LSOG5. Qwest’s system routes the orders based on the REQTYP. Within the REQTYP requests can contain Port In and Port Within service. For requests that require Port In and Port Within, Qwest uses the remarks section of the LSR and the CLEC must also populate the Manual IND field with a Y. This process puts the onus on the CLEC and not Qwest to ensure Qwest routes the order to the correct center. These requests require special handling. If the orders are not written correctly significant service affecting problems, up to and including customers out of service for several days, arise on the due date. Eschelon asks that Qwest start using the NPI field to recognize that a request is for number porting.”

Definitions of Port Activity associated with this request include: ? Port In activity includes all service requests in which the end user is currently being served by another Network Service Provider and the end user does not currently reside in a Qwest switch. Qwest has received a Local Service Request to Port the end user into the Qwest switch. Current Wholesale activity includes Port In to Qwest Resell Services. ? Port Within (Location Portability) is the ability of end users to retain the same telephone number when moving from one service location, to another area that is served by different central offices within the same Rate Center and in some locations, within NPA and municipal boundaries. The end user is currently being served by Qwest as the network Service Provider and resides in a Qwest switch.

On the OBF LSOG 5 Resale form there is a field called the NPI field. (ref 11) Actually, this is a Qwest recognized field, but currently there are no edits in place involving this field. Current accepted entries for the NPI field that will be utilized are: C=Port In Working TN D=Port In Reserved TN Z=Port Within When this field is populated, then the Manual IND field should be set to “Y” and the remark should be populated with a positive entry. Qwest has issued a system change request to begin utilizing this field for proper routing of Port in and Port Within orders to the correct Interconnect Center work queues. Scheduled implementation will be in a future IMA release. It is believed that with implementation of this change, orders will be automatically routed to the correct Interconnect Center for processing. This should help to expedite the Port In/Port Within order received process and ensure that the correct Center doing the provisioning will have access to the order sooner. Once verification of the completion time is known, notification will be sent via the CMP Process or CLEC notification. Qwest would like to close this CR and work issues related to future implementation through SCR083001-1, which relates directly to the system implementation of the NPI field.

Sincerely, Joan Wells LNP Process Manager

Archived System CR SCR122801-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

3/21/02 - Connie Winston/Qwest discussed in the CMP Systems Meeting. Connie noted that we examined the examples and think the gap has been closed. The situation was only happening in one center and one person using the old process. That person has been trained and the problem has been resolved. Connie thanked Bonnie for the examples because it was difficult to find the problem internally because of the systems were behaving appropriately. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked to have this left open for 1 more month to make sure they have a clean month (no errors). Status to remain CLEC Test and CR to be reviewed in the April Systems meeting.

2/21/02 CMP Systems Meeting Connie Winston/Qwest reviewed the status of this. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that they have provided examples that need to be investigated before they will close this CR. Connie Winston/Qwest said that Qwest continues to research the examples from February 6 and will re-look at the January examples. This CR will remain in CLEC test.

The clarification meeting was held on 1/9/02 In Attendance: Kathy Stichter (Eschelon), Gerry Mohatt (IT Manager), Monica Manning (Process Specialist) Eschelon is experiencing trouble when pulling numbers from IMA. IMA will show a number as available when in fact the number is working. Qwest is rejecting LSRs stating that the numbers given are already in use. Qwest asked what products this request was associated with. K Stichter was not sure but indicated that the request was associated with the Pre-Order Functionality. Qwest advised that UR2801 implemented on 1/8/02 should address and resolve the problem that Eschelon has raised in this change request. UR2801 will build a telephone number reservation system that will interface with all systems where a telephone number can be reserved. This system will identify a reserved telephone number and feed the reservation information to all systems trying to process a new service order. Eschelon recommended that Qwest provide a response with the information associated with UR2801 and discuss in the next CMP meeting. 1/27/02 - Connie Winston provided an overview of UR2801 ( Duplicate TN) in the January CMP meeting. This UR should resolve the change being requested in this CR. Eschelon will provide feedback if they encounter any issues.

January CMP meeting 1/17/02 SCR122801-1 Scrub Number Assignment DB Originated by Eschelon Status moved to CLEC Test. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon presented Change Request. Bonnie stated that this is an ongoing problem and Qwest has stated that telephone numbers are assigned that are already in use. This causes problems if not caught in time, particularly with dispatch. CR is asking that Qwest go back and check all telephone number’s to make sure they are not in use. These number’s have been in use, sometimes for years. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon wants more information, she wasn’t able to make the clarification call. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest identified the problem previously and had been discussing internally. UR2801 was issued and implemented which should resolve the problem that Eschelon raised in this Change Request. Change was not an IMA change. CLECs and Qwest need to monitor to determine if we can close this CR in the February CMP meeting. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that this was great and would monitor. If after January 8th, has any examples, will forward them on. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that focus should be on any examples on or after January 15th as that was the date where the implemented fix was solidified. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that would report next month for closure. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that CLEC Test is appropriate.

CenturyLink Response

1/9/02 -Eschelon is experiencing trouble when pulling numbers from IMA. IMA will show a number as available when in fact the number is working. Qwest is rejecting LSRs stating that the numbers given are already in use.

Qwest advised that UR2801 implemented on 1/8/02 should address and resolve the problem that Eschelon raised in this change request. UR2801(Duplicate TN Solution) will build a telephone number reservation system that will interface with all systems where a telephone number can be reserved. This system will identify a reserved telephone number and feed the reservation information to all systems trying to process a new service order. The system will perform several validations on the TN including validations to ensure that the TN is not working. These validations will eliminate the rejection of LSRs back to the CLEC stating that the number given is already in use. Eschelon has agreed to present this change request in the January CMP meeting and Qwest will discuss UR2801 as the potential fix to this request.

2/5/02 - Stichter, Kathleen L." cc: "Cassandra Hunt" , "Irene M Haskins"

Subject: Re: SCR122801-1 TN's Available in IMA and then Changed on order

Kathy, Qwest has completed the investigation on the query below. All documentation indicates that 303 456-4571 was provisioned on the service order as requested by Eschelon. The FOC also indicates that 303 456-4571 was assigned. Does Eschelon have other documentation that would help us understand why 303 940-1310 is in question? The LSR ID is 3799634 and the PON is CO144162DSLL. Thanks!

To: lsteckl@qwest.com cc: "Johnson, Bonnie J."

Subject: SCR122801-1 TN's Available in IMA and then Changed on order

Lynn, Here is another example. Thanks

Kathy Stichter ILEC Relations Manager 612-436-6022 klstichter@eschelon.com

--Original Message-- From:Chaplina, Irina B. Sent:Wednesday, January 30, 2002 4:10 PM To:Johnson, Bonnie J. Subject: RE: TN's Available in IMA and then Changed on order

Yes, this is another one. PON: CO144162DSLL LSRID: 3799634 N72888563 - order N FOC's TN: 303-456-4571 But Qwest put wrong TN 303-940-1310 on order on the time of completing. And they did not send new FOC and did not call me.

Following are the findings on the four TNs for Eschelon that were provisioned incorrectly (303-456-4571; 303-367-4876; 602-252-1947; and 801-373-5409).

We researched the transactions in every system in the LSR flow for these numbers. On three of the TNs (303-456-4571; 303-367-4876; and 602-252-1947) we used a process of elimination to determine that the requests were processed correctly until the SOP. At that point, it seems that the SOP found the TNs to be working, and so assigned a "duplicate TN error" to the service orders. This error caused the orders to fall out to the center, where service representatives assigned new TNs to the orders. Because we are unable to access historical data in the SOP, we cannot identify why the SOP identified the requested TNs as working when all other systems in the flow recognized that they were available. Therefore, the only solution at this point would be a manual workaround in which the centers research every order with a "duplicate TN error" to make sure that the error is valid. We can't recommend or discourage this approach without getting a feel for what percentage of service orders fall out due to this error, but we are trying to get that information as well.

The fourth TN, 801-373-5409, seems to be an anomaly. This number belongs to Integra and has for some some time. It seems that at the point when Eschelon was attempting to reserve it, Qwest was processing a records only order against the TN which included an OZCID. This field seems to have caused TNRES to identify the TN as available. Additionally, SWITCH and LFACS identify the number as nonworking even today. We are continuing to research this TN, and will keep you informed.

Archived System CR SCR101001-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

April 18, 2002 CMP Discussion: Dan Busetti/Qwest reviewed CR and stated that is improving the subject line on email statuses. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said 'We thank you for that'

February 21, 2002 CMP Discussion: Michael Buck/Qwest stated that this CR was targeted for the March Release and that a notice was mailed out stating that there is no longer a March Release. This is now targeted for the May Release. (Notice # SYST.02.01.02.F.02560.CEMRReleaseSched)

01/17/02 CMP Meeting Discussion: Michael Buck/Qwest directed those on the phone to the Interactive report. Karen Clauson/Eschelon stated is upset due to item not being in package. Michael Buck/Qwest explained that the submitting CLEC’s request to withdraw this CR did not come until after the package had been printed. Also, the apparent CLEC desire to withdraw the CR was contrary to Qwest’s understanding. Therefore, Qwest felt that this CR should be addressed as a walk on rather than losing over 6 weeks waiting until the February meeting. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that in the past Qwest has indicated that to provide failure notification, Qwest would need to program CEMR down to the keystroke level. However, what is really needed is to get email notification to be more specific in the subject line, i.e. TN or circuit ID, transaction type, ticket number, brief status. Kathy Stichter/Eschelon agreed that this would satisfy their needs. Michael Buck/Qwest stated the CR will remain in Development status but will not close. The requirement as stated in the CR needs to be updated to reflect the new understanding. Dan Busetti/Qwest advised that the Date of trouble to be in the body of the email, not in the subject line. One status would be failure. Eschelon asked Why can’t you sort the email by status. Dan/Qwest advised that failure would not be the only reason to use email. Keep CR. Targeted for March 31.

12/13/01 - December CMP discussion: Irene Haskins reviewed the response. 99% of the trouble tickets get to the back end systems within 3 minutes. Failure notification is technically feasible, the LOE is large. Dan B. reviewed why this effort would be large: Dan noted that if you go to the transaction history screen it will show the failure. Currently nothing available for immediate notification of failure. The information is available under the maintenance or the transaction screen. The error will show up in less then 3 minutes (generally less than one minute). Dan noted that they realize that the users are getting overwhelmed with email (dozen per ticket). He suggested it would be helpful to get feedback from users on which emails they want to receive. Qwest did not want to edit what was and what was not sent out via email. Eschelon is to see if they can give feedback around what emails are necessary & not necessary.

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

12/6/01 - Response to SCR101001-1 Questions Arising in the November CMP Meeting: Corrections are in order regarding two statements made by Qwest in the November CMP meeting. In that meeting a statement was made indicating that it could take up to several hours for a trouble ticket to reach the backend systems. Statistical data shows that 99% of trouble ticket attempts via CEMR are successful with a response time of less than 3 minutes.

The second statement that needs to be corrected regards failure notification. In the November meeting a statement was made that notification of a failure is currently provided via an email notice. Qwest does not currently provide failure notification of trouble ticket attempts entered into CEMR via an email message. Regarding questions from the last meeting: Due to System limitations, it is not possible to provide an immediate trouble ticket number and status on trouble tickets entered into CEMR. This information is provided via email. In response to the request to provide failure notification, while this is technically possible, the tee-shirt estimate for this functionality is LARGE.

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

11/15/01 - November CMP discussion: The next CEMR Release date is March 3, 2002. Notification that ticket is received is a screen scraper function and would result in an impact to system response time, 5-25 minute wait for the response. Eschelon requests immediate response. Jeff Thompson advised that this is a restriction of the system, cannot get immediate response. Eschelon asked for at least a trouble ticket back and a notification of a failure. Jeff advised that notification of a failure is currently provided via an email notice. Open issues remain for this CR: - Jeff Thompson or Irene Haskins will investigate what happens when a trouble ticket doesn't get to the back end system for hours? - The current email notification is not sufficient. EXAMPLE: Eschelon submits 100 trouble tickets. Eschelon receives 98 emails from Qwest. Eschelon then has to investigate all 98 emails to determine which 2 out of the 100 failed. Eschelon requesting a failure notification with information such as failure due to a system failure or if is a transaction failure. Jeff advised that agreements would need to be reached between CLEC(s) and Qwest on how many re-tries would be done before a failure notification is sent. A meeting will take place to discuss.

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

Alignment/Clarification Meeting 1:30 p.m. (MDT) / Friday 19th October 2001

SCR101001-1 CEMR Confirmation That Qwest Received Ticket and CEMR Notification of a Failure When A Ticket Does Not Get To A Qwest Person To Work Attendees: Kathy Stitcher / Eschelon Chris Frederiksen / Eschelon Michael Potter / Eschelon Peggy Esquibel-Reed / Qwest Irene Haskins / Qwest Cheryl McMahon / Qwest Ann Danielsen / Qwest Kerri Waldner / Qwest JoAnn DeLaCruz / Qwest Ken Olson / Qwest

Eschelon does use the email notification option but is unable to match the notification email to the reported trouble. Requesting 1 system, CEMR, for reporting trouble and receiving notification. Requesting immediate notification via CEMR that the ticket either failed or that it was successfully created. Requesting to receive an immediate response of the ticket number on a CEMR screen when submits a ticket in CEMR, in lieu of an email. Requesting connection from the Transaction Screen for immediate response of the ticket number. Request is for Design and non-design tickets. Eschelon may accept a slower response time, depending on the length of time and CLEC community concurrence.

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

CenturyLink Response

Kathleen Stichter ILEC Relations Manager Eschelon Telecom Inc.

CC: Jon Ecklund Irene Haskins Cheryl McMahon Dan Busetti This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form, number SCR101001-1 dated October 10, 2001 – CR Title: CEMR confirmation that Qwest received ticket and CEMR notification of a failure when a ticket does not get to a Qwest person to work.

CR Description: At this time CEMR gives confirmation, that the ticket was entered into CEMR, on every ticket submitted. CEMR does not give a confirmation that Qwest received the ticket and is working the ticket. When we enter a ticket in CEMR it is fair to assume, unless otherwise indicated, that Qwest has received our ticket and is working to correct the trouble. There are times when we call for status on a ticket and Qwest tells us that no ticket was entered. CEMR never sends a notice of a failure when the ticket Eschelon enters does not get to a Qwest person to work. This delays the resolution of the trouble for our end user customers because we then have to enter another ticket and we have now lost up to a day in getting the end user customer’s trouble cleared when we legitimately assumed the trouble was already cleared. Eschelon asks that Qwest send confirmation when a ticket gets to a Qwest person to work and also to send a notification if the ticket failed and did not get to a Qwest person to work.

Additional information was received from Eschelon at the Clarification meeting that was held on October 19, 2001. * Eschelon does use the email notification option but is unable to match the notification email to the reported trouble. * Requesting 1 system, CEMR, for reporting trouble and receiving notification * Requesting immediate notification via CEMR that the ticket either failed or that it was successfully created. * Requesting to receive an immediate response of the ticket number on a CEMR screen when submits a ticket in CEMR, in lieu of an email. * Requesting connection from the Transaction Screen for immediate response of the ticket number. * Request is for both Design and non-design tickets. * Eschelon advised that a slower response time might be acceptable, depending on the length of time and concurrence from the CLEC community.

Qwest Response: Based on the above noted information, the level of effort for this request is medium. Sincerely, Jon Ecklund Information Technologies Manager

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

01/02/02 - UR issued and has a targeted implementation date of March 31, 2002. UR requirements are: 1) Qwest shall provide the CLECs with an e-mail notification on trouble tickets entered via CEMR. 2) The e-mail notification shall provide sufficient information (i.e., date of trouble request, time of trouble request, TN or circuit identification, description of trouble, etc.) to allow the CLEC to identify the trouble request. Note: This information should be comparable to what is provided for successful tickets. 3) The e-mail notification of failed trouble tickets shall be provided for both POTS and design services.

Archived System CR SCR101901-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History