Integra submits this escalation. Integra views Qwest’s actions related to this level one notice as non compliant with CMP. This includes Qwest issuing Product Notice: GN: CMP-LNPV56 as a level one notice, and Qwest’s refusal to retract the notice when a CLEC said it altered operating procedures.
In addition, many CLECs objected and expressed concern about whether the current provider (which may be Qwest retail) has authority to cancel a pending LSR, however, because Qwest erroneously implemented a new process using a level one notice, Qwest denied CLECs an opportunity to discuss concerns or collaboratively develop a new process.
Customer contracts
Qwest has not explained how Qwest’s new process impacts the contract the customer has with the new provider and whether Qwest will be interfering with the business relationship between the customer and the new provider.
Background and discussion
(To review the Qwest’s changes see http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/downloads/2008/081113/PCAT_LocalNumberPortability_LNP__V56.doc)
Product vs. Process
Qwest issued this level one change as a product notice. The change Qwest implemented over CLEC objection is a new process, and is not a change to the LNP product. Qwest should have issued this as a Level 4 CR because Qwest is proposing a new process. A Product notice is not appropriate.
Integra disagrees with Qwest’s claim that this new process is another option to an existing process
Qwest’s said in its attached response that its basis for issuing this new process as a level one change was that “The process described in this notice is an option to the existing process which requires the existing (original) provider to have their end user call their alternate provider to cancel the port request.”
However, after a review of the current and new process, it is clear that Qwest’s new process is not an “alternative” option to the current process that is “…CLEC to tell its end user to contact the new (alternate) provider”. An option to the current process, for example, would be an alternate means for the CLEC to tell its end user to contact the alternate provider. Integra has attached a document that shows examples of Qwest’s previous level one notices. The these examples the process did not change.
Current process:
Before Qwest unilaterally made this change over CLECs objections, Qwest confirmed in the attached response that “The current process, which is still available, requires the existing CLEC to tell its end user to contact the new (alternate) provider to cancel the request. No other process existed, even though, as discussed below, industry standards supported alternate processes.”
Qwest’s new process:
As a part of the Qwest’s new process, the “original provider” can send an email to Qwest requesting a cancelation of the LSR of the LNP provider.
Qwest’s current process is limited to the CLEC while Qwest’s new process is broader and refers to the “original provider”. Will Qwest retail now be able to send Qwest wholesale an email and request that Qwest wholesale cancel a LSR the CLEC submitted? As discussed above because Qwest inappropriately issued this new process as a level one change when the change should have been a level 4 CR, Qwest denied CLECs an opportunity to ask that question, corroboratively develop the new process, object to the new process or express concerns about the process.
CMP process
Per 5.4.2 of the CMP “Level 1 changes are defined as changes that do not alter CLEC operating procedures or changes that are time critical corrections to a Qwest product/process.” (See http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/downloads/2007/070719/QwestWholesaleChangeManagementDocument_07_20_07.doc)
Per 5.4.2.1 of the CMP, Level 1 notifications will state the disposition level 1, description of change, that changes are effective immediately, that there is no comment cycle and will advise CLECs to contact the CMP Manager by e-mail at cmpcr@qwest.com immediately if the change alters the CLECs’ operating procedures and requires Qwest’s assistance to resolve. Qwest will respond to the CLEC, within one (1) business day, and work to resolve the issue.
Qwest sent the level one product notice on Friday November 15, 2008. Integra complied with the CMP when Integra timely submitted its objection on that same day. Integra objected to Qwest’s changes several times (see attached email string which should be included in the escalation) because the new process Qwest implemented had an operational impact. Integra told Qwest that the new process Qwest unilaterally implemented over CLECs (including Integra’s) objections in LNP V56, alters Integra’s operating procedures. However, in spite of Integra telling Qwest that this process altered Integra’s operating procedures, which could require communication, training and internal documentation, and asked Qwest to retract the notice and submit a level 4 CR if Qwest wanted the new process, Qwest refused to do so. Qwest is denying Integra an opportunity to communicate changes additional non-fatal error reasons Qwest implemented to Integra business units that manage non-fatal errors.
” Resolution of the issue” per the CMP does not include Qwest refusal to retract the notice at a CLECs request when the CLEC has indicated the new process alters operating procedures. Qwest cannot unilaterally determine what impact a change has to a CLECs business.
The process alters operating procedures
In Qwest’s attached response, Qwest said Integra was making an assertion that operations are affected and it is not supported by objective fact. As a result, Qwest erroneously concludes that the new process has no impact to Integra because;
“…the current jeopardy process already requires a CLEC to respond to the jeopardy code within 4 business hours. This is not a change to the existing process.”
Qwest does not run Integra’s business and Qwest cannot tell Integra a new process Qwest is implementing does not impact operating procedures. Integra said it does and Qwest’s refusal to retract the level one notice is an inappropriate use of Qwest’s unilateral advantage in CMP.
If the Current provider uses Qwest’s new process the Impact of to the New Provider is NOT optional
It appears from Qwest’s attached response that Qwest’s position is that because Qwest currently sends Integra non fatal error rejections no communication, training or documentation needs to occur. This is simply not true. Qwest’s new process introduces a new non-fatal reject reason. Qwest’s PCAT describes non-fatal errors:
A non-fatal
condition occurs when a request is missing data or the request contains
conflicting data that is necessary to issue a valid Qwest service order. Any
condition not documented as a Fatal Reject reason in the sub-section below
and/or that prevents an order from being completed and released, is considered a
non-fatal error
When a Non-Fatal Error is identified, an error notice is
sent (unless you turn this option off by contacting the Qwest Wholesale Systems
Help Desk at 888-796-9102,) advising you that action is required to correct the
condition. Examples of Non-Fatal Errors include:
· Missing end-user contact information
· Local Contact (LCON) name, address, or telephone number is invalid.
· AGAUTH status field shows "N" instead of "Y" with an effective date (usually a typographical error)
· The implementation contact Telephone Number (TEL NO), implementation contact Pager Number (PAGER), alternative implementation contact TEL NO, and alternative implementation contact PAGER fields must contain local or toll-free telephone numbers if the order requires a dispatch.
· Incompatible features on an account
To resolve the error condition you must submit a supplement correcting the missing or incorrect information within 4-business hours or the LSR will be ejected. (See http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/clecs/ordering.html),
Integra will have to react to a new non-fatal reject that Qwest has not sent in the past
As you can see from the examples, each non-fatal error requires a different action to resolve the non-fatal error. So even though Integra currently processes Qwest’s non-fatal errors, Integra has never processed a non-fatal error with the message “End User has requested cancellation of the Port request.” Integra certainly would not take the same internal action to resolve a non-fatal error stating the end user has requested cancellation as it would a non-fatal error stating there were incompatible features on an account, for example.
Integra assumes that the expectation when Qwest sends the NLSP a jeopardy stating the customer wants to cancel the conversion/port, is that the NLSP would take some action regarding Qwest’s non-fatal reject, and not just sup the LSR. Yet in its response to Integra, Qwest said that this new process has no impact to Integra if Integra chooses not to use the optional process. Conversely, if the OLSP uses Qwest’s new process, and Integra is the NLSP, Integra has no choice to be involved in the process and the impact to Integra is not optional.
Bonnie Johnson
Bonnie J.
Johnson| Director Carrier
Relations
direct 612.436.6218 | fax 612.436.6318
730 Second Avenue S
| Suite
900
Minneapolis, MN 55402