Wholesale: Products & Services

Archived System CR SCR040204-02 Detail

AT&T has been experiencing UNE-P POTS Jeopardy responses stating that Qwest is unable to establish service.

Problems:

1. This is too late in the order process

2.) Inconsistent handling of the issue.

We have seen different Jeopardy Reason Code Details (RDET) values used to indicate this problem such as SX(Error Condition Identified after the FOC was sent to the CLEC) and SO (Subscriber Other). We have received different types of remarks placed in the jeopardy response. Sometimes, depending on the Remarks, we do not detect the real reason for reject until we engage in conversation with the ISC.

Sample Remarks:

"JEOPD LSR AS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH SERVICE AT THIS ADDRESS"

"xxx servicing area"

"this is xxxxx area only served by xxxxxx"

"Send a SUP to cancel or set a new DD, not to exceed 30 business days (10 for disconnects) from the initial DD. If billing is not accepted by that time, the LSR is rejected. Cancellation charges apply, if appropriate. Disregard, if a SUP has been sent."

Solution: We ask Qwest to implement a System Edit to detect when the service address is not within Qwest’s Territory/Service area (for example multiple dwelling units and Indian reservations**).

The Specific BPL Edit should return an error message that states that the "Address found is not within a QWEST Service Area"

There are currently two SCRs addressing this issue - SCR040204-01 requesting a PreOrder error Message and SCR040204-02 requesting an Order BPL Edit. The preference is to detect this situation as soon as possible within PreOrder. If the PreOrder SCR040204-01 is implement there is no need to implement Order SCR040204-02.

**NOTE: Please do not limit the scope to only the examples specified above

Expected Deliverable:

A BPL edit to reject orders that are not serviced by Qwest.

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

ORIGINAL CR DESCRIPTION:

AT&T has been experiencing UNE-P POTS Jeopardy responses stating that Qwest is unable to establish service.

Problems:

1.) This is too late in the order process

2.) Inconsistent handling of the issue.

We have seen different Jeopardy Reason Code Details (RDET) values used to indicate this problem such as SX(Error Condition Identified after the FOC was sent to the CLEC) and SO (Subscriber Other). We have received different types of remarks placed in the jeopardy response. Sometimes, depending on the Remarks, we do not detect the real reason for reject until we engage in conversation with the ISC.

Sample Remarks:

"JEOPD LSR AS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH SERVICE AT THIS ADDRESS"

"xxx servicing area"

"this is xxxxx area only served by xxxxxx"

"Send a SUP to cancel or set a new DD, not to exceed 30 business days (10 for disconnects) from the initial DD. If billing is not accepted by that time, the LSR is rejected. Cancellation charges apply, if appropriate. Disregard, if a SUP has been sent."

Solution: We ask Qwest to implement a System Edit to detect this problem upfront.

Expected Deliverable:

A BPL edit to reject orders that are not serviced by Qwest.

Status History

Project Meetings

July 16, 2004 Emailed CR Revision Received from AT&T: REVISED-SCR040204-01 Address Validation Response (AVR) Error Message When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area. WITHDRAWN-SCR040204-02 Request for BPL Edit When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area

- July 15, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: Good Morning,

SCR040204-01 Address Validation Response (AVR) Error Message When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area. SCR040204-02 Request for BPL Edit When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area

This email is a follow-up to the Conference Call that we had last Friday, July 9th. During that call AT&T agreed to send a revision with the combining of the 2 CRs noted above, and the withdrawal of the other CR. We are now in the process of putting together the Distribution Package for the July Systems CMP Meeting which will include the 17.0 Initial Prioritization Sample Ballot. A review of all eligible CRs for 17.0 will be conducted at the same July CMP Meeting. With that, we would like to have the revised CR and withdrawal of the other CR by close of business today so we can have the most accurate data in the package and on the sample ballot as we can.

Thanks much, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM-Systems

July 9, 2004 Conference Call Meeting Minutes: SCR040204-01 AVR Error Message When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area. SCR040204-02 Request for BPL Edit When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area

Introduction of Attendees: Carla Pardee-AT&T, Phyllis Burt-AT&T, John Daugherty-AT&T, Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T, Liz Balvin-MCI, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest, Conrad Evans-Qwest, John Gallegos-Qwest, Anne Robberson-Qwest, Shirley Tallman-Qwest

Discussion: Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest stated that this meeting is to discuss the combining of the 2 CR’s, a CR Revision, and the withdrawal of one of the CRs. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that the effort by TN can identify that certain blocks are owned by a Company other than Qwest. John stated that doing by address would need to go thru the provisioning process. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T asked John Daugherty and Phyllis Burt (AT&T) if the request by TN is acceptable. John Daugherty-AT&T responded yes. Phyllis Burt-AT&T also responded yes. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T asked for the Level of Effort. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that he would first like to understand the difference between the 2 CRs. Phyllis Burt-AT&T stated that SCR040204-01 is for pre-order and is AT&Ts first choice. Phyllis stated that SCR040204-02 is AT&Ts second choice and is for order. Liz Balvin-MCI asked if the only way that Qwest can contemplate the request is by TN and not by address. John Gallegos-Qwest stated yes and noted that via address, Qwest would need to check first if the TN is owned by Qwest or by another Company. John stated that we could be down thru the provisioning process before the full determination can be made. John stated that by TN, we would catch the majority of those up-front. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T asked if by TN, it would catch 99.9% of the time. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that the majority would be caught but that he was not sure of the percentage. John Daugherty-AT&T stated that the solution by TN was acceptable. Phyllis Burt-AT&T asked if the TN solution would be for order. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that it would be for both order and for pre-order. John noted that pre-order is actually address validation by TN. Liz Balvin-MCI asked if the TN was always required for ordering. John Gallegos-Qwest stated yes and asked if AT&T could combine the 2 CRs. Phyllis Burt-AT&T responded yes. John Daugherty-AT&T also stated yes. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T stated that the CRs would be combined. Phyllis Burt-AT&T stated that she would combine the CRs and revise to be by TN. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T asked for the Level of Effort based on today’s discussion. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that the LOE for the combined effort is estimated to be approximately 1400 hours. John stated that he needs to look at what the range of hours would be. Liz Balvin-MCI stated that when this was originally discussed, there was discussion around XML. John Gallegos-Qwest stated that this effort would result in a BPL edit in IMA and would not be XML or QORA impacting. Donna Osborne-Mille-AT&T stated that SCR040204-01 would be revised and SCR040204-02 could then be placed in Pending Withdrawal Status. There were no additional questions or comments.

-- June 17, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest is still evaluating these requests and is looking into the addition of TN. Connie noted that the Service Address piece is looking to be very difficult. The Action Item will remain open on both of these CRs.

June 15, 2004 Email Received from Carla Pardee, AT&T: Thank you Peggy.

June 15, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: SCR040204-01 Address Validation Response (AVR) Error Message When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area. SCR040204-02 Request for BPL Edit When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area Carla, In regard to the 2 CR’s noted above, Qwest’s research continues and the research includes the addition of the request of checking by TN. I know you wanted a call prior to the June CMP Meeting but due to the continuing research, the call will need to take place after the June CMP Meeting. I will contact you as soon as the research is completed in order to schedule the call and discuss these CRs with you.

Thank you for your patience.

Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM-Systems

-- May 20, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we are evaluating this request to determine how we could deliver. Liz Balvin/MCI asked what is done today when an address/TN is not serviced by Qwest. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she is not familiar with the error in pre-order but that in order it is set to manual with a kickoff to the team to either accept or reject. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that if there is a reject (no account found) does Qwest have a process to determine if it is in Qwest territory or that the address is just not in the database. Connie Winston/Qwest said yes and that we don’t have a way in our system that identifies Qwest territory. Connie said that we are looking at this from the address not the TN. Connie said that the error message might say TN not available. Carla Pardee/AT&T said that she received an e-mail stating that this CR was going to be denied due to technically not feasible. Carla stated that she would like to have an off-line meeting to further understand the denial. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if Qwest could look at the TN. Liz Balvin/MCI said that if you are looking at the NPA NXX you might be able to but that you don’t get this on pre-order. Qwest has to investigate and then reject. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that the LERG would have to tell you where your territory ends. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we would look at the TN option. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if the CR should be updated. Connie Winston/Qwest said that we need to scope 1st. Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that she would prefer to have the meeting before the June Systems CMP Meeting. This action item remains open.

May 17, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T:

Carla,

SCR040204-01 REVISED 5-5-2004: Address Validation Response (AVR) Error Message When the Service Address is Not Within Qwests Territory/Service Area. (Originally AVR Indicators to Identify When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area)

SCR040204-02 Request for BPL Edit When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area

Last week Donna Osborne-Miller advised Qwest that AT&T was looking into invoking the Late Adder Process for one of the 2 Systems CR’s noted above. Donna stated that before AT&T could determine which CR to pursue as a Late Adder, she asked that Qwest advise AT&T if these CRs were doable, based on Qwest’s statement at the April CMP Meeting, that it was not yet known how these requests could be automated. Donna also asked that if they are doable, that Qwest provide the Level of Effort for these CR’s in order for AT&T to make the decision as to which CR should move forward as a Late Adder into the IMA 16.0 Release.

Qwest has reviewed the requests, performed analysis, and is providing the initial response as follows: All indications at this time are that these requests are technically infeasible. Qwest will follow-up with the formal response to these change requests.

Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM - Systems

- May 5, 2004 Email Received from AT&T: Hi Peggy, Thanks for info. Carla is covering for Donna who is out sick. I've attached our revisions based on the initial clarification call with QWEST. I originally sent these modifications to Donna on 4/9. Please remove the 4/9 revisions that were recently added to the CRs and replace it with Title, Description of Change and Expect Deliverables from the WORD attachments. Please feel free to give me a call if you have any issues or concerns.

Thanks, Phyllis

-- May 4, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: Hi Donna and Phyllis, Attached are the CR Revisions for your review and approval. I had previously added the information into the Project Meetings Section of the CRs. These revisions show a change in the Title and CR Description on SCR040204-01, and a change in the CR Description of SCR040204-02. Please advise if you concur with these revisions or advise what you would like changed. Thanks Much, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM - Systems

April 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T presented the CR. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that this CR’s Description is also being revised. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that the current edit checks if the State and NPA NXX are valid for Qwest territory. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that was correct. There were no additional comments or questions. This CR is in Presented Status.

April 12, 2004 Email Received from AT&T: --Original Message-- From: Osborne-Miller, Donna, NEO [mailto:dosborne@att.com] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 5:18 PM To: Stecklein, Lynn Subject: FW: Lat week's issues follow up

Here is the other message Lynn, that I wanted to give you. It pertains to the human exchange between trading partners relative to the explanation about TN's not served by Qwest: therefore our desire for upfront edits to circumvent this happening. Thank you, Donna

--Original Message-- From: Peterson, Lydell [mailto:Lydell.Peterson@qwest.com] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 2:02 PM To: Osborne-Miller, Donna, NEO Cc: Peterson, Lydell Subject: FW: Lat week's issues follow up

Donna per our discussion, there currently is no BPL edit in place and the information you will receive regarding the LEC owner will be via an ISC reject. If you want to pursue getting an upfront BPL edit, then I would suggest you pursue that via a CMP CR. Thanks for your patience. Lydell

--Original Message-- From: Osborne-Miller, Donna, NEO [mailto:dosborne@att.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 9:49 AM To: Peterson, Lydell Subject: Lat week's issues follow up

Well hello again! I am attaching an email so you may see the conversation Lydell that is going back and forth about territories that look to be served by other carriers. We need to understand from Qwest what is happening and what is the resolution. Thank you, Donna

I called the Wholesale Systems Help Desk. Qwest looked at both orders and said "I see they made it through IMA and you were able to validate the addresses. These Jep entries were made by an interconnect rep. You would need to call them at 888-796-9087 to discuss these orders"

I called 888-796-9087. Qwest looked at both orders and read the same Jep message back to me that I had read to her. She said the Jep messages mean what they say - Qwest does not offer service at these addresses. I asked if there was any way to determine that information in Pre-Order. She said the only way would be for us to call in to validate the address. They would then contact Address Management and find out. She said it does not show in Premise.

Needless to say , this is not a feasible option. In the mean time, I have located another 5 orders. As I suspected, they are sometimes sending them back as Rejects and possibly as 1P "verify address".

TN xxxxxxxxxx PON xxxxxxxxxx Qwest sent this message: 1P NO QWEST FACILITIES ALL (CLEC Name) SERVICE. Customer Delay. A SUP is required to cancel or set a new DD. TN xxxxxxxxxx PON xxxxxxxxxx Qwest sent this message: REJ this is on (address) - area only served by (CLEC Name).

TN xxxxxxxxxx PON xxxxxxxxxx Qwest sent this message: REJ JEOPD LSR AS NOT ABEL TO ESTABLISH SERVICE AT THIS ADDRESS AEPL211

TN xxxxxxxxxx PON xxxxxxxxxx Qwest sent this message: REJ area served by (CLEC Name).

TN xxxxxxxxxx PON xxxxxxxxxx Qwest sent this message: REJ Send a SUP to cancel or set a new DD. A rep called Qwest and was verbally advised that this area was served by (CLEC Name).

-- April 8, 2004 Clarification Meeting: CR No & Title: SCR040204-02 Request for BPL Edit When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area

Introduction of Attendees: Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T, Phyllis Burt-AT&T, Regina Mosley-AT&T, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Nancy Sanders-Comcast, John Daugherty-AT&T, Liz Balvin-MCI, Stephanie Prull-Eschelon, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest, Conrad Evans-Qwest, Shon Higer-Qwest, Jim Recker-Qwest, Lynn Stecklein-Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Lynn Stecklein-Qwest reviewed the CR Description: AT&T has been experiencing UNE-P POTS Jeopardy responses stating that Qwest is unable to establish service. Problems are 1) This is too late in the order process and 2) Inconsistent handling of the issue. AT&T has seen different Jeopardy Reason Code Details (RDET) values used to indicate this problem such as SX(Error Condition Identified after the FOC was sent to the CLEC) and SO (Subscriber Other). We have received different types of remarks placed in the jeopardy response. Sometimes, depending on the Remarks, we do not detect the real reason for reject until we engage in conversation with the ISC. Sample Remarks: "JEOPD LSR AS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH SERVICE AT THIS ADDRESS" "xxx servicing area" "this is xxxxx area only served by xxxxxx" "Send a SUP to cancel or set a new DD, not to exceed 30 business days (10 for disconnects) from the initial DD. If billing is not accepted by that time, the LSR is rejected. Cancellation charges apply, if appropriate. Disregard, if a SUP has been sent."

Requested Solution is: We ask Qwest to implement a System Edit to detect this problem upfront. Expected Deliverable is a BPL edit to reject orders that are not serviced by Qwest.

Discussion: John Daugherty-AT&T stated that the CR was prompted because of the rejects they are receiving saying that is owned by another CLEC. John stated that a short term solution and a long term solution are needed. Donna Osborne-Mille-AT&T stated that SCR040204-01 is the long term request and SCR040204-02 is the short term request. Lynn Stecklein-Qwest asked if this CR has the same issue with XML, which exists in SCR040204-01. Liz Balvin-MCI stated that if they get in Pre-Order (SCR040204-01), thru XML, then this CR is not needed. Phyllis Burt-AT&T stated that AT&T issued the 2-CRs (SCR040204-01 & SCR040204-02) because one could be easier to implement than the other. Lynn Stecklein-Qwest stated that the 2-CRs are voteable, so it is dependant on the ranking. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon requested CR be done for All Products, as a single product is harder to implement. Shon Higer-Qwest agreed with Stephanie. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated that she saw rejects for another CLEC and asked if there was an edit that was in place for a short period of time. Conrad Evans-Qwest stated that an edit does exist for Malheur. Shon Higer-Qwest asked if there was an edit for NPA NXXs that identifies the NPA NXXs outside of Qwest’s Territory. Conrad Evans-Qwest stated that there could be. Conrad Evans-Qwest asked to confirm that if the CR is implemented for Pre-Order (SCR040204-01), that this CR for Ordering, is not needed. Phyllis Burt-AT&T responded yes. Liz Balvin-MCI stated that the Qwest ISC currently figures it out, but they need it upfront. Liz stated that the LOE will determine which is the long term solution and which is the short term solution. John Daugherty-AT&T asked if this will help with multi-dwelling units where another CLEC is the provider. Shon Higer-Qwest stated that he believes that is what the request is. Shon stated that the CR needs to specify that it is for multi-dwelling scenarios. Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T stated that she would send examples to Peggy Esquibel-Reed at Qwest. There were no additional comments or questions.

Confirmed Impacted Area(s): Ordering

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: IMA Common (with XML)

Confirmed Impacted Products: All

Establish Action Plan & Resolution Time Frame: CR is due for presentation at the April 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting. Qwest will provide the response to the CR in May 2004.

April 7, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: Hi Donna, I have scheduled the clarification meeting for SCR040204-01 and SCR040204-02 to take place as follows: DATE: Thursday, April 8, 2004 TIME: 1:00 MT / 3:00 ET CALL IN: 1-877-564-8688, 8571927 Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM-Systems 303.582.5761

- April 6, 2004 Received Email from AT&T: Hello Peggy, Here are team member's availability for this week. This is given in Easter Daylight Time Zone. Wed, April 7 After 5 Eastern Thurs, April 8 10A-11A, 3P-6P (Eastern time) Fri, April 9 10:00am - 4:00pm Eastern All, Except 2P-3P (Eastern Time) thank you, Donna

-- April 5, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: Hi Donna, Will you please provide me with several options, of your availability, for the Clarification Meeting to discuss the Systems CMP CRs noted below. I will then schedule the meeting and send you the call details. Thanks much SCR040204-01 Address Validation Response (AVR) Indicator When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area SCR040204-02 Request for BPL Edit When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM -- Systems

CenturyLink Response

May 11, 2004

RE: SCR040204-02 Request for BPL Edit When the Service Address is Not Within Qwest’s Territory/Service Area

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR040204-02. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification Meeting (held April 8, 2004) Qwest is still examining the issue. Qwest will continue to research the problem and provide an updated response at the June Systems CMP Meeting.

At the May Monthly Systems CMP Meeting, CMP participants will be given the opportunity to comment on this Change Request and provide additional clarifications. Qwest is interested in the experiences of the CMP community as relates to this issue. Qwest will incorporate any feedback received at the next Monthly Systems CMP Meeting into further evaluation of this Change Request.

Sincerely, Qwest