Wholesale: Products & Services

Archived System CR SCR060903-01 Detail

AT&T revision sent 6/23/03 features requesteing as a part of this change request.

Caller ID;

Call waiting;

Call forwarding;

Speed dial 8 and 30;

Call transfer;

Talking call waiting.

Status History

Project Meetings

--Original Message-- From: Martain, Jill [mailto:Jill.Martain@qwest.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 2:05 PM To: Van Meter, Sharon K, NEO Cc: cmpcr@qwest.com Subject: RE: Close CR SCR060903-01

Thank you for your quick reply. Let me know when you hear back on the other CRs.

Jill

--Original Message-- From: Van Meter, Sharon K, NEO [mailto:svanmeter@att.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 1:47 PM To: Martain, Jill Subject: Close CR SCR060903-01

Jill,

Qwest can close CR SCR060903-01. I'm still checking on the other ones.

Sharon Van Meter AT&T Western Region LSAM 303-699-6483 303-540-1637 (pager)

11/17/04 Systems CMP Meeting

John Gallegos/Qwest asked if AT&T had been able to test this CR. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T said that she needs to research this CR further and will close offline if possible.

10/22/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that a Patch for this CR was completed in 16.0.

9/16/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR was completed in the 15.0 release. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that she would like to keep this CR in CLEC Test for further investigation.

8/18/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR was implemented in 15.0 and would remain in CLEC Test.

7/22/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this was implemented in 15.0 and would remain in CLEC Test.

6/17/04 Systems CMP Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated this CR will remain in CLEC Test for another month per the request of Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T.

5/20/04 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion This CR will remain in CLEC Test.

-

4/22/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR was just deployed in the IMA 15.0 Release and will remain open for another month.

Malia Tasi/VCI Company said that they were unable to add Call Waiting ID and that they had to use the workaround. She asked if there was an Event Notification. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that there was an Event Notice (Ticket Number HD727575) that the NWT USOC (Call Waiting) began rejecting in March with the description ‘Feature NWT requires one of the following USOCs and that this was patched.

Malia Tasi/VCI Company stated that they received an error that the NWT was not valid at switch and that it is on every order and that they had to add a remark.

Liz Balvin/MCI stated that an edit went in with the IMA 15.0 Release. Liz asked VCI Company if they turned in a trouble ticket.

Michael Lopez/Qwest said that the trouble ticket number is 727575.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that this is specific enough to not impact other orders. 5/3/04 Revision to Minutes from Eschelon - Bonnie also asked what progress Qwest had made on defining errors to a lower level so this override functionality could be used more frequently. Connie said Qwest was still looking into this.

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest will take an action item to determine if the patch went in and to determine if the override functionality can be used.

This CR remains in CLEC Test.

3/18/04 CMP Systems Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR is deploying on April 19, 2004, in the IMA 15.0 Release. There were no questions or comments.

MEETING MINUTES - February 17, 2004 Hi-Level Walk Through of IMA 15.0 Committed CR's

Attendees: Anne Robberson-Process Analyst (Qwest), Curt Anderson- IT Systems Analyst (Qwest), Diane Burt-Systems Analyst (AT&T), Donna Osborne-Miller - Carrier Relations Manager (AT&T), Dusti Bastian-Process Analyst (Qwest), Ellen McArthur-Process Analyst (Qwest), Hank Martinez-IT Systems Analyst (Qwest), James McCluskey-ILEC Manager (Accenture), John Daugherty-Product Management (AT&T), John Gallegos-IT Manager (Qwest), Kathy Miller-Process Manager (Qwest), Kim Isaacs- ILEC Relations Process Analyst (Eschelon), Kyle Kirves-IT Analyst (Qwest), Linda Miles-Process Manager (Qwest), Lori Langston-Process Manager (Qwest), Marie Acceno-Systems Analyst (AT&T), Nancy Denny-IT Analyst (Qwest), Nicole James-IT Analyst (Qwest), Pat Bratetic-Process Manager (Qwest), Phyllis Burt-Systems Analyst (AT&T), Randy Owen-IT Manager (Qwest), Shon Higer-Process Analyst (Qwest), Shonna Pasionek-IT Analyst (Qwest), Stephanie Prull-EDI Business Analyst (Eschelon), Susie Wells-Product/Process Analyst (Qwest) Meeting Facilitator: Nancy Denny (Qwest)

Purpose: High-level walk-through of the CRs that are committed in the IMA 15.0 Release.

Supporting Documents: Qwest Notification: SYST.02.13.04.F.01366.IMAEDI15.0Cand&DocWkth Documentation containing 15.0 Candidate Summaries: February 17, 2004, attached to notification CRs can be found in the Qwest Wholesale Change Request Interactive Report located at: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/changerequest.html Functional Overview: This enhancement will introduce a Qwest reject for LSR if the feature is not available at the end user Central Office Switch and allow the CLEC to contact the customer and let the customer make the decision as to whether or not the customer still wants the service without the feature.

Form Impacts: Resale (RS) form

Products: Resale POTS UNE-P POTS UNE-Star POTS

Activities: ACT = N, T, V, Z, C

Discussion

SCR060903-01 Reject message required if Call Waiting ID Unavailable in Switch

Susie provided the overview based on the document circulated with the meeting agenda.

Phyllis: In the Appendix E of Disclosure, it looks as if the AN or TNS on Resale form should be used as the NPXX. The Service Availability requirements states that we should use the LSO from the validation. When NPXX does not equal the LSO, what do we do? (Phyllis cited an example). John: Qwest will takeaway that question and research an answer.

12/17/03 CMP Systems Meeting Liz Balvin/MCI stated the SOC indicates that something is provisioned and Qwest is saying that is not the case. Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that Qwest has completed the analysis of the examples Liz provided and will forward to her. Lynn also said that a meeting will be scheduled with MCI after the 1st of the year to discuss.

11/20/03 CMP Systems Meeting Denise Martinez/Qwest reviewed that the current process in the Center is to issue service orders supporting what the CLEC has requested in the LSR. The assumption is that a Service Availability check has been done by the CLEC before sending the request to Qwest. Once the service order(s) has been created and submitted in the Qwest SOP, the SDC sends an FOC. When it is identified that a requested feature is not available in a particular switch after an FOC is sent, a Jeopardy notice is sent with a C05 (designed order) or SX (non-designed order) jeopardy code which identifies Error Conditions Identified After an FOC is Sent. The documentation supporting Error Conditions Identified after an FOC is Sent PCAT can be found at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/clecs/provisioning.html. For LSRs where a jeopardy notice is sent due to a CLEC error being identified after FOC and if a supplement is not received to correct the error condition within 4 hours, the service order(s) will be cancelled but the LSR remains in a jeopardy condition. If after 30 business days the LSR is still in a jeopardy status, the LSR will be rejected. If for some reason it was identified that a requested feature is not available in a particular switch before an FOC being sent, an Error Notification is sent to the CLEC. Information regarding the Error notification process PCAT can be found at URL http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/clecs/ordering.html. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the jeopardy process is not happening. Bonnie asked if the feature type is not compatible with switch, will it error out. Denise Martinez/Qwest said that it depends. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that she had an example last month where the feature was not available in the switch. Denise Martinez/Qwest stated that she could take a look at the examples. Denise stated that if the order is completed and the feature is not available that is a different issue. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the example she reviewed showed that we removed what was not available on the switch and that the CLEC was not billed and that’s why Denise was asked to provide the jeopardy process. Denise Martinez/Qwest stated that she could check to see if after completion, if someone could contact the CLEC to notify. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that the USOCs were on the completions. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that they have issues with this as well where they were not notified. Bonnie asked if once the order is completed could it post to the bill. Denise Martinez/Qwest stated that the process states if there are any changes after completion, you will be notified via e-mail. Denise stated that we could review the examples and determine if any coaching is needed. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if the e-mail is sent to the submitter. Denise Martinez/Qwest stated yes. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that would not work for MCI. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that MCIs first example was processed correctly with no change, but that the other examples were of the FOC and was corrected internally prior to completion. John said that they should have been notified back to MCI and that was not done. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we will work off-line with MCI. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that for 15.0 it would become an upfront reject. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if it is based on feature availability. Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that the applicable features are listed on the CR.

10/16/03 CMP Systems Meeting Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we did review the examples sent to us by AT&T and the research done indicated that the USOCs did not make it all the way to billing. Connie said that the process is to send a jeopardy back to let you know that the feature is not available so that you can remove. Carla Pardee/AT&T asked if the jeopardy process is fully documented. Liz Balvin/MCI said that she has an example where the USOCs were not available at the switch and that the end user called to ask why they did not get the service they requested. Liz stated that you did confirm on the SOC that you did provision the feature. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that it should have fallen off the SOC and will validate the MCI's example. Bobby Chen/Qwest will provide the example. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we need to true-up the jeopardy process and make sure it is documented. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this action item will remain open to review the MCI examples.

10/23/03 e-mail from Liz Balvin --Original Message-- From: Elizabeth Balvin [mailto:liz.balvin@mci.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 11:23 AM To: 'Kast, Steven' Cc: 'ChadWarner (E-mail)'; 'Chen, Bobby'; 'Doug Lacy (E-mail)' Subject: RE:

Steve,

We are researching what it will take not send features not available at Qwest switch but in the mean time, we need to determine how to deal with the issue of Qwest reflecting provisioned services (when a reject should result) for features not available.

Thanks,

Liz Balvin MCI Carrier Management - Qwest Region Internal Line - V625-7305 External Line - 303-217-7305 Pager (888) 900-7221

--Original Message-- From: Kast, Steven [mailto:Steven.Kast@qwest.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 7:09 AM To: liz.balvin@mci.com Cc: ChadWarner (E-mail); Chen, Bobby; Doug Lacy (E-mail) Subject: RE:

Liz, A quick thought to this question. I believe that we have seen this problem before and MCI (Carren) was looking into using feature availability. Is MCI not using feature availability to determine what features are available in the switch before placing provisioning orders? We will reexamine this this issue.

Steve Kast 303 965-0427

--Original Message-- From: Elizabeth Balvin [mailto:liz.balvin@mci.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 4:46 PM To: Kast, Steven Cc: ChadWarner (E-mail); Chen, Bobby; Doug Lacy (E-mail) Subject:

Steve (and/or Bobby),

Please advise on the following issue...Qwest is completing orders for USOCs not available at the switch. While I can understand there may not be system edits in place that would cause rejects on these orders, I don't understand why there were not manually generated rejects. The completed orders places MCI LSRs out of synch with what was actually provisioned by Qwest. In addition, the end-user does not get provisioned what was requested.

Here are four examples:

1) 507-283-4893/S016268380qwmnpr 7/21/03 7/21/03 ticket #25237514 (Per Qwest, NWT not compatible with switch AXRSS)

2) 320-629-8123/S016162284qwmnpr 7/14/03 7/14/03 ticket #25237535 (Per Qwest, NWT not compatible with switch AXE10)

3) 507-835-2447/S016179601qwmnpr 8/13/03 8/13/03 ticket #25237550 (Per Qwest, NWT not compatible with switch AXE10)

4) 320-679-5594/S016302699qwmnpr 8/06/03 8/06/03 ticket #25237580 (Per Qwest, NWT not compatible with switch AXRSS)

Thanks,

Liz Balvin MCI Carrier Management - Qwest Region Internal Line - V625-7305 External Line - 303-217-7305 Pager (888) 900-7221

9/18/03 CMP Systems Meeting Connie Winston/Qwest said that Qwest has researched this issue and believes that provisioning is catching this information. Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that she provided examples. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we need to review the examples from AT&T and would like to leave this action item open.

8/21/03 CMP Systems Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest noted that we did look at the LOE for just call waiting and the LOE for all features and the LOE remains the same.

Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that this CR was critical and very very important to AT&T. Stephanie Prull/McLeod stated that they were moderately interested.

8/21/03 CMP Systems Meeting

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we are still reviewing all USOCs and combinations of USOCs.

7/17/03 CMP Systems Meeting Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that this CR was initiated because Call Waiting ID was not available in a switch. When the feature was not available, the order was accepted instead of rejected. Carla stated that she did not think this should be a CR and that she sees this as a defect. Carla also said that she did not think they should have to come to Qwest to ask to have their orders provisioned correctly. She stated that she did not know if this would be an edit that would affect all USOCs, or if you have to go feature by feature. If you have to look at feature by feature, AT&T would like Caller ID first and the other features can wait. Carla also would like Qwest to provide two LOEs, one LOE for Caller ID and one LOE for the other features. Connie Winston/Qwest said that Qwest can certainly take that as an action item and provide the LOE for all features and the LOE for just the Caller ID portion. She stated that the LOE that we have provided on the CR, is the LOE for all features. She reviewed the current process and how we reject LSRs with features that cannot be provisioned. Judy Schultz/Qwest stated that it sounds like there is an existing manual process and the LOE provided is for the mechanized process. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that is correct. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked since this applies to pre or post FOC, could Qwest confirm that in all cases it would be before the due date. Is there opportunity for the order to actually go all the way through the system and complete inaccurately with the feature on the service order. Connie Winston/Qwest said that the examples we researched did not apply to that scenario, but that we would take an action item to research if there were USOCs that could make it all the way to billing. Carla Pardee/AT&T said that she has specific examples if we need them. Connie Winston/Qwest said that would be great. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that the post FOC rejects cause the CLECs more headaches. Connie Winston/Qwest said that she understood, however, the post FOC is a jeopardy. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that a jeopardy means that the facilities are not available. Connie Winston/Qwest that’s correct the feature is not available. Pre-order provides feature availability and should be used to reduce the potential of adding a feature that isn’t available in the switch. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that pre-order is not a requirement and that she would like to see the up front edit as stringent as possible. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if Qwest could look at the ICONN database when defining the up front edit and said that she thought this might be an optimum solution. Connie Winston/Qwest said that if this candidate is voted into the 15.0 release, that we can certainly consider that when we are in definition.

To: cc:

Subject: FW: SCR060903-01 Reject Message Required if Call Waiting ID Unavailable in Switch

Lynn:

At our clarification call last week, you asked for a list of all of the features AT&T requested as a part of this change request. Our biggest priority right now, is call waiting ID. I don't want to do anything to jeopardize this request for that feature. Once that is done, we would also request the following features be added to the request. Caller ID; Call waiting; Call forwarding; Speed dial 8 and 30; Call transfer; Talking call waiting.

Thanks. Let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.

Carla Dickinson Pardee AT&T Local Services & Access Management 1875 Lawrence Street, Suite 8-38 Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone: 303-298-6101 6/16/03 Clarification Call

Introduction of Attendees Carla Pardee - AT&T, John Gallegos - Qwest, John Ebert - Qwest, Denise Martinez - Qwest

Review Description of Change Lynn Stecklein/Qwest reviewed description of change. Currently, if a CLEC submits an LSR for UNE-P requesting Call Waiting ID (USOC = N2W) and the feature is not available in a particular switch, Qwest will process the order without the feature. AT&T requests that Qwest reject the LSR and allow AT&T to contact the customer and let the customer make the decision as to whether or not the customer still wants the service without the feature.

Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that the USOC noted in the description should be NWT and not N2W. She also stated that AT&T would like to include other features, not just call waiting.

John Gallegos/Qwest stated that the USOC of N2W is for residential and NWT is for business and that we would look at doing both.

Carla Pardee/AT&T stated that she wouldsend the list of features that AT&T would like to include in the description of change to Lynn Stecklein/Qwest.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted The Products associated with this change request is UNE-P and AT&T will verify the features.

Identify/Confirm CLECs Expectation AT&T requests that Qwest reject the LSR and allow AT&T to contact the customer and let the customer make the decision as to whether or not the customer still wants the service without the feature.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests NA

Establish Action Plan AT&T will present this CR in the July 17, 2003 CMP Systems Meeting. Carla Pardee/AT&T will revise the CR with the additional features they want Qwest to evaluate

CenturyLink Response

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR060903-01. Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held June 16, 2003) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1100 to 1825 hours for this IMA Change Request with no SATE impacts. .

At the July Systems CMP Meeting, CMP participants will be given the opportunity to comment on this Change Request and provide additional clarifications. Any clarifications and/or modifications identified at that time will be incorporated into Qwest’s further evaluation of this Change Request.

This Change Request is eligible for the IMA 15.0 Prioritization.

Sincerely, Qwest