Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC061302-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

Qwest advised that since Vanion was not on the call, Qwest would get with Vanion independently to go over the response. Qwest reviewed its draft response with the CLEC participants. Eschelon asked how many calls does the retail customer have to make to get DSL. Qwest advised that one call is made and Qwest follows up with the customer after POTS is in service. Eschelon stated that CLECs do not get a follow-up call and the retail customer doesn’t have to call back to get DSL. Qwest confirmed that comment. Eschelon asked if this was a deny and Qwest confirmed that it was.

07/17/02 - July CMP Meeting Minutes: Vanion had to leave the CMP meeting early and asked that their CR be rolled over to the August CMP meeting for presentation. CR status is clarification.

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

June 18, 2002, 11:30 a.m. (MT) Conference Call 877-564-8688 PC061302-1, Process for ordering Megabit DSL service to connect to Mega Central Hubs now installed.

Attendees: Ric Martin, Qwest Cindy Buckmaster, Qwest Jeff Cook, Qwest Steve Kast, Qwest Doug Worden, Vanion, Inc. Becky Watson, Vanion, Inc.

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

Review Requested (Description of) Change Doug reviewed Vanion’s CR. He indicated that they wanted to put in one order (LSR) for Megabit DSL service and POTS. Becky clarified that Vanion was not collocated in Qwest facilities and was not interested in the Line Sharing product. They wanted to order on the customer’s behalf. They would like to order a 1FB with DSL. They want to be able to take the customer out of dealing with Qwest. Becky indicated they currently can’t offer the DSL product because it’s a moving target on whether facilities would be available. Cindy indicated that data would not be available only if the facility can’t support it. Becky confirmed they were only interested carrying data and having Qwest as the voice provider. Cindy clarified that Vanion is looking to be able to provision the POTS circuit on copper cable versus pair gain capable to allow data service.

Confirm Areas & Products impacted It was confirmed that the area impacted was Pre-Ordering, Ordering and Provisioning. The product impacted are Resale POTS and Megabit DSL.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Qwest indicated that they would need to include their Resale SMEs, Janean Van Dusen and Stacy Hartman.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Vanion’s expectation is to be able to place one LSR and be able to provision DSL on the POTS line ordered.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests There are no related Systems CRs. Qwest advised that there was a similar CR issued by Eschelon, PC122701-2. Qwest requested Vanion to review the Archive Interactive Report for the CR and Qwest’s response.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) The CR will have the collective CLEC clarification and SME input at the July CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

Doug Worden Provisioning Manager Vanion, Inc.

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR #PC061302-1 Process for ordering Megabit DSL service to connect to Mega Central hubs now installed

This letter is in response to Vanion’s Change Request PC061302-1 requesting that they be allowed to place one LSR and be able to provision DSL on the POTS line ordered.

Vanion’s Change Request is similar to two (2) previously submitted Change Requests, PC122701-1, Qwest to offer line conditioning to qualify a loop for Qwest resale DSL service, and PC122701-2, Qwest to allow 1FB POTS and DSL on one LSR.

Qwest’s response to the two previous Change Requests was that basically the service was not offered to Qwest Retail customers and, therefore, was not going to be offered to Resale customers. Qwest’s responses to each CR can be reviewed in Qwest’s Product/Process CR Archive Report located at URL http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/archive.html. After additional review, Qwest’s position remains the same. It is not technically and economically feasible for Qwest Retail to offer this service at this time. Qwest does not offer pre-qualification of facilities for DSL prior to the end user’s line being in place. Current process for Retail and Resale is that two (2) orders must be issued. One (1) for the POTs and one (1) for the DSL once the POTS line is loop qualified.

At last month's CMP meeting, there was a question on the Retail process for ordering POTS and DSL. The Retail process does require 2 orders, whether it is an N (new) order or a T (transfer) order. If the end user is interested in DSL, then after the N or T order is installed, a Loop qualification is done on the N (telephone number) or the T (telephone number) and the end user is contacted to place the 2nd order, which would be a C (change) order to add the DSL service.

Sincerely,

Janean Van Dusen (801) 239-4305

Cc:

Open Product/Process CR PC013002-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Modification after Clarification Meeting:

Establish a process to request the removal of bridge-taps.

Status History

Project Meetings

February 6, 2002 9:00 a.m. (MT) Conference Call 877-564-8688 PC013002-1, Removing Bridge Taps from LADA Circuits

Attendees:

Ric Martin, Qwest Neil Houston, Qwest Jeff Cook, Qwest Cindy Buckmaster, Qwest (Part Time) Steve Kast, Qwest (Follow-up conference call) Doug Worden, Vanion, Inc.

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

Review Requested (Description of) Change Doug advised that on LADA Circuits, which are for low speed data, but can handle high speed they want the ability to request the removal of bridge taps is requested. Doug clarified that LADA was 2-wire dry pair cable. Qwest indicated that this was data/data non-load service. It was clarified that this was for point to point service passing through the same wire center. Doug indicated that he had no way to order repair and provided an example of where Qwest moved a pedestal and added a bridge-tap, which has disrupted a customer’s service. Doug clarified that for this service Vanion was reselling Private Line services for High-Speed data. He also indicated that Vanion was also a Facility Based CLEC. Cindy Buckmaster joined the call and explained the Line Condition that can be ordered for UBL. However, she indicated that we need to review what was offered for Resale Qwest unable to bring Freddie Pennington, Wholesale Product Manager for Resale, into the call. Qwest indicated that they would coordinate internally and may get Doug back on an additional clarification meeting. Doug indicated that it was OK to have the CR follow the normal process, but wanted Qwest to investigate his trouble ticket CD328473 which was closed and was escalated. Doug advised that Steve Kast, Vanion Service Manager, was involved. Qwest advised that if they caused the problem and were responsible to fix it, they would look into it further. Note: it was clarified further with Doug Worden, Steve Kast and Ric Martin that Qwest was not committing to correcting the problem, but would look into it further to see if there was anything else that could be done.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted It was confirmed that the product was for Resold Private Line . Confirm Right Personnel Involved Network personnel would be involved, but it was agreed that Process person should be the Owner. Qwest will coordinate.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation It was confirmed that Vanion was looking for a process to request the removal of a bridge tap.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Qwest will look into the Trouble Ticket Qwest will coordinate internal reviews of the CR.

CenturyLink Response

Vanion, Inc. Doug Worden Provisioning Manager

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR #PC013002-1 Removing Bridged Taps from LADS circuits

This letter is in response to Vanion Inc.’s Change Request PC013002-1 requesting a process for CLECs to request the removal of Bridge Taps from Local Area Data Service (LADS) circuits.

Local Area Data Service (LADS) is ordered in the Colorado Tariffs. Specifically LADS is offered in “Private Line Transport, Services Tariff, COLO. P.U.C. No. 19, Section 5.2”. LADS is described in Section 5.2.4, A.:

Service is offered only for balanced transmission of data signals conforming to the signal power limitations and other parameters specified in the applicable Technical Reference. These circuits are furnished on either a two-wire or four-wire basis, over non-loaded, metallic cable facilities.

Note the facility is non-loaded, but no reference is made to Bridged Tap. Additionally Section 5.2.4, C., 4. states:

No repair will be performed to change the electrical characteristics of the circuit, if they are within the parameters specified in the Technical Publication.

The General Regulations section of COLO. P.U.C. No. 19, Section 2.1.8 states:

It is expressly declared that metallic facilities are in continually decreasing supply and the Company is not obligated to continue to provide such facilities. Due to facility rearrangements, continued use of metallic facilities may be denied to existing customers with no obligation on the Company’s part to pay customer rearrangement costs.

As referenced above, Qwest’s Technical Publication 77314, Local Area Data Service (LADS), Issue C, July 2001 supports the Colorado Tariff on LADS. In addition to qualifying the LADS technical parameters, the General Section 1. states:

The customer should also be aware that Qwest has no obligation to continue to provide this service if suitable facilities are no longer available. Non-availability of suitable facilities may be caused by the continuing need to add new central offices and to transfer areas between serving wire centers, and the increasing use of Digital Loop Carrier technology on lines between the serving wire center and customer locations.

Vanion has stated that their high-speed data has deteriorated with changes in Qwest’s Network, allegedly from the addition of bridged tap to the circuit. LADS is not designed for high-speed data transmission and is not dependent upon the absence of bridged tap. As referenced above, in the Colorado Tariff and Technical Publication 77314, facility rearrangements could impact existing service. Also, as long as the service is within its technical parameters, repair is not required and will not be performed.

Qwest offers a variety of Unbundled Loop products that should meet Vanion’s transmission requirements. These include 2/4/ Wire Non-Loaded Loop, Basic ISDN Capable Loop, DS-1 Capable Loop, and the ADSL Qualified Loop.

Qwest will provide Vanion LADS service as described in its tariffs and technical publications. However, since LADS is not a high speed data service, Qwest declines to initiate a process to remove bridged tap from LADS and respectfully denies Vanion, Inc’s change request.

Sincerely,

Neil G. Houston Staff Advocate-Policy & Law Qwest

Cc: Mary Retka Kathleen Lucero Barry Orrel Jamal Boudhaouia

Open Product/Process CR 5608353 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

This letter is in response to the following CLEC Change Request Forms #5263137, dated December 1, 2000 and #5608177 and #5608353, dated June 13, 2001. All of these Change Requests pertain to the CLEC to CLEC Migration process. The revised process was released via the Co-Provider Industry Change Management Process (CICMP) on May 25, 2001.

? Re-use of facilities for CLEC to CLEC carrier changes, improving the CLEC to CLEC reuse of facilities process and to ensure nondiscrimination.

? Response: The Qwest Release Notification Forms #5393537 (CLEC Unbundled Loop to CLEC Unbundled Loop), #5393543 (CLEC Unbundled Loop to CLEC Resale), and #5467108 (CLEC LNP with Unbundled Loop to CLEC Unbundled Loop) Revision B, released on May 25, 2001, noted changes in the Pre-Order section that the requirement to obtain the “Circuit Identification Number from the OLSP” is optional. Both Eschelon and Allegiance provided Qwest with examples of orders that were rejected by Qwest due to no Circuit Identification Number provided. After gap analysis, it was determined that additional training of Qwest Service Center personnel and updates to Service Delivery M&Ps were required. The following measures have been implemented:

? An updated Multi Channel Communicator (MCC) New or Changed Information Procedure was issued on July 9, 2001. ? Issued to target Qwest internal personnel in the Wholesale Customer Care, Customer Service, Error Group, Held Order/Escalation, Order Processing and Order Resolution organizations. ? Topic of the MCC: “CLEC to CLEC Migration of an Unbundled Loop and Unbundled Loop to other products.” ? CLEC to CLEC Migration is defined as; unbundled to unbundled, unbundled to resale, unbundled to Centrex resale. ? Emphasis placed on processing orders without circuit ids (ECCKT’s) on LSR requesting migration. ? States included in this communication are; AZ, CO, IA, ID-N, ID-S, MN, MT, ND, NE, NM, OR, Outside 14 State Region, SD, UT, WA and WY. ? All internal job aids and on-line support documentation have been updated. ? Qwest Service Center specific training sessions are currently in progress for both center coaches and center personnel. The training will be on going to ensure process compliance.

Sincerely

Nancy J. Hoag Qwest Wholesale Product Team

Open Product/Process CR PC010302-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Qwest does not allow the provisioning of an Unbundled Loop within a colocation when an End User is serviced by a Remote Switching Unit (RSU). The orders are cancelled and a reject notice is sent to the CLEC. At this time, the CLEC has absolutely no recourse to be able to switch this customer's local service over to that CLEC. The inability to switch an End User that is serviced by a RSU over to a facility based CLEC is unacceptable and anti-competitive. The End User also has no capability to choose another carrier for local service. Allegiance has spent tremendous amounts of money to co-locate in Qwest Central Offices in order to be able to swith Qwest customers over to Allegiance facilities. Allegiance is requesting that Qwest develope a means to allow the switching of End Users service by a RSU to CLEC facilities .

Status History

Project Meetings

Subject: Re: CR Location Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:05:05 -0400 From: John Sheehan Organization: Frontier / ELI Carrier Services To: Richard Martin

Rick, Sounds fine. This can be closed.

--

Subject: CR Location Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 10:56:25 -0600 From: Richard Martin Organization: Qwest Communications International, Inc. To: johnsheehan@frontiercorp.com

John,

Go to URL, http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/changerequest.html

Click on, "CLEC Qwest Change Request - Product/Process Interactive Reports" to launch the interactive report. The report is in Adobe Acrobat.

When in the report, click on the blue button with CR number PC010302-1. Review Action Item No. 5.

If the response satisfies the intent of Peder's question, please advise. If further clarification is required, please let me know.

Thanks

Ric

--

Subject: Action Item 4 to CR PC010302-1 Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:28:57 -0600 From: Richard Martin Organization: Qwest Communications International, Inc. To: Mike Zulevic CC: Craig Saunders , Kelly Trachsel

Mike,

Based on our conversation regarding Action Item 4 to the subject CR, the response, which is stated below, didn't fully answer what you were looking for.

Action Item 4 Question and Answer:

Q. Covad expressed the need to have the geographical area of a RSU and the number of lines served by the RSU included in the ICONN database tool.

A. The ICONN database has not been set-up to provide the geographical area of a RSU. This is done through utilization of the DA Maps (refer to CR PC110201-1 and PC012902-1). The number of lines in a RSU will be delineated if the RSU does not share a NXX with another wire center. The number of lines associated with a Central Office NXX can be identified by performing a search on the NPA NXX under the Cetral Office Find tool located at the same URL as Action Item No. 3.

It is my understanding, from our call, that Covad would like to identify what RSUs are tied to a CO, where are the RSUs and what area do they cover.

If this is not correct, please provide further clarification.

Thanks

Ric

-- Subject: CR PC010302-1 Action Item EEL Pricing Comparison Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:38:51 -0600 From: Richard Martin Organization: Qwest Communications International, Inc. To: Terry Wicks CC: Robert Mohr , Robyn Libadia , Cindy Buckmaster

Terry,

The attached rate sheet is in response to the Action Item on your Change Request PC010302-1 requesting that Qwest provide pricing for an EEL from the Denver Dry Creek to an end-user fed from the Denver Tech Center wire center. You also requested rates for an Unbundled Loop to feed this same user from the one wire center.

The attached rates are for the EEL and UNE products for an EEL from the Drycreek office to an end-user fed from the Tech Center wire Center. As the only way to feed a customer located in the Tech Center Wire Center on an Unbundled Loop is with a collocation placed in the Tech Center Wire Center, the pricing example for the Unbundled Loop is for an Unbundled Loop feed from a collocation space located in the Tech Center Wire Center.

The rates for the EEL were taken from the Qwest templated agreement and, because Allegiance currently doesn’t have the ability to order EELs in Colorado in their contract, a request of this kind would require an amendment to the Allegiance Interconnection Agreement (ICA) before ordering could commence on this product. Rates for the loop were taken from the Allegiance ICA . Collocation would also need to be established at the Tech Center wire center for this example.

Please contact us if you require additional information on these products, or have any questions.

Sincerely,

Ric Martin - CRPM (303) 896-9823 Robyn Libadia- EEL Product Manager (253) 445-0234 Bob Mohr- Unbundled Loop Product Manager (303) 896-2160

PC010302-1 Allegiance response 4-12-02.xls

--

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

March 4, 2002, 9:00 (MT) Conference Call

PC010302-1, RSUs – the inability to provision UNEs

Attendees: Ric Martin, Qwest Cheri Hurless, Qwest Bernadette Derlein, Qwest Cindy Buckmaster, Qwest Terry Wicks, Allegiance

Introduction of Attendees Introduction of the participants on the Conference Call was made. Qwest explained that they wanted to review the current situation and get feedback from Allegiance.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Cindy advised that Qwest would be providing a drawing explaining how the Dry Creek CO was configured to the Tech Center RSU. Cindy explained that the Tech Center was connected to the Dry Creek CO by a transport medium (umbilical) and the end user would have a loop to the Tech Center. Cindy explained that there were two ways a CLEC could get a loop for the end user connected to the Tech Center. The first would be for the CLEC to be physically collocated in the Tech Center. The second would be to request an EEL from the dry creek office at whatever transmission level for the end user. Terry wanted to know how to tell if a customer was serviced out of an RSU. Cindy advised that the Raw Loop Data Tool cable field designation of EX would indicate this. Terry advised that it wasn’t practical for them to obtain a certificate for all their sales folks and to check each address separtely. Cindy explained that there is a Raw Loop Data Dump for each central office that would allow for various sorts on the data in the RLDT. A sort could be made on cables with EX and then by address. Terry asked if Qwest could provide information on how the transport for an EEL works and a narrative on the Raw Loop Data Dump. Terry asked about the RSUs that were tied to Dry Creek CO, Eagan, MN and Chandler AZ. Qwest will identify those RSUs tied to those Central Offices Qwest Identified the following Action Items to address: 1. Breakdown how an EEL works that uses a MUX, riding a higher capacity transport 2. Identify how collocation would occur in the different types of RSUs. 3. Identify the Raw Loop Data Tool Training available. Terry requested Qwest to address why the CLEC cannot obtain a loop for an end user that is identified out of the Central Office of record.

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

Date: January 11, 2002, 9:00 (MT) Place: Conference Call 877-564-8688 Subject: PC010302-1, RSUs – the inability to provision UNEs

Attendees: Ric Martin, Qwest Neil Houston, Qwest Laurel Neher, Qwest Bernadette Derlein, Qwest Cindy Buckmaster Terry Wicks, Allegiance

Introduction of Attendees Introduction of the participants on the Conference Call were made and the purpose of the call discussed

Review Requested (Description of) Change Terry reviewed Allegiance’s CR. He explained that they had several orders they had to cancel due receiving reject notices on orders for UNEs. The problem indicated that COs customers given service by RSUs and routes to the CO where they are collocated and there is no place to cross connect. They are unable to port because they are in a RSU. He explained that they do not know they are in a RSU when processing an order. Laurel explained that the RSU would look like a CO. The switch depends on another switch for intelligence. She said that the LERG should have the CLLI. Qwest will look at the LERG to see if it has the information. Qwest thought that the NPNAXX would have the CO location. Neil advised that the Account Manager should advise which Colos have RSUs. The following COs have RSUs: Colorado – Dry Creek ? Center Park ? Denver SE ? Denver Tech Center – ISDN ? Aberdene ? Northglen Minnesota – Egan Arizona – Chandler Laurel explained that the RSU would need to the loop extended to the CO and this is done by ordering an EEL. Terry indicated that they look at customers that are serviced out of the CO where they are collocated at. Neil asked if Allegiance had any volume on the number of instances this is happening. Terry indicated that he did not. He advised that the reject notice was 10/24. Terry provided the TNs that were involved: RFG Management, Inc. 8400 E Cressent Parkway, suite 475, Greenwood Village, 80111, 303-771-0321. Banta, Hoyt, Everall 7979 Tufts Parkway, sutie 1050, Denver 80237, 303-220-8000 Terry indicated that he could go to the Raw Loop Data Tool and pull the address which provides the cable name fixed EX, but he could not identify on a CSR. Terry asked how Qwest determines a customer is in a RSU. Neil advised that it was a matter of Geography. The RSU is an electronic switch with a switch module connected by a TI to the CO. Neil advised that the customers referenced by Terry are in the Denver Tech Center. He explained that the loop is coming out of the RSC and doesn’t extend to the CO. Terry asked what is covered and what is available to view by CLEC. He does not want to have the cost of adding the EEL. He wants to be able to port from the CO where the records show the CO. His record is the CSR. Laurel indicated that the LERG should be used to determine the CO. Terry advised that another ILEC, GTE, put a card in their switch.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Allegiance wants to be able to port a UNE serviced out of an RSU from the CO where the records show the RSU’s CO is serviced and do not want to pay an additional cost.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Qwest will identify what is contained in the LERG. The CR will have the collective CLEC clarification and SME input at the February CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

Terry Wicks Allegiance Telecom Inc

SUBJECT: Qwest Change Request Supplemental Response - CR PC010302-1 Remote Swiching Unit- Inability to provision UNEs

This letter is in response to the additional clarification requirements provided at the April 17, 2002 CMP Monthly Meeting on your Change Request PC010302-1 and supplements Qwest’s response dated March 12, 2002. The additional clarification requirements requested that Qwest:

1) Consider the reduction of the Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) for the EEL to allow a CLEC to order the EEL at the Loop NRC price. 2) Consider the elimination of transport rates where the transport would otherwise be billed in the EEL product. 3) Consider the identification of RSUs upon application of the CLECs for a collocation so as to ensure the CLECs make sound decisions about where to spend their collocation monies.

In response to items 1 and 2 above, Qwest’s research indicates that Qwest is in alignment with other ILECs on the handling of RSUs. As described in Qwest’s March 12, 2002 response, Qwest deploys RSUs in a number of situations. Primary among these situations is the deployment of augment switches to accommodate growth in a given geographic area. Installation efforts for EELs are more time and labor intensive than those for UBL, thus the higher NRC. In regard to transport, at times, the new RSU is either programmed to have the same NXX as the host, or has a unique NXX. Where the NXX is the same as the host, mileage is rated at $0. If the NXX is unique, mileage is calculated and the appropriate band rate applies. Reduction of the non-recurring charge or the elimination of the transport rate would tend to undermine both the embedded EEL and Collocation base. Based on our alignment with other ILECs, and the additional cost of the EEL product, Qwest is unable to reduce the NRC or eliminate the Transport charge from EELs provisioned under this arrangement.

In response to item 3, CLECs have access to several resources that indicate the structure of the Qwest network. Among these resources, the Raw Loop Data Tool indicates remotes via the ‘EX’ cable naming convention and the ICONN Database is being modified to identify remotes assigned to a given Central Office. As Qwest is not in a position to counsel CLECs on the construction of their network, Qwest would encourage CLECs to perform their own analysis and research.

Sincerely,

Cindy Buckmaster Product Manager Unbundled Loop Qwest Communications

CC: Bill Campbell – Product Director Qwest Communications Richard Martin – CMP Project Manager Qwest Communications

-

March 12, 2002

Terry Wicks Allegiance Telecom Inc

SUBJECT: Qwest Change Request Response - CR PC010302-1 Remote Swiching Unit- Inability to provision UNEs

This letter is in response to your Change Request PC010302-1 requesting that Qwest develop a process to allow the switching of end users service via an RSU to CLEC facilities.

General Information

The structure of the Qwest network occasionally results in the placement of Remote Switching Units (RSUs). These RSUs are a “spin off” of a host wire center and are created where geographic distance and/or population density requires. For the purposes of the Unbundled Loop, an RSU becomes the serving wire center for the end users it touches. As RSUs are deployed, end users served by the RSUs are terminated at the RSU. The structure between the host and the remote units becomes transport, therefore, there is no contiguous loop between the host and the end-users served by the RSU. End users of the remote are not individually identified at the host.

The underlying requirement of an Unbundled Loop is a Collocation in the serving wire center. The serving wire center for end users in the remote is the remote Central Office. Unbundled Loop can be ordered out of the remote only if the CLEC is collocated in the remote.

How to tell if an end user is in a RSU

The Raw Loop Data Tool (RLD) provides the CLEC with the information during pre-order to determine that the end user customer is served from an RSU. In the Raw Loop Data Tool the end user’s cable pair will indicate an “EX” prefix when the facility originates from an RSU (i.e., F1 ca EXA7).

There are two versions of the RLD tool. Using the IMA version a CLEC can view information specific to an end user address. With a digital certificate the CLEC can use the wire center version of the Raw Loop Data Tool. Data from this version of the RLD tool can be downloaded into an Excel spreadsheet or a database provided by the CLEC. Using the “File, Save As” commands from the browser software the CLEC can save the information to the location and in the format they prefer. Approximately 50 – 150 MB of disk space is needed per wire center. The process may be time intensive, as each wire center is checked separately.

See Loop Qualification and Raw Loop Data- CLEC Job Aid on URL http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/training/coursecatalog.html

How to serve customers in an RSU

The first option available to CLECs, to serve end users in a Remote Serving Unit (RSU), is to Collocate in the RSU.

Central Office Collocation:

For Central Office Collocation, each Central Office will be evaluated to determine if your Collocation requirements can be met (e.g., space, power, and heat dissipation).

Three types of Central Office Collocation are available:

Physical Caged Collocation – Allows the CLEC to physically collocate the CLECs own equipment in a Qwest Central Office in a space that is completely enclosed via chain link fencing. The CLEC installs, maintains and repairs their collocated equipment.

Physical Cageless Collocation - Allows the CLEC to physically collocate the CLECs own equipment in a Qwest Central Office in a space shared by Qwest and other CLECs that opt for Cageless Collocation. The CLEC installs, maintains and repairs their collocated equipment.

Virtual Collocation - Allows the placement of the CLECs equipment in a Qwest Central office, however, Qwest will install, maintain and repair the CLECs collocated equipment. In a Virtual Collocation arrangement, the CLEC does not have physical access to the virtually collocated equipment in the Qwest Central Office.

More information can be found in the Collocation Product Catalog (PCAT) at: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/collocation.html

Enhanced Extended Loop (EEL):

The second option available to CLECs to serve end users in an RSU, is to request an Enhanced Extended Loop (EEL).

As the facility between the host Central Office and the remote Central Office is transport, the requested EEL would originate in the host office, extend through the remote Central Office and terminate at the end users premises. EEL can be ordered in two configurations; point-to-point (one transmission level from point of origination to point of termination) or Multiplexed EEL (a higher transmission level between the two central offices and a lower transmission level to the end user).

The "Multiplexed EEL" most closely resembles the network Allegiance has described. The CLEC can order a Multiplexed EEL with transport from their Collocation to another Qwest wire center. The Multiplexed EEL must be turned up before ordering EEL links (loops) to be connected to the Multiplexer. The EEL link orders must provide CFA (CKTID and slot number from the Multiplexed EEL). Each EEL, whether link or multiplexed, is ordered via an LSR. Standard intervals apply to each LSR EEL request. Intervals may be found under EEL/LMC in the Interconnection Service Interval Guide (SIG), also located on the Qwest wholesale website: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/guides/sig/index.html

An abbreviated copy of that SIG has been attached to this document for ease of discussion (see Attached).

More information can be found in the EEL Product Catalog (PCAT) at: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/eel.html

Billing elements are further described in the EEL PCAT and each billing element is labeled on the PCAT diagram. Billing elements for this situation are defined below.

Monthly recurring charges for a DS1 or DS3 multiplexed EEL, originating from a collocation, include: ITP, for the connection to the collocation, transport between the two Qwest wire centers, and multiplexing. Multiplexed EEL nonrecurring charges include transport and are applied to the multiplexer.

Monthly recurring charges for the DS1 or DS0 EEL links would be for the link only. EEL link nonrecurring charges include transport and are applied to the link.

Channel Performance charges may also apply (for DSO only).

A CLEC requiring EEL will need both EEL language and all applicable rate elements in their Interconnection Agreement in order to prevent rejection of the LSR. A CLEC with incomplete or no EEL information will need an amendment before EEL can be ordered. All rates and charges associated with EEL can be found in the CLEC Interconnection Agreement or the SGAT, Exhibit A.

Summary

As described above, Qwest will provide CLEC access to all end users, including those served by an RSU. As Qwest’s network complexities are vast, requests may require individual case basis (ICB) review. Qwest continues to modify its process to ensure CLEC access on a timely basis. Status will be provided in accordance with Change Management Process notification methods as updates to the process warrant.

Sincerely,

Bernadette Derelin Product Manager Unbundled Loop Qwest Communications

CC: Bill Campbell – Product Director Qwest Communications Cindy Buckmaster- Product Group Manager Unbundled Loop Qwest Communications Debra S Smith- Product Manager Unbundled Loop Qwest Communications Neil Houston – Network Qwest Communications Richard Martin – CMP Project Manager Qwest Communications

Open Product/Process CR PC081902-2 Detail

Description Of Change

*********************************************************************************************

Announcement Date: July 19, 2001

Effective Date: July 29, 2001

Document Number: PROS.07.19.01.F.00012

Notification Category: Process Update

Target Audience: CLEC

Subject: Dial Tone Test 48 Hours Before Due Date

Effective July 29, 2001, a process enhancement will be added to both the Coordinated and Basic Installation Option Processes. Qwest will verify the CLEC’s Dial Tone at the CLEC’s CFA 48 hours prior to the Due Date. This will assist CLECs in identifying dial tone concerns prior to the due date.

Central Office Technicians (COT’s) will check for CLEC Dial Tone 48 hours prior to the Due Date. The Dial Tone check will be for the Unbundled Loop Analog (Voice Grade) Product.

The COT will check for Dial Tone at the CLEC CFA. The COT will document the results from the Dial Tone test and the results will be forwarded to the Implementer/Coordinator (C/I).

If the COT does not detect Dial Tone 48 hours prior to the Due Date, then the (C/I) will contact the CLEC with the information. The CLEC should investigate and supply the dial tone by the Due Date or issue a supplement to the LSR to change the due date.

If the CLEC has requested a Coordinated Installation, the COT will check for Dial Tone one hour prior to the Coordinated Installation time. If dial tone is not detected at that time, then the COT will report this to the C/I who will in turn inform the CLEC.

This Process will be put in place to ensure that the CLEC will receive their circuit on the due date.

*********************************************************************************************

Allegiance believes that Qwest is not complying with the process as stated above. The testing for dial tone is actually being conducted on DVA date (48 hours after Application Date not 48 hours prior to Due Date). Also it is not clear as to when Qwest is notifying the CLEC of no dial tone conditions. This process implies that once the COT forwards the results to the QCCC tester at 48 hours prior to due date, then the tester will immediately notify the CLEC of No Dial Tone conditions. In actual practice, Qwest is not consistently notifying the CLEC at 48 hours prior to cut date. There are inconsistencies between the process and Qwest's actual application of the process. Qwest needs to comply with its published process. This process is not published in the PCAT. The only reference to this process that Allegiance could find was the mailout sent to CLECs on July 19, 2001.

Expected Deliverable

Qwest will comply with its published process. Qwest will update the PCAT to include this process.

Status History

Project Meetings

- 10/16/02 October CMP Meeting Linda Hendricks with Qwest reviewed the draft response to this CR dated 10/3/02. Language was updated in the 2-Wire 4-Wire PCAT Version 10 which was published on 10/11/02. There were no questions from the CMP participants and this CR will be updated to CLEC test.

- 09/18/02 September CMP Meeting Minutes Allegiance reviewed the CR submitted and explained that they would like to have the dial tone testing and notification sync up in the PCAT documentation because the process document, PROS.07.19.01.F.00012, is not clear. Allegiance and Eschelon would like the testing process and the notification process of a no dial tone condition on 5-day interval and on longer than standard interval orders clarified. If the CLECs understand when the dial tone testing is done, then, they can adjust the date their translations are complete. Qwest explained that the CLEC is notified 24 - 36 hours before the due date of a no dial tone condition. The dial tone test is performed on DVA, which on 5-day interval orders is 48 hours after application date. Qwest will clarify the process, for 5-day and longer than standard interval orders, in the PCAT. Allegiance said that clarification in the PCAT would satisfy this CR.

- CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting 3:00 p.m. (Mountain Time) / Monday 26th August 2002

1-877-554-8688 1930099 # PC081902-2 The 48 Hour Dial Tone Testing Requirements

Attendees Terry Wicks, Allegiance Deb Smith, Qwest Linda Hendricks, Qwest Bob Mohr, Qwest Cindy Macy, Qwest Neil Houston, Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest

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

Review Requested (Description of) Change Terry indicated that Qwest is not following the process in document number PROS.07.19.01.F.00012. The process is interpreted that Qwest does the dial tone test and then calls the CLEC right away. The following is extracted from the CR submitted by Allegiance: Allegiance believes that Qwest is not complying with the process as stated above. The testing for dial tone is actually being conducted on DVA date (48 hours after Application Date not 48 hours prior to Due Date). Also it is not clear as to when Qwest is notifying the CLEC of no dial tone conditions. This process implies that once the COT forwards the results to the QCCC tester at 48 hours prior to due date, then the tester will immediately notify the CLEC of No Dial Tone conditions. In actual practice, Qwest is not consistently notifying the CLEC at 48 hours prior to cut date. There are inconsistencies between the process and Qwest's actual application of the process. Qwest needs to comply with its published process. This process is not published in the PCAT. The only reference to this process that Allegiance could find was the mailout sent to CLECs on July 19, 2001.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Unbundled Loop 2 wire 4 wire Analog Voice Grade, Coordinated and Basic Option

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Qwest confirmed the correct personnel were on the call. Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation

Allegiance requests the following deliverables on this CR: - Update the PCAT with the Qwest process, and the agreed upon number of hours before due date the dial tone check is done, and, the agreed upon number of hours before the due date that the CLEC is notified of a no dial tone condition. - Provide notification of the process above - Improve on the CLEC notification process when there is a no dial tone condition. Determine the minimum number of hours before due date that the CLEC’s would like to be notified of a no dial tone condition.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests PC081902-1, PC050302-1

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Allegiance will clarify and review this CR at the 9/18/02 CMP Meeting. Qwest will present the draft response at the 10/18/02 CMP Meeting.

CenturyLink Response

Lori Mendoza LEC Account Manager Allegiance Telecom, Inc.

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR #PC081902-2 48 Hour No Dial Tone Notification

This in response to Allegiance Telecom’s Change Request (CR) PC081902-2. This CR requests that Qwest clarify its 48 Hour No Dial Tone notification process and to document the process in the PCAT.

Qwest accepts this CR and the following language has been added to the 2-Wire or 4-Wire Analog (Voice Grade) Loop V10 PCAT.

Qwest verifies for dial tone at your CFA 48 hours after Qwest’s APP (application) date. If Qwest finds No Dial Tone (NDT), Qwest will retest 48 hours prior to due date. If dial tone is still not present, Qwest will email the NDT results to you through Qwest’s Provider Test Access (PTA) email system. You will receive the NDT PTA email notification approximately 24 to 36 hours prior to the due date. Qwest will email only when there is No Dial Tone. You will need to supply the dial tone by the due date or supplement the LSR, changing the due date.

This language is in document review and will be published to the Wholesale PCAT web site on October 11, 2002.

Sincerely,

Neil Houston Staff Advocate Policy & Law

Linda Hendricks Lead Project Analyst

cc: Mary Retka, Director, Technical Regulatory Interconnection Planning

Open Product/Process CR PC071502-1 Detail

Description Of Change

This is resulting in Allegiance spending extra time, effort and money to isolate the NDT issue to the Qwest side. What would resolve this is if the Pair Information was also on the PTA notification next to the telephone number. With this information showing what pairs Qwest is testing to, we can identify the error quicker.

Expected Deliverable:

Receiving the PTA email notifications of NDT with the CFA information provided in addition to PON, TNs and DD

Status History

Project Meetings

11/20/02 November CMP Meeting Qwest (Thomte) indicated that she thought some problems had been identified recently through a comment from Lori Mendoza. Linda Hendricks confirmed that was true. Allegiance (Mendoza) indicated that they were getting CFA on the PTA about 50 percent of the time. Other CLECs indicated they were seeing problems as well. This CR will remain in CLEC Test.

10/16/02 October CMP Meeting Qwest initiated a Level 1 notification (PROS.10.14.02.F.00598.CFAEmailNotice) on October 14 advising the CLEC community that CFA information would be provided on PTA E-mail notifications. This CR moved to “CLEC Test”

09/18/02 September CMP Meeting This CR should be discussed in conjunction with PC050302-1. Qwest provided an updated response indicating this Change Request has been accepted, although it is dependent on the implementation of PC050302-1. Participants agreed that PC071502-1 CR can implement with a Level 1 notice after comments cycle is completed for PC050302-1. This CR will change to "Development"status with agreement to update to "CLEC Test" once Level 1 notice is sent.

08/21/02 - August CMP Meeting Minutes

This CR is dependent on CR PC050302-1. This CR status changed to "Evaluation"

Date: July 22, 200 Place: 1005 17th St Room 1770-C Call-In No.: 877 550-8686 CR No.: CLEC Change Request PC071502-1 Clarification Meeting

Attendees Name/Company: Terry Wicks Allegiance Russ Urevig Qwest Linda Hedricks Qwet Steve Hilleary Qwest Phyllis Sunnins Qwest Kit Thomte Qwest

Meeting Agenda: Action 1.0 Introduction of Attendees See list above 2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change Terry Wicks reviewed the CR with the SMEs from Qwest. 2.1During the trial that was held in May and June Allegiance investigated situations that resulted in NDT. *One scenario was due to the Service Order being written with information that was different than what appeared on the LSR. *Another scenario was due to the Central Office being wired incorrectly. 2.2Terry indicated that if Allegiance knows up front what CFA Qwest is testing to it allows them to resolve the issue faster. Allegiance can review based on what they passed on the LSR and what Qwest FOCd back. 2.3

3.0 Confirm Areas & Products impacted 3.1 UNE, Unbudled Loop 4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved 4. The team agreed that Linda Hendricks would be the respondent Steve will participate, and Phyllis and Russ would have no further action.

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation 5.1 Receive notification regarding CFA used in no dial tone situations

6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests 6.1

7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) 7.1 No systems are impacted the time frame would be dependent on the participation of the CLEC in the meeting and the timing of updating the documentation.

CenturyLink Response

Terry Wicks Allegiance

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR #PC071502-1 Include CFA Information on PTA Email Notifications of NDT.

This is a preliminary response regarding Allegiance CR PC071502-1 (Include CFA Information on PTA E-Mail Notifications of NDT). As discussed in the August Product & Process Monthly CMP Meeting, this CR is dependent on the outcome of PC050302-1 (Email Notification of No Dial Tone at 48 Hours).

The implementation of Change Request PC050302-1 is being pursued as a CMP Level 3 change as agreed to in the July Product & Process Monthly CMP Meeting. Based upon the issuance of notice PROD.09.05.02.F.00818.AnalogLoop24Wire, Change Request PC050302-1 is currently in a comment cycle.

Upon the implementation of Change Request PC050302-1 Qwest anticipates being able to make changes as described in PC071502-1. Specifically, Qwest expects to be able to include CFA information in addition to PON, TNs and DD in PTA e-mail notifications.

Assuming the successful implementation of e-mail notifications of No Dial Tone (NDT) per Change Request PC050302-1, Qwest would propose to notify the CLEC community of the changes specified in PC071502-1 as a Level 1 change (i.e. “additional information that does not change the product or process”). Qwest will seek concurrence with this approach at the September Product & Process Monthly CMP Meeting.

Sincerely,

Linda Hendricks Lead Project Analyst Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC092701-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

CenturyLink Response

Terry Wicks LEC Manager Allegiance Telecom, Inc.

This letter is being issued to revise Qwest’s response dated November 8, 2001 to Change Request PC092701-2 requesting confirmation of all WTNs for a particular End User at a specific address for a Centrex Resale Customer. Qwest is prepared to implement the attached process to accommodate the CLECs request of confirming an End User WTNs.

Sincerely,

Susie Wells Sr. Process Analyst

(See Supplemental Information following detail report for Process)

December 4, 2001

Terry Wicks LEC Manager Allegiance Telecom, Inc. And, Kathy Stichter ILEC Relations Manager Eschelon Telecom, Inc.

This letter is in response to questions/concerns generated at the November CMP Meeting regarding Qwest’s response dated November 8, 2001 to Change Request PC092701-2.

Question: Is there a manual process available to Qwest retail that was not available to CLECs?

Answer: No. Qwest retail only retrieves CSRs for the WTNS provided by their customer .

Question: Does Qwest Retail have to get all WTN Numbers from new customers?

Answer: Yes. Qwest retail has to obtain all WTNs from their customer.

Sincerely,

Carolyn Brown Director Process Management

Cc: Monica Manning

--

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

Wholesale Product Marketing

November 8, 2001

Terry Wicks LEC Manager Allegiance Telecom, Inc

This letter is being sent in response to CLEC Change Request Form # PCR092701-2. PCR092701-2 pertains to a request for a process to get Full CSRs on Resale Centrex lines.

An IMA System Change would be required, in order to allow CLECs to request a Full CSR for all telephone numbers for a specific end user at a specific location. For the Resale Centrex account, DPA or DEPT and LOCN selection criteria might be added to the Review/Retrieve CSR functionality in IMA. However, a Systems Change Request would need to be created for these enhancements.

Until the IMA system changes can be deployed, you had requested that QWEST develop an interim process for obtaining end user specific Resale Centrex CSRs. Because a mechanized process does not exist, our service center personnel would have to gather this information manually. Unfortunately, QWEST does not have the resources to devote to these kinds of special requests. As long as a CLEC has the appropriate authorization, full CSRs can be retrieved through IMA. In lieu of the full CSR, partial CSRs by WTN can be retrieved. When a CLEC is unable to identify all WTNs associated with a request, the end user customer will have to be the provider of the information.

Sincerely,

Monica Manning IMA Process Specialist

Open Product/Process CR PC062602-1 Detail

Description Of Change

While there is a process in place to be able to submit CLEC to CLEC reuse of facilities orders without providing circuit ID information, 90% of the orders submitted by Allegiance since late May 2002 are being rejected for various erroneous or unclear reasons regarding the circuit ID information. (I will be addressing that issue in a separate change request.) Allegiance believes that having this additional capability, will greatly enhance our ability to get reuse orders successfully processed and in a more timely manner.

Expected Deliverable:

A process for CLECs to be able to request Circuit IDs up front for CLEC to CLEC reuse of facilities orders that is in parity with Retail’s capability to get such circuit IDs before placing a reuse order for UNE DS0 loops.

Status History

Project Meetings

09/18/02 September CMP Meeting Qwest reviewed its draft response and summarized the September 4th conference call with Allegiance, walking through Raw Loop Data Tool. When the end user location was a single tenant address the circuit ID was produced. When the end user location was a multi-tenant address, the circuit ID was produced when the suite number was included and when the suite number was in PREMIS database. Allegiance appreciated the assistance with RLD, and, said that providing the circuit ID will get migration orders through the first time with fewer rejects. This CR will stay in development status while determining the tool for CLEC’s to obtain circuit IDs is identified. Eschelon asked if Qwest is not able to come to a systems solution, would a single point of contact be implemented for CLEC’s. Qwest responded that such a solution may be entertained but it was more likely that a mechanized process would be identified.

-- 08/21/02 - August CMP Meeting Minutes: Qwest reviewed its draft response. Allegiance would like to walk through on the phone with Qwest and use Raw Loop Data Tool. Eschelon asked how to identify which CLEC owns the circuit. Qwest stated that the RLDT will provide the circuit ids and that retail and CLECs rely on Qwest Wholesale to identify the local provider. Allegiance indicated they would like to move this CR into development.

07/17/02 - July CMP Meeting Minutes: Allegiance presented their Change Request. Qwest stated that current tools will be reviewed for their capability to look at curcuit IDs in conjunction with end user addresses, including specific addresses that have suite numbers. CR status is clarification

Time/Date: 9:00 a.m. (MDT) / Monday, July 8, 2002 Place: Conference Call Conference: TEL: 877.521.8688 Call-In No: CODE: 7901848 CR No: PC062602-1" Circuit IDs on CLEC to CLEC Reuse of Facilities orders"

Attendees: Terry Wicks, Allegiance Russ Urevig, Qwest Neil Houston, Qwest Bob Mohr, Qwest Michael Keegan, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Attendees introduced. Review Requested (Description of) Change Description: Allegiance wants the capability to get CLEC circuit ID information from Qwest on UNE DS0 loops prior to submitting a CLEC to CLEC reuse of facilities order. If Qwest Retail wants to reuse facilities when porting a customer from a CLEC back to Qwest, they have the capability to "look up" circuit ID information. Qwest Retail does not have to get this information directly from the CLEC, thus the ability to access circuit ID information speeds up their process of submitting orders to Wholesale and eliminates rejects for "bad or missing" circuit IDs. Giving the CLECs a process to obtain CLEC circuit ID detail up front for reuse orders, will allow the CLECs the same parity in submitting accurate orders in a timely manner. This capability will also allow more frequent use of the CLEC to CLEC reuse of facilities process. In many instances, some CLECs that are loosing a customer will not provide circuit ID information to the winning CLEC, thus inhibiting the process of reusing the facilities. When facilities are not reused and the CLEC submits new loop orders, the results may be held orders for lack of facilities. Also installing new loops is much more expensive.

While there is a process in place to be able to submit CLEC to CLEC reuse of facilities orders without providing circuit ID information, 90% of the orders submitted by Allegiance since late May 2002 are being rejected for various erroneous or unclear reasons regarding the circuit ID information. (I will be addressing that issue in a separate change request.) Allegiance believes that having this additional capability, will greatly enhance our ability to get reuse orders successfully processed and in a more timely manner.

Discussion: Allegiance stated they cannot force a CLEC to provide circuit ID information. Allegiance is dependent on Qwest to provide this information. Reuse of facilities benefits both the CLEC and Qwest. Qwest stated that the current tools will be reviewed for their capability to look at circuit IDs in conjunction with end user addresses. Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Areas Impacted: Ordering, Provisioning Products Impacted: Unbundled Loop, UNE Loop Confirm Right Personnel Qwest confirmed the correct personnel were on the call.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation A process for CLECs to be able to request Circuit IDs up front for CLEC to CLEC reuse of facilities orders that is in parity with Retail’s capability to get such circuit IDs before placing a reuse order for UNE DS0 loops. Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Allegiance can present this Change Request to the CLEC community at the July Product/Process CMP meeting scheduled for July 17 Qwest will issue draft response to this Change Request by Aug 14 (one week prior to the Aug 21 CMP meeting). Qwest will discuss the draft response at the Aug 21 CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

Lori Mendoza LEC Account Manager Allegiance Telecom

SUBJECT:Qwest’s Change Request Revised Response - CR # PC062602-1 Circuit IDs on CLEC to CLEC Reuse of Facilities orders

At the September CMP meeting, Qwest agreed to continue to research the issues, to determine the most suitable path forward in determining circuit ID information to allow the CLECs the ability to get circuit ID information on DSO type loops for CLEC to CLEC migrations.

Qwest has reviewed the current process of obtaining loop circuit ID’s using the Raw Loop Data (RLD) Query for CLEC to CLEC migrations. We find the tool meets the needs of the change request to provide CLECs a process to obtain Loop Circuit ID details for reuse orders. To clarify, the RLD Query can be used as follows: - Enter a valid address, this must be suite or unit specific if address is multi-tenant. - If address is valid, RLD will provide information on all working TN’s or circuits. - If no matches are found for a specific address, RLD will return a message indicating no information found.

When no circuit information is found, proceed with submitting the LSR and Qwest will determine the circuit and migrate the end user as requested.

The current process provides parity with migrations between Wholesale CLEC to CLEC migrations and migrating end users back to Qwest Retail. The work performed, the results and the responses are handled in the same manner between Retail and the CLECs

LSRs for CLEC to CLEC migration do not require that the Circuit ID field be populated. - Qwest will accept the requests for migration without circuit information. - Qwest will research and determine the circuit or circuits at that address. - If the Loop Circuit ID cannot be determined, Qwest will provide a standard remark associated with the reject of a migration request as follows:

1. When Qwest finds the circuit at the requested address is NOT the same type of circuit to which the migrate has been requested, the comment remark associated with this will read: Circuits at requested address do not match the type of circuit indicated on the LSR for migration. The circuits found are (ex. LX-N or AD--, HCE-, etc).

2. Multiple circuits are found at the requested address: If the quantity of circuits at the address do not match the quantity of lines migrating, as indicated on the LSR, Qwest will use the OLSP information provided by the CLEC to try to determine which services will be migrated. It is very important that the CLEC indicate who the OLSP (old local service provider) is when requesting migration because this will aid in determining whether multiple circuits are really an issue. Qwest will provide these comment remarks for the reject: Multiple circuits have been identified at request address, circuits are currently not those of the indicated OLSP or Multiple circuits have been identified for the OSLP but do not match the number of loops requested for migration.

3. Qwest has searched all available records to identify circuits at the end user address, but was not able to identify circuit for migration: Qwest will review all data on the LSR to obtain circuits to be migrated. Additional data that is recommended to aid in the migration request are: the TN that is being ported to the NLSP’s (new local service provider) switch and the name of the OLSP. If Qwest can not find the circuits, the following comment remarks will be provided on the reject: Qwest has searched for circuits at the requested address, using the end user name, address, OLSP, and TN provided. Qwest can not find circuits, please verify data on LSR for accuracy.

- The CLEC should review the reject remarks, validate any issues in question, and re-submit the LSR once the information is found and the LSR is corrected. - Qwest provides a method to escalate questions on rejects or clarification on remarks for rejects.

Sincerely,

Russ Urevig Senior Process Analyst Wholesale Service Delivery

Open Product/Process CR 5548229 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

Allegiance (Wicks) agreed this CR could be moved to “Completed” status. Allegiance did indicate they would like to see a higher level of compliance in this area. Currently they are still not receiving updated FOC’s 30% of the time.

-

"'Russ Urveig'" cc: "'Kit Thomte'"

Subject: Allegiance - Same Day CFA Changes - No Updated FOCs Week of 7/15 - 7/19

Here is the last spreadsheet that I will send to you for updates. Beginning 7/22 we are using the new process to release busy CFAs should the situation arise.

There was only one PON that we did not get an updated FOC on last week. Please confirm the CFA change was corrected on you records for PON 1388133-LP and return the updated spreadsheet to me. Thanks.

<>

Terry Wicks LEC Account Manager allegiancetelecom, inc 469-259-4438 terry.wicks@algx.com

07/17/02 - July CMP Meeting Minutes: Qwest (Buck) provided the following status. Qwest had provided information back to Allegiance on the spreadsheet they have been tracking from. Allegiance agreed that they would begin using the escalation process on July 22. Qwest indicated that in the interim the escalation information has been provided to the CLECs to allow everyone to use the process. Worldcom inquired how someone that did not attend CMP could get the information. Qwest responded that the information was updated in the Qwest Raw Loop Data Qualification Tool Job Aid. This CR will remain in "CLEC Test" until the next CMP meeting to determine if the process is working properly and can be closed.

"Cheri Hurless" , "Wicks, Terry" cc: kthomte@qwest.com

Subject: Spreadsheets

Here is the completed spreadsheet for the CFA changes and no FOC sent, if you have any question please get with Cheri. There was only one request for CFA change where as the records were incorrect, I had a service order issue to correct the problem and it was due dated today. Just to clarify the spread sheet, in the column for NO FOC if the correct CFA was applied in TIRKS and the service order, I place an OK next you your N indicator. In the Comment section I just stated CFA verified. (See attached file: Same Day CFA Spreadsheet No FOC Master.xls)

I believe we have made great improvements on the FOC during the last several week and in all but 1 case the CFA had been correctly changed. I feel that this spread sheet should be discontinued and any concerns for CFA changes should move to the BUSY CFA activity, but only after the CFA query function had been performed on both the old CFA to make sure it is vacant and against the new CFA tom make sure it is busy. Any time we take activities out of the normal process flow and I an referring to requesting a CFA change without documentation there are extra steps we both must take to work together. Thanks for all your feed back on this matter Terry, and I look forward to closing this CR. Russ,

Here are my latest examples of not receiving updated FOCs on same day CFA changes.

5/20/02 thru 5/24/02

1268042-LP Received Updated FOC 1253525-LP Did Not receive updated FOC 1275739-LP Did Not receive updated FOC 1273724-LP Received Updated FOC 1272870-LP Received Updated FOC 1265872-LP Received Updated FOC 1277072-LP Received Updated FOC 1270017-LP Received Updated FOC 1276114-LP Received Updated FOC 1153382-LP Received Updated FOC

5/28/02 thru 5/31/02

1296008-LP 303-706-9024 Did Not receive updated FOC

1284062-L 480-237-0350 Did Not receive updated FOC 1308512-L1 480-966-8198 Did Not receive updated FOC 1295225-LP 303-781-8307 Received Updated FOC Received Updated FOC

1287395-L 303-771-0816 Received Updated FOC 1301207-LP Did Not receive updated FOC

1301991-LP Did Not receive updated FOC 303-762-9176 1278540-LP Received Updated FOC

1303185-L Received Updated FOC 1307043-L Did Not receive updated FOC 1303880-LP Received Updated FOC

1309037-LP Received Updated FOC 1309503-LP Did Not receive updated FOC 1292144-L Did Not receive updated FOC 1301212-LP Received Updated FOC

1285714-LP Received Updated FOC

Terry Wicks LEC Account Manager allegiancetelecom, inc 469-259-4438

Subject: CFA'S FOR 5/13/02 THRU 5/17/02

FOC 1242682-LP TN 720-932-8789 NEW 1263 OLD 1299

FOC 1257259-LP TN 303-755-3199 NEW 829 OLD 814

FOC 1284374-LP TN 206-323-1751 NEW 1279 OLD 1259 AND 1341 SHOWS WORKING IMA

NO FOC 1211795-LP2 TN 752-888-7554 NEW 247 OLD 276

FOC 1261532-LP TN 623-931-8086 NEW 808 OLD 768

FOC 1265023-L TN 303-991-0119 NEW 696 OLD 1183

FOC 1280325-MVL TN 763-576-6636-1 NEW 152 OLD 161

Thank you and have a good day,

Tasha Nichols/Supervisor Qwest/Verizon West 469-259-4823 fax 469-259-9051 tasha.nichols@algx.com

CenturyLink Response

Terry Wicks LEC Account Manager Allegiance Telecom

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR 5548229 Same Day Pair Change

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 disconnect 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.

Sincerely,

Russ Urevig Senior Process Analyst

01/07/02 Response to Allegiance e-mail dated 12/28/01 January 7, 2002

Terry Wicks LEC Account Manager Allegiance Telecom

CC: Catherine Garcia

This letter is in response to your e-mail dated Friday, December 28th, 2001 – Allegiance – Same Day CFA Change – No Updated FOC Received.

Response: Since we have received examples of FOC’s not being sent to the CLEC’s when a CFA has been changed, new focus on this process has been brought forward. The QCCC have put the following procedures in place to insure that the CFA process is followed.

- All testers have been re-trained on the CFA Change Process.

- Four compliance reviews, for each tester, are completed every month focusing on compliance to the CFA Change Process.

- Performance managing is being done to insure the CFA Change Process is being complied with. If a tester fails their compliance review, there is documented discussion around the issue.

- Weekly Leadership meeting are held to discuss issues for the center. The CFA Change Process has been brought forward during these meetings to insure that the process is understood and followed.

Sincerely,

Deni Toye Network Unbundled Loop Process

October 10, 2001 Terry Wicks, Allegiance

This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form CR5548229 dated August 30, 2001, Request:

Allegiance has sent Qwest examples of orders when Allegiance had problems on same day CFA changes. Allegiance was not receiving FOC’s back specifying that a CFA had been changed. Allegiance would like to know that there is a process for a CFA change on test and turn up for the same day.

Qwest Response: There was a process put into place to allow the CLEC to have a CFA change before or on the due date. On August 9, 2001 a process was put in place to allow this activity to happen. Terry Wicks sent some examples to show that the process is not working. After investigation of these orders, it was determined that a process is in place and does work, however, there are isolated cases of non-compliance issues. The orders that Terry sent to us did have the CFA changed the day of the due date, however, non-compliance to the process did not produce a call to the SDC, therefore, a FOC was not sent to the CLEC. These examples have been forwarded to the centers for process compliance verification.

Sincerely,

Deni Toye Network Unbundled Loop Process

Open Product/Process CR PC092701-1 Detail

Description Of Change

These DID numbers were for the local police and fire station in this city. Due to the inaccurate CSR we left a two-way trunk with Qwest which disrupted the hunting (this line had a DPA on it that the customer wanted to keep). There were two sets of DIDs that were not addressed so when the TFD trunk they were riding on was ported the DIDs went down. The only way we were able to find the additional DIDs was by call Qwest for assistance.

Status History

Project Meetings

Name/Company: Terry Wicks, terry.wicks@algx.com, Allegiance Monica Manning, mxmanni@qwest.com, Qwest Susie Wells, sdwell2@qwest.com, Qwest Kate Spry, kspry@qwest.com, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Terry, Monica, Susie, and Kate Review Requested (Description of) Change Develop a process for CLECs to get a “full” CSRs on DID numbers. Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Areas: Pre-Ordering / Ordering Products: Resale Confirm Right Personnel Involved Monica Manning is the ‘owner’ of this CR and will be the point of contact for future problems of this nature until the root cause is established and draft response issued. Susie would like to stay informed as to response and is available for questions pertaining to her area. Terry Wicks would like to stay informed as to response. Kate will coordinate all necessary clarification meetings, complete meeting minutes, and review, forward, and send information to Mike Keegan and Matt Rossi to store to database. Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Allegiance is requesting that a process be developed by Qwest to allow CLECs to be able to retrieve a full and complete CSR for all DID numbers for a specific End User at a specific location. Currently Allegiance is not confident that the information received through IMA is accurate. We have had several instances of End Users going down after conversion due to DIDs not being addressed. The reason for this is that not all DIDs are showing up on the CSRs. One example is for City of Tukwila BTN 206-433-1800. The CSR we pulled in IMA only shows the block 206-433-1844 to 1851 when in actuality the range goes to 1871. Qwest also advised us the DID 206-433-1856 did not exist. This meant that there was a break in the range of 206-433-1844 to 1855 then 206-433-1857 to 1871. DID range 206-433-7140 to 7199 is totally unaccounted for on the CSR.

These DID numbers were for the local police and fire station in this city. Due to the inaccurate CSR we left a two-way trunk with Qwest which disrupted the hunting (this line had a DPA on it that the customer wanted to keep). There were two sets of DIDs that were not addressed so when the TFD trunk they were riding on was ported the DIDs went down. The only way we were able to find the additional DIDs was by call Qwest for assistance. To clarify, two points are being addressed: ? When you pull a CSR and submit a request, the phone numbers aren’t on the CSR in the LSR. Is it then rejected? If so, why don’t they show up in the CSR if they are rejected? Terry gave the following examples: Here are the PONs where we ported these DID ranges: PON 699510-NP 206-431-3650 thru 3689 699510-NP1 206-431-3890 thru 3899 699510-NP2 206-433-1804 thru 1843

We have not completed the porting of these PONs: PON 860171-NP1 206-433-1844 thru 1855 PON 860171-NP2 206-433-1857 thru 1871 PON 860171-NP3 206-433-7140 thru 7199

The following TNs were on our CSR but we were told by Qwest there were additional TNs not showing up: 206-433-1844 thru 1851

The following TNs were not on our CSR we pulled from IMA for BTN 206-433-1800 206-433-1852 thru 1855 206-433-1857 thru 1871 206-433-7140 thru 7199

? Additional DIB ranges need to be addressed.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests No related system CR’s were identified Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Monica will clarify process via a written formal response draft. After clarification is received regarding possible system changes. She will forward this documentation to Kate by 10/18/01. Kate will review and forward the response draft to Mike Keegan and Matt Rossi to store in the CR database by 10/19/01 for CLEC review. The web location will be noted in Matt Rossi’s email regarding the response document by 10/22/01. This information can then be reviewed and discussed by the CLEC Community at the following CMP Meeting. Terry can view this information on the CR database and this CR can then be reviewed and discussed by the CLEC Community at the following CMP Meeting. Corrections/updates can then be made at that time.

CenturyLink Response

November 8, 2001

Terry Wicks LEC Manager Allegiance Telecom, Inc

This letter is being sent in response to CLEC Change Request Form # PC092701-1. PC092701-1 pertains to a request for a process to get a full CSR on DID numbers.

We have reviewed the list of LSRs and associated CSR you provided to QWEST for this Change Request. While it may have appeared that a Full CSR was provided to you by IMA, the Review Full CSR Response displayed a message indicating that only 52 of 61 pages were returned. This would explain why only a portion of the DID numbers for the account appeared.

The IMA User Guide provides instructions on how to retrieve additional CSR data, when the complete CSR is not displayed. This information can be found in Chapter 1 of the User Guide, under Reviewing Customer Service Records. As long as a Full CSR request does not exceed the page number limitation (300 pages in the IMA GUI, 450 pages in IMA EDI) and the CLEC is authorized, all of the CSR pages should be returned. If the instructions in the User Guide are followed, all of the CSR pages can be retrieved.

If you should encounter this trouble again while trying to retrieve a full CSR and have followed the steps outlined in the User Guide, please contact the Wholesale Systems Help Desk at (888) 796-9102 immediately. If we receive a trouble report regarding CSR retrieval "as it is occurring", we will be able to determine the root cause and correct the problem.

Sincerely,

Monica Manning IMA Process Specialist

Open Product/Process CR PC081902-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Qwest has been pointed out that this is not a new or even a changed process. Qwest has stated that this information has been in the SGAT for approximately 6 years. Allegiance has never opted into the SGAT language for our ICA and up until 8/02/02, Allegiance was never aware that this information was documented in the SGAT.

Here is the wording for reference:

“If you are not ready within thirty (30) minutes of the scheduled appointment time, then you must reschedule the installation by submitting a supplemental LSR. If Qwest is not ready within thirty (30) minutes of the scheduled appointment time, Qwest will waive the nonrecurring charge for the installation option. You and Qwest will attempt to set a new appointment time on the same day and, if unable to do so, Qwest will issue a jeopardy notice and a FOC with a new Due Date.”

The statement implies that “if for any reason” the CLEC is not ready, then it will be SUPd at 31 minutes. It does not take into account that if Qwest fails to notify us of a no dial tone issue, according to the current 48 hour dial tone testing requirements, then the CLEC is still held accountable for not being ready and the order will be SUPd. At the maximum, we may have 1 hour and 30 minutes from the start time of the cut to resolve a no dial tone issue if no notification was sent prior to due date. This has happened to Allegiance several times, and some QCCC testers hold fast to this policy. We have had to escalate on these instances and in some cases it has been denied and the order was JEPd. The wording needs to change to identify exceptions to the rule.

If Qwest is not ready for whatever reason according to this policy, Qwest will work with the CLEC throughout the day to get it cut. But if the CLEC is not ready, Qwest is only allowing a maximum of 1 hour and 30 minutes ( less in many instances) to "get ready" or the order will be JEPd.

Qwest is not taking it into consideration when Qwest fails to follow all steps of the 48 hour dial tone testing requirements and timely notification to the CLEC. When Qwest fails to do this, Qwest is considering that the CLEC is not ready. Allegiance believes that in this type of situation, it is Qwest that is not really ready because Qwest has not followed all steps of the process. Qwest’s consequence for not doing the cuts on due date is the potential that Qwest may have to pay penalties. The current policy is allowing Qwest to work with the CLEC to get it done on cut date to avoid such penalties. The consequence to the CLEC is we can lose that customer if we cannot get the order cut on due date as promised and we only have a limited time to “get ready” in order to complete the cut.

Status History

Project Meetings

02/19/03 February CMP Meeting

Deni Toye–Qwest provided statistics regarding PTA NDT Notifications. All were sent within the 24-36 hour time frame. The QCCC has not been out of compliance so we have not executed the 30 minute rule. Lori Mendoza–Allegiance reported they have not had any problems, except they have gotten some PTA notifications without CFA information. This information has been provided to their Service Manager to investigate. Sharon Van Meter–ATT advised she will be meeting with her company to determine whether they will begin to use the PTA tool. This CR will be left in CLEC Test status until next month. At that time we will review additional feedback from the CLEC Community and determine a close date.

01/15/03 - Janaury CMP Meeting

Toye-Qwest stated that Qwest had distributed a notification on this CR and had responded to CLEC comments to the changes. Johnson-Eschelon stated that she had not yet read the Qwest response. Mendoza-Allegiance stated that Qwest has been much better, recently, on no-dial-tone notifications. This CR remains in CLEC Test.

12/18/02 - December CMP Monthly Meeting Minutes Qwest-Linda Hendricks advised the PCAT is out for CLEC comments with a planned implementation date of January 31. This CR will change to CLEC Test.

11/20/02 - November CMP Monthly Meeting Minutes Qwest (Hendricks) reported the PCAT is under development. This project will remain in Development status.

10/16/02 - October CMP Meeting Minutes Qwest reviewed the Acceptance Response to this CR and outlined when the exception will apply and when it will not apply. Eschelon clarified the following scenario: If Qwest can not reschedule the CHC for the same day the exception process will not apply. ATT expressed their concern that the exception process does not apply to VP Expedites. Qwest clarified the current VP Expedite Process does not change and this CR does not override the current VP Expedite Process. Qwest obtained agreement this CR would be handled as a Level 3 change and will follow the Level 3 process. This CR will move to Development status.

09/24/02 - September CMP Meeting Minutes Terry Wicks - Allegiance introduced and explained this CR would allow for an exception to the 30 minute rule for CHC process if CLECs do not get at least 24 - 48 hours NDT notification from Qwest. This applies to CHC only, not basic. In the case of not receiving notification QCC would work with the CLEC to reschedule the technician for sometime the same day instead of sup the LSR at 31 minutes. Jonathan-ATT said this should reduce the number of C01 misses. Linda Hendricks - Qwest explained if we are not doing the PTA email notification we won't be able to track whether the 48 hour NDT notifcation occurred. Eschelon and Allegiance expressed their support of the PTA tool. Qwest advised a response would be provided at the October meeting.

1:30 p.m. (MDT) / Monday 26th August 2002 1-877-561-8688 PC738 5723# Review CR PC081902-1 30 minute rule for Coordinated Hot Cuts

In Attendance: Terry Wicks - Allegiance Linda Hendricks - Qwest Bob Mohr – Qwest Cheri Hurless – Qwest Neil Houston – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest Ric Martin – Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke – Qwest Deb Smith – Qwest Deni Toye - Qwest

Introduction of Attendees

Review Requested (Description of) Change : Reviewed CR and confirmed business issues this CR will address. Terry requests the wording in the PCAT be changed to reflect an exception to the 30 minute rule if Qwest does not follow the 48 hour DT testing process. If Qwest notifies CLEC with 24 hours or less advance notice an exception process needs to be available. The exception process would allow Qwest and the CLEC to set a new appointment time on the same day, instead of jeopardizing the order and requiring the installation to be rescheduled by submitting a supplemental LSR. The business issue this CR is addressing is prevention of customer loss.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted : Unbundled Loop / UNE / Loop Conversion orders existing customers PCAT – Ordering Wholesale UNE Installation Option Coordinated Installation with / with out testing

Confirm Right Personnel Involved : Linda Hendricks – confirmed as Lead SME Neil Houston – Network Regulatory Bob Mohr – Product Manager Cheri Hurless – Service Manager Cindy Macy – Change Request Project Manager

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation : Terry requests the wording in the PCAT be changed to reflect an exception to the 30 minute rule if Qwest does not follow the 48 hour DT testing process. If Qwest notifies CLEC with 24 hours or less advance notice an exception process needs to be available. The exception process would allow Qwest and the CLEC to set a new appointment time on the same day, instead of jeopardizing the order and requiring the installation to be rescheduled by submitting a supplemental LSR.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests : CR PC 081902-2

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Document and issue meeting minutes within 5 business days (9-3-02) - Qwest Present CR at September CMP Meeting - Allegiance Present Draft Response at October CMP Meeting - Qwest

CenturyLink Response

October 16, 2002 For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at October's CMP Meeting

Allegiance Telecom, Inc

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR #PC081902-1 The 30 minute rule for Coordinated Hot Cuts

Allegiance Telecom, Inc is requesting that Qwest change the wording and current process to allow the CLEC to work with Qwest on due date to get the cut done, when Qwest has failed to timely notify the CLEC according to the notification of NDT process, just as Qwest is allowing itself to do when Qwest is not ready. Update the PCAT with any changes resulting from this CR.

Qwest will accept the “30 Minute Exception” CR with the following guidelines:

-All CLECs must be enrolled in the NDT PTA Notification procedure in order to have accurate tracking and parity to ensure the success of the “30 minute rule” process.

-If Qwest fails to notify the CLEC within the timeframe of the NDT notification procedure, we will attempt to reschedule at a mutually agreed upon time for the same day.

-If Qwest is able to reschedule the same day it will not require a Customer Not Ready jeopardy and will not require a supp to the LSR. However the order will be in a CLEC delay status documented on the OSSCN screen in WFA/C.

- Rescheduling the Coordinated Hot Cut may not be workable on the same day. The appointment may require another date and time. This will result in a Customer Not Ready jeopardy.

- This process will be rework for Qwest in several departments and will require the CLEC to supp their LSR if another day and time is required.

The “30 Minute Exception” will not apply when:

- If Dial Tone is found at 48 hours before Due Date and noted in the OSSLOG, then at 1 hour before the due date the Dial Tone is no longer present.

- If the CLEC is not using the PTA NDT Email Notification.

- If the email systems of either Qwest or the CLEC were not working during the notification period, tracking would be invalid.

- If the CLEC has requested a VP Expedite and the interval does not allow the appropriate time for DT verification and CLEC notification (This process does not over ride the VP Expedite Process)

Qwest will issue this as a Level 3 change and seek concurrence of this approach at the October CMP Meeting.

Sincerely,

Linda Hendricks Lead Project Analyst Qwest

Cc: Mary Pat Cheshier, Diane Diebel

Open Product/Process CR PC050302-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

Qwest explained this process was implemented effective October 11, 2002. No issues have been identified with the process and Qwest requested to close this CR. Lori Mendoza - Allegiance advised they are using the process and it is working without any issues. Allegiance and the other CLECs in attendance agreed to close the CR.

10/18/02 October CMP Monthly Meeting Minutes Qwest explained this process was implemented effective October 11, 2002. As of October 16, four CLECs have signed up to receive E-Mail Notification of NDT via the PTA tool. Eschelon verified that if you do not sign up for email notification via the PTA tool then you will not get any NDT notification, as the only method of NDT notification is now the PTA tool. CLECs can continue to sign up at any time. Qwest agreed to leave the CR in CLEC Test since this process was just implemented, with potential closure in November.

09/18/02 September CMP Monthly Meeting Minutes

Qwest advised that the Level 3 notification had been issued and that the comment cycle was scheduled to end this Friday, September 20th. Qwest advised that Qwest Service Managers had sent out notifications to their CLECs advising them to provide their e-mail address. The CLECs expressed concern over the 48-our language as written and intervals that were longer than the standard intervals. Qwest confirmed that the 48-hour notification was from the due date and this would be clarified in the PCAT or in writing. CLECs expressed concern over participation in the trial. It was agreed that next time Qwest does a trial, Qwest could evaluate if additional CLECs need to be involved. CLECs requested that the final notification advise the CLECs of the impact of the e-mail notification change. Qwest advised that they would add language in the final notification that advises the CLECs that if they do not provide an e-mail address they would not receive the No Dial Tone notifications.

08/21/02 August CMP Monthly Meeting Minutes

Qwest provided a status update on issuance of the Level 3 notice. Qwest indicated that they were holding off until the current 2-wire 4-wire PCAT language gets published to the Web on August 26, 2002. Allegiance expressed concern that issuance was based on the no dial tone PCAT language since they have taken exception to the language. Qwest advised that this could be addressed during the 1:00 p.m. discussion on issuance of the PCAT language. Eschelon advised that they were disappointed that they will need to wait longer for issuance of the Level 3 notice. They stated that Qwest advised last month that it would be issued by this month’s meeting and now they have to wait longer. AT&T asked if they could only have one e-mail. Qwest advised that they could only have one and it must be different than the e-mail if they are receiving test results.

-

07/17/02 - July CMP Meeting Minutes: Qwest will continue with the trial that began May 6, 2002. It is available to all CLECs. Allegiance asked if all CLECs had to request the process in order for it to proceed. Qwest responded that the answer is yes, it is all or nothing. Allegiance stated that there should be a choice and that the Qwest response does not reference the “all or nothing” position. Qwest responded that the Level 3 process will support this effort and will allow other CLEC participation.. Qwest will issue the Level 3 initial notice prior to the August CMP meeting. CR status was changed to development.

Subject: Allegiance - NDT Trial E-mail Notification Final Spreadsheet 5/6 - 5/31/02 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:36:25 -0500 From: "Wicks, Terry" To: "'Cheri Hurless'" , "'Deni Toye'" , "'Kathie Simpson'" , "'Linda Hendricks'" , "'Mary Pat Cheshire'" CC: "Reece, Mamie" , "Best, Doreen" , "Hill, Todd"

Here is the finalized spreadsheet with the data and comments captured for May. The trial is continuing through June and I will have a separate spreadsheet for June.

<>

Terry Wicks LEC Account Manager allegiancetelecom, inc 469-259-4438 terry.wicks@algx.com

--

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

May 9, 2002, 3:30 p.m. (MT) Conference Call 877-564-8688 PC050302-1, E-Mail Notification of No Dial Tone at 48 Hours

Attendees: Ric Martin, Qwest Neil Houston, Qwest Mike Raleigh, Qwest Deni Toye, Qwest Terry Wicks, Allegiance

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

Review Requested (Description of) Change Terry reviewed Allegiance’s CR. He explained that the initial phone call would roll to voice mail and the issue is with the voice mail notifications falling through the crack. He would like to get an e-mail to have a record to hold Allegiance personnel accountable. Terry advised that there is currently a trial with Qwest and Allegiance on this process that started in February with the QCCC. Deni advised that the trial started May 6th and is to be concluded May 31st. Currently they are having the PTA System send the e-mail. Terry advised that the CR was submitted in addition to the trial to have this process implemented for all CLECs.

Confirm Areas & Products impacted It was confirmed that the area impacted was Provisioning for coordinated hot cuts and basic cuts. The product impacted is UBL, LX—Reuses.

Confirm Right Personnel Nvolved Qwest confirmed that Neil Houston would be the SME for response to this Change Request.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Allegiance would like this process implemented for all CLECs.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests There are no related Systems CRs.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) The trial will complete May 31st. The CR will have the collective CLEC clarification and SME input at the June CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

Terry Wicks LEC Manager Allegiance Telecom, Inc.

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR # PC050302-1 E-mail notifications of NDT at 48 hours through PTA tool

This is in response to Allegiance’s Change Request (CR) PC050302-1. This CR requests that all notifications of No Dial Tone (NDT) at 48 hours prior to the cut date be provided to the CLEC via e-mail using Qwest’s Plant Test Access (PTA) tool. The current trial of PTA e-mail notifications with Allegiance began on May 6, 2002. The trial with Allegiance will continue during the implementation phase for this CR.

Qwest is able to provide all NDT notifications via e-mail using the PTA tool. PTA notifications require that CLECs provide Qwest with an e-mail address separate from the e-mail address provided for test results. CLECS should send their NDT PTA e-mail location to Deni Toye, dtoye@qwest.com. Qwest will add the CLECs NDT PTA e-mail address to the notification list upon receipt. To provide an efficient and uniform notification, Qwest will provide NDT notifications via the PTA tool to all CLECs.

Based upon Qwest’s understanding of the scope of this CR, Qwest views the implementation of this CR as a Level 3 Product & Process change. Timing of the implementation of this change will be dependent upon the quantity and nature of CLEC comments.

Qwest will seek concurrence for this approach at the July Monthly Product & Process CMP Meeting.

Sincerely,

Neil Houston Staff Advocate Policy & Law

cc: Mary Retka, Director, Technical Regulatory Interconnection Planning

Open Product/Process CR PC092701-3 Detail

Description Of Change

The most recent example happened today. PON 806241-HDSL1 – The FOC date to put in the circuit for this client is 09/25/01. Qwest was at the customer premises on 09/24/01 at 5:10 p.m. to do some work. The Qwest tech who went out was extremely rude to the customer. The Tech stated he has come several times, always after closing (5p.m.) and was not happy that he did not have access to the MPOE. The tech did not identify himself until the owner mentioned another company. The owner asked the tech if he worked for End 2 End Communications and the tech got upset and simply left. Several times the Qwest techs have told the customers that they would go down if they proceeded with converting to Allegiance.

Allegiance is requesting that an improved process be put in place that the CLECs can report these occurrences of anti-competitive behavior when they happen. This process should include a single point of contact , a thorough investigation with an appropriate response to the CLECs in a timely manner. The process should also include the proper training of Qwest personnel to prevent future occurrences

Status History

Project Meetings

Open Product/Process CR PC062602-2 Detail

Description Of Change

While some of the rejects proved out that there were no reusable UNE DS0 circuits, the reject reasons did not clearly state the true circumstances. For example one reject stated “no working circuits found”. When further researched, it was found that there were indeed working circuits there but the only working circuits for the End User were DS1s.

Allegiance would also like to collaboratively work with Qwest and other CLECs to establish clear, definitive reject reasons for CLEC to CLEC reuse of facilities orders to insure that all resources available to the SDCs have been utilized to find working circuits. When Allegiance submits CLEC to CLEC reuse of facilities orders, we already have obtained a CSR from the CLEC so we know the numbers we are porting are indeed working on some kind of circuit. These reject reasons should be clear enough to insure the CLEC that there are indeed no working UNE DS0 circuits to reuse. As stated above some of the orders rejected did indeed have available working UNE DSO circuits that could be reused. Allegiance currently does not have confidence that the SDC’s reject reasons are valid and their training is adequate to locate reusable UNE DS0 circuits. In many instances we are having to drop new loops in order to take the customer when there are reusable loops available. Installing new loops is more expensive, more time consuming for the cut over, and there is the risk the orders will be held for lack of facilities. The ability to “reuse” facilities is less expensive, the cut over process is less time consuming, and the end user has less down time.

Expected Deliverable:

Clear, definitive reject reasons that the CLECs can rely on that all resources were utilized to “find” working UNE DS0 circuits for CLEC to CLEC reuse of facilities orders.

Status History

Project Meetings

Qwest requested that Allegiance research to determine if Allegiance personnel is receiving the comments that were agreed to. Attendees agreed that this could be closed off line if Allegince (Mendoza) agreed.

09/18/02 September CMP Meeting The improved comments associated with rejects on CLEC to CLEC Reuse of Facilities were implemented on August 23. The response indicated it was implemented on August 22. Qwest will update the status history to reflect the actual date. Allegiance (Wicks) indicated they were unaware that the process was underway, Terry will check with his people to find out. Eschelon (Johnson) indicated they had encountered a couple of problems with the process, Russ worked through these issues for them. This CR will remain in “CLEC Test” until the October meeting when it is anticipated that the CR will be updated to "Completed."

- 08/21/02 - August CMP Meeting Minutes Qwest (Urevig) reviewed the three scenarios and comments that are associated with the reject reasons. Allegiance (Wicks) inquired about the second scenarios comments. Are they intended to be two separate or one comment? Qwest indicated that they are two distinct comments. This CR was moved to "CLEC Test".

"Wicks, Terry" , Kathleen Thomte/Mass/USWEST/US@USWEST cc: Cheri Hurless/GROUPWARE/USWEST/US@USWEST

Subject: CR

I wanted to get back to you with the different type of comments we are looking at placing on the rejected CLEC to CLEC migrations request, during our last meeting we determined there were 4 different types of rejects which would require different comment.

1. Wrong type of circuit being requested does not match what was requested by CLEC. 2. Multiple circuits at customer location not all circuits being migrated. 3. No circuits found for migration 4. CLEC to CLEC reuse of facility show detail of which CLEC migration is from (This is probably going to be included in the first scenario).

These are the scenarios and the comments that will reject will contain, I combined the 2 and 3

1. When Qwest finds the circuit at the requested address is NOT the same type of circuit to which the migrate has been requested, the comment remark associated with this will read: Circuits at request address do not match the type of circuit indicated on the LSR for migration. The circuits found are (ex. LX-N or AD--, HCE-, etc)

2. Multiple circuits are found at the requested address, if the number of circuits at the address do NOT match the number of migrations indicated on the LSR. It is very important that the CLEC indicate who the OLSP (old local service provider) is when requesting migration because this will aid in determining whether multiple circuits are really an issue. Qwest will provide these comment remarks for the reject: Multiple circuits have been identified at request address, circuits are currently not those of the indicated OLSP or Multiple circuit have been identified for the OSLP but do not match the number of loops requested for migration.

3. Qwest has searched all available records to identify circuits at end user address, but was NOT able to identify circuit for migration. Qwest will review all data on LSR to obtain circuits to be migrated. Additional data that is recommended to aid in the migration request are: the TN that is being ported to the NLSP’s (new local service provider) switch and the name of the OLSP. If Qwest can NOT find the circuits, the following comment remarks will be provided on the reject: Qwest has search for circuits at the requested address, using the end user name, address, OLSP, and TN provided. Qwest can not find circuits please verify data on LSR for accuracy.

If these cover additional comments or consistent comments will help the CLEC determine the reason for the reject I will place these into the Job aid for Migration then cover this with the SDC's, coaches, SME's and SDC to make sure everyone has the same understanding.

If you have any comments or concerns maybe we can talk or discuss this at the next CMP meeting.

August 12, 2002

Terry Wicks Allegiance Russ Urevig Qwest Kit Thomte Qwest

Notes from follow up meeting: PC062602-2 Rejects on CLEC to CLEC Reuse of Facilities order for no Circuit Ids found. Qwest agreed to hold follow up meeting to collaborate with Allegiance regarding comments associated with reject reasons.

The team agreed that Russ would put together proposed comments for Terry to review. The group also agreed to talk through on the call what the 3-4 scenarios are that exist that could drive the comments.

1. Wrong type of circuit being requested does not match what was requested by CLEC. 2. Multiple circuits at customer location not all circuits being migrated. 3. No circuits found for migration 4. CLEC to CLEC reuse of facility show detail of which CLEC migration is from (This is probably going to be included in the first scenario).

The team agreed that Russ would put together scenarios and new comments for Terrys review.

07/17/02 - July CMP Meeting Minutes: Allegiance (Wicks) reviewed the CR and indicated that his representatives were not using the prescribed process. When analyzed he discovered that the reject reasons did not really make sense. Through discussions with Qwest it appeared that our SDC need access to a special database. Qwest and Allegiance will review the reject reasons to help clarify them. Qwest will provide an initial response prior to the August meeting. This CR will carry a “Clarification” status

Date: July 3, 2002 Place: 1005 17th St Room 1770-C Call-In No.: 877 550-8686 PC062602-2 CR No.:PC062602-2 CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

Attendees Name/Company: Terry Wicks Allegiance Russ Urevig Qwest Debbie Osborne Qwest Neil Houston Qwest Kit Thomte Qwest

Meeting Agenda: Action 1.0 Introduction of Attendees See list above

2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change Terry Wicks reviewed the CR with the SME from Qwest. Process to find working circuits needs to be re designed and reviewed with personnel. Update reject reasons to be clearer specify scenarios that relate to the reject so the SDC can provide better information to the CLECs.

2.1 Terry believes that a collaborative process should be used to allow input from Allegiance and other CLECs in the development of the error messages. We agreed that we could discuss at the CMP meeting and determine the level of interest. 2.2 Terry presented an example that the SMEs reviewed to ensure a level of understanding for the problem. 2.3 Qwest inquired about what changed in May 2002 that seemed to impact thee errors. Allegiance clarified that was when they discovered that the process was not being used.

3.0Confirm Areas & Products impacted 3.1CLEC to CLEC migrations Qwest wanted to clarify that this was a specific issue associated with one product (UNE). And not a global issue. Allegiance indicated it was not global. Qwest inquired about what changed in May 2002 that seemed to impact thee errors. Allegiance clarified that was when they discovered that the process was not being used. 4.0Confirm Right Personnel Involved 4.1Russ Urevig will have the lead on this CR. Neil will stay involved as required.

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation 5.1Ensure that Qwest personnel understand the process and are trained. Improve the reject remarks to be more specific to scenarios thus providing the CLECs a better idea of the problem.

6.0Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests 6.1 None apply

7.0 Establish Action Plan 7.1 No systems are impacted the time frame would be dependent on the participation of the CLEC in the meeting and the timing of updating the documentation. 7.2

CenturyLink Response

Terry Wicks, LEC Manger Allegiance Telecom, Inc

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR # PC062602-2 Rejects on CLEC to CLEC Reuse of Facilities orders for no circuit IDs found

This is in response to the request from Allegiance where as Allegiance would like to collaboratively work with Qwest to establish clear, definitive reject comment reasons for CLEC to CLEC reuse of facilities orders to insure that all resources available to the SDCs have been utilized to find working circuits.

After meeting with Terry Wicks several times to discuss the application of the comment remarks that are associated with the reject for CLEC to CLEC migration, we have clarified the comments and have modified the comments as set forth below to address the following scenarios.

1. When Qwest finds the circuit at the requested address is NOT the same type of circuit to which the migrate has been requested, the comment remark associated with this will read: Circuits at request address do not match the type of circuit indicated on the LSR for migration. The circuits found are (ex. LX-N or AD--, HCE-, etc)

2. Multiple circuits are found at the requested address, if the number of circuits at the address do NOT match the number of migrations indicated on the LSR. It is very important that the CLEC indicate who the OLSP (old local service provider) is when requesting migration because this will aid in determining whether multiple circuits are really an issue. Qwest will provide these comment remarks for the reject: Multiple circuits have been identified at request address, circuits are currently not those of the indicated OLSP or Multiple circuit have been identified for the OSLP but do not match the number of loops requested for migration.

3. Qwest has searched all available records to identify circuits at end user address, but was NOT able to identify circuit for migration. Qwest will review all data on LSR to obtain circuits to be migrated. Additional data that is recommended to aid in the migration request are: the TN that is being ported to the NLSP’s (new local service provider) switch and the name of the OLSP. If Qwest can NOT find the circuits, the following comment remarks will be provided on the reject: Qwest has search for circuits at the requested address, using the end user name, address, OLSP, and TN provided. Qwest can not find circuits please verify data on LSR for accuracy.

A review of the internal documentation for Qwest has been completed and several changes have been made to streamline the search for unbundled loop circuits. The completed changes and notification to the Wholesale Service Delivery centers will be complete by August 22. The change notifications will be distributed with an MCC, the details of the MCC are the TOPIC is Standardized Comments for CLEC to CLEC Migration Rejects, the SUBJECT is Unbundled Loop, the USER GROUPS AFFECTED are Wholesale. A joint review meeting with the Team Leads, Coaches and SMEs (subject matter experts) will also be held to review the changes and clarify the importance of this process. We have accepted the request to modify the comment remarks on the rejected migration, so that the comments are more standard for the problem encountered. If the Qwest deviates from the standard comments it will be only to provide additional information about that reject.

Sincerely,

Russell Urevig Sr Process Analyst Wholesale Service Delivery

Open Product/Process CR PC091201-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Also what is the process to negate the charges for these cuts and how is this tracked to insure the CLEC is not billed?

Status History

Project Meetings

Introduction of Attendees Terry Wicks, terry.wicks@algx.com, Allegiance Gary Stacy, gstacy@qwest.com, Qwest W. Rob Tomlinson, wtomlin@qwest.com, Qwest Linda Hendricks, lkhendr@qwest.com, Qwest Russ Urevig, rurevig@qwest.com, Qwest Joan Wells, jmwell2@qwest.com, Qwest Deni Toye, dtoye@qwest.com, Qwest Kate Spry, kspry@qwest.com, Qwest Ric Martin, rhmart2@qwest.com, Qwest

Terry, Gary, Rob, Linda, Russ, Joan, Deni, Kate, and Ric Review Requested (Description of) Change Clarify and document process for when orders are held on cut date, when Qwest has no facilities. Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Areas: Ordering and Day of Cut Products: UNE Confirm Right Personnel Involved Linda is the ‘owner’ of this CR and will be the point of contact for future problems of this nature until the root cause is established and draft response issued. Russ will forward necessary SCAT documentation to Kate. After the clarification meeting, it was determined that Gary, Rob, Joan, and Deni will not need to be involved in this CR. Kate will coordinate all necessary clarification meetings, complete meeting minutes, and review, forward, and store necessary documentation to database. Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Per Allegiance, “Allegiance wants clarification about the process when the problem is on Qwest’s side – Qwest should not have to SUP orders for no facilities on cut date. Allegiance provided an example of this happening (PON 824041-LP); Qwest should investigate this example and provide a documented process and reason why this happens on cut date. Also, what is the process to negate the charges for these cuts and how is this tracked to insure the CLEC is not billed?” Per Linda, there are no non-reoccurring charges. Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests No related system CR’s were identified Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Linda will clarify this process via a written formal response draft. She will forward this documentation to Kate by 9/27/01. Russ will forward the necessary SCAT documentation to Kate by 9/26/01. Kate will review and forward this information to Michael Belt and Matt Rossi to store in the CR database by 9/28/01 for CLEC review. The web location will be noted in Matt Rossi’s email regarding the response document on 9/28/01. This information can then be reviewed and discussed by the CLEC Community at the October CMP Meeting. Terry can view this information on the CR database and this CR can then be reviewed and discussed by the CLEC Community at the October CMP Meeting. Corrections/updates can then be made at that time.

CenturyLink Response

Terry Wicks LEC Manager, Allegiance Telcom Inc.

CC: Scott Simanson Fred Aesquivel

Re: DRAFT RESPONSE for PCCR 091201-1 For Review By CLEC Community and Discussion at October CMP Meeting" Topic: Provide the standard, documented process for when orders are held on cut date, when Qwest has no facilities Dated: 09/12/01

Dear Terry:

This letter is in response to the following CLEC Change Request Form PCCR 091201-1, dated 09-12-2001. The Change Request pertains to the Clarification and documented process for when orders are held on cut date, when Qwest has no facilities.

Qwest has a Pre Survey procedure in place to identify facility issues before due date. When it is discovered that facilities are not available or good an internal Qwest process looks for other facilities or place the order in a held status if no facilities can be located. The CLEC is then notified of the held status. The Cheyenne Held Order group notifies the CLEC after the order is placed in held. If the facility problem is found on test and turn up the CLEC is notified verbally at that time.

The orders that Allegiance inquired about on PON 824041-LP were held for facility problems on the due date, 8-29-01. The problem was discovered while trying to turn up the orders. The orders were all on Integrated Pair Gain and the process for handling Integrated Pair Gain orders was followed. A problem was discovered between the D4 channel and the SLC equipment in the Central Office. Qwest did not know of this problem until they tried to turn up the loops. The orders are being worked on to discover how to fix the problem and get the service provisioned. According to the WFA/C OSSLOG the CLEC has been advised of the progress.

Waiving the Non Recurring Charge does not apply to these orders because Qwest did meet the appointment time. The negating of Non Recurring Charge applies when Qwest does not meet the appointment time as specified on the CLEC’s LSR. MC The Missed Commitment should be applied only on Coordinated Orders (new and reuse) when Qwest misses the CLEC requested appointment time by 30 minutes or more. This MC=Y or MC causes a billing error to make the billing “fall-out” so the installation charges are dropped. This is placed on the OSSOI Cmnt/Rmk line in WFA/C. Systems captures and passes on to the billing CRIS system. When the billing error falls out, the SDC (service delivery coordinator) negates the nonrecurring charge on the customer's bill. This is how they receive their negated charges. The CLEC approved the start of the cut at 1007 on 8-29-01 by Scott at Allegiance.

Sincerely

Linda K. Hendricks Lead Project Analyst

Open Product/Process CR PC062602-3 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

Allegiance advised they would withdraw this CR which will be satisfied with the System CR’s, providing Qwest opens a Global Action Item to research if a column with their Trouble Ticket Number could be added to the current spreadsheet they receive from their Service Manager. Qwest advised that they are looking into this action item. Qwest expressed that development of the spreadsheet is a complicated process. No participating CLEC indicated that they wanted to assume sponsorship of this CR. The CR will be status Withdrawn and a Global Action Item will be opened.

--

08/30/02 Conference Call

Ric Martin and Craig Suellentrop, Qwest, held a conference call with Terry Wicks, Allegiance to discuss the manual and system aspects of their CR. Qwest advised that the system aspect of Allegiance’s CR would be covered under the resultant Systems CR from combining the various System CRs on Trouble Tickets and Repair Charges. Qwest advised that the Systems resolution would look at the “Input” aspect (CEMR and MEDIACC) of getting CLEC Trouble Tickets and the “Output” aspect (Bill) of cross-referencing trouble tickets and Circuit IDs, etc. Allegiance was in agreement with the handling of the systems aspect of their CR. Qwest explained that there might be something that could be done on the manual process aspect, but there wouldn’t be any meaningful output until the systems fix was accomplished. Qwest indicated that they would still pursue the manual aspect if Allegiance were interested in this. Allegiance indicated that they didn’t want Qwest to duplicate efforts on a manual and systems fix. Allegiance asked if Qwest would look into modifying the spreadsheet they get from their Service Manager to include their internal Ticket Number. Qwest advised that they would open a Global Action Item to look at this and asked Allegiance to send an e-mail with a copy of the spreadsheet and details on what they would like included and at the September CMP meeting we would discuss the disposition of their CR.

08/21/02 August CMP Monthly Meeting Minutes

Qwest reviewed its draft response and advised that this CR would be reviewed in conjunction with other CRs related to trouble tickets, repair charges, etc. scheduled for August 27, 2002. The CLEC participants agreed to have this CR reviewed at that meeting. Qwest clarified that a manual process could be developed to request the CLEC trouble ticket, but it would be input into the remarks field that doesn’t have any sorting capability. Allegiance indicated that they currently receive a spreadsheet with the Qwest trouble ticket identified and asked if Qwest couldn’t put Allegiance’s ticket number on the spreadsheet. Qwest confirmed that the spreadsheet is created from a Web site and maintained by Nancy Tangeman.

07/17/02 - July CMP Meeting Minutes: Allegiance introduced their Change Request. Qwest stated the need is to create a process to capture the information Allegiance has requested. CR status is evaluation.

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

July 2, 2002 9:00 a.m. (MT) Conference Call 877-564-8688 PC062602-3, Cross Reference CLEC Trouble Ticket number on Qwest Trouble Ticket Numbers

Attendees: Ric Martin, Qwest Lynn Stecklein, Qwest Craig Suellentrop, Qwest Alice Matthews, Qwest Terry Wicks, Allegiance

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

Review Requested (Description of) Change Terry indicated that this CR was different than the Systems CR that has to do with the CEMR update. Allegiance does not use CEMR and call in their trouble to the AMSC. Allegiance wants to be able to call tickets in, provide their internal number, have it cross referenced with Qwest’s number and to have their internal number show up on the bill. Terry indicated that they would like to see a process change that would require Qwest to get an Internal Ticket number from the CLEC before they open up a trouble ticket. Terry indicated that they intend to e-bond with MEDIACC in the future, which allows them to electronically report trouble without making a phone call. Craig confirmed that the trouble tickets called in are entered into WFA-C and Qwest would need to look into what the flow through systems are. Additionally Qwest will need to look into what is needed to have Allegiance’s ticket number appear on the bill. Terry indicated that no matter how we open up a ticket, the cross-reference to the CLEC Ticket on the bill is what matters. Terry will look into how e bonding to MEDIACC would be communicated and if there is a field currently that would allow this. He will look into whether a systems CR would be required for MEDIACC.

Confirm Areas & Products impacted It was confirmed that the area impacted was Billing and Maintenance & Repair. The product impacted is UBL.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Qwest confirmed that Craig would remain the SME for now.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Terry confirmed that they were looking for: 1. A process to have the AMSC not open a trouble ticket without first getting a CLEC internal trouble ticket. 2. Determine best method to get CLEC trouble ticket number on the bill.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests Systems CR SCR030702-1 has to do with CEMR update to include a field for CLEC Trouble Ticket. Systems CR SCR042902-01 has to do with getting the CLEC trouble ticket number onto the bill.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) The CR will have the collective CLEC clarification and SME input at the July CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

Terry Wicks LEC Manager Allegiance Telecom, Inc.

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Revised Change Request Response - CR PC062602-3 “Cross Reference CLEC Trouble Ticket number on Qwest Trouble Ticket numbers.”

This CR requests that “the CLECs internal trouble ticket number to be a required item to be provided to the Qwest Representative issuing the Qwest trouble ticket. This will allow for both the Qwest trouble ticket number and the CLECs internal trouble ticket number to be cross referenced to each other.” Allegiance would also like the CLEC’s trouble ticket number to appear on bills for maintenance and repair charges.

Because of the large number of Charge Requests related to Maintenance and Repair, a meeting was held on August 27, 2002 to discuss possible synergies between the various CRs. As a result of this meeting and further consultation with Allegiance on August 30, 2002, it was determined that the system CRs SCR030702-1 – CLEC Trouble Ticket Cross Reference and SCR042902-01 – Use CLEC Internal Repair Ticket number on CLEC bill to identify maintenance and repair charges would address the concerns raised by this CR relating to cross-referencing trouble ticket numbers and CLEC trouble ticket numbers appearing on the bill. Allegiance agreed that a separate manual process would not be required with the development of the system enhancements covered by these CRs.

Allegiance also raised an issue concerning a spreadsheet they receive from their Qwest Service Manager that contains all of the TOK and NTF tickets. Allegiance would like to see their trouble ticket number on this spreadsheet. Qwest and Allegiance agreed that this issue could be pursued as a Global Action Item and that Qwest will continue to investigate this issue.

Sincerely,

Craig Suellentrop Staff Advocate, Policy & Law Qwest

Cc: Mary Retka, Director-Legal Issues, Qwest Catherine R. Garcia, Senior Process Analyst, Qwest Alice Matthews, Senior Process Analyst, Qwest Dan Busetti, Lead IT Analyst, Qwest

--

August 13, 2002

Terry Wicks LEC Manager Allegiance Telecom, Inc.

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR PC062602-3 “Cross Reference CLEC Trouble Ticket number on Qwest Trouble Ticket numbers.”

This CR requests that “the CLECs internal trouble ticket number to be a required item to be provided to the Qwest Representative issuing the Qwest trouble ticket. This will allow for both the Qwest trouble ticket number and the CLECs internal trouble ticket number to be cross referenced to each other.” Allegiance would also like the CLEC’s trouble ticket number to appear on bills for maintenance and repair charges.

The current repair process for Designed Services allows a CLEC to offer the CLEC trouble ticket number to the Qwest representative opening the Qwest trouble ticket. The CLEC trouble ticket number will be entered into a remark field. This field is not “searchable” and does not appear on CLEC bills. This option is not available for Non-Designed Services. Qwest would agree to a process change to ask all CLECs for their internal trouble ticket number, but without systems changes this would not address the majority of Allegiance’s concerns.

Open System CR’s SCR030702-1 – CLEC Trouble Ticket Cross Reference and SCR042902-01 – Use CLEC Internal Repair Ticket number on CLEC bill to identify maintenance and repair charges also would require a very similar process. A meeting will be scheduled for late August to discuss the similarities between these and some other CR’s involving maintenance and repair. Further clarification and direction for this CR will be determined after this meeting.

Sincerely,

Craig Suellentrop Staff Advocate, Policy & Law Qwest

Cc: Mary Retka, Director-Legal Issues, Qwest Catherine R. Garcia, Senior Process Analyst, Qwest Alice Matthews, Senior Process Analyst, Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC073101-7 Detail

Description Of Change

Granted the process of the 48 pre-testing will catch most of these ahead of cut date, things happen on cut date that cannot be prevented. Allegiance wants the decision to bring the lines over or not to be the CLEC’s call.

Status History

Project Meetings

Action : Linda Hendricks will provide definition of Qwest 'flexibility' on cut date. Allegiance will submit a new CR to clarify the Qwest process when dial tone problems are on the Qwest side.

August 23rd, 2001 Clarification Meeting 1-866-289-7092 PC 741-1286 # PCCR073101-7

Terry Wicks/Allegiance Patrick Weston/Allegiance Doug Barman/Allegiance Linda Hendricks/Qwest Todd Mead/Qwest Introduction of Attendees Terry, Patrick, Doug, Linda and Todd Review Qwest Response Linda’s response to the original CR (PCCR073101-7) was discussed. Essentially Qwest will not hand over bad circuits to a CLEC. In mitigation, Qwest has implemented the 48/1 hour DT test on July 29, 2001 to resolve this issue. There is also the opportunity for the CLEC to split the order and have the bad circuits moved to another LSR. CLEC Response Allegiance accepted that when there is no DT on the Qwest side, Qwest should not hand over circuits until the problem has been resolved. Allegiance’s position is that they would still like to be able to take the circuit. If Qwest is consistently pre-testing on their side at least 48 hours prior to cut date, then the number of incidents of bad facilities on the Qwest side on cut date should be minimal. Allegiance will track and report accordingly. Allegiance will not pursue the issue at this point when the circuit is “bad” on the Qwest side. However, they will be pursuing to take the circuit when the problem is on Allegiance’s side. Allegiance agreed that the 48/1 hour DT test implemented on July 29 should substantially reduce the number of occurrences related to this issue on the Allegiance side. However, when the “no DT” is on the CLEC side, Allegiance wants to have the circuits passed over “as is”, and do not want to split the order. Allegiance has options to get the end user service on any “broken” line when the NDT is on their side. Once the TN is activated and Allegiance has the number in their switch, they can call forward the line to another line or to cell phones they supply to the end user. Allegiance has processes in place that they use daily with this type of situation when dealing with the other LECs. Allegiance would like to be able to use their processes in this situation with Qwest as well. Allegiance is prepared to escalate as needed if this cannot be resolved at this level. Confirm Right Personnel Involved Scott Simanson, VP and Fred Aesquivel Director (Qwest) need to be involved to make the final determination on Qwest’s position with respect to this issue. An internal meeting involving these people needs to take place. Todd will organize. Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Allegiance wants Qwest to hand over good circuits if the “no DT” is on the CLEC side. Allegiance stated every other ILEC they deal with (including PacBell, SW Bell, Bell North and South, Verizon and Ameritech) do this, as part of their normal business. Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Review these minutes as an accurate account of this mornings discussion Set up a meeting with Scott, Fred and Linda to discuss Qwest’s position and draft a response. Set up a walk-through meeting with Allegiance to discuss the Qwest final response.

08/23/01 - Clarification Meeting Allegiance - Terry Wicks, Patrick Western, Doug Baram Qwest - Linda Hendricks, Todd Mead

Allegiance accepted that when there is no DT on the Qwest side, Qwest should not hand over circuits until the problem has been resolved. Allegiance agreed that the 48/1 hour DT test implemented on July 29 should substantially reduce the number of occurrences related to this issue. However, when the “no DT” is on the CLEC side, Allegiance wants to have the circuits passed over “as is”, and do not want to split the order.

08/09/01 - Alignment Meeting Terry Wicks/Allegiance Qwest - Scott Simanson, James Mackie,Dana Frenking, Linda Hendricks, John Moore, Cindy Buckmaster, Nancy Hoag, Lisa Schuzer

Turning up loops that do not meet Qwest test requirements or do not have CLEC DT on them. Their example was if they send in an LSR with 10 loops and 2 do not have CLEC DT on them or if Qwest has a facility problem, Qwest should allow Allegiance to make the decision to accept all of the orders even if problems exist. They want Qwest to close the order and open a repair ticket to provision the loops with the problems. No CLEC DT concern: Turning up loops that do not meet requirements will leave Qwest and the end user in a vulnerable position. If the CLEC decides they can't get DT working after we have closed the order and (if applicable had the translations ran), the end user customer could be out of service. Qwest wouldn't be able to work the order back, because it is closed. In order for the end user to get back to Qwest they would need to issue a WINBACK order and the CLEC would need to issue a disconnect order on the "BAD circuit/loop turned up". Qwest's facilities concern: If Qwest has the problem and our facilities are bad or maybe in some cases won't be built out at all, the following could occur if loop is turned up bad: mask facility issues on Qwest side (or perceive that is what we are doing) open the door for repair PID issues open our selves up to many issues from provisioning to repair PID measurement accuracy billing on a bad loop

CenturyLink Response

Wholesale Product Marketing

This letter is in response to the following CLEC Change Request Form PC073101-7 dated 07/30/2001. The Change Request related to Qwest’s current practice to not complete all circuits and/or orders on a given LSR, when there is known trouble either in the Qwest or CLEC network on one or more of the circuits being turned up.

In an effort to minimize the risk of the of an out of service condition during a migration, and to ensure the readiness of all parties to maximize success, Qwest has put the following process improvements in place:

48-Hour Dial Tone Check – Qwest Central Office Technician (COT) tests for Dial Tone at the CLEC CFA on the ICDF 48 hours prior to the scheduled cut. If Dial Tone is not present, the COT notifies the Qwest QCCC Coordinator, who in turn notifies the CLEC. This gives the CLEC 48 hours to correct the no dial tone condition.

1 Hour Dial Tone Check – Qwest COT tests for Dial Tone at the CLEC CFA on the ICDF 1 hour prior to the scheduled cut. If Dial Tone is not present, the COT notifies the Qwest QCCC Coordinator, who in turn notifies the CLEC. This second notification gives the CLEC an hour to correct the no dial tone condition.

Field Pre-Survey - Qwest Field Technicians Pre Survey outside plant facilities to identify any before due date. If Field Technicians determine that facilities are not available or acceptable for the service ordered, the Technician invokes an internal Qwest process to search for other facilities or place the order in a held status if suitable facilities are unavailable. The CLEC is then notified of the Held status.

Order Splitting – Qwest has offered to “split” orders on an LSR and “supp” the order with the circuit with the trouble condition at the time of the cut, allowing the CLEC the necessary time to correct the known condition.

After considerable deliberation and reconsideration, Qwest will continue to follow its practice to not turn over circuits that do not meet all defined standards at the time of the migration. CLEC’s retain the right to escalate and to petition through the Bona Fide Request (BFR) process.

Respectfully,

Frederick M Aesquivel III Director – Local Network Operations Support

CC: Scott Simanson Linda Hendricks Dana Filip

Open Product/Process CR PC072902-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

Allegiance advised that they had a conference call with Qwest where it was clarified the difference between requesting an extension of a jack versus a NID/DEMARC. It is Qwest’s policy that CLECs cannot request an extension to a NID/DEMARC and only in Minnesota and Oregon is it mandated that CLECs can request and extension of a Jack. Allegiance advised that based on this clarification, they would like to withdraw their CR. Qwest asked if any other CLEC would like to sponsor the CR and no CLECs expressed an interest. It was agreed that the CR would be status as withdrawn.

-

Subject: RE: CR PC072902-1 Clarification Meeting Minutes Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 13:41:39 -0500 From: "Wicks, Terry" To: "'Richard Martin'"

The department that we fax a form to for Southwestern Bell , to get an estimate of cost, is called the LSC (Local Service Center). This is the department that processes our LSRs.

Terry Wicks LEC Account Manager allegiancetelecom, inc 469-259-4438 terry.wicks@algx.com

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

August 2, 2002 10:00 a.m. (MT) Conference Call 877-564-8688 PC072902-1, Request for estimate of cost for extending or moving a DMARC beyond the MPOE prior to doing the work

Attendees: Ric Martin, Qwest Russ Urevig, Qwest Shirley Tallman, Qwest Bob Mohr, Qwest Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest Terry Wicks, Allegiance

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

Review Requested (Description of) Change Terry indicated that when Allegiance is taking a customer, they may want to move or extend the DMARC beyond the MPOE. They want to get an estimate of the cost before the work is performed. Currently they put their request in when they place the order and get billed for the work after the order is completed. Terry indicated that another ILEC has a form that they complete and submit to get an estimate before the order is submitted. Terry indicated that they have an 800 number and a fax number to which this form is sent. He believes they are dealing with the ILECs engineering department. Terry will confirm what department they deal with. The department is the LSC, Local Service Center at Southwestern Bell. Terry indicated that they were billed for the estimate and would be willing to pay for the estimate. He agreed that an estimate was acceptable with actual costs being billed per their agreement with Qwest. Russ asked if Allegiance was looking at a multi-tenant facility and looking more at an individual customer’s DMARC. Terry indicated that Allegiance is looking at extending the DMARC or sometimes moving the DMARC beyond the MPOE for an individual tenant of a multi-tenant building.

Confirm Areas & Products impacted Terry indicated that their product focus was UBL. Qwest may have to look at other products that would have the same need. It was agreed that the area impacted was Pre-Ordering and Ordering.

Confirm Right Personnel Involved Qwest confirmed that the Network department would be responsible.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Terry confirmed that they wanted a process to request and receive a written cost estimate for extending or moving a DMARC beyond the MPOE prior to submitting an order.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests There are no systems changes associated with this request.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) The CR will have the collective CLEC clarification and SME input at the August CMP meeting.

Open Product/Process CR PC061002-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Qwest to change this process ASAP, give the CLEC a reasonable amount of time (90 minutes) to correct a no dial tone situation on a reuse of existing facilities and give loops to the CLEC if there is continuity to the spot pair on new facilities

Status History

Project Meetings

- 10/16/02 October CMP Meeting Michael Buck with Qwest said that final notification PROD.10.11.02F.00839.Final24WireLoop was sent on 10/11/02 and the implementation date is 10/27/02. The CR is currently in Development Status and Qwest would like to move it to CLEC Test on the deployment date later this month. Byron Dowding with Alltel said that it was appropriate to move to CLEC test and discuss again at the November CMP meeting.

09/18/02 September CMP meeting Minutes Qwest discussed the revised draft response and provided an update that Qwest would no longer require dial tone on new unbundled loops effective mid-October. Conversion orders will continue to require dial tone. Qwest explained that the effective date is following the PCAT update for 2-wire 4-wire, Version 11, which is effective October 21, 2002. Allegiance and Eschelon appreciate Qwest changing to the no dial tone requirement on new unbundled loops. Allegiance also noted a clarification from the August Meeting minutes regarding the conversation on this CR. At the August meeting Lyndall Nipps – Allegiance asked why doesn't Qwest check for continuity on DS0 loops like you do for DS1 and above loops by plant test date. Qwest responded that it was not in the infrastructure to test for continuity on DS0 loops. A pre-survey is done for all UBL except for LX - -. LX - - is worked on the due date. This CR was moved to Development status.

9/12/02 2:29 p.m. To: cc:

Subject: RE: Updated Draft Response to CR PC061002-1

Byron -

The following is in response to Alltel's questions in your e-mail dated 8/27/02:

1. CHC means Coordinated Hot Cut (Y or N). You can have a Hot Cut with the Basic Option. Hot Cut means we go from one service provider to another on an existing service, this option can be ordered Coordinated or Basic.

2. Qwest is preparing to only require dial tone on reuse LX-- in mid-October.

3. The polarity of the Qwest wiring and facilities, from the CFA to the NI at the end user locations, can be checked using normal Qwest test systems and sets. The polarity of the supplied CLEC service can not be tested without the CFA operationally in service. If the CLEC provides service on the CFA with reversed polarity, Qwest will not reverse their wiring or facilities to correct, as this would impair Qwest’s ability to properly maintain the circuit in service. The polarity of a loop start line is of significant importance when the facility provided is anything but a plain copper loop. Pair Gain facilities require correct polarity of supplied service to operate correctly.

4. Qwest is preparing to only require dial tone on reuse LX-- in mid-October.

Please call me if you have any questions.

Thank you

Linda Sanchez-Steinke Change Request Project Manager Qwest

-- From: Byron.Dowding@alltel.com on 08/27/2002 08:03:51 a.m. To:

Subject: RE: Updated Draft Response to CR PC061002-1 Linda This is ALLTEL's response to the Qwest response I don't have any feedback yet to verify Qwest allowing more than 30 mintutes to provide dial tone on a loop. Byron

SUBJECT: ALLTEL response to Qwest response regarding change request PC061002-1 dated 08/19/2002

ALLTEL would like to make the following points.

1. The first statement in Qwest’s response states that this CR is about Qwest’s Hot Cut process. CR PC061002-1 has nothing to do with Hot Cuts. This CR is about ordering an unbundled loop with the Basic option and no testing (CHC is N). The service being ordered is 2/4 wire analog with the NC code of LX--. Due date on the loop being turned over to the CLEC and actual customer in service date don’t have a direct relationship. 2. The CLECs have stated several times that ordering a new loop and reuse should be handled as 2 different issues. We are willing to provide dial tone in a reasonable time when we are reusing a facility. When ordering a new loop no dial tone should be provided. 3. Our techs check for polarity when shooting trouble and can reverse the jumper/drop to correct the problem. Polarity should never be an issue with loop start dial tone. I would like to know how Qwest could check for polarity on loop start dial tone when dial tone is provided. 4. For the most part providing dial tone requires CLECs to program dummy numbers in their switch and then reprogramming when the service is actually turned up. This places a costly and unneeded burden on the CLECs.

ALLTEL is planning to charge Qwest for providing joint test capabilities when ordering unbundled loops that Qwest requires dial tone on. ALLTEL is also going to work with the regulatory agencies to significantly reduce the one-time charges associated with provisioning these types of loops.

-- 08/21/02 - August CMP Meeting Minutes: Qwest provided an updated draft response dated August 19, 2002 because information was missing in the August 13, 2002 draft response. The updated draft response is available on line and was handed out to participants in the meeting. Allegiance expressed concern that the 2-wire 4 wire PCAT updated language does not distinguish between new loops and conversions and that Allegiance and other CLECS are trying to find out the technical reasons why Qwest requires dial tone on new loops when there are other ways to check for continuity. Allegiance asked if Qwest checks for continuity from demarc to the central office before plant test date. Eschelon also asked for Allegiance’s question to be answered; does Qwest dispatch for continuity. Qwest stated (Hilleary) that we are pushing for dial tone on due date and dial tone 48 hours before due date is not a requirement. Allegiance disagreed. Qwest stated (Hendricks) that dispatch for continuity is not done, and the pre-survey is done to make sure there are facilities. Qwest stated (Braegger) that on services provided on UDC there is no way to verify correct service operation without Dial Tone on the circuit. Covad said that on digital loop carrier card verified set options correctly if have dial tone. Qwest (Braegger) stated that if Dial Tone is coming in reversed to the card, the card will not operate correctly and won’t operate unless there is battery to it.

Covad asked what would prevent Qwest technician from putting dial tone on temporarily from ICDF at cosmic frame. Qwest (Retka) asked that Covad send in procedure on a CR for Qwest to use spare dial tone temporarily from the ICDF.

Allegiance indicated that Qwest was the only ILEC requiring dial tone on new loops and is a burden on all CLECs when changing from T1 to UNE loop because translations are required for two different numbers and when Qwest checks for ANI the line is not the right number. Eschelon said there is effort that they must go through internally assigning dummy numbers to CFA to provide dial tone for Qwest.

Allegiance asked how Qwest identifies a fault and what does it mean in PCAT wording, pages 5-6 under the ordering section, asked if the purpose of notification is relationship managing. Eschelon asked if they should receive a jeopardy rather than a call if there was a short. Qwest (Boudhaouia) stated Qwest will re-write the PCAT. Allegiance said that the language creates concern over PIDS managing to process and Allegiance does not want the PCAT updated on 8/26/02. Qwest (Maher) stated that for Qwest and the CLECs to follow the CMP, the PCAT would be updated on 8/26/02 because there were comments from the CLEC community on the PCAT change, and Qwest had followed CMP and responded to those comments. Qwest (Schultz) clarified that the PCAT update included documentation of processes that were currently in effect. Allegiance objected to the PCAT update on 8/26/02.

Alltel asked for status of CR. Qwest (Graham) reviewed draft response part 1 reviewing why tests are done and the technical reasons for dial tone requirement.

Qwest (Hendricks) reviewed draft response part 2 reviewing the procedure for the basic option. When the CLEC selects the basic option and is not ready on due date, the technicians go on to their other work. If the CLEC calls back later in the day, then Qwest will try to get technicians back out. Alltel (Dowding) will check with Alltel people that asked for CR because they had said at 31 minutes the order has to be supplemented. Qwest explained that the 31 minutes would be applicable on the appointment time option but is not applicable on the basic option.

Due to another scheduled meeting, which many CMP participants wished to attend, the meeting was adjourned before discussion on the final disposition of the CR was concluded. Qwest will work offline with Alltel regarding the status of the CR and bring the CR back up for discussion at the September CMP meeting.

CLEC – Qwest Change Management Process Monday, August 12, 2002 Ad-Hoc meeting to discuss CLEC comments and CR Conference Bridge: 877.521.8688, passcode 7901848#

NOTE: These DRAFT meeting minutes were developed August 19, 2002 by Qwest following a meeting on the 2Wire 4Wire CLEC Dial Tone Requirement

MEETING MINUTES

The meeting was initiated by Qwest via Change Management notice CMPR.08.06.02.F.01307.CMPMtgFinalized that was distributed to the CLECs on August 6, 2002. Qwest scheduled the meeting to discuss the following two items with members of the CLEC community:

1) CLEC comments received for Notice PROD.07.12.02.F.00784.AnalogLoop24Wire 2) CMP Change Request PC061002-1 titled, “LSR put in Jeopardy when no dial tone present when Qwest installs Unbundled Loop” from Alltel.

The meeting began with Qwest reviewing the Qwest response to CLEC comments from Allegiance, Alltel, and Eschelon on the Level 3 notification sent out by Qwest on July 12th, 2002, PROD.07.12.02.F.00784.AnalogLoop24Wire. Several CLECs asked when the comments response had been distributed and Qwest responded that the notification had gone out the evening of August 9th, 2002, via notice PROD.08.09.02.F.00807.AnalogLoop24Wire and that the Qwest response to the comments had been posted under the Qwest CMP Product/Process Archive Document Review site under PROD.07.12.02.F.00784.AnalogLoop24Wire. Qwest then reviewed the response to comments with the attendees on the call. Allegiance stated that the Qwest posted comments referred to both conversion of analog loops as well as new installations, and that Allegiance did agree that CLEC dial tone should be required on conversion orders but not on new orders. Eschelon asked why the PCAT was being updated associated with PROD.07.12.02.F.00784.AnalogLoop24Wire. Qwest responded that the PCAT was being updated to reflect the requirement that Qwest currently has in place for these types of orders, and that the requirement was for CLEC dial tone prior to order completion. Eschelon, Allegiance, and ATT requested that the PCAT update be delayed until there was final resolution of the Alltel CR. Qwest responded that this request was out of process because the PCAT update needed to take place August 26th based on the final notice PROD.08.09.02.F.00807.AnalogLoop24Wire, but Qwest would take the request to delay the PCAT update back for final determination. Eschelon stated that there was no reason for CLEC comments if Qwest did nothing with them. Qwest responded that Qwest does take CLEC comments under consideration, but there is no CMP requirement to revise product/process changes based upon CLEC comments. Allegiance then stated that Qwest was the only ILEC requiring CLEC dial tone prior to order completion on NEW orders, and that Qwest needed to reevaluate the requirement. Covad stated that the issue could be resolved by Qwest providing Qwest dial tone to test the circuits, or that there were other test alternatives Qwest could implement. Qwest responded that the requirement for CLEC dial tone was still in effect due to technical requirements outlined in the response to CLEC comments, and that Qwest would provide a response to the Alltel CR at the August 21st CMP Monthly Product/Process meeting. The CLECs requested that a specific block of time be set aside at the CMP Monthly Product Process meeting to discuss this issue so they could have their technical subject matter experts on the call. Qwest agreed to set aside a specific time on August 21, 2002 to further discuss this. The time will be 1PM MT. The call-in number is 877 572-8687 passcode 3393947. The meeting then adjourned.

-

07/17/02 - July CMP Meeting Minutes: Alltel introduced their Change Request. Alltel requested the wording in the meeting minutes for the clarification meeting held on June 18, 2002 be changed from “48 hours before the Due Date” to “48 hours after application date”. Allegiance stated that Qwest is the only ILEC requiring dial tone testing for testing continuity. Covad stated it should be the CLECs responsibility for providing dial tone. Eschelon stated all CLECs are interested in this Change Request. CR status is presented.

Clarification Call Time/Date: 11:00 qa.m. (MDT) / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 Place: Conference Call Conference: TEL: 877.521.8688 Call-In No: CODE: 7901848 CR No: PC061002-1 "LSR put in Jeopardy when no dial tone present when Qwests installs Unbundled Loop"

Attendees: Byron Dowding, Alltel Neil Houston, Qwest Linda Hendricks, Qwest Steve Hilleary, Qwest Michael Keegan, Qwest

1.0 Attendees introduced. 2.0 Description: The following is extracted from the CR submitted by Alltel: When ALLTEL orders an unbundled loop with a NC Code of LX--and the CHC marked N, Qwest checks for dial tone at the end user (new loops) or at the spot pair (reuse facilities). If there is no dial tone present, Qwest contacts the CLEC gives them 30 minutes to get dial tone on the loop or the LSR is put in Jeopardy and a new LSR has to be written with a new due date. If the order contains multiple loops and one of the loops does not have dial tone, all of the loops are placed in Jeopardy. Qwest has responded to our concerns saying that this has always been their procedure but it was not being followed. Because these orders are not coordinated hot cuts, Qwest can make their cut anytime during the day. It could even happen over a lunch hour. We have also had situations where Qwest has put a loop on the wrong spot pair, had no dial tone at the customer’s premise and placed the order in Jeopardy.

Clarification Call Discussion: Alltel indicated that this problem started recently (60 – 90 days ago) and has occurred at both Omaha and Grand Island, Nebraska

Alltel said the problem is they get a call from Qwest on the due date when no dial tone is present and the order is placed in jeopardy if the problem is not corrected in 30 minutes.

Qwest does a Dial Tone check on both Basic and Coordinated LX - - (2W/4W Analog)type orders on DVA (Design Verify Assign) which is approximately 48 hours after application Date. If there is no Dial Tone at that time Qwest contacts the CLEC to let them know there is no dial tone at this time. The notification is approximately 24-36 hours before the Due Date. I have verified a couple of orders and we have called Alltel after the Dial Tone Check to notify them that there was No Dial Tone at DVA. On Due Date Qwest does another Dial Tone check before they do the install or hot cut before Qwest starts to do the work. If Dial Tone is not present, the COT calls the QCCC (Qwest CLEC Coordination Center) Coordinator. The QCCC Coordinator calls the CLEC and lets them know that Dial Tone is not present at their CFA (Connecting Facility Assignment). The CLEC is given 30 minutes to correct the Dial Tone situation. If the CLEC is not ready in 30 mintues they are requested to send a supplement to their LSR for a new Due Date. If the LX- - has a Reverse Battery or No Signal NCI (Network Channel Interface) Qwest does not require Dial Tone to be present at the CLEC’s CFA. If the order has multiple loops the CLEC may split out the LSR and accept those that do have Dial Tone. The order without Dial Tone may be put on a separate LSR. The Coordinated Appointment Time Option allows the CLEC to choose exactly when they want the installation or hot cut to be performed. The Basic Option allows Qwest to start the installation or hot cut any time between 8AM and 5PM regional time. The COT should be doing the ANI test on the loop before and after they perform the lift and lay. The correct number should be identified. This is the process in place and should be followed to insure the accuracy of the request.

Linda Hendricks will prepare the Qwest response.

3.0 Confirmed that UNE Loop is the product impacted.

4.0 Qwest confirmed the correct personnel were on the call.

5.0 CLEC expects Qwest to change this process ASAP, give the CLEC a reasonable amount of time (90 minutes) to correct a no dial tone situation on a reuse of existing facilities and give loops to the CLEC if there is continuity to the spot pair on new facilities

6.0 No Dependent Systems Change Requests were identified,.

7.0 Action Items Alltel can present this Change Request to the CLEC community at the July Product/Process CMP meeting scheduled for July 17 Qwest will issue draft response to this Change Request by Aug 14 (one week prior to the Aug 21 CMP meeting). Qwest will discuss the draft response at the Aug 21 CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

Byron Dowding OSS Coordinator Alltel

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Revised Response - CR #PC061002-1 LSR put in jeopardy when no dial tone present when Qwest installs unbundled loop Alltel is requesting that Qwest change its Hot Cut process to allow for 90 minutes when no Dial Tone is present at the CFA and not to reject orders with multiple service requests when one of the requests must be rescheduled. (Part 1, No Dial Tone) Dial tone is required to provide a quality installation of the service ordered. To ensure adequate circuit level performance, installation and operational tests are performed. Dial tone must be present to perform these tests across the entire circuit: - To verify the assurance of the assignment and translation of the CFA. - To confirm the Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC) Connecting Facility Assignment (CFA) is operational and test hard wiring from the Qwest Interconnection Distribution Frame (ICDF) to the CLEC CFA. - To perform a polarity test at the termination of the Network Interface Device (NID) and to perform an overall end to end operational circuit test to ensure reliability and functionality. - When provisioning over Digital Loop Carrier (DLC), to perform ground start, loop start and polarity check tests to assure the electronic card in the DLC is operational and optioned correctly. These operational tests require dial tone to minimize trouble reports immediately following test and turn up. If the NC/NCI codes are such that the circuits do not require Dial Tone, Qwest does not require Dial Tone to be present at the CLEC’s CFA.

Qwest is preparing to no longer require the CLEC to provide Dial Tone on new Unbundled Loops (LSR ACT = N) in mid-October and will follow all appropriate CMP timelines. Prior to new Unbundled Loop Basic or Coordinated Hot Cuts, the Qwest Technician will conduct performance testing to assure the new Unbundled Loop complies with its respective NC/NCI standards.

(Part 2, 90 minutes) Perhaps the CLEC request reflects a misunderstanding. Qwest believes that the process in place more than meets the needs of the CLECs. The Basic Option allows Qwest to start the installation or hot cut any time between 8AM and 5PM regional time. Qwest actually allows more than 90 minutes when a Basic Installation is ordered.

Here is the procedure when the Basic Installation Option is ordered:

On Due Date when Qwest is finished doing the installation and core tests, we call to notify the CLEC that we are done and that the test has been completed. If the CLEC wants to do more testing on their own or they can't get something working on their end, Qwest waits 30 minutes, then calls the CLEC again. If the CLEC still isn’t ready Qwest lets the field tech and the Central Office Technician (COT) go to their next jobs.

Qwest will hold the order open and if we do not have a CLEC resolution by the end of day we will have the COT disable the circuit. If the CLEC calls back on the same day and is ready, we will try to get a tech back out (if applicable) and the COT back in the central office. If it is too late in the day, or the resources are not available, Qwest will jeopardize the order and the CLEC must supplement the LSR with a new desired due date.

If the order has multiple loops the CLEC should accept the loops that have Dial Tone and supplement the LSR to remove the loop that does not have Dial Tone. The loop without Dial Tone should be put on a separate LSR with a new desired due date.

In mid-October, on a New order the Outside Technician (OST) will check for dial tone. If the OST does not have dial tone they will: - Call the Central Office and have the COT check for dial tone. If dial tone exists, the OST needs to check the facilities and resolve. - If no dial tone exists, the COT needs to check for dial tone at the Connecting Facility Assignment (CFA). If dial tone exists at the CFA, the COT needs to check the wiring in the CO and resolve. - If dial tone does not exist, the COT will notify the OST and the COT will wire in temporary Qwest dial tone for the OST to perform core tests to complete the order. The QCCC Coordinator / Implementor will not need to notify the CLEC.

Sincerely,

Linda Hendricks Lead Project Analyst Qwest

Cc: Mary Retka, Mary Pat Cheshier, Diane Diebel

Open Product/Process CR PC120301-6 Detail

Description Of Change

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.

Expected Deliverables:

AT&T expects that Qwest will comply with industry guidelines and change process to begin to inventory the two-six code that AT&T assigns to Qwest-initiated ASRs.

Status History

Project Meetings

11/20/02 November CMP Meeting Qwest (Thomte) indicated that the trial orders that were established to convert the embedded base trunk groups in Wyoming were successful. The result is that both new trunks and embedded trunk groups appear to process through the systems using the AT&T Two Six code of CC. Qwest recommended that this CR move to CLEC Test and potentially be completed in December.

10/16/02 October CMP Meeting Qwest (Thomte) indicated that the trial was continuing and that two trial groups that are due to complete in early November. This CR to remain in “Develoment”.

08/21/02 - August CMP Meeting Qwest (Thomte) indicated progress had been made on this CR. Back end systems and reporting capability should be capable of accepting non Qwest two six code during September. Qwest and AT&T anticipate having a status meeting in late August. AT&T (Van Meter) concurred with the read out. This CR will remain in "Development" status

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

September 6, 2002

Kathy Stryczek AT&T

Subject: PC120301-6 Two-Six Code Inventory for Local Interconnection Trunk Groups Ordered By Qwest

This is a revised Qwest response to AT&T’s request, that Qwest comply with industry guidelines and change process to begin to inventory the two-six code that AT&T assigns to Qwest-initiated ASRs.

Qwest accepts AT&T’s request regarding complying with industry guidelines and inventory the two six code that is provided to Qwest on the FOC.

Qwest has worked in conjunction with AT&T to provide a trial request that will flow through the various systems and reporting processes. Qwest is currently making the appropriate modifications to support the request for AT&T.

Currently Qwest has one order that is in a trial process. AT&T has advised that they have additional orders expected in the near future. Qwest expects to address AT&T’s additional orders with the revised process.

Sincerely, Qwest

REVISED RESPONSE

September 6, 2002

Kathy Stryczek AT&T

Subject: PC120301-6 Two-Six Code Inventory for Local Interconnection Trunk Groups Ordered By Qwest

This is a revised Qwest response to AT&T’s request, that Qwest comply with industry guidelines and change process to begin to inventory the two-six code that AT&T assigns to Qwest-initiated ASRs.

Qwest accepts AT&T’s request regarding complying with industry guidelines and inventory the two six code that is provided to Qwest on the FOC.

Qwest has worked in conjunction with AT&T to provide a trial request that will flow through the various systems and reporting processes. Qwest is currently making the appropriate modifications to support the request for AT&T.

Currently Qwest has one order that is in a trial process. AT&T has advised that they have additional orders expected in the near future. Qwest expects to address AT&T’s additional orders with the revised process.

Sincerely, Qwest

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

Open Product/Process CR pc081904-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected deliverable: Revised Process ATT desires the capability to re-MLT at during open referral time.

Status History

Project Meetings

Clarification Call PC081904-1 MLT a TN during the open referral time

Attendance: Joyce Atwell – ATT John Wright – ATT Justin Sewell - Qwest Communications Jim Recker - Qwest Communications Cindy Macy - Qwest Communications

Cindy Macy - Qwest Communications opened the call and reviewed the agenda. Cindy explained that Qwest has met internally on this CR before the Clarification Call and we believe that we already provide the functionality that ATT is requesting.

Joyce Atwell introduced John Wright and explained that he is the requestor of this functionality. John explained that ATT is blocking the ability to perform MLT with Qwest so he is not aware if this feature works or not. John will work with his lab organization to remove the restriction and then test the feature.

Justin advised that Qwest added this feature in the 2001 time frame. John advised that ATT wanted to make sure that Qwest is aware that ATT will begin using this feature. Justin advised it is okay to begin using the feature. ATT believes it will reduce the number of Qwest dispatches.

John advised it will take several weeks for ATT to remove the feature. The team agreed that this CR will be withdrawn at the September CMP meeting. After ATT removes the feature they will test the functionality. If they have any trouble at that time they would contact the Help Desk to report a trouble report. If ATT determines they need to issue another CR they will do that at a later date.

Open Product/Process CR PC071103-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Monthly report of trouble codes by frequency

Status History

Project Meetings

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Area impacted is repair.

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

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

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests No systems change requests.

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

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

Open Product/Process CR PC111103-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Improvement of performance measures regarding OP-5 performance indicator (% trouble within 30 days). Improved customer satisfaction as a result of no loss of dial tone.

Status History

Project Meetings

Open Product/Process CR PC092203-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

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

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

Clarification Call October 6

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

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

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

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

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

CenturyLink Response

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

Ervin Rae AT&T

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Craig Suellentrop Staff Advocate, Policy & Law Qwest

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

November 11, 2003

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

Ervin Rae AT&T

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

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

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

Sincerely, Craig Suellentrop Staff Advocate, Policy & Law Qwest

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

Open Product/Process CR 5579296 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

Open Product/Process CR PC060204-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

When AT&T, or it's designated vendor, is trying to locate the correct pair to connect a customer from the Demarc to CPE they would request that a tone be placed on the line. The expected result of this action will reduce the number of requested vendor meets, the number of trouble tickets being issued to request a "Tag and Locate". By having Tone on Line a customer's vendor can better isolate any troubles that may occur from the Demarc to CPE and or inside wire. The expected result will be a savings in resources and cost by both the CLEC and Qwest.

Status History

Project Meetings

July 21, 2004 CMP Monthly Meeting Notes: Denny Graham – Qwest reviewed the response and advised that Qwest is looking at the process and products impacted. Qwest will move this CR to Evaluation status. We will provide an updated status in August.

June 16, 2004 CMP Monthly Meeting notes: Kit Thomte – Qwest explained that we have had some difficulty with our conference bridge numbers. We have contacted our service provider and they are correcting the problem. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised she understands it was a problem with the bridge, and not that it was posted incorrectly on the calendar. Cindy Macy – Qwest apologized for the confusion and explained that she contacted the originator of the CR to provide a different call in number, but did not think to contact any other CLECs. Bonnie advised that is okay as she understands the issue. Bonnie suggested in the future though, if CLECs are having trouble connecting to conference bridge numbers that they should page the Project Manager. The CLEC community agreed that would be a good solution.

Ervin Rea – ATT presented the CR. Ervin explained that 10% of their trouble tickets are to tag and locate a loop at the DMARC or NID. This CR is asking for the ability to request when needed an identification tone be placed on the line. This would allow the CLEC to locate the line that they need to provision or repair without Qwest having to send a truck out to tag the line. This should apply to UNE – Loop, UNE-P and EEL products. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised that she would like to include all UNE-P including Resale products as Eschelon experiences this issue a lot also. Bonnie advised that all POTS orders are dropping to manual handling asking for a tag. Eschelon’s statistics for this issue are similar to ATT. Ervin Rea – ATT said he has forward SBCs ‘Tone on line’ process to Cindy Macy at Qwest. Ervin advised there is a system or center to contact to request the tone be placed on the line. We talked with Service Management and they advised that there is not a process available to the CLEC at this time. We know it is available to Qwest. John Berard – Covad advised it would be best to mechanize this type of activity and not have to call a center. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Clarification Call - PC060204-1 Tone on Line June 15, 2004 1:30 – 2:30 p.m.

In attendance: Ervin Rea – ATT Denny Graham – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest

Ervin Rea – ATT reviewed the CR. Ervin explained that 10-12% of the trouble tickets that ATT issues to Qwest requests that a technician goes out to tag and locate the cable pair. This CR requests that an identification tone is placed on the line so the ATT technician can locate the line themselves. This eliminates the need to have Qwest dispatch a truck to locate the DMARC/NID. Ervin said this should reduce the trouble ticket volume by 10-12 % and save resources. Ervin advised he has talked with the other CLECs and they also support this CR. This will reduce the cost that CLECs pay to Qwest for a truck roll. Ervin advised that he understands that Qwest provides this ability to Qwest technicians. Ervin advised he is not sure of the process, but a Central Office technician could put the tone on the line.

Cindy Macy – Qwest asked Ervin what products is he requesting this service on. Ervin advised it would be UNE – P non design mostly, EEL could apply which may be designed.

Cindy Macy – Qwest asked Ervin if they want this on all lines automatically or do they want to request it only when they are unable to locate the cable pair. Ervin advised this would only be requested if they could not locate it, not on all lines automatically. This would apply to both Provisioning and Repair.

Denny Graham – Qwest advised he understands what Ervin is requesting. He will have to investigate the current process. Denny advised he is not sure how the CLEC would request this to be done, and what time frames would be required.

Ervin Rea – ATT advised that Bell South has a process for Tone on Line. Ervin will send Cindy a copy of that process. Cindy will distribute to Denny to review.

Ervin Rea – ATT advised they checked with Service Management first and were told that this is not available today.

The group discussed the current process that to tag and locate a line in the first 10 days, there is no charge and it is requested on the LSR. This is done as a supplement to the LSR. There is a charge to tag and locate after the 10th day and this is requested on a repair ticket.

Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that we will review the request and provide a response at the July CMP meeting. Ervin will present the CR at the June CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

August 10, 2004

AT&T Ervin Rea Senior Specialist

SUBJECT: CR # PC060204-1

This letter is in response AT&T’s Change Request (CR) PC060204-1 Tone on Line. This CR requests that Qwest provide the ability to AT&T to request and receive “Tone on the Line” for maintenance issues in an effort to locate the correct pair in a Dmarc.

Qwest is crossing over this CR to a systems CR as the implementation of the Tone on the Line request will consist of updates to existing Qwest systems. Qwest will provide an updated response at the September CMP Systems meeting.

Sincerely,

Denny Graham Qwest Communications

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the July 21, 2004 CMP Meeting

July 21, 2004

AT&T Ervin Rea Senior Specialist

SUBJECT: CR # PC060204-1

This letter is in response AT&T’s Change Request (CR) PC060204-1 Tone on Line. This CR requests that Qwest provide the ability for the CLEC community to receive ‘Tone on the Line’ when requested for maintenance and provisioning issues. Providing ‘Tone on the Line’ helps to locate the correct pair in a Demarc.

Qwest would like to leave this CR in evaluation status. Qwest needs to look at the individual products and provisioning processes that are impacted by this request. Qwest will provide an updated response at the August CMP meeting. Qwest will move this CR to Evaluation status.

Sincerely,

Denny Graham Qwest Communications

Open Product/Process CR PC110303-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

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

Status History

Project Meetings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

Linda Sanchez-Steinke CRPM Qwest 303-382-5768

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

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

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Provisioning

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

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

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests No systems change requests.

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

CenturyLink Response

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

Ervin Rea AT&T

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

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

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

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

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

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

The systems/process modifications would include:

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

? FTS modifications would include service interval table updates.

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

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

Sincerely,

Anthony Washington Product Management Qwest

December 5, 2003

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

Ervin Rea AT&T

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Anthony Washington Product Manager

Open Product/Process CR PC101904-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Qwest will modify it’s commitment deliverables by communicating to the forum, exactly how systems change requests are going to be developed and delivered.

Status History

Project Meetings

Connie Winston – Qwest recapped that this request is asking for additional CR development information earlier in the process. Connie advised that we do not have additional information or clarity before the Release Walk Through. Qwest has made some assumptions in the past at the walkthrough meetings. Qwest will work to add more clarification and discuss assumptions at the walk through meetings. Jill Martain – Qwest added that we are now also reviewing the spreadsheet of products at the Clarification calls which helps Qwest obtain additional clarity. Jill advised we will be updating the CR form also per the CR request PC101904-2. Liz Balvin – Covad advised the CLECs are trying to avoid getting to far down the path and have CLECs expecting one thing and Qwest going another direction. Liz asked if Qwest has considered publishing a draft version of the Walkthrough document sooner. (Insert comment from Eschelon) Connie stated that Qwest doesn’t believe that providing draft version of the walk through would help the issue. (End comment) Connie advised that being more clear at the Clarification meetings will help Qwest and if we find that we need more clarification we will bring it to the CLEC Communities attention. For example, Qwest found an issue on the Parse and Structure CR and brought this to CMP to further define. Liz Balvin – Covad asked if Qwest is concerned about the CLECs bringing forth too many changes. Connie advised no. Qwest believes it would be a repeat of the Clarification call. Liz Balvin – Covad said at the clarification meeting CLECs only understand what they expect the changes need to be and it is not until Qwest publishes the draft specs that CLECs may identify issues. Connie agreed that is true and that is the 73-day time frame that Qwest provides. Connie said that Qwest doesn’t believe we are missing a lot of items and we need to be more stringent around bringing our assumptions forward. Sharon Van Meter – ATT would like us to change the denial to reflect ‘no demonstrable Qwest business benefit’ (insert comment from Eschelon) instead of no demonstrable benefit because the CLECs believe that there is a benefit to this CR. Jill said this CR will move to Denial Status.

December 7, 2004 Email Sent to Sharon Van Meter,AT&T: Sharon, I have attached a copy of the Qwest Response for your submitted CMP CR, PC101904-1 Modify Release Commitment Deliverables. The CR will be included in the Distribution Package for the December Product/Process Meeting, scheduled for December 15th. Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM

-- 11/17/04 November meeting minutes Sharon Van Meter – ATT presented the CR. Sharon reviewed the CR description and read sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 from the CMP Document. Sharon explained their expected deliverable is to have Qwest provide additional information up front instead of later in the process. Stephanie Prull – Eschelon explained that the LNP UBL TN/SANO issue is an example of what they are trying to improve with this process. Stephanie advised that if we would have received more information sooner and discussed this in more detail it would have helped us react earlier. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Clarification Call PC101904-1 Modify Release Commitment Deliverables November 1, 2004 2:00- 3:00 MT

In Attendance: Roslyn Davis – MCI Sharon VanMeter – ATT Phyllis Burt – ATT Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Cindy Macy – Qwest Doug Andreen – Qwest Connie Winston – Qwest Jim Recker – Qwest Randy Owen – Qwest Stephanie Prull - Eschelon

The purpose of this meeting is to review the CR and ensure Qwest understands the CLECs expectations.

Phyllis and Sharon – ATT reviewed the CR. ATT explained that they need something that helps the CLECs understand the scope and limitations of the CR more clearly and earlier on in the process. The Disclosure Document provides us with much of this information but it is needed earlier on in the process.

Eschelon provided the example of TN and SANO. When this was deployed they didn’t realize it was only for certain products. We need to understand the limitations, differences or exceptions.

Cindy Macy – Qwest asked what would help the CLECs understand this. Is it another meeting, or documentation, more information on edits? Sharon – ATT advised that maybe a meeting to review the documentation earlier in the cycle would help. Sharon – ATT advised that the CLEC Walkthrough doesn’t provide enough information.

Stephanie advised that we have special walkthrough on specific CRs if the CLECs feel like they need it. Ones that are more complicated generally. Maybe we should do this more often.

Randy Owen – Qwest asked if we are trying to build a process around exceptions. Stephanie Prull – Eschelon advised scope issues happen quite often.

Stephanie advised that today we get the information 45 days prior to implementation (final disclosure). The walkthrough is day 68-58 generally. Stephanie said that if we have only 2 releases a year maybe we could adjust the dates.

Randy Owen – Qwest advised he understands the CLECs request and we will review the issue. Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that this CR would be presented at the November CMP meeting by ATT. Qwest will provide a response at the December meeting.

CenturyLink Response

For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the December 2004 CMP Meeting

Sharon Van Meter AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Revised Response - PC101904-1 "Modify Release Commitment Deliverables"

This document is a response to AT&T’s PC101904-1 "Modify Release Commitment Deliverables."

AT&T requests that Qwest present at the CMP release commitment : "a detailed summary of HOW the CR is going to be developed and delivered based on the design work completed on the candidates. By revealing this information, CLECs can obtain a better understanding of the scope and the limitation of the expected deliverable. It also gives Qwest and CLECs a final opportunity to make any additional comments/clarifications to eliminate any surprises at delivery."

A clarification call was held on 11/01/04 to discuss the request. AT&T is requesting at the CMP Scope commitment a detailed analysis of the means and requirements of delivery. AT&T is asking for detailed requirements that Qwest provides as part of its IMA EDI Draft Disclosure publication and walkthrough. It should be noted that scope commitment occurs five weeks prior to Qwest publication of IMA EDI Draft Disclosure documentation, or 108 days prior to the release date. Initial Draft Disclosure documentation publication occurs 73 days prior to the implementation. Therefore, in effect, AT&T is requesting detailed documentation about the scope of changes for a candidate 35 days prior to current CMP commitments.

Qwest is already addressing some of the concerns brought forward by this CR. During the Clarification Calls on System CRs, Qwest now discusses more detailed information to identify and understand the specific product, activity type and request type. Qwest also is working on enhancing the CR form (via another CR,) which will allow for additional detail and specifications to be identified earlier in the process. The intent of these changes is to gather additional data earlier in the process and allow for a more detailed discussion of the change.

Currently, Qwest provides a complete a set of documentation at IMA EDI Draft Disclosure publication and the walkthrough. This should, however, be considered a Draft version. Changes do occur between publication of the Draft and the Final (at day 45). To provide the documentation any earlier than the Draft Disclosure point in the timeline would actually provide less value as many issues are addressed between scope commitment and publication of the Draft Disclosure. Qwest believes that the timeline of 73 days prior to release is the optimal point for publication of the documentation, providing for both a large window for the fielding of questions and concerns and a relatively stable set of documents. And, at this point in the timeline, Qwest believes that it publishes technical specifications that address both the business requirements (WHAT the candidate changes do) and the systems requirements (HOW Qwest will deliver it) for the candidate and the release.

AT&T also requested additional meetings to be held earlier in the process to discuss the CR. Qwest would not have additional information to provide to the CLECs earlier in the process and additional meetings would take time away from the resources working on the CR, thus delaying the progress and delivery of the Disclosure Documentation walkthrough.

When circumstances come about as a normal part of trial and testing during the release week, Qwest adheres to its standard process and protocols around notifying of the issue, and works quickly and with the CLECs to resolve it.

Therefore, Qwest is denying this request as providing no demonstrable business benefit.

Sincerely, Connie Winston Director, Information Technology, Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC101904-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverables: To modify the existing CR form to include , Impacts LSOG Forms”.

Status History

Project Meetings

- April 26, 2005 Email Sent to AT&T: Hi Sharon, I hope you had a great vacation! Sharon, the CR that AT&T submitted, PC101904-2 To Modify Change Request Form to Include 'Impacts LSOG Forms' was implemented on March 3rd and was moved to CLEC Test at the March CMP Meeting. The new form has already been used to submit new CRs and is working great. Are you ready to close the CR? The meeting minutes from the April CMP Meeting are as follows: PC101904-2 To Modify Change Request Form to include ‘Impacts LSOG Forms’ Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this change was effective on March 3rd and is currently in CLEC Test. Jill stated that AT&T could not attend and Qwest would like to close this CR off-line with AT&T. There was no dissent to close the CR off-line. Please let me know if you are okay to close the CR. I appreciate it. Thanks, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Wholesale Change Management

-- April 20, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this change was effective on March 3rd and is currently in CLEC Test. Jill stated that AT&T could not attend and Qwest would like to close this CR off-line with AT&T. There was no dissent to close the CR off-line.

- March 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that this was effective on March 3rd and that the CR submittal Form was revised and posted to the web site, and noted that the CMP Document was also updated with the update to Appendix D. Peggy stated that this CR moves to CLEC Test.

-- February 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that the Level 2 notice was out on February 10th and that the effective date was March 3, 2005. This CR remains in Development status.

-- COMMUNICATOR EXCERPT: Announcement Date: February 10, 2005 Effective Date: March 03, 2005 Document Number: PROS.02.10.05.F.02545.ChangeRequestForm Notification Category: Process Notification Target Audience: CLECs, Resellers Subject: CMP - Change Request Form Level of Change: Level 2 Associated CR Number or System Release Number: CLEC CR # PC101904-2

Summary of Change: On February 10, 2005, Qwest will post planned updates to its Wholesale Change Management Process Change Request Form to include revised documentation. These will be posted to the Qwest Wholesale Document Review Site located at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/review.html.

In response to the CLEC initiated CR PC101904-2, Qwest has updated the Wholesale Change Management Process Change Request Form to include additional LSOG information. In discussion during the January CMP monthly meeting, it was agreed that this Change Request would follow a Level 2 notification timeline. Upon becoming operational, in conjunction with the CR form update on the CMP operational URL, the sample Change Request form in Appendix D in the Change Management Process document will be updated to include this as the current CR example. This document is found at the following URL: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/whatiscmp.html. This does not change the CMP process in any way; it is only an update to the sample form.

Current operational documentation for this business procedure is found on the Qwest Wholesale Web Site at this URL: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/changerequest.html.

-- January 19, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that there was an ad-hoc meeting on January 5th for the final review of the proposed changes to the form and CLEC concurrence was obtained. Peggy stated that AT&T has requested that a shorter comment cycle be given for this CR in order for the form to be implemented sooner. Peggy asked for CLEC concurrence for a Level 2 notice, which is a 7-day comment cycle. There was no opposition to a Level 2 notice. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the Level 2 notice would be sent and noted that the status remains as Development.

January 5, 2005 Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes: Date: January 5, 2005 CR No & Title: PC101904-2 To Modify Change Request Form to Include ‘Impacts LSOG Forms’ Introduction of Attendees: Phyllis Burt-AT&T, Chris Terrell-AT&T, Jeff Sonnier-Sprint, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Amanda Silva-VCI, Jennifer Arnold-TDS Metrocom, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Hank Martinez-Qwest, Randy Owen-Qwest, Anne Robberson-Qwest Conference Call Discussion: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that the purpose of the call was for final review of the Draft version 14 of the CMP CR Submittal Form and to discuss a shorter comment cycle, per the request of AT&T. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that the form is the same that has been discussed in previous calls and the December CMP Meeting. Peggy stated that the additions to the form include new areas for Form/Transaction/Process Impacted (IMA Only) for Order, LSR Activity, Pre-Order, and Post Order. Peggy asked if all was any opposition to the new form, version 14. Phyllis Burt-AT&T stated that AT&T was okay with the form. Jennifer Arnold-TDS Metrocom stated that TDS Metrocom was also okay with the form. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest asked if everyone else was okay with the implementation of version 14. There were no additional comments or questions. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that it seems that all are in agreement that Qwest is to proceed with version 14 of the form. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that at the December CMP Meeting, AT&T asked if there could be a shorter comment cycle so this form could be implemented sooner and used, as it will be very helpful to the CLECs and to Qwest. Peggy asked if there was any opposition to a Level 2 notice being sent for a shorter comment cycle. There was no opposition brought forward. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that Qwest would obtain final concurrence to the Level 2 notice at the January CMP Meeting, and then the notice would go out for the implementation of the form, version 14. There were no additional questions or comments.

-- December 15, 2004 Product/Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston-Qwest stated that the more information that is known and is agreed upon, the better. Connie stated that specific product’s would still be called out. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if the form that will be implemented is the same form that was provided for the conference call Connie Winston-Qwest responded yes. Jill Martain- Qwest stated that the field for 'all' products would not be incorporated. Jill stated that the 45-day notice would be sent and at the end of the comment cycle, the CR will move to CLEC Test. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that maybe the comment period could be shorter as this new form will be very helpful. Jill Martain-Qwest asked if the CLECs would like another ad hoc meeting prior to the 45-day notice being sent. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T responded yes and noted that on the ad hoc call, she will ask if all are agreeable to a shorter comment cycle. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR would move to Development Status.

December 6, 2004 Emailed Qwest Response to Sharon Van Meter, AT&T: Sharon, Attached is the Qwest Response to PC101904-2 To Modify Change Request Form to Include 'Impacts LSOG Forms'. Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM

-- November 19, 2004 Meeting Minutes: Attendees: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T, Stephanie Prull-Eschelon, Kathy Stichter-Eschelon, Sue Wright-XO, Chris Terrell-AT&T, Nancy Saunders-Comcast, John Berard-Covad, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Phyllis Burt-AT&T, Hank Martinez-Qwest, Anne Robberson-Qwest, Judy DeRosier-Qwest, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest

Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that the purpose of the meeting was to review the DRAFT CR Submittal Form that was emailed to Sharon at AT&T, which is the mock-up of the revised CR Form. Peggy stated that Qwest wanted to review and obtain input to make that we were headed in the right direction for the delivery of this request. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest read the CRs description for the call participants. Peggy stated that the current version of the CR submission form is located on the Wholesale web site if the participants would like to pull it up and compare to the draft mock-up as we discuss the suggested changes. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that the draft version 14 has no changes until page 2 of the form. Peggy stated that the proposed changes are under the Area Impacted section and is so that the CR originator can provide as much information as you can. Peggy stated that the new information was derived from the LSOG Forms and are categorized by Pre Order, Order, Post Order, and LSR Activity. Peggy stated that the information is optional, as is the current information in the Area Impacted Section. Peggy stated that the CR originator would indicate any boxes that would be applicable to the request. Peggy stated that the section is optional but noted that the more information that is provided to Qwest, the less chance for problems down the road as far as what the request covered. Peggy then asked the call participants to review the draft mock-up and provide feedback. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if all the impacted forms were under the new categories. Hank Martinez-Qwest responded yes. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked that if in the Products Impacted Section of the form, if they check LNP, can the form provide a pop-up list of all the applicable forms for LNP. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that it would then become a more interactive form. Judy DeRosier-Qwest stated that MSWord does have the capability to do drop down’s but can then only pick one-at-a-time; it would be more complicated if more than one Pre Order item is impacted. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she was just wondering and to leave the request as a paper form for this CR. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon asked if Cancel should be with Post Order. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that it should appear with Order and will be corrected. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked that the check box named Other be explained. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon asked if it would be used if the CR originator was proposing a new form. Hank Martinez-Qwest said yes. CLEC Community stated to keep Other as a check box. Phyllis Burt-AT&T stated that she liked the draft form. John Berard-Covad stated that Liz (Balvin-Covad) had a suggestion for him to bring forward. John stated that Liz would like to see a check box for all forms below. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that the designation of All has created problems in the past and that Qwest was moving away from the global designation of All. Hank stated that in the submission of a CR, there is thought and clarity that is needed so the request can be as complete as it can and not be subject to interpretation of ‘All’. John Berard-Covad asked if the forms listed in the draft CR form are the Industry forms. Hank Martinez-Qwest responded yes. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon asked if the originator can select only an order form or if needs to select a form and product(s). Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that the current process would not change of selecting the impacted areas, including the form and products. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon asked that if the End User form is selected and it has a potential to impact all products, can Qwest provide an LOE for the specified product and an LOE for all products that would be applicable for the End User Form. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that this can be cumbersome but if that would be beneficial to the CLECs and to Qwest, Qwest can look into doing that. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that was the real intent of this CR. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that the CR was driving to include the forms and not the products. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated that the CLECs want to provide Qwest with as much information as they can and would like an LOE for the specific product checked, and an LOE for all products that would be applicable for the specified form. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that in the Products part of the form, they want the option to check all products for the form, or to check the specific product(s). Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that we may all be speaking of the same thing and the question is how to display it on the form. Hank stated that for example, Port Service can be several forms and sub sets of products. Qwest needs to know if the request is for all in the subset or maybe just part of the subset. Hank stated that the Clarification Call helps drive that discussion. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated for example, in the Order section, the form can have a check box for all products and if that All box is not checked, Qwest would then know to look in the Products section. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that it would be very helpful that if a form is selected in the Order Section, that a selection be made in the LSR Activity section. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon and Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that LSR Activity would be helpful. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that the CR originator should populate the impacted form and the impacted products, to determine the scope of the CR. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that the CLECs want, in the impacted products sections, a check box for all products for the specified Form. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated that LSR Activity is also important. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that the CLECs do not want Qwest to reinvent the wheel but do want all products if there would be no substantial difference to the LOE. Bonnie stated that the CLECs need to get a clear understanding of what Qwest is doing. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that a check box for All may not be wanted for LSR Activity. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated that the all check box needs to be in the product list, not below Pre-Order, Order, Post Order, or LSR Activity. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T and Phyllis Burt-AT&T agreed. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon asked if Qwest only relates products to Order and maybe Pre-Order. Hank Martinez-Qwest stated for Order only. Hank stated that Pre Order and Post Order are product independent. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that in the Impacted Products sections, the All check box needs to clearly state that it applies to Order Forms only. Hank Martinez-Qwest asked if the CLECs Community likes the areas of Pre-Order, Order, Post Order, and LSR Activity. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated yes and noted that the check box for Cancel needed to be moved. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated that an All check box needs to be in the Product section. There were no other questions or comments. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that Qwest would consider the suggested changes and provide a response or status prior to the December CMP Meeting.

-- November 17, 2004 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Sharon Van Meter – ATT presented the CR. Sharon reviewed the CR description and advised that ATT’s expected deliverable is to identify the specific LSOG forms on the CR form. Sharon advised there is a meeting on Friday to review the CR form. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Time/Date: Place: Conference Call-In No.: CR No.:CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

2:00 p.m. (MT) / Monday November 1, 2004

1-877-521-8688 1456160# PC101904-2 To Modify Change Request Form to include Impacts LSOG Forms Attendees Attended Conference Call Name/Company: Kim Isaacs, Eschelon Stephanie Prull, AT&T Phyllis Burt, AT&T Sharon Van Meter, AT&T Rosalin Davis, MCI Jim Recker, Qwest Randy Owen, Qwest Connie Winston, Qwest Cindy Macy, Qwest Doug Andreen, Qwest Title:

Meeting Agenda: Action 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed. 2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change This was a combined clarification call for two AT&T CRs. PC101904-1 was covered first. Then Sharon Van Meter read and reviewed this CR. This CR requests that all of the LSOG forms be placed in the Product Impacted section of the CR rather than focusing on a particular product. Doug verified that what AT&T is requesting is that the LSOG forms be placed on the Change Request Form so the CLECs can fill out what forms are affected when submitting a request. Phyllis answered yes and that the CLECs hoped this would be helpful for Qwest to see the request at the form level. Stephanie Prull said this can be used as a limiting tool since for instance there are fifteen products on the Resale form. Randy Owen asked how that would have helped the TN SANO issue. Phyllis felt this was done piecemeal and that products kept getting added when it probably would have been easier to do all at once. Stephanie added that this is an attempt to give all the information at once and then determine (if the LOE is too high for instance) if we need to piecemeal. Phyllis asked if the LOE would be lower to implement all at once. Randy responded that in some cases yes but probably not always. It depends on the scope of the request and the release pattern and would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. There were no further questions. 3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Potentially all products 4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct personnel were involved in the meeting.

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation To add LSOG forms to Change Request Form 6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None 7.0 Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) The CR will be presented at the November CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

RESPONSE For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at the December 15, 2004, CMP Product/Process Meeting

Sharon Van Meter AT&T

SUBJECT: AT&T’s Change Request Response - CR #PC101904-2

This is in response to the AT&T submitted CR PC101904-2. This CR requests a Modification to the existing CMP CR submittal form to include the impacted LSOG forms.

A clarification call was held on 11/01/04 to discuss the request and a subsequent meeting was held on 11/19/04 with AT&T and members of the CLEC Community.

Qwest accepts this CR. Qwest will modify the CMP CR submittal form to include the impacted LSOG forms in four new areas of the CMP CR submittal form. The four new areas are categorized as Order, LSR Activity, Pre-Order, and Post-Order. The LSOG Form names will be listed under the appropriate category.

Qwest will provide a status update of the work to implement this CR at the December CMP meeting.

Sincerely,

Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC022703-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

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

Status History

Project Meetings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meeting Agenda: 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Attendees Introduced

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Okay

4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Yes

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

6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None

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

CenturyLink Response

June 11, 2003

AT&T Sharon Van Meter

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Kathy Rein Qwest – Senior Process Analyst

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

April 8, 2003

AT&T Sharon Van Meter

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Kathy Rein Qwest – Senior Process Analyst

Open Product/Process CR PC110201-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

Subject: RE: Clarification on Rate Maps/document to determine zones for lo op rates Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:13:09 -0600 From: "Clauson, Karen L." To: Todd Mead CC: Kathleen Stichter , "Morrisette, Garth M." , Susan Travis Todd: Garth has indicated that we also need the rate center maps as well. Please send copies to Kathy Stichter. Thanks.

01/18/02 Clarification e-mail from Eschelon

Subject: RE: Clarification on Rate Maps/document to determine zones for lo op rates Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:12:04 -0600 From: "Clauson, Karen L." To: Todd Mead CC: Kathleen Stichter , "Morrisette, Garth M." , Susan Travis I will be in Denver for the CMP Re-design meeting on Tuesday-Thursday. We can discuss on a break, if you would like. Otherwise, you can arrange a call with Kathy Stichter and Garth Morrisette while I am out, if Kathy can find a suitable time for you. Essentially, we are simply asking for the documentation that allows us to determine where our lines (and future lines) fall within the zones that have been established for geographically deaveraged loop rates. For example, a newspaper article in Denver said that Zone 1 (the most dense zone) covered most of the city of Denver. What are the boundaries of that Zone? Do you have a list of wire centers/CLLI code by zone (where the zone is defined by wire centers) or a map that shows these zones? We need this information for AZ and CO. I am copying Susan Travis of WCOM, because she had this same request, and she may have other states.

01/18/02 E-mail with AT&T mailing address

Subject: RE: Your Address Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:50:10 -0500 From: "Van Meter, Sharon K, NCAM" To: "Todd Mead" CC: "Saunders, Craig" Todd, Thanks for the reminder. 1875 Lawrence St. Room 8-15 Denver, CO 80205 Thanks for your help. Sharon Van Meter Western Region LSAM 303-298-6041 303-540-1637 (pager)

--Original Message-- From: Todd Mead [mailto:tmead@qwest.com] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 10:42 AM To: Van Meter, Sharon K, NCAM Cc: Saunders, Craig Subject: Your Address Sharon, Please send me you mailing address and we will send you a copy of the map you requested. Thanks Todd

01/09/02 E-mail from Qwest responding to Eschelon e-mail on Qwest response content

Subject: Re: Qwest Rate Center Maps Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 16:09:55 -0700 From: Todd Mead Organization: Qwest Communications International, Inc. To: "Clauson, Karen L." CC: "Van Meter, Sharon K, NCAM" , jmschu4@qwest.com, susan.a.travis@wcom.com, "Saunders, Craig" , "Stichter, Kathleen L." Karen, Yes! The Qwest response presented at next week's CMP meeting will encompass the information you refer to below. Thanks Todd

01/09/02 E-mail from Qwest asking for AT&T address to forward map example.

Subject: Re: Qwest Rate Center Maps Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 16:07:41 -0700 From: Todd Mead Organization: Qwest Communications International, Inc. To: "Van Meter, Sharon K, NCAM" CC: jmschu4@qwest.com, susan.a.travis@wcom.com, klclauson@eschelon.com, "Saunders, Craig" Sharon, The map the Qwest individual referred to in the CMP meeting is the same as the example Worldcom sent us. Sharon, if you can send me your address I will make sure a copy is sent to you for your review. Thanks Todd

01/04/02 E-mail from Eschelon requesting additional information on Qwest response content

Subject: RE: Qwest Rate Center Maps Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:26:00 -0600 From: "Clauson, Karen L." To: Todd Mead , "Van Meter, Sharon K, NCAM" CC: jmschu4@qwest.com, susan.a.travis@wcom.com, klclauson@eschelon.com, "Saunders, Craig" , "Stichter, Kathleen L." Todd: Thanks for the helpful response. Since Sharon asked specifically about the rate center maps, I wasn't sure that your response below deals with the Distribution Area (DA) maps requested by Eschelon. Will we be getting the DA maps at the January meeting? Also, at the meeting in December, we discussed whether the CLECs were actually requesting the correct items to meet their objectives (e.g., being able to identify customers in zones for geographically deaveraged rates). I believe this caem up because Qwest said that it didn't know if it had maps of the type requested. If not, then Qwest must look at something else to make these determinations. We asked that, if we had not requested the documentation used by Qwest for this purpose, that such documentation also be produced. Have you determined yet whether Qwest has different documents/maps and, if so, will that be provided at the January meeting? Thanks, Karen

01/04/02 E-mail response to AT&T

From: Todd Mead [SMTP:tmead@qwest.com] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 11:14 AM To: Van Meter, Sharon K, NCAM Cc: jmschu4@qwest.com; susan.a.travis@wcom.com; klclauson@eschelon.com; Saunders, Craig Subject: Re: Qwest Rate Center Maps Sharon, Thanks for your e-mail. At the December CMP meeting, we had a general clarification on this CR where you presented the business reasons for submitting this CR and then the Qwest SME's asked you several questions pertaining to the exact nature of information you were after with these rate center maps. The following are notes I documented from the December CMP clarification meeting: - What states you wanted maps for (Washington, Utah, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Arizona & New Mexico) - What level of detail (you want to be able to see what rate center a specific address is located in) - What format you are after (CLECs prefer electronic, however hard copy would do) - Whether you wanted to only see major metro areas i.e.. Denver, Aurora, Smokey Hills etc. CLECs agreed to this - Eschelon wanted to know if these maps would show how each customer is being served i.e. RSU (Qwest responded they would not and Eschelon responded that they may submit a separate CR). - Worldcom wanted to know if the maps show the CILLI detail (they had some examples from previous USWest maps). We have since contacted LeiLani and she has forwarded a copy of these old maps to the Qwest SME to review to help their response preparation. - You also want the response to include the process for getting these maps updated At the January CMP meeting (01/16/02) Qwest will present their response to your CR. The Qwest team is currently working on this response and I will e-mail it to you (plus Eschelon and Worldcom) as soon as I receive it from the Qwest SME. The response will also be posted to the CMP database and published on the web no later than next Friday (01/11/02). If I have missed something here, I would be more than happy to discuss this with you. You can call me anytime today to discuss this. Regards Todd

01/04/02 E-mail from AT&T requesting map examples

Subject: Qwest Rate Center Maps Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:49:43 -0500 From: "Van Meter, Sharon K, NCAM" To: CC: , , Todd, I haven't heard anything about the deliver of the Rate Center Maps. It was my understanding that you would contact me and deliver some maps for my review. Please advise. Sharon Van Meter Western Region LSAM 303-298-6041 303-540-1637 (pager)

12/18/01 e-mail from Worldcom to Qwest

Todd, Sure, I will put one in the mail today. LeiLani Hines Worldcom Carrier Management

12/18/01 e-mail from Qwest to Worldcom

Leilani, The Qwest SME would like to see the copy of the map you have. Could you please send him one? Thanks, Todd

> From: Stichter, Kathleen L. > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 3:18 PM > To: 'mbelt@qwest.com' > Subject: PC110201-1 > > Mike, > Qwest has a web site http://www.qwest.com/iconn/ that a CLEC can go to and > click on Outside Plant Jobs Greater than $100K to get information on the > build jobs Qwest is planning. Once at this web page the details Qwest > gives are: > State, WireCenter, Job #, Fiber/Cooper, Quantity, Location i.e. DA/CLLI, > Ready for Service and Completion Date. The information populated in the > Location field is either CLLI or DA (Distribution Area). The DA data is a > number i.e. 310211. This number, for the distribution, means nothing to > Eschelon without a map detailing the bounderies down to street level > detail of the specific distribution area. > Thanks > > Kathy Stichter > ILEC Relations Manager > Eschelon Telecom Inc

3:00 p.m. (MDT) / Thursday 16th Nov 2001 Clarification Meeting Conference Call

Attendees: Sharon Van Meter / AT&T Matt Kruzic / Qwest Jacob Barlow / Qwest Jan Attebarry / Qwest Craig Saunders / Qwest Mary Anderson / Qwest Michael Belt / Qwest Kathy Stichter / Eschelon (called later) Tom Dixon / Worldcom (called later)

Review Requested (Description of) Change: AT&T – Qwest Rate Center maps to be public information to the CLEC Community Eschelon & Worldcom would like the DA and CLLI Maps also included with this CR.

Products Impacted - LNP

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation - Yes the expectations of the CR are understood, need to clarify the issue of Proprietry Qwest information.

CenturyLink Response

Sharon Van Meter Manager AT&T 1875 Lawrence St. Denver, CO 80205

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR # PC110201-1 Qwest Rate Center Maps

REQUEST: Qwest determines the Rate Centers. AT&T needs to mirror the Rate Center areas for residential LNP. What is the process for obtaining Rate Center Maps from Qwest?

Additional clarifications/requests: Requested maps at a street level detail. Requested maps for MSA’s in Arizona, Colorado, Washington, Utah, Oregon, Minnesota, & New Mexico Prefer electronic, however paper will do. Requested maps at a level to determine DA areas. Requested maps at a CLLI level detail. Requested a process to update maps.

RESPONSE: Qwest has provided, on the Qwest Wholesale web site, the same rate center maps that Qwest uses and updates on a quarterly basis. The URL is:

www.qwest.com/wholesale/network/ratecentermaps.html

Qwest does not solely rely upon rate center maps to determine number portability. Qwest, as well as other companies, relies upon the Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG) as the official guide to determine the portability of a number. Qwest determines whether a number is available for porting by looking at the customers switch information, both from and to, which reflects the serving rate center. As determined by the FCC, Qwest does not permit the porting of the numbers between two different rate centers.

Currently the Rate Center maps used by Qwest and provided on the wholesale website do not have the capability to provide wire center street level detail. Maps of DA’s are available through the Qwest Wholesale web site by following the process outlined under the URL:

www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/remotecollocation.html

Requesting multiple DA’s in a particular wire center will enable CLEC’s to ascertain the description of the wire center boundary.

In regard to the request for maps where Qwest plans fiber and copper jobs greater than $100,000, Qwest has plot maps that are available for review as outlined in SGAT section 10.8.2.4. Qwest agrees to provide CLEC access to relevant plats upon receiving a bona fide request for such information as stated in the SGAT.

Sincerely,

Craig Saunders Staff Advocate Policy & Law Qwest

CC: Barry Orrel, Director Legal Issues, Qwest Jim Eitel, Director Legal Issues, Qwest Lydia Eiguren, Senior Director Business Development, Qwest John Hayat, Staff Advocate Policy & Law, Qwest Mary Retka, Director Legal Issues, Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC050703-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

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

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

-- CMP Meeting 12-17-03

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

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

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

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

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

CMP Meeting 07-16-03

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

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

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

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

Clarification Meeting Monday, May 12, 2003

1-877-550-8686 2213337#

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CenturyLink Response

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

Sharon Van Meter AT&T

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Matt White Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC112105-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

Hi Lynn, Sorry for not responding earlier... our work centers haven't had the opportunity to try to use this option yet, however, I think it is safe to close. If something comes up when the <3 day request is used, we can address it with the work center. Thanks! Kathy

From: Stecklein, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.Stecklein@qwest.com] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 9:57 AM To: Lee, Kathy T, GBLAM Subject: PC112105-1 AT&T Requests an Installation Date of Less Than 3 Days on Expedites

Hi Kathy,

Were you able to determine if AT&T was ok to close this CR? See meeting minutes below.

Thanks!

Lynn Stecklein

Qwest Wholesale CRPM

303 382-5770 4/19/06 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this request was implemented on April 17th and is working fine. Jill stated that this is currently in CLEC Test and asked if the Change Request could be closed.

Kathy Lee-AT&T stated that she has not heard of any issues and has not asked if there were any. Kathy stated that she would check and close the CR off-line.

3/15/06 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jill Martain-Qwest stated that a notice was sent and that this CR will become effective on 4/15/06. This CR will remain in Development.

2/15/06 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR has been accepted and that we are moving forward with PCAT changes. She said that a Level 3 will be sent out next week. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if they would be able to take advantage of this functionality immediately. Jill Martain-Qwest said that said that the PCAT changes need to be made and that the changes will go into effect in 45 days. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T said thank you. Lynn Hankins-Covad asked what the interval would be. Jill Martain-Qwest said that they will be able to request a shorter than normal interval. She said that a Supp should be issued requesting the new due date and that the EXP should be populated. Qwest will then determine if that interval can be met and will send the FOC. Jill said if the interval cannot be met, Qwest may contact the CLEC with an alternate date.

1/18/06 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Shirley Tallman - Qwest stated that this CR is still under review. Jill Martain - Qwest said that this CR will move to Evaluation.

12/14/05 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Sharon Van Meter/AT&T stated that AT&T has signed the Expedite ICA Amendment. Sharon said that if a CNR occurs on an order and AT&T supps that order – per Qwest’s interval – AT&T wants the ability to be able to request an expedited due date earlier than the 3 day required interval. Sharon said that AT&T is willing to pay the $200 per day charge associated with the expedite request. Sharon said that during the clarification call it was confirmed that this request is for design products only. Jill Martain/Qwest said that this CR will move to a Presented Status.

11/30/05 Clarification Meeting6.4 Process for Creating Product/Process CMP Monthly Meeting Distribution Package

Attendees: Sharon Van Meter - AT&T, Laurie Dalton - Qwest, Jim Recker - Qwest, Kathy Ocken - Qwest, Barbara Fanning - Qwest, Phyllis Sunins - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Review CR Description Sharon Van Meter - AT&T stated that AT&T has signed the Expedite ICA Amendment She said that If a CNR occurs on an order and AT&T supps that order - per Qwest’s interval - AT&T wants the ability to be able to request an expedited due date earlier than the 3 day required interval. Sharon stated that AT&T is willing to pay the $200 per day charge associated with the expedite request.

Discussion: Lynn Stecklein - Qwest asked what products were impacted by this request. Sharon Van Meter - AT&T said that she thought it would impact all products. Laurie Dalton - Qwest stated that this would not apply to all products because we don't bill expedite charges on non-design. Laurie asked if this applied to the LSR and the ASR. Sharon Van Meter - AT&T said yes. Jim Recker - Qwest asked about held orders and CNR scenarios. Sharon Van Meter - AT&T said that scenarios with no facilities would be a different issue. She said that AT&T just wants to have the option when the CNR situation is cleared to expedite for a shorter interval. Laurie Dalton - Qwest asked if the order was already expedited and the customer wasn't ready and AT&T wanted to expedite again, there would be 2 expedite charges. Sharon Van Meter - AT&T said that Qwest will have to be sure to quote both charges. Sharon said that she did not think this scenario would happen very often.

Establish Action Plan Lynn Stecklein - Qwest said that AT&T will present this CR in the December Product/Process Meeting.

Open Product/Process CR PC020705-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

AT&T expects Qwest to develop and implement a process for CLECs to accept the Buried Service Wire fee while the outside technician is still at the customer premises.

Status History

Project Meetings

-- June 15, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting discussion: Jim Recker-Qwest stated that an ad hoc meeting had been held with the CLEC Community and that Qwest had asked for examples and information to help understand the volume. Jim stated that Qwest needs the data in order to identify the volume of orders that require Buried Service Wire. Jim noted that AT&T is looking for data. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that information was sent to Qwest on June 8th and noted that examples had been previously provided. Sharon stated that historically, the volume for AT&T could be 4-6 per month. Sharon stated that the average is about 2 per month. Sharon stated that her June 8th email also asked if Qwest could complete the work but keep the order open until the subsequent work is performed. Jim Recker-Qwest stated that Qwest continues to discuss internally in order to identify a solution for this request. Jim stated that Qwest Retail also uses the existing process for Buried Service Wire. Jim stated that this CR remains in Evaluation status for further analysis. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that if Qwest cannot accommodate to call AT&T when the technician is at the premise and needs to reschedule, then AT&T requests that the process be simplified. Sharon stated that the scheduling of the subsequent work should be simpler. Jim Recker-Qwest stated that Qwest is looking at the current process and stated that a viable solution would also be helpful to Qwest. Jim stated that Qwest is working diligently to see what can be done. [Comment received from Eschelon: Jim stated that Qwest is working diligently to see what can be done but Qwest can’t get to the meat of how to do this]. Jim noted that Qwest understands AT&Ts problem and is looking to see if can a viable solution can be determined. Jim stated that a status would be provided in the July CMP Meeting. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this CR remains in Evaluation status.

June 8, 2005 Email Received from AT&T: Peggy, AT&T would like Qwest to proceed with a solution for CR #PC020705-1. AT&T agrees that for the month of April 2005, there were no Buried Service Wire issues. However, historically, AT&T experiences an average of two Buried Service Wire issues a month. It is a big dissatifier for AT&T's customer when service is not provided on the expected due date for any reason, including Buried Service Wire issues. On the ad hoc call held last week, Qwest stated that costly internal process changes need to be made to satisfy AT&T's expectations for the CR. My understanding is that Qwest doesn't have any way to track the billing of the Buried Service Wire cost or the subsequent dispatch of the technician to complete the Buried Service Wire process once the original service order is completed. Is there some way to complete the work on the due date, hold the original order open until the subsequent work is completed and then complete the original order? When a due date is missed due to a Buried Service Wire issue, another dissatifier is rescheduling the due date for completion of the service. As Qwest considers a solution to the CR, please consider streamlining the process for rescheduling the original due date completion. Sharon Van Meter AT&T Western Region LSAM

June 1, 2005 Ad Hoc Meeting ATTENDEES: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Rosalin Davis-MCI, Liz Balvin-Covad, Jim Recker-Qwest, Shirley Tallman-Qwest, Russ Urevig-Qwest, Alan Braegger, Lydell Peterson-Qwest, Laura Baird-Qwest, Chris Viveros-Qwest, Chris Quinn Struck-Qwest, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest MEETING DISCUSSION: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that this call was scheduled at the request of AT&T. Chris Viveros-Qwest reviewed the CR and provided a high level background of what has occurred with this request and stated that he would like to better understand the driver of this request and discuss how the current process satisfies part of the request. Chris stated that we would like to gather any additional data that could help in determining a solution. Chris then asked Sharon Van Meter (AT&T) if the driver of the request is to eliminate delays in providing the end user service when there is a need for a buried service wire on the due date. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T said yes. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that the difficulty has been that the scenario was talked about at the highest level. Chris stated that sometimes the technician can temporize the drop and the customer gets service, and sometimes there is a wait for a technician. Chris stated that this is a case of a new drop vs. reinforcing a drop. Chris stated that when a technician goes out on the due date and sees that a new drop is needed and needs to be buried, the technician will temporize a drop, as long as it can safely be dropped and does not lie across a driveway. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked to confirm that a new drop would be placed at the location as long as it is not unsafe. Chris Viveros-Qwest said yes and that it is at no charge. Chris stated that in this scenario, there is no issue in regard to payment authorization. Chris stated that the delay is when there is a need to place another drop or when reinforcing the existing drop. The current process is a resulting jeopardy and referral to an engineer. Chris stated that this could mean a site visit in order to determine if the current threshold has been exceeded. If it has been, Qwest would need authorization from the customer. Chris stated that this means that the service is not completed and in jeopardy status, and is referred for the drop to be buried. The order is then scheduled for the drop and the order gets completed. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if the current service would remain but an additional drop would be needed. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated yes and the customer would have more than 1 line. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if the engineer would look to get authorization for the drop. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that the engineer needs to determine the estimated cost and if the cost is within the state specific threshold, Qwest would place the drop with no additional charge. If there is a cost, Qwest would bill as authorized. Chris stated that we need to come up with a way to get the work done and noted that the authorization of charges is not the real issue. Chris stated that we need to focus on what part of the current process needs to be changed and Qwest believes that a process change to get customer service on the due date would be a significant change. Chris stated that a new process would need to be developed to get the work completed. Chris then stated that we would need to consider the volume, benefit, and cost. Chris stated that Qwest analyzed April data and found no jeopardies due to this reason. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she was not involved in this issue in April or May. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that a piece of this request is cared for in the existing process and that the rest would require significant changes and Qwest does not see the volume. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she agreed that AT&T did not provide all the facts and that this started with getting the technician authorization of charges. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that the current process does not have the technician putting in additional drops, in this scenario. Chris stated that a new process would be needed to instruct the technician to do a new drop. Chris stated that this is service order driven, the service order would be in jeopardy, a referral would be needed to the technician, an estimate would need to be determined, the estimate would need to be given to the customer, billing would need to occur, and then the drop could be scheduled. Chris stated that to provide the customer service, there is no current process to get the drop buried. Chris then stated that the new process would not be driven by the original service order. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if this would be an internal process to Qwest and the CLECs would not be involved because authorization was already given. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that we would still have the same interface points and stated that if there was a charge, Qwest would expected the CLEC to pay the charge. Chris then stated that replacing the service order driven process with a new process is never easy or inexpensive. Chris stated that Qwest is struggling with justifying taking this work on when the volume or frequency does not support it. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she agreed that it is not frequent but noted that when it does happen, it causes AT&T a lot of grief and is a big dissatisfier. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that Qwest Retail is also unhappy when this occurs. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she needs to check with her internal customer to discuss and stated that they would probably want Qwest to proceed with this request. Sharon said that she would see if this request should be pursued. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that was fair. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if any other CLECs were having problems. Liz Balvin-Covad asked Sharon what would be pursued if there was already an existing process. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that when the installer finds no room on the pair, the order is placed in jeopardy status on the due date and authorization is needed for Qwest to lay another drop. Chris Viveros-Qwest clarified that when there is a need for an additional drop, the customer does not get the service, evaluation needs to be done, the buried service wire needs to be scheduled, and then the service to the customer needs to be rescheduled. Chris stated that a new drop would be placed, as long as it was safe, the customer would get service, and there would be an immediate referral to get the temporary drop buried. Liz Balvin-Covad asked if the new process was to make this happen on the due date and not jeopardize the order. Chris Viveros-Qwest said that was the request from AT&T and where Qwest is struggling to come up with a justification. Liz Balvin-Covad asked if on the due date is where the current process does not accommodate. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that the issue is the delay in getting the end user service (Retail & Wholesale). Liz Balvin-Covad asked if this was only when a new drop is required. Chris Viveros-Qwest said when Qwest knows up-front there is already a process in place. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that they will probably go forward with the request but needs to go back internally and give them the information that was provided on this call. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that if AT&Ts decision is to proceed with the request, Qwest needs AT&T to identify the frequency because Qwest cannot find where this problem has occurred so it must be infrequent. Liz Balvin-Covad stated that this would benefit Retail as well because it would eliminate a 2nd dispatch. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that the drop would be place, if it was safe to do so, and would still need to be buried. Chris stated that it would help to see if the benefit outweighs the cost. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if there was another alternative to meet the customers due date. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that we could not determine another solution. Shirley Tallman-Qwest stated any alteration to the current process would mean a change to that process and would be very expensive. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that the driver is that we rely on the service order to get activities done and if the service order is completed, we no longer have the driver. Liz Balvin-Covad asked why there would be additional cost and asked if this could result in a 3rd dispatch. Liz stated that if we can get the service up and all were happy, it should mean 1 less dispatch. Liz stated that this would be positive for Wholesale and for Retail. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that the additional cost is to provide service on the due date when a temporary drop is needed. To then bury the drop is additional cost for Retail and for Wholesale. Chris stated that each step up to the buried drop is triggered from the original service order. Liz Balvin-Covad asked that if the service order completion was rescheduled and the drop was then buried at that time, if there would there be additional cost in that scenario. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that the service order is prompting Qwest to go to the location, and once the temporary drop is placed, the service order is completed and then there is no driver to get the drop buried. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that to get the drop buried, there are additional steps that are needed. Liz Balvin-Covad asked if the additional cost is for the process to accommodate the trigger that gets the drop buried. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that the additional cost is to find an alternate path for having the triggers occur and have an established process with the service order driving the steps. Liz Balvin-Covad stated that she did understand. Jim Recker-Qwest stated that the state tariffs drive the charges. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that there could be instances where additional drops would result in charges. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that AT&T is willing to accept charges to get the drops buried and thought the issue was regarding payment of the charges. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated there was that focus and that the first roadblock was authorization of payment, and then Qwest looked deeper into the process. Liz Balvin-Covad asked if Qwest did not charge for the first visit. Chris Viveros-Qwest said that was correct. Liz Balvin-Covad stated that she thought there was a double dispatch fee. Chris Viveros-Qwest said there was not. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if they could issue a follow-up order to get the drop buried, so Qwest could do the work without messing-up the back-end systems. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that he did not know if that would be viable and that timing could be an issue because he would wonder if the follow-up order could be executed in time to allow the technician to completed the work without leaving the premise. Liz Balvin-Covad stated that completing the service order would start the billing process. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that if the process is changed to not put the order in jeopardy status, the service order would complete and then there is no way to bill for the buried service wire. Chris stated that a separate bill would be needed to bill for it and a process for curbing the steps. A second order from a CLEC would probably not alleviate the need for process changes and an alternative path might still be needed. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked that if there were no instances of volume, if Qwest would not do this request anyway. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that Qwest is not willing to go to the expense if we cannot warrant the expense to the benefits. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she had no further questions. Chris Viveros-Qwest stated that we appreciated AT&T working through this with us to see if the volumes are there. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked in the analysis of the jeopardies, if both Retail and Wholesale were looked at and none were found. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that he looked at jeopardies in IMA for the month of April. Russ stated that looking at AT&T jeopardies, he found none. Russ stated that he then looked at the next 2 highest CLECs and found none. He then spot checked the rest. Russ stated that there were 267 jeopardies in April. Russ stated that he could not check on the Retail side because he does not have access to their data. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she would take this back internally and see if AT&T wants to pursue this request. Liz Balvin-Covad stated that there was a post completion process implemented and asked if that process could accommodate what AT&T was looking for and stated that the billing would already have been kicked-off. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that the order would have completed and any billing would not exist on the service order. Russ stated that we would have the same problem and that it could not be kicked out for review. There were no additional questions or comments. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that Qwest would wait for the email from AT&T to see if they wanted to pursue this request and noted that a status would be provided at the June CMP Meeting.

May 18, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that Qwest is continuing to evaluate this request and would provide a status next month. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T questioned why there is still no status. Sharon said Qwest has not provided status for two or three months in a row. Jill Martain-Qwest stated that Qwest is still looking at options to potentially come to an agreement for a viable option. Jill noted that she was aware that there are items being discussed such as the current process and the billing or charges associated to Buried Service Wires. Jill stated that options are still being explored. Jim Recker-Qwest stated that a call could be scheduled to present AT&T with Qwest’s findings so far. Jim noted that internally there are questions that are still being discussed. [Comment from Eschelon: Jim said they thought Qwest had things covered but then more questions came up.] Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that her people are looking to her for status and that she needs to provide them with some information. Sharon stated that she would like a meeting fairly quickly. This CR remains in Evaluation status.

April 20, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that Qwest was still evaluating this request and the status remains in Evaluation. Jill stated that there would be a status at the May CMP Meeting.

-- March 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that Qwest is reviewing this request internally and more information would be provided at the April CMP Meeting. This CR moves to Evaluation status.

-- March 15, 2005 Ad Hoc Meeting: Attendees: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, David Balenger-AT&T, Jen Arnold-TDSMetroCom, Phyllis Sunins-Qwest, Russ Urevig-Qwest, Shirley Tallman-Qwest, Lydell Peterson-Qwest, Laura Baird-Qwest, Alan Braegger-Qwest, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest

Peggy Esquibel Reed- Qwest stated that the purpose of this meeting was for additional discussion regarding the Buried Service Wire Process Change CR that was submitted by AT&T. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that we wanted to discuss how to handle the buried service wire issue when it is encountered, from an outside technician perspective. Russ stated that one of the issues is when the technician goes out to perform an install, the drop is full, and the tech needs to drop a line. Russ stated that Qwest needs to obtain acceptance of the charges, and then possibly drop the wire above ground. Russ stated that another concern is that Qwest has a certain obligation to perform a certain amount of duty. Russ stated that Qwest would attempt a call in order to obtain acceptance of charges, and noted that the hold time would be a maximum of 5-minutes. Russ stated that the technician would obtain the acceptance of the charges and note that the charges were accepted. Russ stated that Qwest would then proceed with the process of getting the wire buried. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked which telephone number the Qwest technician received on his service order; if it was an 800# or the TN of the co-provider. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that we would need to look at unbundled loops, UNE-P, and general products. Alan Braegger-Qwest stated that what is requested is the LCON TN, but mostly gets the TN of the CLEC, and sometimes the TN of the end user customer. David Balenger-AT&T stated that the fields are populated with either individual extension numbers or with an 800 #s for automated requests, in addition to an end user contact. David then noted that AT&T does not receive a telephone call to advise that the work was completed. Alan Braegger-Qwest stated that Qwest would not call the end user for billing issues. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if the technician would have the number of the CLEC and noted that it would need to flow to Qwest. Alan Braegger-Qwest stated that the technician does get the telephone number of the CLEC. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that Qwest does call for unbundled loops but does a call for UNE-P, to advise that the work was completed. Russ stated that he would validate the telephone number received on non-designed orders and stated that Qwest needs an established timeframe to obtain approval of charges. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that as long as the TN is on the LSR, she understands that the Qwest technician cannot stay on the line very long. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that when an outside technician goes out to perform an installation and a drop is needed, and the safety requirements are not met, Qwest would jeop the order unless AT&T requires a call. Russ stated that Qwest would still need acceptance of the charges and the order would go into a delayed status. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if Qwest would install the wire and bury the wire at the same time. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated yes and noted that a safety issue could be if the wire would have to lie across a driveway. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that Qwest should make a call, in all cases, and that if AT&T is not reached, the order should be jeop’ed. Sharon stated that this would need to be built into the process. Russ Urevig-Qwest asked Alan Braegger (Qwest) if that could be made the standard practice. Alan Braegger-Qwest stated that he would want to do that and noted that currently there is a lot of hold time. David Balenger-AT&T stated that this would be acceptable, as AT&T would not expect that the technicians wait. David stated that AT&T could tell Qwest, right there, if they would accept the charges. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that if the contact TN was an 800#, the expectation is that it would be manned. David Balenger-AT&T stated that if the Qwest technician leaves a message for a call-back, waits 5 minutes, then leaves; it is acceptable to AT&T. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that Qwest needs all to understand that there would be a maximum hold time of 5 minutes. David Balenger-AT&T asked if then the LSR would need to be resubmitted with the approval in the Remarks. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated yes. Lydell Peterson-Qwest asked if the IMPCON and the LCON TNs are on the LSR. David Balenger-AT&T stated that they were both on the LSR and noted that the IMPCON is the AT&T TN and the LCON is the number of the end user customer. Lydell Peterson-Qwest asked to confirm that the IMPCON TN is the number that the Qwest Technician is to call to obtain acceptance of the charges, and that the LCON is the local end user customer and should not be contacted, by the Qwest technician. Russ Urevig-Qwest also asked to confirm that the TN that the technician would look for is the IMPCON, which is the CLEC and is an 800#. David Balenger-AT&T stated that some do have 800#’s but that some have extension numbers. Russ Urevig- Qwest stated that Qwest would need to validate that the information is captured from the LSR flows down to the service order, then flows to the technician’s service order. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that a concern for Qwest is that the CLEC Community understands that Qwest understands the request but has requirements on the Qwest side as well, and that Qwest will have a maximum hold time of 5 minutes. Russ stated that all need to be okay with that. David Balenger-AT&T stated that he looked at an LSR and that the LSR has the Initiator and the IMPCON. David stated that the Initiator is the agent in the Center and that the IMPCON contains the generic 800#. David noted that the LSR he looked at has the PON of ZXPH02871778. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that he would look at the service order and asked which field’s TN was Qwest to call. David Balenger-AT&T stated that Qwest should call the TN contained in the Initiator field. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that he would look at the PON provided, along with the service order that was created, in order to see what TN is on the service order. David Balenger-AT&T stated that it should have the name of Patty Garnier with the TN of 480 649-4913, unless is a different field on the Qwest side. David stated that it could also show ‘Tech on duty’ with the TN of 800 235-1070. Russ Urevig-Qwest asked for the due date. David Balenger-AT&T stated that the due date is pending, as Qwest is currently processing the LSR. David stated that the requested due date is March 18th. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that AT&T was okay with the 5 minute hold time and stated that when the process was written that the 5 minute hold time needed to be very specific in the documentation. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that it would be written in the process. Lydell Peterson-Qwest asked to confirm that the expectation would be the same for the states of Oregon and Washington, and that the LSR would need to be resubmitted with the appropriate USOCs. Russ Urevig-Qwest responded yes and stated that the process would be consistent across the Qwest 14-state territory. Shirley Tallman-Qwest asked that when Qwest calls the CLEC and the CLEC authorizes the charges, if the order would need to be supped to indicate that the charges were authorized. Alan Braegger-Qwest stated that the USOCs would need to be added without a supp and stated that Qwest would need to internally work that and other items out, in order to accommodate this request. Lydell Peterson-Qwest asked for clarification that the Qwest technician would call the CLEC, the CLEC would authorize the charges, the Qwest technician would perform the work, and the CLEC would send a supp. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that in the past, a follow-up supp would be required, so that the authorization of charges would be in writing. Russ stated that the technician does complete out a UNE-P order, so he would need to check to see if a supp would be jeop’d because the work was completed. Russ stated that he would review to see if a supp would need to be required or if a supp would not be needed. Russ stated that maybe Qwest could proceed with the activity and add the charges to the order without a supp. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that when the Qwest technician calls AT&T and AT&T okays the charges, the technician could perform the work and AT&T could immediately submit a supp, because the work would not be completed for a little bit of time. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that for non-designed, the technician would have their work for the day and if a supp 3 (for other) is received during that day, it may or may not flow through the system, so there could be a timing issue in regard to the processing of the supp. Alan Braegger-Qwest suggested that if the line could not be dropped, that the service order be closed, so the CLEC would have control of the line, and then Qwest would perform the work later. David Balenger-AT&T asked how the CLEC would be notified that the work was done. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that Qwest needs to make sure that the wire is in the ground and noted that the CLEC would not be notified, as it would be an internal ticket number. David Balenger-AT&T asked that if the end user calls 2 weeks later and says that they still have no service, who would the CLEC call. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that the work could still be pending and noted that it could be pending several months out. David Balenger-AT&T asked how the CLEC would know what the timeframe is in order to tell their customer. Shirley Tallman-Qwest stated that Qwest does have an internal buried service wire desk that the CLECs Service Manager could contact. Lydell Peterson-Qwest stated that AT&Ts concern is how they find out when the wire would be buried. Russ Urevig-Qwest asked if the CLECs wanted documented, in the PCAT, how to gather information. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T responded yes and stated that the PCAT will need to be very clear. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that another concern, for Qwest, is that when Qwest calls the CLEC and obtains acceptance of the charges, without paperwork and only the notes that the Qwest technician makes, that we don’t fall into billing disputes claiming that the charges were not authorized via an LSR. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if the technician would know what the charges would be. Alan Braegger-Qwest stated that the technician’s don’t provide estimates of charges because it is difficult to provide a quote because at that time they would not be opening a trench, burying the wire, and closing the trench. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated to David Balenger (AT&T) that they would assume that the charges would be reasonable and accept the charges. Sharon asked that if the billed amount were $10,000, what David would do. David Balenger-AT&T stated that AT&T would need to discuss off-line. David stated that their end user doesn’t even pay the $250. David stated that AT&T would need to discuss with Product off-line. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if Qwest would know is a regular order or would Qwest not know until the trench is dug if it was a standard order. Alan Braegger-Qwest stated that the technician could say that it ‘appears’ to be standard but Qwest would not really know so cannot provide a quote. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that if AT&T authorizes the charges, AT&T is authorizing the charges. David Balenger-AT&T stated that AT&T needs to discuss internally. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she has no issue with that and noted that AT&T would clarify internally. Sharon asked if before the process was set, if there would be another call. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that the PCAT would be specific about all the information. Lydell Peterson-Qwest asked that after Qwest receives the verbal authorization of charges, if there could be a Record only supp in order to avoid a Qwest said-CLEC said situation. David Balenger-AT&T stated that the situation currently occurs. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that in that instance, Qwest would not install; Qwest will only install if has authorization of charges. Russ noted that confusion on either side could occur. Russ stated that Qwest does have a concern that charges are reimbursed once they are accepted. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that Qwest will meet internally to look at the provided LSR example, look at the field data for names and TNs, look at the service order, and will see what flows to the outside technician. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if any other CLECs had questions or concerns. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that she was okay and had no questions or concerns. Jennifer Arnold-TDSMetroCom stated that she was also okay and had no questions or concerns.

February 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion, walk-on request: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T reviewed the CR and the expected deliverable. There were no questions or comments.

February 14, 2005 Clarification Meeting: Attendees: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, David Balenger-AT&T, Amanda Silva-VCI, Phyllis Sunins-Qwest, Russ Urevig-Qwest, Shirley Tallman-Qwest, Lydell Peterson-Qwest, Jim Recker-Qwest, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest reviewed the CR’s description and expected deliverable and asked AT&T if they had additional information to share. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that there was no additional information regarding the specific request but would like to note that AT&T went to their Service Manager to resolve this prior to issuing the CR, in an attempt to prevent a CR from being needed. Sharon stated that there had already been several conference calls discussing this issue. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that he was familiar with the request. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest confirmed that this CR was for Provisioning and that the Impacted Products were not applicable. Lydell Peterson-Qwest stated that Qwest would like examples from AT&T to assist with the investigation of this change request. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that for AT&T, they have from 0-3 instances per week and stated that AT&T has already provided 1 example and stated that there are not other examples. Sharon stated that AT&T expects Qwest to move forward without further examples. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked what Qwest needed examples of. Lydell Peterson-Qwest stated that examples are needed of move orders that received a jeopardy because buried service wire was needed. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if Qwest does not track jeopardies for buried service wire. Lydell Peterson-Qwest stated yes, Qwest does track them. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that on the due date, when we go out, the technician may need to open an activity. David Balenger-AT&T asked that if buried service wire is needed, if can Qwest pull by jeopardy, by region code. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that he would need to check to see if Qwest had that data. David Balenger-AT&T stated that this issue keeps resurfacing and asked what the requested examples would provide Qwest. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that Qwest is looking for specific examples in order to investigate because Qwest is not experiencing this issue with other CLECs. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if something different was supposed to happen instead of the orders being jeop’d for buried service wire. David Balenger-AT&T stated that AT&T does not want a jeopardy on the due date and a new interval. David stated that AT&T wants the contact information utilized and for Qwest to accept a verbal yes. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that maybe Qwest has not experienced this with other CLECs because that had not been brought up. Bonnie asked what Qwest needed examples of if Qwest knows which jeopardizes are for buried service wire. Bonnie asked if what AT&T is really requesting is the ability to approve charges and that the due date is not really the issue. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated yes, AT&T would like to tell Qwest that AT&T accepts the fee for buried service wire and mark for manual handling, but no one wants that. David Balenger-AT&T stated that when they have to tell their customer that they have to send the order back, it is dissatisfying to the customer. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that if the technician is out and they need to drop a wire, the technician needs approval. Russ stated that there are occasions when the technician gets the approval on the same day but that we cannot dig on the same day due to circumstances. Russ asked if AT&T is asking for a clear process for Qwest to make an attempt to obtain the approval of the cut on the day that the technician is out. Russ stated that approval is needed for trenching expenses. David Balenger-AT&T stated that the wording in the PCAT states that Qwest should do this and that AT&T automatically accepts the fees. David stated that a call to obtain the approval should not be needed, due to the language in the PCAT. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that this is state specific and noted that in certain states; Qwest can go ahead and drop if meets state requirements. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that the PCAT states that when submitting a request for buried service wire on the original or supplemental, you are authorizing or accepting the charges. David Balenger-AT&T stated that AT&T realizes that Qwest may not know the day of but AT&T is not asking for a site visit on every move order. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if this happens mostly for residential locations. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that happens just as often for business and residential locations. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that Eschelon was receiving jeopardizes but that they were really for conduit. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that is true and that are being addressed separately from this CR. Amanda Silva-VCI stated that VCI’s experience on a jeop’d order was that Qwest needed $375 for additional work on tribal land and asked if could be an example. Amanda provided the LSR ID of 13340389. Amanda then stated that a jeopardy had not yet been received because this just occurred. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if the PCAT language meant anything because they do not know that buried service wire is needed when they submit the LSR. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that if the submitter knows that the facilities are full, and most businesses do know, and that there will be a buried service wire issue, the submitter can note the information in remarks and mark for manual handling. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if Qwest could do a blanket approval for AT&T. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that AT&T would always approve the charges. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that there are difficulties with doing a blanket approval. Jim Recker-Qwest asked if all CLECs would want to do that. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon said no. Phyllis Sunins-Qwest stated that with Symmetry & Symphony, can only have billable fields and that this would need internal discussion. Jim Recker-Qwest asked to confirm that for this request, it is specifically for service wire (2 or 3 pair) and not for larger service wire cables, which are conduit. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T confirmed that this request was only for buried service wire and not for conduit. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked what the possibility was for adding a field in IMA. David Balenger-AT&T stated that they still would not know that buried service wire is needed when the submitted the LSR. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that would then be a separate CR. David Balenger-AT&T stated that it would also require more automation on AT&Ts part. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that exclusions would also be needed. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon said okay. Jim Recker-Qwest asked if the size of the drop needed to be specified. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that if residential or business needs a drop, either 4 or 6 pair needs to be specified. Jim Recker-Qwest asked if the end user customer of record is asked for the size. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that internal discussion is needed to look into the cost differences that the CLEC would need to approve. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if that question was asked of the Retail customer. Jim Recker-Qwest stated that he just wanted to make sure that he had all the facts. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if there was a current process on the Retail side that could be mirrored. Russ Urevig-Qwest stated that he would need to look into that. There were no additional questions or comments regarding the request. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that this CR has been requested to be walked-on at the February CMP Meeting and that the CR would also be scheduled for formal presentation at the March CMP Meeting.

CenturyLink Response

TO: Sharon Van Meter AT&T Communications

SUBJECT: CLEC CR-PC020705-1 Buried Service Wire Process Change

Description of Change: AT&T very rarely knows when Buried Service Wire is needed. When Qwest determines that the service is needed, Qwest needs confirmation that AT&T will pay for the Buried Service Wire fee. Today Qwest sometimes notifies AT&T via jeopardy, on the due date, that Buried Service Wire is needed. Notifying AT&T on the due date is a big dis-satisfier for the AT&T customer as they are expecting the service to be delivered on the due date. Sometimes Qwest completes the service without notifying AT&T that the service is needed - which is a good thing for the customer. AT&T is looking for Qwest to develop a process to notify CLECs, on the customer due date, that Buried Service Wire is needed and allow the CLEC to accept the charges while the technician is still on the customer’s site.

Qwest Response: During the ad hoc calls, AT&T clarified that this request is for a Buried Service Wire Process to be developed in order for the end user customer to get service on the due date, when it is has been identified that an additional drop is required.

Qwest does not inventory "Drops" or "Buried Service Wire" and therefore has no indication that an additional drop is required until the technician arrives at the service location. At that time the technician checks the existing drop for capacity to determine if there is in fact spare capacity. If there is no spare capacity, the technician places the order in jeopardy. The service order in jeopardy triggers an indication that a Qwest representative needs to survey the situation at the service location to determine the cost to augment the drop. This information is then sent to the requestor for approval. Upon approval to proceed, the jeopardy will be updated and trigger handoff to the Buried Service Wire (BSW) group. Once this work is complete, the BSW group releases the order from jeopardy and a new due date is scheduled to complete the service request.

Qwest has researched and analyzed how to meet the expected deliverable of providing service on the original due date. In order to accomplish that, Qwest has determined that it would require the following changes:

- A new process for technician’s to obtain written CLEC authorization to place the drop on the due date. This would entail CLECs being willing to authorize charges without receiving a quote since the site survey will not have taken place.

- Installation procedure changes to reflect that technician’s may temporize additional drops when the CLEC has authorized AND it is safe to do so. This would result in the technician completing the service order as there is no jeopardy. This would also entail re-training technicians on the change in procedure.

- A new process for triggering what the jeopardy triggers currently. Namely, the Qwest representative surveying the site to determine the cost of the augment.

- A new means of scheduling the drop work with the BSW group

Qwest is respectfully denying this request due to economic infeasibility, based on the costs to implement the multiple process changes required, compared to the low volume of requests requiring a Buried Service Wire augment as estimated by AT&T and by Qwest’s research.

Sincerely, Qwest Communications

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the April 20, 2005 CMP Meeting

April 12, 2005

AT&T Sharon Van Meter

SUBJECT: CR # PC020705-1 Buried Service Wire Process Change

This letter is in response to AT&T’s Change Request (CR) PC020705-1 Buried Service Wire Process Change. This CR requests that Qwest develop a process to notify CLECs, on the customer due date, that Buried Service Wire is needed and allow the CLEC to accept the charges while the technician is still on the customer’s site. AT&T expects Qwest to develop and implement a process for CLECs to accept the Buried Service Wire fee while the outside technician is still at the customer premises.

Qwest would like to place this CR in evaluation status in order to continue with analysis of the existing process and look at potential solutions for this change request. Qwest will provide an updated response at the May CMP meeting. Qwest will move this CR to Evaluation status.

Sincerely,

Jim Recker, Qwest Communications

Open Product/Process CR PC112904-1 Detail

Description Of Change

AT&T is requesting that Qwest change its process to allow a CLEC to choose the response for quoting rates and/or referring an AT&T Local customer to the appropriate phone number. The response might include a rate quote provided by AT&T for its rates or a referral to an 800# provided by AT&T Local Services.

Status History

Project Meetings

- June 15, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that this was effective on June 3, 2005 and would like to move to CLEC Test. This CR is now in CLEC Test.

May 18, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest stated that the notices had been sent and that the proposed effective date is June 3, 2005. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked that once this is effective, if the Questionnaires needed to be updated before they could use this new process. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest responded yes. This CR remains in Development status.

April 20, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that notices were sent on April 19th for the PCAT changes, the OS Questionnaire and the New Customer Questionnaire and that the proposed effective date is on June 3rd. Peggy then noted that this CR would remain in Development status. Liz Balvin-Covad asked if they would be able to use them on the effective date. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated yes.

-- March 22, 2005 Adhoc Meeting Attendees: Sharon Van Meter - AT&T, Carol Kearney - AT&T, Anne Trees - Qwest, Elizabeth Hamilton - Qwest, Marty Cruze - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Lynn Stecklein - Qwest stated that a request was made by AT&T in the March CMP Meeting that Qwest schedule an adhoc meeting to discuss the proposed changes to the PCAT and the Questionnaire. Sharon Van Meter - AT&T provided the history of this CR for Carol Kearney (AT&T). Anne Trees - Qwest stated that the Qwest solution is that in most cases we will be able to provide a rate quote to the Customer. Carol Kearney - AT&T asked if Qwest considered the number referral. Anne Trees - Qwest said that we did not due to some limitations associated with the number referral. Carol Kearney - AT&T asked if Qwest will be able to identify the AT&T Customer. Anne Trees - Qwest said that we will be able to identify the Customer. Carol Kearney - AT&T asked if this feature will be available for all Customers or just AT&T Anne Trees - Qwest stated that this feature will be available for any CLEC. Carol Kearney - AT&T stated that AT&T Management has placed a freeze on rate increases. She asked what rate does the Operator quote if rates are not provided. Anne Trees - Qwest said that the rate quote defaults to the Qwest rate. Carol Kearney - AT&T said that she hopes the rates are close and said that she needs to go back to her Management Team to determine what rates AT&T will provide. Anne Trees - Qwest stated that if AT&T chooses not to provide rates, we will quote Qwest rates. Anne said that is up to AT&T but that the vehicle will be there. Anne said that the Customer will provide the rate information on the DA Questionnaire. Carol Kearney - AT&T asked if there was a charge for this feature. Anne Trees - Qwest said that there is no charge. Carol Kearney - AT&T asked how long would it take for Qwest to begin quoting the rates they provide. Elizabeth Hamilton - Qwest said that the turnaround time is approximately four weeks. Sharon Van Meter - AT&T said that Qwest only chose to quote the rates and asked if it might be possible to refer the Customer back to the 800 number. Anne Trees - Qwest stated that we did not pursue due to system limitations and that one percent of Customers ask for a rate quote. Anne said that rate quotes are available in Arizona, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, Idaho, and Utah. Anne said that this feature is not availble in Montana, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wyoming and South Dakota. She said that the information will be provided by OCN and State. Anne also said that if the Customer's rates change, the Questionnaire needs to be updated. Anne asked if AT&T was Facility Based. Sharon Van Meter - AT&T said that she was not sure. Elizabeth Hamilton - Qwest stated that Facility Based and UNE are both treated by OCN and with the same rates. Sharon Van Meter - AT&T asked if there will be links letting them know where to find information for this feature. Elizabeth Hamilton - Qwest said yes. Sharon Van Meter - AT&T asked if Qwest could include which PCAT and where in the PCAT this information can be found. Anne Trees - Qwest said that the update will be in the Operator Services PCAT under Optional Features. Marty Cruze - Qwest asked if/when there are OSPS conversions does the PCAT need to be updated. Anne Trees - Qwest said yes and that we will be working towards getting the other States functional. Carol Kearney - AT&T asked when this feature will be functional. Anne Trees - Qwest said that we are currently working on getting the PCAT and Questionairre updated and should be functional by the end of April. Sharon Van Meter - AT&T asked what Level of Notification will be sent. Anne Trees - Qwest said that a Level 3 Notification will be sent. Sharon Van Meter - AT&T explained the comment cycle to Carol Kearney (AT&T). Carol Kearney - AT&T asked if this applies to DA rates and what does Qwest quote today. Anne Trees - Qwest said that the Questionnaire includes DA and that they can change the DA rate. Anne said that Qwest quotes the Qwest DA rate today. There were no other questions.

March 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that Qwest was still working on the PCAT updates and the updates to the OS Questionnaire and that the CR remains in Development status. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T requested that another call be scheduled once the process has been determined and prior to the PCAT updates going into effect. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest agreed to schedule the call with AT&T. This CR remains in Development Status.

- February 16, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that we can provide the functionality in the Central and Western regions and will move forward in the updating of the PCAT and the OS/DA questionnaire, with the appropriate notices. Peggy stated that in the Eastern region, this is technically not possible due to the equipment in that region. This CR moves to Development status.

-- January 19, 2005 Discussed in the January Product Process Monthly CMP Meeting Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the Clarification Meeting was held in December and that internal meetings are continuing in order to discuss this request. Peggy stated that Qwest would like to move this CR to Evaluation Status and that a status would be provided in the February CMP Meeting. Sharon Van Meter/AT&T asked if there was any status at all. Susie Bliss/Qwest stated that this request is looking expensive and noted that we are continuing to look at options. Susie stated that new technology would be needed for this request as it is very complex. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she sees an economically not feasible denial coming. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR moves to Evaluation Status.

-- December 15, 2004 Product/Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T presented the CR and stated that the Clarification call had been held. Sharon stated that if the calling party asks for the rate to interrupt a line or to do a busy line verify, that Qwest may quote the rate or refer the caller to their local company. Sharon stated that Qwest has stated that the cost for a local collect call or for alternately billed calls cannot be provided. Jill Martain-Qwest asked if there were any questions or comments. Liz Balvin-Covad stated that she thought it was Qwest’s policy to refer the end user because Qwest can identify if is a CLEC customer. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that if the CLEC is Facility Based, Qwest can identify if the caller is a non-Qwest customer. Sharon stated that they do not want Qwest rates quoted and that this process cannot be across the board, it needs to be each CLECs option. Susie Bliss-Qwest asked if this information was discussed at the Clarification call. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated yes.

December 9, 2004 Clarification Meeting Minutes Attendees: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Anne Trees-Qwest, Carolyn Vance-Qwest

Review Requested CR Description: Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest reviewed the CR Title, Number, and Description. Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest confirmed the Product impacted is Operator Services. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she issued the CR as a result of her Service Managers recommendation. Sharon asked what Qwest does when AT&T Local dials 0 and requests a rate quote for a local collect call, calling card call, busy line verify, interrupt a line, or if the operator completes the call. Anne Trees-Qwest stated that if an AT&T end user dials 0 and asks for the cost for the person that the call is being billed to, that person may not be an AT&T end user customer. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that was correct. Anne Trees-Qwest stated that the originator is billed if the call is not alternately billed and Qwest normally quotes Qwest rates. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that AT&T wants the operator to refer the person requesting the rate quote to their local company and to give the requestor the local provider telephone number; or for the operator to quote the local provider's rate. Sharon stated that the option needs to be the CLECs choice as some CLECs do want Qwest rates quoted. Anne Trees-Qwest asked if AT&T was re-rating the calls and noted that Qwest currently only quotes Qwest rates because Qwest only knows Qwest rates. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that if the Qwest rate is $1.00 and AT&Ts rate is $1.50, the operator needs to say that the AT&T rate is $1.50. Anne Trees-Qwest asked to confirm that AT&T would then bill their end user at Qwest's rate. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T responded yes. Sharon stated that if AT&T wants Qwest to quote a rate, AT&T would bill whatever that quoted rate is. Anne Trees-Qwest asked to confirm that this request is for busy line verify or busy line interrupt and is not for alternately billed clls. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that was correct. Sharon noted that if the request is for a rate quote to interrupt a line, Qwest should quote the AT&T rate and AT&T would bill the customer the amount of the quoted rate. Sharon stated that another solution would be that the Qwest operator could refer the caller to their local provider, or could refer the caller to the local provider's telephone number. Sharon stated that AT&T does not want Qwest rates quoted to the CLECs customer. Anne Trees-Qwest stated that Qwest does not maintain other companies rates and stated that this request is not for alternately billed calls. Anne again stated that this request would cover busy line verify or busy line interrupt, operator assisted calls. Anne stated that if the request is for the cost of a collect call, Qwest quotes Qwest rates. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that that would be an alternaltely billed call and Qwest rates would be quoted. Sharon stated that all are in agreement. Sharon stated that she understands that the request is not for alternatley billed calls. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if the Qwest operator can tell if the caller is an AT&T customer. Anne Trees-Qwest stated that the term AT&T customer is perplexing and stated that it could mean AT&T local customer, QPP, Facility Based with AT&T having their own switch. Anne stated that she needs to research to see if the operator can identify if the call is from an AT&T switch, if a reseller, or if UNE-P. Carolyn Vance-Qwest stated that if the call comes in from an ILEC or an IXC, we would know that the NPA NXX is not Qwest's. Carolyn stated that identification would also need to go down to the 10-digits and she does not know that an operator station can determine if the call is a CLEC call or can identify which CLEC. Anne Trees-Qwest stated that the request is dependant on if the NPA NXX owner can be identified. Anne stated that Qwest would do some research. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if this request might be possible if Qwest can identify that the NPA NXX is not a Qwest customer. Anne Trees-Qwest stated that Qwest would discuss internally. There were no additional questions or comments. Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest stated that Qwest would provide a status at the January CMP Meeting. The call was adjourned.

- December 6, 2004 Email Sent to AT&T: Sharon, I hope you had a great vacation. I have scheduled the Clarification Call for PC112904-1 Rate Quotes and Number Referrals from Qwest Operator Services. Call details are as follows: DATE: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 TIME: 9:00 am MT CALL IN: 1-877-564-8688, conference id of 8571927 Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP CRPM

CenturyLink Response

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the January 19, 2005 CMP Meeting

January 10, 2005

AT&T Sharon Van Meter

SUBJECT: CR # PC112904-1 Rate Quotes and Number Referrals from Qwest Operator Services

This letter is in response to AT&T’s Change Request (CR) PC112904-1 Rate Quotes and Number Referrals from Qwest Operator Services. This CR requests that Qwest change its process to allow CLECs to choose the response that Qwest Operators state when quoting charges to any other local service company customer. AT&T requests that this process be an option that each CLEC may choose or not choose to utilize.

Qwest would like to leave this CR in evaluation status as it needs to continue to look at the existing process. Qwest will provide an updated response at the February CMP meeting. Qwest will move this CR to Evaluation status.

Sincerely,

Anne Trees, Sr. Process Analyst Qwest Communications

Open Product/Process CR PC022703-5 Detail

Description Of Change

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

Status History

Project Meetings

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meeting Agenda:

1.0 Introduction of Attendees Attendance notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Attendees are the correct personnel

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

6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None

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

CenturyLink Response

April 8, 2003

Sharon Van Meter ATT

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Deni Toye Process Specialist Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC022703-4 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

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

Status History

Project Meetings

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

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

04-16-03 - CMP Meeting

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

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

03-19-03 - CMP Meeting

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

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

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

1-877-550-8686 2213337#

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CenturyLink Response

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

Sharon Van Meter AT&T Communications

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, Jane Lacy Product Manager

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

April 9, 2003

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

Sharon Van Meter AT&T

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jane Lacy

Open Product/Process CR PC050503-4CM Detail

Description Of Change

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

Expected Deliverable

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

Status History

Project Meetings

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

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

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

Clarification Meeting

May 13, 2003

1-877-572-8687 3393947#

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

Meeting Agenda: 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Attendees introduced

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

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

3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted All CR Clarification Meetings

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

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

6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests none

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

Open Product/Process CR PC030504-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

AT&T expectation is that Qwest deliver this 60 day process for validating maintenance bills no later than July 1, 2004.

Status History

Project Meetings

5/27/04 10:43 a.m. From: Pardee, Carla D, NEO [cdickinson@att.com] To: Sanchez Steinke, Linda Subject: RE: AT&T PC030504-1 Linda - I have been asked to push back on Qwest on this request. Since the phone numbers have been provided, the dates and times should be evident to Qwest. If this is not the case, please let me know. Thanks for your continued assistance on this one.

--Original Message-- From: Sanchez Steinke, Linda [mailto:Linda.SanchezSteinke@qwest.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 6:50 PM To: Pardee, Carla D, NEO Subject: FW: AT&T PC030504-1

Carla - Did you find the dates for these ticket examples.

Linda Sanchez-Steinke CRPM Qwest 303-382-5768

05/19/04 May CMP Meeting Mark Gonzales with Qwest said that we are evaluating this CR and will have an update at the June meeting. This CR will be moved to Evaluation status.

5/7/04 1:08 p.m. From: Linda Sanchez-Steinke To: Carla, Pardee Subject: RE: AT&T PC030504-1 Carla - Would you be able to find out the dates and ticket numbers for these repairs?

Linda Sanchez-Steinke CRPM Qwest 303-382-5768

5/4/04 11:50 a.m. From: Pardee, Carla D, NEO [cdickinson@att.com] To: Sanchez Steinke, Linda Subject: RE: AT&T PC030504-1

Linda - here are the examples from Grant. Sorry for the delay, he was using the wrong e-mail address. Thanks.

Date: 5/4/04 10:41 From: Brown, Benjamin G (Grant), CSPMG [bgbrown@att.com] To: Pardee, Carla D, NEO, Riplinger, Linda K, CMOPM Subject: RE: Qwest Maintenance Wirecheck 30-60 Day Hold - AT&T PC030504-1

Here is what I sent to Linda S.

--Original Message-- From: Brown, Benjamin G (Grant), CSPMG Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 10:37 AM To: 'linda.sanchez-steinke@qwest.com' Subject: Examples for CR PC030504-1

Linda,

I was told to forward these examples supporting CR PC030504-1 to you.

480.836.8691 602.268.4706 480.946.0773

Grant Brown AT&T

5/3/04 4:19 p.m. From: Pardee, Carla D, NEO [cdickinson@att.com] To: Sanchez Steinke, Linda Linda - and I followed up with Linda Riplinger and she said that Grant had sent three examples to you, I will find out what is going on! Sorry for the delay.

From: Sanchez Steinke, Linda [mailto:Linda.SanchezSteinke@qwest.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 3:47 PM To: Pardee, Carla D, NEO Subject: RE: AT&T PC030504-1

Hi Carla - Welcome back from vacation! I just wanted to let you know that I did not receive examples-- at CMP when Grant presented, he said he would provide to Donna. When Donna was out, I left a voice mail for Bern Seigler on Friday and haven't heard back.

Let me know if you have anything.

Linda Sanchez-Steinke Qwest CRPM 303-382-5768

4/30/04 9:32p From: Osborne-Miller, Donna, NEO [dosborne@att.com] To: Linda Sanchez-Steinke @qwest.com Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: Examples PC030504-1 I will be out of the office beginning Monday, April 26, 2004, with an undetermined return date. In my abscence please contact Bern Seigler, 770-248-2127. Thank you, Donna

4/30/04 9:24 a.m. From: Linda Sanchez-Steinke To: 'dosborne@att.com' Subject: Examples PC030504-1 Hi Donna -

At the April CMP, Grant Brown said that he would provide you some examples, and I'm wondering if you received any. This was on the CR PC030504-1 "Qwest Premise Visits for Wirechecks and Subsequent Billing to CLECs (AT&T Local)".

Thank you

Linda Sanchez-Steinke CRPM Qwest 303-382-5768

04/21/04 April CMP Meeting Donna Osborne-Miller with AT&T presented this CR. Grant Brown with AT&T will forward examples to Donna and she will forward to Linda Sanchez-Steinke at Qwest.

Bonnie Johnson with Eschelon fully supports this CR and would like to add all non-design products to the scope of this CR. Bonnie added that design products have an effective process that holds the ticket for two weeks prior to billing. When CLECs go through the dispute process it takes time and resources and Eschelon has one person working full time on this. Many times there are multiple repair tickets and they end up being a Qwest repair problem in the end.

Mike Zulevic with Covad supports this CR and said that Covad has problems reconciling billing on line shared and line splitting products.

Liz Balvin with MCI said that recently a CR for MLT testing prior to service order completion on DSL was denied because it was economically not feasible. There is a 51% failure rate on those circuits. Liz added that she has requested more information on that denial and there are many failures after handing off circuits to the CLECs.

Jen Arnold with U S Link said she also supports this CR.

Kit Thomte with Qwest asked if there would be billing examples provided. Grant said that these would be TN’s. Qwest doesn’t provide the TN level detail and would need help to determine if these were billed. This CR will be moved to Presented status.

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

1:30 p.m. (MDT) / Monday March 15, 2004

1-877-572-8687 3393947# PC030504-1 Qwest Premise Visits for Wirechecks and Subsequent Billing to CLECs (AT&T Local)

Name/Company: Linda Riplinger, AT&T Carla Pardee, AT&T Bud Witte, Qwest Designed Services Alice Matthews – Qwest Wholesale Terri Kilker – Qwest Wholesale Shirley Tallman – Qwest Network Mark Gonzales – Qwest Network Alan Braegger – Qwest Designed Services Field Laura Baird – Qwest POTS Field Linda Sanchez-Steinke, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Qwest welcomed all attendees to the meeting.

Review Requested (Description of) Change Linda Sanchez-Steinke with Qwest read the description of change from the submitted change request; AT&T requests that Qwest implement a process to validate accurate billing for premise visits for wirechecks and subsequent maintenance issues by holding billing for 60 days preferably, (30 days minimum), to ensure that a maintenance issue is properly billed. At the present, Qwest may dispatch a maintenance technician to an AT&T UNE-P end user premise and initially not discover a problem, but subsequently another dispatch is made which does reveal a Qwest issue. Qwest bills for the first premise visit, even though the billing should not have occurred, as it was a Qwest issue, ultimately. AT&T simply requests that Qwest hold itself responsible for maintenance billing for 60 days to ensure appropriate and accurate billing to CLECs. Shirley Tallman with Qwest asked if wirechecks and premise visits were the same as TIC (Trouble Isolation Charges). Bud Witte with Qwest asked if these were maintenance of service charges. Linda Riplinger provided an example: a trouble ticket was issued for condensation on the wires and Qwest determines there isn’t condensation, but then there is a subsequent trouble ticket and trouble found on the Qwest side. Bud Witte explained the process on the designed services side is to delay billing 14 days and asked if billing was done on anything over 30 days. Alice Matthews with Qwest said that work over 30 days drops out and does not bill. AT&T said that other RBOCs are moving from 30 to 60 days and the 14 day billing delay would not be sufficient.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted UNE-P POTS

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

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Linda Sanchez-Steinke read the Expected Deliverable; AT&T expectation is that Qwest deliver this 60 day process for validating maintenance bills no later than July 1, 2004.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None identified.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) AT&T will present this CR at the April CMP Meeting. Qwest will provide a response in May.

CenturyLink Response

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the June 2004 CMP Meeting

Carla Pardee AT&T

SUBJECT: Change Request Response – PC030504-1 “Qwest Premise Visits for Wirechecks and Subsequent Billing to CLECs (AT&T Local)”

This letter is in response to AT&T’s Change Request PC030504-1. This CR requests that Qwest implement a process to validate accurate billing for premises visits for wirechecks and subsequent maintenance issues by holding billing for 60 days preferably, (30 days minimum), to ensure that a maintenance issue is properly billed.

An analysis was performed to determine the implementation costs of this CR including resources and systems. A total of 2000 billed tickets were used which represents all CLECs volume of billed tickets for one month. Currently Qwest does not have a work group to analyze non-design tickets once they have been closed by the technician. In order to analyze the tickets Qwest would be required to deploy a new dedicated work group to perform the work function at an estimated cost $351,878 annually. This change would also require System modifications estimated at $1,020,000.

In addition, the State of Arizona ordered in, Docket Number T00000A-97-0238, that Maintenance and Repair charges must be processed and billed in a timely manner. The Arizona Commission stated that Maintenance and Repair charges must appear on the bill within two bill cycles after the ticket close date. The ticket close date is the date the work was completed. To comply with Docket Number T00000A-97-0238, Maintenance and Repair tickets must be processed within 30 calendar days of the date the work was completed.

Qwest respectfully denies this change request because it is economically not feasible and because regulatory reasons prohibit the change as requested.

Sincerely,

Mark Gonzales Staff Advocate Qwest Communications

May 11, 2004

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the May 19, 2004 CMP Meeting

Carla Pardee AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC030504-1 "Qwest Premise Visits for Wirechecks and Subsequent Billing to CLECs (AT&T Local)"

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request (CR) PC030504-1. This CR requests that Qwest implement a process to validate accurate billing for premise visits for wirechecks and subsequent maintenance issues by holding billing for 60 days preferably, (30 days minimum), to ensure that a maintenance issue is properly billed.

Qwest is currently evaluating this change request and propose moving this CR into Evaluation Status while a complete answer to the request is prepared.

Sincerely,

Mark Gonzales Staff Advocate Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC110403-1ES Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

December 2003

Status History

Project Meetings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CenturyLink Response

December 9, 2003

AT&T Carla Dickinson Pardee LSAM Manager

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

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

Qwest is currently reviewing the processing and functionality provided by the FAM file. Qwest requests that this CR be placed in Evaluation status. AT&T has also requested an additional meeting be held to discuss the FAM file in more detail. Qwest will schedule the additional meeting.

Sincerely,

Connie Winston Qwest Communications

Open Product/Process CR PC111903-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

By January 2004, AT&T expects the following deliverable: A website listing all Event Notifiers sent by Qwest for the past 90 days. The website will provide, at a minimum: 1) event number; 2) complete description of event; 3) date submitted; 4) system type with Version number; 5) status; 6) severity level; and 7) region effected.

Status History

Project Meetings

9/15/04 CMP Meeting Mintues: Randy Owen – Qwest advised that we are still on track for deployment September 30, 2004. This CR will remain in Development Status.

8/16/04 CMP Meeting Mintues: Randy Owen – Qwest advised that last month the CLEC Community identified some issues and changes associated to this CR. Randy advised that Qwest will be able to make changes to the following fields: Status Column, Combine GUI/EDI when both are affected, Work Around Section, Notices affecting the release, and Patch date. Qwest is targeting implementation near September 30. Cindy Macy – Qwest asked the CLEC Community if it is okay to implement these with a Level 1 Notification. The CLEC Community agreed that was okay. This CR will remain in CLEC Test Status.

July 21, 2004 CMP Meeting Notes Randy Owen – Qwest advised that this was deployed on July 2. Qwest has not received any comments as of yet. Donna Osborne-Miller ATT advised that she does have feedback from Phyllis Burt. When you export the report the status field is not available. The field needs to identify ‘common’ if the event impacts both EDI and GUI. Liz Balvin – MCI said she also identified this same issue. In addition, MCI would like the ‘Work Around Solution’ identified on the spreadsheet, also would like to know what release is impacted, and would like the Patch Date information. Stephanie Prull – Eschelon noticed on a ticket that it says ‘Qwest will initiate a call on XX date’. Steph asked if this is accurate as she thought that verbiage would only appear on tickets that warrant a call. Randy Owen – Qwest advised this is a bug that we are working on. Randy summarized the issues as Status Column, Common/EDI/GUI, work around on spreadsheet, release number, and patch date. Randy will check on these items and provide an update as to what Qwest can do. This CR will move to CLEC Test Status.

June 16, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Randy Owen – Qwest advised we have had some challenges in the development stage of this CR. The target date is June 30. We are making progress and plan on delivering in the June 30 timeframe. This CR will remain in Development Status.

May 19, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Randy Owen – Qwest advised that the development team has provided a target date of June 14 for this CR. Randy advised this will provide a download, with sort capability and a more complete picture of outstanding items. This CR will remain in Development Status.

April 21, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Randy Owen – Qwest advised that we are working with our development team on this CR. We do not have a firm date as of yet, but development is targeting May. Liz Balvin and Bonnie Johnson asked if this included the downloading capability. Randy advised yes. This CR will stay in Development Status.

March 17, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Randy Owen – Qwest advised that funding for this CR has been approved. This is an update from last month. We are waiting to schedule this CR. Carla asked for the schedule information to be sent to her as soon as possible. This CR will move to Development Status.

February 18, 2004 CMP Meeting Connie Winston – Qwest advised this CR also did not get approved as of yet. We are working on this and should have an update soon. This CR will remain in Evaluation Status.

January 21, 2004 CMP Meeting Connie Winston – Qwest advised this is the CR that was opened as part of the Global Action Item meetings. The work is not scheduled as of yet. Carla Pardee-ATT asked when is this planned for scheduling. Connie advised she does not have a definite date as of yet but hopes to have a schedule in February. Liz confirmed that this report would look like a spreadsheet of the Event Notification Report. Connie agreed. Liz asked about the additional details and root cause analysis information that was discussed. Connie advised we did not agree to provide that information. That information would be very labor intensive to provide. Liz advised it would be helpful to know what the problem was. Carla agreed that more detail is better. Bonnie said they want to know what made it break, how did we stop it (work around), and what is going to fix it going forward. Connie said that it takes a lot of over head to put together that level of detailed information on the event notification. The CLECs asked if Qwest looks at the reject code to find out if multiple CLECs are impacted. Connie advised Qwest does this, and looks at the global picture and sometimes the data does show a different perspective. This CR will move to Evaluation Status.

December 17 CMP Meeting Carla Pardee – ATT presented this CR. Connie Winston – Qwest advised that this CR is related to the Global Action Item meetings and was opened as a result of PC022703-9X. This CR will move to Presented Status.

Clarification Call PC111903-1 Website for Event Notifiers

December 4, 2003 11: 00 – 11:30 a.m. MT

Attendees: Jim Recker – Qwest Kim Isaacs – Eschelon Kyle Kirves – Qwest Steph Prull – Eschelon Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Carla Pardee – ATT Randy Owen – Qwest

Cindy Macy – Qwest opened the call and clarified for the users that this CR was opened as a result of decisions made at the Global Action Item meeting. PC022703-9X originally requested similar functionality, but through the Global Action Item meetings agreement was reached that a new CR would be opened (PC111903-1).

Carla Pardee - ATT reviewed the CR. Carla described the functionality that ATT is looking for. A website that displays all event notification, with event number, complete description of event, date submitted, system type and version number, status, severity level and region affected.

The CR also states that this website would display event notifications that have been submitted in the past 90 days. The team clarified the better way to display event notifications is to make them available for 30 days after they have been implemented. The clock would start when they are implemented.

Kim Isaacs – Eschelon asked if the description included the work around information. Randy Owen said they should be able to include this in the description, or include it as a field on the report. The plan is to use the event notification form. There may be an issue to the amount of space available on the web site. The original event notification is always available to view the work around information.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon suggested we show a field work around ‘yes or no’ and then if yes is populated you could view the work around information on the original event notification.

Discussion took place regarding sorting by system. Randy Owen – Qwest advised that system is a separate field on the event notification, so you should be able to sort by that field on the report. Sort functionality would be provided so users could sort by any specific field.

The CLECs asked on average how many event notifications are there in a 30 day period? Randy estimated at less than 30 and greater than 10.

Steph Prull – Eschelon requested the ability to sort by ‘individual version’. For example, if an event impacted multiple versions, to list the versions individually so the CLECs could view events by version. If a CLECs wanted to see all events that affect V13, they could sort by individual version.

The team agreed the right personnel were involved and that Qwest understood the CLECs expectations. This CR impacts all products and any area that an event notification could be issued on.

Next steps are for this CR to be presented by ATT at the December CMP meeting. Qwest will prepare a response at the January CMP meeting.

11/19/03 CMP Meeting Kit Thomte – Qwest advised that this CR was talked about Tuesday during the Global Action Item meeting. This CR was updated with the new title and description. Carla Pardee – ATT advised they would like to keep the old CR open and use the new CR description and title to open a different/new CR. Cindy Macy – Qwest asked if ATT would like to have the new CR clarified or had this happened during the Global Action Item meeting. Carla advised she would like Qwest to hold a Clarification Call for the new CR.

CenturyLink Response

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

January 14, 2003

AT&T Carla Dickinson Pardee LSAM Manager

SUBJECT: CR # PC111903-1 Web site for Event Notifier

This letter is in response to AT&T’s Change Request (CR) PC111903-1. This CR requests that Qwest provide a web site for Event Notifiers.

Qwest understands the requested change and the enhancements are under evaluation. Qwest will move this CR to Evaluation status.

Sincerely,

Connie Winston Qwest Communications

Open Product/Process CR PC061103-1ES Detail

Description Of Change

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

Expected Deliverable:

August 2003

Status History

Project Meetings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Product impacted UNE-P

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

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

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

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

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

CenturyLink Response

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

Carla Pardee AT&T

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Craig Suellentrop Staff Advocate, Policy & Law Qwest

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

August 13, 2003

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

Carla Pardee AT&T

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Craig Suellentrop Staff Advocate, Policy & Law Qwest

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

Open Product/Process CR PC022703-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable

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

Status History

Project Meetings

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

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

1-877-572-8687 3393947#

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

Meeting Agenda:

1.0 Introduction of Attendees Attendance noted

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Training / RPD

4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Agreed

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

6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None

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

Open Product/Process CR PC022703-6 Detail

Description Of Change

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

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

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

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

6. ESTABLISH PROJECT TRACKING NUMBER AND KEY MILESTONES.

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

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

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

- TECHNICIAN.

- PROJECT MANAGER.

- ESCALATION CHAIN.

10. DEFINE ANY SPECIAL ORDERING INSTRUCTIONS.

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

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

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

- BUSY CFA.

- DATA MISMATCH.

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

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

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

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

- PRE-WIRE.

- LOOP QUALIFICATION TEST.

- DIAL TONE CHECK.

16. AT NIGHT OF CONVERSION:

- PARTICIPATE IN PRE-CUT CALL

- MAINTAIN AVAILABILITY DURING CUTS

- CUT ONE LINE AT A TIME.

- COMPLETE ALL SCHEDULED CUTS AND ACKNIOWLEDGE PROJECT COMPLETION

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

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

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

Expected Deliverable:

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

Status History

Project Meetings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meeting Agenda: 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Attendees Introduced

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

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

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

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

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

3-6 no comments

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

8-10 no comments

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

12 – 17 no comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.0 Confirm Areas & Products Impacted UNE P

4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved May need to include Monica Manning

5.0 Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Single Process documented

6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None

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

CenturyLink Response

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

AT&T Ervin Rea Manager

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- MAINTAIN AVAILABILITY DURING CUTS

- CUT ONE LINE AT A TIME.

- COMPLETE ALL SCHEDULED CUTS AND ACKNIOWLEDGE PROJECT COMPLETION

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Russell Urevig Sr Process Analyst Wholesale Service Delivery

April 8, 2003

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

AT&T Ervin Rea Manager

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

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

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

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

Qwest has schedule internal meetings to discuss the following items:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Russell Urevig Sr Process Analyst Wholesale Service Delivery

Open Product/Process CR PC051804-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

- 8/18/04 CMP Meeting Doug Andreen reported that a notice had been sent August 3, effective August 10 and requested the CR be moved to Test. The CR will be moved to Test.

-- 7/21/04 July CMP Meeting Anne Robberson, Qwest stated this CR will be accepted. Liz Balvin, MCI verified that the CR is requesting a clear message be sent to the CLECs if an address is not serviced by Qwest. Carla Pardee, AT&T said there is a real sense of urgency around this request and asked if there were any time frames for implementation. Donna Osborne-Miller, AT&T added that there is a Systems CR in the works for this and it was recommended that this issue also be addressed from the Process side because of the long timeline to implement the systems request. Jill Martain, Qwest said we would investigate the timeframe. The CR will be moved to Development.

Meeting Minutes CMP June Meeting Carla presented this CR as a walk-on last month. There were no further questions. The CR will move to Presented Status.

- Time/Date: Place: Conference Call-In No.: CR No.:CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting 11:00 a.m. (MDT) Wednesday, May 26, 2004 1-877-521-8688 1456160# PC051804-1 Clear and Consist Error Message when Requested Service Address is not Within Qwest Territory/Service Area Attendees Kim Isaacs, Eschelon Carla Pardee, AT&T Phyllis Burt, AT&T John Daugherty, AT&T Peggy Esquibel-Reed, Qwest Communications Anne Robberson, Qwest Communications Shirley Tallman, Qwest Communications Doug Andreen, Qwest

Meeting Agenda:Action 1.0 Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the conference call was made and the purpose of the call discussed. 2.0 Review Requested (Description of) Change

Doug Andreen, Qwest read the full description of the CR as follows: Currently Qwest provides multiple error messages when a requested service address is not within Qwest territory or service area. AT&T is requesting an interim process (M&P) be developed by Qwest which would advise Qwest agents to send one consistent and accurate error message when a potential end-user is not Qwest’s service area. AT&T requests an error message such as Requested service address is outside Qwest’s territory . This change request is being submitted as an interim process for Qwest to develop until a permanent process, as set forth in AT&T’s pending change requests SCR040204-01 and SCR040204-02 can be implemented.

Carla explained that the two SCRs have been initially denied but that there was some discussion at the May CMP meeting and Qwest is taking a second look.

Doug asked if we should modify this CR to reflect a permanent solution rather than an interim process since the two SCRs may be denied. After some discussion it was agreed not to modify the CR but keep in mind that any process designed here may be needed on a permanent rather than an interim basis.

Doug verified the product impacts as UNE-P only. Carla said that they might want to extend to Resale and Kim agreed. Doug will modify the CR to reflect Resale also.

Carla verified that they need this put in place as soon as possible and that the ASAP or no later than July 15 date specified on the CR was to indicate the urgency involved.

At this point the call was opened up to questions/clarifications from Qwest. Anne and Shirley had no questions at this time.

Doug explained the timeframes for next steps. This CR was a walk-on in the May CMP meeting. It will be formally presented by AT&T in the June meeting and the Qwest response would be due at the July meeting.

Phyllis asked why it would take so long to implement an M&P change. To her mind it should be easy to do.

Shirley explained that research needs to be done to determine when in Qwest processes it is determined that the address is out of area.

Anne asked if the address could also be an apartment complex that is owned by a different company. Carla answered yes, that this was part of the problem.

Shirley added that her sense is that at the time of order issuance that Qwest does not know if the address is one not serviced by Qwest and that this is discovered later on the order process. Anne added that it might not be till the order hits Network that the address if found to be out of area.

John added that those reasons were why AT&T was looking for a system solution to help identify an out of area address as early in the process as possible.

Phyllis asked if from a process perspective there was a way to shorten the timeframe.

Doug said he would look into this. However the timeframes were established following the CMP process. Also if the SCRs moved forward they would be votable candidates for the 17.0 release which would be released in April 2005. (After the meeting Peggy informed Doug that AT&T had asked that these CRs be Late Adders into the 16.0 Release and AT&T was then notified, by Qwest, that the CRs were looking to be denied. Peggy stated that if the CRs do in fact move forward, they will be eligible for the 17.0 vote).

Anne asked if AT&T could send some examples for her to look into. Phyllis said she would get examples to Carla who will forward to Doug for distribution at Qwest.

There were no further questions or discussion and the meeting was adjourned.

3.0Confirm Areas & Products Impacted JUNE and possible expansion to Resale

4.0Confirm Right Personnel Involved Yes

5.0Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation Implemented ASAP or no late than July 15

6.0Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests SCR040204-01 and SCR040204-02

7.0Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) AT&T will present the CR at the June CMP meeting with a response being in the July timeframe.

CenturyLink Response

July 13, 2004

For Review by CLEC Community and Discussion at July’s CMP Meeting.

Carla Pardee LSAM Manager AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR # PC051804-01 - Clear and Consist Error Message when Requested Service Address is not Within Qwest Territory/Service Area

This is in response to AT&T’s request for a clear and consistent message when an LSR is submitted with a service address not serviced within Qwest territory.

Qwest accepts this CR as requested. Qwest currently has reject reason codes that are being returned when this scenario is identified at service order creation. The Reject codes are 801 for IMA version 15.0 users and 901 for IMA versions 13.0 and 14.0. The process being addressed is when this scenario is identified after service order creation, during the provisioning process. Qwest will agree upon verbiage to use and implement the verbiage as a Comment/Remark into the existing Jeopardy notification process for Error conditions identified after an FOC has already been sent.

In summary, we are working on the process as described in this CR and will be giving an update in the July CMP meeting.

Sincerely,

Anne Robberson Sr. Process Analyst Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC032603-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

3rd quarter 2003.

Status History

Project Meetings

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

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

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

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

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

Meeting Agenda:

1.0 Introduction of Attendees Attendees introduced

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

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

4.0 Confirm Right Personnel Involved Yes

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

6.0 Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None

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

CenturyLink Response

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

Carla Pardee AT&T

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

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

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

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

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

This request is denied because it is economically not feasible.

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

Sincerely,

Mallory Paxton Senior Process Analyst Qwest Services Corporation

Open Product/Process CR PC112403-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

Mark Coyne-Qwest stated that Qwest contacted AT&T and they agreed to withdraw this CR. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked for the description and status of this CR. Lynn Stecklein-Qwest stated that this CR is in a deferred status and is a request for a blocking feature for 411 and 555-1212. She said that AT&T completed testing and no longer needed this request. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that they would like to take a look to see if there is any interest in sponsoring this CR. She said that she may be thinking of another CR that was denied. Laurie Fredricksen-Integra stated that she could not find the CR on the agenda. Lynn Stecklein-Qwest stated that we just found out yesterday that AT&T wanted to withdraw so it is not in the package. She said that this discussion will be in the meeting minutes for their review

E-mail From AT&T

Hi Lynn, Sorry for the delay in responding to you.... it's taken awhile to find someone to provide input to this issue. Since it seems there is no longer support for this change and there is an existing solution, I would support withdrawing this CR. Thanks for your patience. Kathy

- From: Stecklein, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.Stecklein@qwest.com] Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 11:49 AM To: LEE, KATHY T, ATTCORP Cc: Esquibel-Reed, Peggy Subject: FW: PC112403-1 Request for blocking feature for 411 and 555-1212

Hi Kathy, The attached CR is currently in a deferred status. In January of 2006, AT&T stated that they were checking internally to determine if the testing with CustomNet Option 1 would satisfy the needs of this CR. (see below) Can you let me know if that testing is complete and if you want this CR to remain in a deferred status or if the testing met the needs of the request? If it has, we can place the CR in a Pending Withdrawal status for the October CMP Meeting. Thanks for your help in advance. Lynn Stecklein Qwest Wholesale CRPM

Lynn, I've finally found a person who is interested in this. We need to keep this open for now. We are checking on the testing. I'll try to get more status in a few days - after this specific person checks on the testing. Thanks. Sharon

- From: Stecklein, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.Stecklein@qwest.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 10:09 AM To: Van Meter, Sharon K, NEO Subject: RE: PC112403-1 Request for blocking feature for 411 and 555-1212

Hi Sharon,

Have you heard anything on whether AT&T has completed their testing?

Thanks,

Lynn Stecklein

Qwest Wholesale CRPM

303 382-5770

--Original Message-- From: Van Meter, Sharon K, NEO [mailto:svanmeter@att.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 11:26 AM To: Stecklein, Lynn Cc: Esquibel-Reed, Peggy Subject: RE: PC112403-1 Request for blocking feature for 411 and 555-1212

Lynn,

I'm checking internally - I'll let you know as soon as I hear something.

Sharon

E-mail send to AT&T 11/2/05

Hi Sharon,

We have been researching change requests that are currently in deferred status. The attached CR PC112403-1 (Request for blocking feature for 411 and 555-1212) is currently in deferred status. The project meeting minutes dated 2/18/04 states the following:

‘Carla Pardee, Qwest said that she is waiting for AT&T to conclude their testing with CustomNet Option 1 to see if this will satisfy the needs of this CR. She would like to move the Status to Deferred until AT&T completes testing.’

Can you let me know if AT&T has concluded the testing of the Customer Net Option 1? And, is so, does it meet your needs?

Thanks,

Lynn Stecklein

Qwest Wholesale CRPM

303 382-5770

2/18/04 CMP Meeting Carla Pardee, Qwest said that she is waiting for AT&T to conclude their testing with CustomNet Option 1 to see if this will satisfy the needs of this CR. She would like to move the Status to Deferred until AT&T completes testing.

-- 1/21/04 January CMP Meeting Aaron Smith, Qwest stated a Clarification Call was held on January 8 and that Operator blocking had just been added to the CR at that time. On the call it was felt CustomNet option 1 might meet the requirements of the CR. Carla Pardee, AT&T said that AT&T had evaluated CustomNet before but wanted something simpler. AT&T is now re-evaluating. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon stated Eschelon would submit a separate CR for a 411 block only. The CR will stay in Evaluation.

- Clarification Meeting 2:00 p.m. (MDT) / Thursday January 8, 2004 1-877-521-8688 1456160 PC 112403-1Request Blocking Feature for 411 and 5551212.

Attendees Carla Pardee, AT&T Dave Fane, AT&T Liz Balvin, MCI Kim Isaacs, Eschelon Patti Leo, Qwest Doug Andreen, Qwest Aaron Smith, Qwest Marty Cruze, Qwest Jo Wees, Qwest Carolyn Vance, Qwest Rose Bochnicek, Qwest John Gallegos, Qwest

Meeting Agenda: 1.0Introduction of Attendees

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

2.0Review Requested (Description of) Change

Doug Andreen, Qwest read the CR description: AT&T is requesting a single USOC, territory wide, that will block 411 and 555-1212. And added that recently AT&T had requested to add blocking operator (O) calls which is why we wanted to have a second clarification call with a wider audience than the first.

Carla Pardee, AT&T added that the intent is to block long distance call completion on customers that have delinquent bills.

Dave Fane added that this is a customer by customer block for customers not paying their bills.

Carolyn Vance, Qwest asked if the object was not to complete the call.

Dave answered yes with the same messages that are normally used.

There was much discussion around appropriate blocks to 411, 555-1212, O+ and 0- calls with the following outcome. CustomNet option 1 will block will block 411and 555-1212. 0+ calls are routed to an operator for alternate billing but cannot be billed to the owner TN. This was acceptable to AT&T. O- calls are completed to an operator but the operator’s screen indicates that calls cannot be charged to the owner TN and that the call may not be transferred to DA. However, calling card calls will not be blocked. This would have to be blocked separately in LIDB as done today.

AT&T agreed to test option 1 CustomNet to see if it would fully meet their needs and to let Doug know.

Kim Isaacs, Eschelon expressed a desire to have this CR appended to for a 411 block only.

Doug advised in order to not confuse the testing of CustomNet option 1 by AT&T and a block for 411 only that a new CR should be submitted.

Kim will submit the new CR.

3.0Confirm Areas & Products Impacted UNE-P

4.0Confirm Right Personnel Involved Correct personnel were involved in the meeting.

5.0Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation AT&T will test CustomNet option 1 to see if it meets their requirements for this CR.

6.0Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None

7.0Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) An update on testing will be made to Doug and also at the January CMP meeting.

- 12/17/03 December CMP Meeting Carla Pardee, AT&T presented this CR asking for a territory wide USOC that gives the ability to block a customers ability to reach a 411 or 5551212 DA operator. Carla realizes that Custom Net and Toll Block Restriction provides several features but not a single USOC as described above. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon supports the CR saying Eschelon has customers who need to block the ability to reach DA operators without interfering with long distance capabilities. The CR was moved to Presented status.

- CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting 12:30 p.m. (MDT) / Thursday December 11, 2003 1-877-521-8688 1456160# PC 112403-1Request Blocking Feature for 411 and 5551212. Attendees: Name/Company: Carla Pardee, AT&T Yolanda Bennett, AT&T Doug Andreen, Qwest Mallory Paxton, Qwest

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

Review Requested (Description of) Change Doug read the CR description: AT&T is requesting a single USOC, territory wide, that will block 411 and 555-1212.

Carla Pardee, AT&T added that she realizes that Custom Net and Toll Blocking offers a variety of features but AT&T desires a single USOC that blocks 411 and 555-1212.

Mallory Paxton, Qwest asked Carla if they want this only to block these two features.

Carla said yes.

Mallory asked if this was an option in other RBOCS?

Yolanda answered that it was available but she was unsure if it was a single feature.

Doug asked if the purpose was to block customers who owed bills from making long distance calls?

Carla answered yes.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted UNE-P

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

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation By February 2004, AT&T requests that Qwest implement a single USOC, Qwest territory wide, that will block 411 and 555-1212.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Carla will present for AT&T at the December CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

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

Carla Pardee LSAM Manager AT&T

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response PC112403-1 Request for blocking feature for 411 and 555-1212

This letter is in response to AT&T’s Change Request (CR) PC112403-1. This CR requests that Qwest provide a single USOC territory wide to block access to DA operators using 411 and 555-1212. Recently, AT&T added to the original CR a request to also block access to Operator (O) calls using the same USOC.

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