| Prior Archived Product/Process CMP's in One File |
Open Product/Process CR 4302321 Detail |
| Title: CSR Form Sub Account Number Field | ||||||
| CR Number |
Current Status Date |
Area Impacted | Products Impacted | |||
| 4302321 |
Withdrawn 2/18/2000 |
|||||
| Originator: Grigsby, Geoff |
| Originator Company Name: Covad |
| Owner: Routh, Mark |
| Director: |
| CR PM: Routh, Mark |
Description Of Change |
| Begin placing a field on the CSR form that USW would populate with the sub-account number. This is necessary because the sub-account number is required to disconnect and USW does not tract this number, which may happen many years after the installation was completed. |
Status History | ||
|
Project Meetings |
Open Product/Process CR 4302410 Detail |
| Title: DSL Pre qualification Loop Length Tool | ||||||
| CR Number |
Current Status Date |
Area Impacted | Products Impacted | |||
| 4302410 |
Withdrawn 1/24/2000 |
|||||
| Originator: Grigsby, Geoff |
| Originator Company Name: Covad |
| Owner: Routh, Mark |
| Director: |
| CR PM: Routh, Mark |
Description Of Change |
| DSL CLECs need to know actual loop length in order to determine what speed DSL service can be provided to a Customer. Using air feet to determine these speeds is only an estimate and the carrier must submit a request and wait for USW to respond. Often the order must be downgraded but this takes time while USW investigates loop length and rejects the order and a SUPP must be submitted. Providing an interactive tool that would give actual loop length prior to submitting the order would reduce costs for both CLECs and USW by preventing the resubmission of orders. |
Status History | ||
|
Project Meetings |
Open Product/Process CR 5236247 Detail |
| Title: Implement a process for CLECs to upload PIC information to Qwest to compare to the PICs in Predictor | ||||||
| CR Number |
Current Status Date |
Area Impacted | Products Impacted | |||
| 5236247 |
Withdrawn 8/15/2001 |
|||||
| Originator: Douglas, Kerrie |
| Originator Company Name: Eschelon |
| Owner: Routh, Mark |
| Director: |
| CR PM: Routh, Mark |
Description Of Change |
| We would like a process created to compare CLEC PIC information to what is in Qwest’s Predictor system. Although we understand that there is a Feature Verification section in CSR– the information is not real time. Ideally, we would like to upload a file to Qwest and have them run a query comparing the PIC information, which resides on a particular Qwest switch and then have the query results returned to the CLEC. We want this process to have the ability to be run on a nightly basis as needed. We would like Qwest to indicate what file format would work the best for Eschelon send for this type of query. If Qwest can return the query information in Excel, Access or common delimited format that would be preferred. The information we would like to have in compared is TN and PIC Codes. |
Status History | ||
|
Project Meetings |
Open Product/Process CR 5263137 Detail |
| Title: Re use facilities for CLEC CLEC carrier changes | ||||||
| CR Number |
Current Status Date |
Area Impacted | Products Impacted | |||
| 5263137 |
Completed 11/14/2001 |
Ordering | Centrex, Resale, Unbundled Loop, UNE-P | |||
| Originator: Powers, Lynne |
| Originator Company Name: Eschelon |
| Owner: Urevig, Russell |
| Director: |
| CR PM: Harlan, Cindy |
Description Of Change |
| Qwest should change its process so that Qwest will re-use facilities for CLEC-to-CLEC carrier changes. When an end-user customer changes carriers from one CLEC to another, Qwest has indicated to Eschelon that CLECs must order new facilities, because Qwest does not allow a CLEC to request re-use of the same facilities used by the other CLEC to serve the same customer. In one situation, for example, Eschelon placed an order to change an end-user customer from the on-net facilities of another CLEC to the on-net facilities of Eschelon. Qwest indicated that Eschelon must order new facilities and, when Eschelon did so, Qwest placed the order in held status. The other CLEC provided its PONs to Eschelon for that CLEC’s disconnect of its loops. Eschelon re-submitted the order, identified the PONs, and requested re-use of those facilities. Qwest responded that CLECs are not allowed to request re-use of CLEC facilities. Eschelon cancelled the order and resubmitted it later. The order again went in held status. The order is still in held status. (Eschelon has provided the specific information for this and other situations to its account manager.) Ordering new facilities, instead of re-using facilities, can result in delay, additional costs, and service disruption or downtime. Please modify Qwest’s processes so that Qwest will re-use facilities for CLEC-to-CLEC carrier changes. |
Status History | ||
|
Project Meetings |
| Email 08/28/01 Kathy, This confirms our conversation this morning that Change Request 5263137 can be closed based on Qwest's response dated August 7, 2001 presented at the 8/15/01 meeting. In addition, this is based on Qwest tracking System Action Item 308 as a separate request and addressing the quality issued experienced during cut-over. Thanks for your cooperation. Regards, Ric |
CenturyLink Response |
| August 7, 2001 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 July 13, 2001 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, unbundled to retail. 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 Wholesale Product Manager |
Open Product/Process CR 5263637 Detail |
| Title: Installation of adequate facilities and reduction in number of held orders | ||||||
| CR Number |
Current Status Date |
Area Impacted | Products Impacted | |||
| 5263637 |
Denied 2/20/2002 |
Ordering | Centrex, Resale, Unbundled Loop, UNE-P | |||
| Originator: Powers, Lynne |
| Originator Company Name: Eschelon |
| Owner: Buckmaster, Cindy |
| Director: |
| CR PM: |
Description Of Change |
| Modify Qwest’s processes to ensure installation of adequate facilities and reduction in the number of held orders. Through recurring rates, Qwest is being compensated for expanding its network to account for new growth. Qwest will build facilities for its own retail customers. (In Arizona arbitration's, for example, Qwest reported that it installs 3 lines per customer to anticipate growth.) However, Qwest will not do so for CLECs in similar situations. Qwest has rejected orders from Eschelon for the stated reason that “no jobs planned in the near future for this area.” (Examples of such rejections were provided to Eschelon’s account team on August 30, 2000.) The orders are placed in held status indefinitely, with no date for completion. When asked about these rejections, Qwest indicated it believes it has no obligation to build. At the last CICMP meeting, Qwest again confirmed that it is Qwest’s policy not to build additional UNE's when Qwest is out of capacity, but Qwest will build for a retail customer’s order. As indicated, however, Qwest is being compensated for such growth and would build for its own retail customer in the same situation. Please modify Qwest’s practices to build in these situations and to provide notice to CLECs as to when held orders will be completed. In the meantime, until such processes are in place, please institute a process to provide to CLECs (perhaps through a website) a list of those areas for which Qwest has jobs planned, a list of areas for which no jobs are planned, and a description of the nature of the jobs planned. Because Qwest has access to this information for its planning purposes, parity requires that CLECs also have access to the same information for their planning purposes.
Modification 08/22/01 - Added Action Item 25, Advance Notification of future builds. 08/22/01 - Added Action Item 28, Resale Orders vs. Unbundled Loop Orders-Held Order Process 08/22/01 - Added Action Item 29, State Specific Rules for future build policy |
Status History | ||
|
Project Meetings |
| Clarification Meeting October 29, 2001 Conference Call 866-289-7092 5263637, Installation of Adequate Facilities Attendees: Ric Martin, Qwest Susie Bliss, Qwest Kathleen Stichter, Eschelon 1.0 Purpose Review Qwest’s October 15, 2001 response and Eschelon’s e-mail dated October 18, 2001 2.0 Review Documents and Clarify Requirements 2.1 Ric Martin reviewed Eschelon’s e-mail and clarified that Eschelon wanted to clearly see the written policies and specific exceptions to the policies. 2.2 Susie Bliss explained that, to the maximum extent practical, policies specific to products would be contained in the product PCATs. Susie advised that Qwest agreed to clarify our policies and state any exceptions to the policy. Qwest is in the process of updating the General Unbundled Loop PCAT and the General Resale PCATs. Qwest is clarifying the exceptions under the Tariff, Regulations and Policy section of the above PCATs. Susie advised that within the next couple of weeks the two specific products would be updated in the PCAT to clearly define the policies and ensure that exceptions are clearly stated. 2.3 Kathy Stichter asked if there were any other exceptions like Minnesota. Susie Bliss explained that there were no other current exceptions. 2.4 Susie Bliss advised that as additional rulings get handed down, Qwest would update the PCATs accordingly and issue the requisite notifications. 2.5 Kathy Stichter asked about Qwest’s retail policy. Susie Bliss advised that the Qwest Resale is the Qwest Retail policy. 2.6 Susie Bliss is to provide the approximate timeframe for publishing the General Resale and General Unbundled Loop PCATs. 2.7 Ric Martin will communicate the dates to the CLEC Community via the requisite notifications. 2.8 Ric Martin advised that with the Update of the PCATs, it would be Qwest’s intent to move the CR into a CLEC Test Phase to allow the CLEC’s review the PCAT language. 2.9 Kathy Stichter stated that the above actions should meet their expectations.
--
RE: Response - CR 5263637 - Installation of Adequate Facilities - Fourth Attempt Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:36:33 -0500 From: Clauson, Karen L. ,klclauson@eschelon.com> To: Matthew Rossi , mrossi@qwest.com CC: Powers, F. Lynne,flpowers@eschelon.com, "Stichter, Kathleen L,. |
CenturyLink Response |
| "The below response does not include the attachments referenced in the response field. Please see Supplemental Information following the Detail Report." October 15, 2001 Lynn Powers Vice President, Eschelon Telecom, Inc. CC: Matthew Rossi This letter is issued to amend Qwest’s response letter dated August 9, 2001 and is in response to your CLEC Product & Process Change Request 5263637. Request – ? Modify Qwest’s processes to ensure installation of adequate facilities and reduction in the number of held orders. Through recurring rates, Qwest is being compensated for expanding its network to account for new growth. Qwest will build facilities for its own retail customers. (In Arizona arbitration's, for example, Qwest reported that it installs 3 lines per customer to anticipate growth.) However, Qwest will not do so for CLECs in similar situations. Qwest has rejected orders from Eschelon for the stated reason that “no jobs planned in the near future for this area.” (Examples of such rejections were provided to Eschelon’s account team on August 30, 2000.) The orders are placed in held status indefinitely, with no date for completion. When asked about these rejections, Qwest indicated it believes it has no obligation to build. At the last CICMP meeting, Qwest again confirmed that it is Qwest’s policy not to build additional UNEs when Qwest is out of capacity, but Qwest will build for a retail customer’s order. As indicated, however, Qwest is being compensated for such growth and would build for its own retail customer in the same situation. Please modify Qwest’s practices to build in these situations and to provide notice to CLECs as to when held orders will be completed. In the meantime, until such processes are in place, please institute a process to provide to CLECs (perhaps through a website) a list of those areas for which Qwest has jobs planned, a list of areas for which no jobs are planned, and a description of the nature of the jobs planned. Because Qwest has access to this information for its planning purposes, parity requires that CLECs also have access to the same information for their planning purposes. Response – As discussed earlier, currently Qwest has no plans to modify the existing policy or processes regarding Qwest’s obligation to build new facilities. The issues addressed in your CR have been discussed in workshops. Some of the issues have been resolved. Rulings have been received in 10 of the 12 workshops to date. In each ruling, the Commissions support the Qwest position that the ILEC is not required to build additional facilities to deliver to a CLEC. In order to help identify the current status of the issues we put together a summary outlined in Attachment A. This status was as of October 1, 2001. Attachment B documents our replies to the questions associated with this CR. We appreciate the time you spent clarifying each of your questions. Qwest will review our current PCATs to ensure they reflect the current status of any past rulings and we will continue to do so as states rule on the issues at impasse. Finally, between the August 7th reply, the August 9th reply, and the attached, Qwest believes we have addressed the issues associated with this CR and we need to let the regulatory process determine the next steps. Sincerely,
Susie Bliss Qwest Wholesale Process Director
-- August 9, 2001 Lynne Powers Vice President, Customer Operations Eschelon Telecom Inc. CC:Matthew Rossi Cindy Buckmaster Denny Graham This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form #5263637 dated December 1, 2000 Change Request: “Installation of Adequate Facilities and Reduction in Number of Held Orders” “Modify Qwest’s processes to ensure installation of adequate facilities and reduction in the number of held orders. Through recurring rates, Qwest is being compensated for expanding its network to account for new growth. Qwest will build facilities for its own retail customers. (In Arizona arbitration, for example, Qwest reported that it installs 3 lines per customer to anticipate growth.) However, Qwest will not do so for CLECs in similar situations. Qwest has rejected orders from Eschelon for the stated reason that “no jobs planned in the near future for this area.” (Examples of such rejections were provided to Eschelon’s account team on August 30, 2000.) The orders are placed in held status indefinitely, with no date for completion. When asked about these rejections, Qwest indicated it believes it has no obligation to build. At the last CICMP meeting, Qwest again confirmed that it is Qwest’s policy not to build additional UNEs when Qwest is out of capacity, but Qwest will build for a retail customer’s order. As indicated, however, Qwest is being compensated for such growth and would build for its own retail customer in the same situation. Please modify Qwest’s practices to build in these situations and to provide notice to CLECs as to when held orders will be completed. In the meantime, until such processes are in place, please institute a process to provide to CLECs (perhaps through a website) a list of those areas for which Qwest has jobs planned, a list of areas for which no jobs are planned, and a description of the nature of the jobs planned. Because Qwest has access to this information for its planning purposes, parity requires that CLECs also have access to the same information for their planning purposes.” Qwest Response: Qwest interprets both the FCC Telecom Act and subsequent UNE Remand to state that ILECs are obligated to make the existing network available to CLECs via unbundling. Qwest believes that this means that Qwest is not obligated to construct new facilities at its expense at the request of a CLEC. The first part of this Change Request requires that Qwest ensure installation of adequate facilities. Qwest recognized that holding CLEC requests led to the mis-interpretation that Qwest was willing to construct these UNEs at some point in the future. As this isn’t the case, Qwest issued the Qwest Network Build Position for the Unbundled Loop (UBL) Product and ensured all operational work groups adhered to this practice. In short, the Position statement states, Qwest will construct facilities for UBL that are in alignment with its Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) obligation to provide basic local exchange service in the retail markets. This means that Qwest will construct facilities to satisfy the primary DS0 - Analog (voice grade) lines for UBL as Qwest constructs these facilities for it’s own end-users. The Primary services identified above are specific to the set number of lines per address. Address is defined as the specific Unit (Loc). When the CLEC submits a request for a Secondary DS0-Analog (voice grade) line, DSL, ISDN, DS1 or DS3 service, the normal assignment process will be followed in its entirety. If no facilities can be found, and there is No Planned Engineering Job, the LSR will be rejected (the CLEC will receive a Reject Notice) and the Order will be cancelled. The CLEC now has the opportunity to request construction by filing the proper request through their Account Team.’ In this Statement, Qwest agrees to ensure adequate facilities to support Primary DS0-Analog (voice grade) requests only. The second issue in this Change Request deals with Held Orders. In various sections of the Request, Eschelon requires Qwest to reduce the number of held orders, not leave held orders in held status indefinitely, with no date for completion and to provide notice to CLECs as to when held orders will be completed. As Qwest believes the ILECs are not obligated to provide more than the existing network for the CLECs, it follows that the ILECs are not obligated to hold and review old CLEC requests on a regular basis. Therefore, Qwest’s implementation of the Network Build Position for the Unbundled Loop (UBL) Product ensured that all operational work groups were in alignment not to hold requests where facilities are not currently available. A third issue in this Change Request indicates that Qwest confirmed its policy not to build additional UNEs when Qwest is out of capacity. This issue is not entirely accurately represented. UNEs and retail services utilize the same physical facilities. Where facilities are exhausted, Qwest retail customers will suffer in the same fashion as CLEC customers. Where facilities are exhausted, Qwest will not have the ability to provide additional lines to any customer, retail or CLEC. In most of these circumstances, Qwest is working to reinforce the availability of facilities in these areas. The issue here is the availability of compatible facilities. For analog (voice grade) services, many types of facilities can be used. However, for some services, copper facilities are required. If Qwest has facilities that are not compatible for the services the CLEC is intending to deliver, Qwest will not construct compatible facilities for the CLEC. Finally, this Change Request addresses the availability of information related to plans for Network Builds. In response to this request, Qwest is announcing a Network Build Disclosure Web site. The Network Build Disclosure will notify the CLEC community of Outside Plant (OSP) growth jobs that exceed $100,000 in expense. The disclosure will consist of number of copper pairs or fiber strands placed per distribution area in wire centers, an estimated ready for service date and the final completion dates when job is complete. NOTE: Qwest will reserve the right to cancel jobs due to business decisions and will not be held liable for cancellations. This disclosure will be made September 30,2001 and will be continued on a monthly basis thereafter. Jobs will be dropped from the list 30 days after actual completion date is announced. Customers will be able to view the latest information regarding Qwest’s growth and major expansions in Qwest local serving area. This will help them to identify areas where additional facilities will be available for growth. This disclosure will be located on the Qwest’s external website located at www.qwest.com/wholesale/iconn/ Denny Graham Qwest Staff Compliance Representative Cindy Buckmaster Nancy Hoag Qwest Wholesale Products |
Open Product/Process CR 5263569 Detail |
| Title: Loop reclamation | ||||||
| CR Number |
Current Status Date |
Area Impacted | Products Impacted | |||
| 5263569 |
Completed 12/12/2001 |
Ordering | Centrex, Resale, Unbundled Loop, UNE-P | |||
| Originator: Powers, Lynne |
| Originator Company Name: Eschelon |
| Owner: Urevig, Russell |
| Director: |
| CR PM: |
Description Of Change |
| Perform loop reclamation for CLECs and provide prior notice of Qwest’s loop reclamation. Qwest has indicated that it will not perform loop reclamation to prevent a CLEC order from going into held status. In contrast, when Qwest “wins back” a customer from a CLEC, Qwest will perform loop reclamation and will do so without prior notice to the CLEC. For example, as shown in the example below, when Eschelon has placed a disconnect order on a UNE loop, Eschelon has received a rejection notice from Qwest indicating that Qwest has already disconnected the loop as a result of loop reclamation. Qwest disconnected the loop without prior notice to Eschelon. Because of this practice, an order will be processed (and not go into held status) for a Qwest retail customer, whereas a CLEC order would go into held status. The CLEC end-user customer would experience a delay (and possibly additional costs and service disruption), whereas the Qwest end-user would not. Please modify Qwest’s processes to perform loop reclamation for CLECs and provide prior notice of Qwest’s loop reclamation. |
Status History | ||
|
Project Meetings |
| 11:30 a.m. (MDT) / Tuesday 18th September 2001 Clarification/Walk-through Meeting Kathy Stichter, Eschelon Jerri Brooks, Qwest Ric Martin, Qwest Russ Urevig, Qwest Nancy Hoag, Qwest Linda Miles, Qwest Carolyn Brown, Qwest Introduction of Attendees Introduction of participants on the Conference Call was made. The purpose of the call was to discuss Qwest’s Action Plan for CR 5263569 Loop Reclamation, and to share the plan at a high level with Eschelon. Review of Response Russ Urevig reviewed the draft point paper that lays out the tentative Action Plan. R. Urevig stated that Qwest Recognizes there is an issue with Loop Reclamation and that a cross-functional team is looking at improving the process. R. Urevig stated training documentation for order writers is scheduled to be completed by mid September. R. Urevig stated there will be a trial program to test the process within the next 3-5 weeks. R. Urevig stated there is a non-competitive group within Qwest who will do the disconnect/reclamation with side by side training from Regional Support Groups. R. Urevig stated there will be a meeting on Friday 9/21/01 to discuss the Action Plan, Time Estimates and Recommended Changes. R. Urevig will provide the action plan with timeline and recommended changes to CMP group and Kathy Stichter of Eschelon. 09/12/01 - Email Jerri, Bonnie and I talked today. What Eschelon wants Qwest to modify their process to perform Loop Reclamation on all disconnect orders and if that is not possible to at least notify Eschelon when they have performed a Loop Reclamation. Kathy Stichter ILEC Relations Manager Eschelon Telecom Inc Voice 612 436-6022 E-Mail klstichter@eschelon.com From: Jerri Brooks [SMTP:jlbroo2@qwest.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 5:29 PM To: klstichter@eschelon.com Subject: CR 5263569 Kathy, Just a note to clarify that we are still working through the issues concerning this CR and an updated Qwest Response. First of all we want to clarify your Request as - "Eschelon wants Qwest to modify its process to perform loop reclamation for CLEC's and provide prior notice to Qwest's loop reclamation." If that statement is actually what you are requesting then we agree with you. I believe there is currently an effort underway between Qwest groups to conduct a process gap analysis. Immediately after the gap analysis is completed an Action Plan will be drafted with milestones, commitment dates, etc. I will keep you posted as we make progress on this CR. Please give me a call and we can discuss any other questions you may have. Thanks, Jerri 303-294-1290 |
CenturyLink Response |
| Wholesale Product Marketing December 4, 2001 CC: Russ Urevig This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form #5263569 dated December 1, 2000. The letter will identify the process the CLEC community will need to follow to assist Qwest in Loop Reclamation, and crediting to the CLEC’s. We are requesting the CLEC’s to provide to their service manager in spreadsheet form the following information: - The Qwest circuit ID ie; 3.LXFU.00012..nw - The PON number from which the circuit was established - The port back TN - The port back Date - The state in which the circuit was provided The service manager will be the interface into Qwest and establish a time line in which the process of clean up will start with the Interconnect service center. The Interconnect center will provide the service manager an estimated completion date for each CLEC. The individual CSR established for circuits will be credited back to the Port Out/Port In date to Qwest of that TN specified. For those circuits that can not be credited through the normal process the service manger will be involved with the billing credit process and assist the Interconnect service center to credit each CLEC.
Sincerley, Russ Urevig Senior Process Analyst
October 9, 2001 Final Response Lynne Powers Eschelon Telecom Vice President, Customer Operations CC: Russ Urevig Susie Bliss Jerri Brooks Joan Smith This letter is in response to your CLEC Change Request Form # 5263569 dated December 1, 2000. Change Request ? Perform loop reclamation for CLECs and provide prior notice of Qwest’s loop reclamation. Qwest has indicated that it will not perform loop reclamation to prevent a CLEC order from going into held status. In contrast, when Qwest “wingback” a customer from a CLEC, Qwest will perform loop reclamation and will do so without prior notice to the CLEC. For example, as shown in the example below, when Eschelon has placed a disconnect order on a UNE loop, Eschelon has received a rejection notice from Qwest indicating that Qwest has already disconnected the loop as a result of loop reclamation. Qwest disconnected the loop without prior notice to Eschelon. Because of this practice, an order will be processed (and not go into held status) for a Qwest retail customer, whereas a CLEC order would go into held status. The CLEC end-user customer would experience a delay (and possibly additional costs and service disruption), whereas the Qwest end-user would not. Please modify Qwest’s processes to perform loop reclamation for CLECs and provide prior notice of Qwest’s loop reclamation. Qwest response ? During our investigation we found that at times, the Small Business and Consumer groups were not always doing total loop reclamation on the end-users returning to Qwest for local services. Qwest has escalated this issue and pulled together a team from the Wholesale and Retail organizations to review current process and develop a new process to do full reclamation of facilities to provision loops. Extensive training on the new procedure has started. We are phasing in the new process as training is completed. Retail has made the commitment to perform full loop reclamation of facilities by Nov. 1, 2001. Additionally, we are developing a plan to address prior loops that should have been reclaimed. That plan will be completed by 10/26/01. Finally Qwest is investigating how we would notify customers of loss alerts. The initial project plan should be complete by 11/1. We are confident that the Retail organization understands the importance of loop reclamation and we will continue to monitor and make improvements on this process. Sincerely, Susan Bliss Director – Process Management |
Open Product/Process CR 5263671 Detail |
| Title: Legacy CR Facilities and Processes when Qwest uses IDLC | ||||||
| CR Number |
Current Status Date |
Area Impacted | Products Impacted | |||
| 5263671 |
Completed 4/18/2001 |
Ordering | ||||
| Originator: Powers, Lynne |
| Originator Company Name: Eschelon |
| Owner: |
| Director: |
| CR PM: |
Description Of Change |
| Modify Qwest’s processes to provide facilities, despite Qwest’s use of integrated pair gain (IDLC). Currently, Qwest’s IRRG states:
Unbundled Loops can only be established on copper or Universal Digital Loop Carrier (UDLC). Integrated Digital Loop Carrier (IDLC) cannot be used for an Unbundled Loop service at this time. Qwest has chosen not to unbundle IDLC because of the expense of providing equipment to "groom" the DS0 lines. During the Unbundled Loop facility assignment, an attempt will be made to Line and Station Transfer (LST) the IDLC loop to UDLC or copper. If there are no facilities available to complete the LST, the Co-Provider will be notified that the order has been placed into a held status. (Emphasis added.)
The FCC has said that "[t]he BOC must provide competitors with access to unbundled loops regardless of whether the BOC uses [IDLC] technology . . ." (BellSouth Second Louisiana 271 Order, 187 and SBC Texas 271 Order, 248.) The processes outlined in Qwest’s IRRG are not consistent with this requirement. In some cases, Qwest does not identify that IDLC is being used until the day of cut. When the discovery is made, Qwest may not dispatch a technician. Instead, Qwest delays the order or places it in held status. Qwest does so for all lines, even though facilities may be available for some of the lines. Please modify Qwest’s processes to be consistent with the FCC’s order. Also, please modify Qwest’s processes to identify earlier (before the day of cut) that IDLC is being used. If use of IDLC is not identified until the day of cut, ensure that a technician is available to resolve the issue that day (rather than delaying the order). If Qwest indicates that it does not have facilities for all lines, change Qwest’s processes so that the lines for which facilities are available may be installed (when the line configuration supports |
Status History | ||
|
Project Meetings |
Open Product/Process CR 4185985 Detail |
| Title: US West policy on a 2000 circuit limitation per Billing Account Number (BAN) | ||||||
| CR Number |
Current Status Date |
Area Impacted | Products Impacted | |||
| 4185985 |
Completed 2/21/2002 |
BAN | Billing Interface | |||
| Originator: Rodriguez, Cecilia |
| Originator Company Name: WorldCom |
| Owner: Routh, Mark |
| Director: |
| CR PM: Routh, Mark |
Description Of Change |
| US West has set a 2000 circuit limitation per Billing Account Number (BAN), for each US West region. This restriction places the burden on MCI Worldcom to develop functionality within it’s facility based systems, in order to maintain and manage multiple BAN’s per end user account for unbundled loops. MCIWORLDCOMs change request will impact unbundled loop orders. |
Status History | ||
|
Project Meetings |
CenturyLink Response |
| Option 1: Medium T-Shirt Size, Qwest could provide an email message to the Co-Provider when a BAN is close to reaching the 2000 circuit limitation. The message would be emailed to the same address as the Completion Loss Reports. Option 2: Large T-Shirt Size, Qwest could provide an electronic transaction to the Co-Provider when a customer's BAN is close to reaching the 2000 circuit limitation. 2/11/02 - The 10K table holds a record of updates (basically service order activity) against an account. When you get more than 2K TNs on a BAN, the likelyhood of having >10K activities against the account go up. The 2K is not a hard limit, it is just a cautious limit. The table can not be expanded so Qwest will provide Option 1 as the solution to this request. Qwest will however provide the CLECs with an e-mail notification when the 2000 TN limit is close to being reached. |
Information Current as of 1/11/2021