Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC090611-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

12/14/11 Product Process Monthly Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said a Level 2 notice would go out on December 16, 2011 with an effective date of January 7, 2012.

11/16/11 Product Process Monthly Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink advised that it would be a Level 2 notice to go out on December 16, 2011 with an effective date of January 7, 2012.

10/19/11 Product Process Monthly Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink stated the CR had been presented last month and that there was agreement that since there were no customers, a level 2 notice would be sent in December with an effective date of January 7. No other questions were raised.

9/21/11 Product Process Monthly Meeting Lee Brummett – CenturyLink presented the CR that was associated with five previously grandfathered USOCs in Nebraska that were now to be eliminated. He said the implementation date had been pushed from November to January 7, 2012. Lee requested that since there were no Wholesale customers, we would like to reduce the notice to a Level 2.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said since no one had objected, CenturyLink would proceed with a Level 2 notice.

Open Product/Process CR PC102803-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

1. Allow a CLEC an option to search the Qwest Wholesale Website only.

2. Allow a CLEC the option to search each subsection (Product & Process, Resources, OSS, Network, Training, Notices and Forums, Customer Service) on the Qwest Wholesale Website.

3. Qwest will start including a link to the Product on the Qwest Website on all CMP notifications that are grandparenting products.

Status History

Project Meetings

7/21/04 CMP July Meeting Doug Andreen, Qwest reported that this is still in the requirements gathering phase and there is nothing new to report. Jarby Blackmun, Qwest hopes to have an update next month. The CR will remain in Evaluation.

-- 6/16/04 June CMP meeting minutes Doug Andreen, Qwest said there is no new information this month and that IT is currently in the gathering and evaluation stage of search requirements. The CR will remain in Evaluation.

5/19/04 CMP May Meeting Doug Andreen, Qwest said that IT is currently in the gathering and evaluation stage of search requirements. There is no clear timeline available as yet. The CR will remain in Evaluation.

-- 4/21/04 April CMP Meeting Jarby Blackmun, Qwest offered some new information on this CR. The general status is that Qwest has strengthened its infrastructure using spidering, fail-over growth (similar to redundancy), spell check capabilities, and meta data improvements. Current tasks include requirements gathering and technical improvements. Jarby said she will work with project leads to evaluate technical capabilities to achieve desired search category needs addressed in the CR. There is no timetable on the effort. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon thought that the CR was going to be deferred. Kit Thomte, Qwest said that was considered since there didn’t seem to be much movement but now that there is movement we should leave in evaluation. The CR will remain in Evaluation.

03/17/04 Kit Thomte, Qwest noted that there may not be movement on this CR for some time. She suggested that the CR be moved to deferred status or deny status. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon said she would rather see a deny than deferred status. The CR will be denied and an action item opened to track any movement on this issue. The CR will remain in Evaluation status while the denial is being formulated.

-- 2/18/04 CMP Meeting Doug Andreen, Qwest stated there is no new information this month. The CR will remain in Evaluation status.

- 1/21/04 CMP Meeting Doug Andreen, Qwest stated there is no new information this month. The CR will remain in Evaluation status.

-- 12/17/03 December CMP Meeting Jarby Blackmun, Qwest reviewed the draft response. Kathy Stichter of Eschelon said she had looked over the response and tried the recommendations and still often was getting over 1,000 responses. Jarby agreed that if the type is Wholesale with other key words the system will look for any of the words making our best response to put more information in the notifications. Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon asked who would head up the effort to make sure the notification has current links. Jarby advised that this would be the Product Managers' and Process Managers via the documentation process. These managers have been advised. Bonnie also questioned what status this CR would be in. It was agreed to move the status to Evaluation.

11/19/03 Nov CMP Meeting Kim Isaacs - Eschelon, presented the CR to improve the search capabilities of the Wholesale web site to be able to search only Wholesale, and to be able to search each category separately. She said Eschelon is encouraging the use of the web site and that many responses to searches is discouraging use. Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon, added that on a recent search for a grandfathered product, 12,300 results were returned. She further said that on the Clarification call Jarby Blackmun - Qwest, had indicated that changes to this site was in the works on a global level and that in the interim Jarby is investigating if more information can be added to the grandfather notices. Jarby added that the Wholesale search engine is the same engine driving the entire Qwest.com website. She also added that the capabilities described in the CR would be input to the Qwest effort to revamp Qwest.com. This CR will move to Presented status. Kim Issacs/Eschelon added that Eschelon asked Qwest to add links to notices to locate information contained in either the PCATS or Retail information. Qwest said it would work with the notice group to accomplish.

- Clarification Meeting

11:30 p.m. (MDT) / Wednesday November 5, 2003

1-877-521-8688 1456160# PC102803-1 Improve Search Functionality of the Qwest Wholesale Website to minimize selections

Attendees: Name/Company: Kim Isaacs, Eschelon Bonnie Johnson, Eschelon Jarby Blackmun, Qwest Doug Andreen, 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 Doug read the description of the CR as follows: Eschelon asks Qwest to improve the efficiency of the Qwest Wholesale Website search function. The CLEC community depends on the information Qwest provides on the Qwest Wholesale Website to obtain information on Qwest’s process, products, SGATs and OSS. The current search functionality of the Qwest Wholesale Website provides too many results and impedes a CLEC’s ability to quickly obtain important information. For example, on 10-14-03 Qwest sent a CMP notice regarding the grandparenting of Single Service in AZ. To fully understand the impact of this product retirement, Eschelon wanted to review the product information for Single Service on the Qwest Wholesale Website. Using the search function on the Qwest Wholesale Website, we received 12,300 results. A handful of these results did not pertain to wholesale but were Qwest retail information and Qwest corporate information. It is a burden to expect the CLECs to search through 12,300 results to find the information pertinent to a product. The above is one example of the struggles a CLEC faces when attempting to find specific information on the Qwest Wholesale Website. Improving the search functionality and CMP notice process is critical to a CLECs ability to find the information necessary for a CLEC to do business with Qwest. Qwest will also benefit if CLECs have better access to information on the Qwest Wholesale Website. Easy access to information may decrease the number of calls to the ISC, Qwest Service managers, WSHD and the Qwest CMP team.

Bonnie and Kim had nothing to add to the description or expected deliverables.

Jarby stated that the request was clear to her.

Kim mentioned that Eschelon is trying to encourage use of the website in her company and that the current search abilities are a hindrance.

Jarby said that Qwest.com has one search engine that covers the entire website and that there is recognition with Qwest as to the need to improve the search engine.

Bonnie stated that when the redesign architecture is done the needs of Wholesale and the CLECs need to be included.

Jarby said that those concerns were and will be included and that she believes this could be on the books for next year.

Doug explained the next steps including presenting the CR at the November CMP meeting and then having the response during the December cycle.

Kim thought that in the interim if there could be a link established to the grandparented USOCS or a better description given in the notifications that this would help.

Jarby said she would check with Susan Lorence and Mark Coyne on what could be done with the grandparenting issue. Jarby said she would also explore ways to do better searches on the existing engine since they are all a bit different this could make a good degree of difference.

Kim and Bonnie agreed this could help.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted Qwest Wholesale Website

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

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation These expectations were confirmed. 1. Allow a CLEC an option to search the Qwest Wholesale Website only. 2. Allow a CLEC the option to search each subsection (Product & Process, Resources, OSS, Network, Training, Notices and Forums, Customer Service) on the Qwest Wholesale Website. 3. Qwest will start including a link to the Product on the Qwest Website on all CMP notifications that are grandparenting products.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None identified.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Kim will present the CR at the November 19 CMP Meeting. Response will be made during the December cycle.

CenturyLink Response

December 3, 2003

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the December 17, 2003 CMP Meeting

Kim Isaacs ILEC Relations Process Analyst Eschelon Telecom

SUBJECT: Qwest Change Request Response - CR # PC102803-1 Improve Search Functionality of the Qwest Wholesale Website to minimize selections

This letter is in response to Eschelon Communications Change Request CR # PC102803-1. This CR requests that Qwest provide improved search capabilities on the wholesale public web site and that Qwest include a link to the product on the Qwest Website on all CMP notifications regarding grandparented products. The request also include the need to refine searches to subsections within the Wholesale site, e.g. Product & Process, Resources, OSS, Network, Training, Notices and Forums, Customer Service.

The current web search engine covers all content associated with the qwest.com site architecture. This includes all html sites and associated documents found within the qwest.com/wholesale. To narrow a search to content found only within the wholesale site architecture, a user must enter the word wholesale in the search prompt box and any other specific word or phrase description. When the search returns its results, only look at results that contain the word wholesale and the other words or phrases, e.g. wholesale, poles, ducts, right of way. As an example, if a result shows the phrase poles, but does not show wholesale, the search pulled results from outside the wholesale architecture.

To further narrow a search, click on the advanced link (next to the search button), which should aid in refining a search. Choosing words or phrases that are specific to an inquiry can narrow a search. Example: searching for poles, ducts and right away will narrow the search and provide fewer responses than poles.

Browsers (Explorer, Netscape, AOL) generally contain an option to search within an HTML web page. As an example, in Explorer, look under the Edit Menu and select the Find on this Page tool. This will allow a user to search only within that page.

Qwest will include links to the appropriate product PCAT or will include the product manager contact information.

Sincerely,

Jarby Blackmun Senior Manager Wholesale Communications Initiatives

Open Product/Process CR PC070804-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverables: Qwest and CLEC will collaboratively develop a new process for ASR jeopardies that provides the CLEC consistent jeopardy information in a non-verbal communication mode.

Status History

Project Meetings

February CMP Meeting Minutes: Cindy Harlan - Qwest advised that Qwest held an ad hoc call on Monday February 14. The purpose of the call was to review Qwest's proposed process and obtain a decision from the CLEC community regarding whether to move forward or defer the CR. Bonnie agreed that she would provide a decision at the February CMP Meeting. Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon reported at the February CMP meeting that she took this back internally and would like to move forward implementing the email on initial facility jeopardy notifications. Bonnie advised that she is deciding how she wants to move forward with the CR. There was some discussion around either moving forward with the existing CR or deferring the existing one and creating a new one. Bonnie advised that she does not want to loose the work that has been done as the CLECs may want to revisit this, if something changes at Qwest as it may be possible to implement the rest of this CR at a later time. Cindy Harlan - Qwest advised we can work together to determine how to implement some of the work and defer the rest. Liz Balvin-Covad asked who would receive the email jeopardy. Jill advised an email address needs to be populated in the initiator field on the ASR and that is where the email jeopardy would be sent. Jill advised that Qwest has internal work that needs to be done to implement this. This CR will remain in Development Status.

PC070804-1 ASR Jeopardy Process Ad Hoc Call February 14, 2005

In attendance: Jeff Sonnier – Sprint Cindy Dahlstedt - Qwest Communications Bill Trefts – Time Warner Communications Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Bob Eggert – SBC Rosyln Davis – MCI Kathy Oaken - Qwest Communications Doug Denny – Eschelon Phyllis Sunins - Qwest Communications Cindy Harlan - Qwest Communications

Cindy Harlan reviewed the history of the CR. This CR requested that a process similar to LSR jeopardy process be implemented for ASRs. Qwest reviewed the ASR jeopardy process and offered to provide a email jeopardy on initial facility jeopardy condition (pre-RID), on Post RID jeopardy condition, and to utilize the current CNR jeopardy process. Cindy explained that the CLECs mentioned a concern regarding ‘piece parting’ the process and causing inconsistencies, but would check with their organization and provide feedback during this ad hoc call.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon recapped her concern about the process being inconsistent and using different methods. Bonnie explained that Eschelon didn’t want to defer the CR without getting other CLEC input. Bonnie advised that the Qwest representatives (who work the process delay orders on ASRs) in Des Moines are experienced and changing the process may cause inconsistencies. Bonnie said if Qwest implements the email jeopardy on the initial facility jeopardy, Eschelon would like the CR functionality request that Qwest is unable to provide to stay in deferred status, as something may change in the future and allow Qwest to implement her request. Bonnie further explained that some type of system or process change, or center movement may occur that creates an opportunity for Qwest to look at this request again.

Bill Trefts – Time Warner expressed his desire to have Qwest implement the email jeopardy on the initial facility jeopardy condition. Bill advised he is the Escalations manager and when the Time Warner representative gets a voice message, the rep can be on vacation and Time Warner is not able to address the jeopardy. Phyllis Sunins – Qwest advised the CLECs would need to set up a ‘group email box’ that allows multiple people to access, otherwise, if the initiator is on vacation and no one is checking their email, the same problem would occur. Phyllis clarified that the Qwest representative would not call if no response was received via the email. The email initial jeopardy would have basic information on it as currently sent for LSR jeopardy notifications, e.g. Jeopardy Code & explanation. Next steps in the process are that Qwest would provide an FOC if a date became available, or call within 72 hours to provide additional jeopardy information.

Bonnie said it sounds as if the CLECs would like to consider implementing the email jeopardy on the initial facility jeopardy only. Bonnie advised Eschelon would prefer to have the full functionality that was requested on this CR, and if we implement the initial jeopardy, Eschelon would still like to have the request stay on the back burner, maybe put in defer status. Bonnie said that Qwest could implement the initial jeopardy with a new CR, and place this CR in deferred status. Cindy Harlan – Qwest agreed that we can determine the best way to handle the logistics of the CR.

Cindy Harlan – Qwest asked the other CLECs if they had additional input from their organizations. Jeff Sonnier – Sprint advised he does not have specific information from his organization as they use LSRs primarily, and he does not work on the ASR side. Phyllis advised that the Sprint Service Manager, Mark Tsypin worked with Sprint on the ASR side. Phyllis advised Jeff to contact Mark to discuss further.

Roslyn Davis – MCI advised using email is acceptable. Roslyn asked if Qwest would call if there is not a response to the email. Phyllis explained that the e-mailed jeopardy notification of a facility problem would be a 1 way communication . Phyllis advised that Qwest would not call to follow up on that the initial e-mailed facility jeopardy was received. The only initial facility notification would be the email jeopardy. The next step of the process is either the FOC or a phone call within 72 hours to provide more information. Phyllis advised the CLECs that they would need to set up a ‘group or community email box’ for this process to work effectively.

Bonnie advised she would like to take this back and discuss again. Bonnie advised she will provide status and a decision at the Feb. 16 CMP meeting. Phyllis advised if Qwest does move forward with the email initial jeopardy notice on facility conditions, Qwest has internal work that needs to be done. Bonnie advised okay and will provide an update at the February CMP meeting.

January CMP Meeting Minutes Cindy Harlan/Qwest advised that an ad hoc meeting was held on January 10th and Qwest proposed the following jeopardy process. The email jeopardy could be sent Pre-RID which would addresses the initial facility jeopardy, a Post-RID email jeopardy could be sent at due date, and continue utilizing the existing CNR jeopardy process. Cindy advised that during the January 10th ad-hoc call that Eschelon expressed that they wanted to receive the 72 hour jeopardy details via email. Qwest is unable to provide this jeopardy via email due to the manual efforts involved. As a result of the ad hoc call the CLECs agreed to take this back to their operations centers to see if the recommendation would work. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon advised their view is that if we piece part the process it may do more harm than good. Right now, the process is consistent and experienced people are performing the process. If we piece part the process, each stage of the process would be handled differently and cause confusion and provide an opportunity to not be in compliance. Bonnie said Eschelon does not need another process to measure compliance on. Bonnie asked the other CLECs to take the issue to internal operations personnel and get feedback. Jill Martain/Qwest advised that we will then schedule another ad hoc meeting to review this with the CLEC Community. Bonnie suggested that we could possibly put the CR in Deferred Status. Bonnie said that if for example, Qwest were to shift work from the current centers and new people are doing the work we could reinstate the CR. Jill advised we can schedule an ad hoc meeting to get input for other CLEC operational organizations and then determine next steps or Deferring this CR. This CR will remain in Development Status.

PC070804-1 ASR Jeopardy Process Ad Hoc Meeting January 10, 2005

In attendance: Phyllis Sunins - Qwest Cindy Dahlstedt – Qwest Sharon Van Meter – ATT Jo McCleen – ATT Amanda Silva – VCI Bob Eggert – SBC Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Jennifer Arnold – TDS Metro Roslyn Davis – MCI Cindy Harlan – Qwest Gary Pierce – DSAT

Cindy Harlan – Qwest reviewed the history of this CR and the purpose of the meeting. Cindy explained that the team has met several times. At the last meeting Qwest offered to implement an email jeopardy process for the initial jeopardy only. The CLECs requested for Qwest to go back and see if an email process for the entire life cycle of the jeopardy and for all jeopardy types is possible.

Phyllis reported that Wholesale has looked at the request and determined that we can provide notifications in 1 of 3 ways:

PRE-RID: Implement a process that addresses the initial facility jeopardy. POST-RID -Network has an existing process that addresses a jeopardy at due date. CNR - CNR jeopardy process is currently available and would not change.

Phyllis summarized that Qwest can offer a pre-RID email jeopardy that is sent to the email id in the initiator field on the ASR if populated. Cindy Dahlsteadt explained the PTA post RID jeopardy process. The CLEC would have to be set up to have PTA (provider test access). A test is done on PTD and the test results are emailed to the CLEC. The order is closed on the due date (5 days later). The jeopardy goes out on the due date, not PTD. This is for Qwest jeopardy, not CNR.

Sharon Van Meter – ATT asked if this is for all products types. Phyllis advised yes it would be for any product ordered via ASR. . Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon, said she was looking for something that resembled the LSR jeopardy process. Bonnie advised what she is looking for is the jeopardy that is sent within 72 hours, that has more detailed information, to be sent via email.

Phyllis advised that we have looked at the process and we are trying to make a process work with the resources that we have. We are not able to provide the 72 hour jeopardy via email as that increases the manual work. We did received objections from an IXC customer and we have to develop a process to meet their needs too.

Sharon Van Meter – ATT asked if it would help the manual effort if the process was just for local service first and then add the IXC customer later. Bonnie advised she needs this process for Private Line customers.

Bonnie advised they need to know the level of detail on the jeopardy so they know whether they should offer other alternatives to their customers. Bonnie said she will check with her operations centers and see if they can make Qwest’s recommendation work.

Phyllis also said that based on the feedback, Qwest does have internal work to do to accomplish the PRE-RID e-mail notification so we can’t implement the PRE-RID process until that is complete. We will leave the CR in development until the delivery date is determined.

Sharon Van Meter – ATT confirmed that the meeting notes will capture the summarized process so the CLECs can all check with their organizations and provide status back to Qwest.

Cindy Harlan – Qwest advised notes will be taken and posted to the web. Qwest will Look for status from the CLECs in the near future.

December CMP Meeting Minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised an ad hoc meeting is scheduled for January 10. We are reviewing this request internally and having discussions with our customers who order via an ASR to determine impacts. Liz Balvin – Covad asked if this CR is specific to Interconnect products and if it is could that information be put on the meeting notification. Jill Martain – Qwest advised that Eschelon did request for this process to apply to all products ordered via an ASR. Kim Isaacs asked Cindy Macy to verify that we did include PLT. Cindy advised yes PLT was specifically requested. Cindy advised that during the last ad hoc meeting Qwest presented an option and the CLEC community was not happy with that option and asked Qwest to expand the scope for it to cover all jeopardy types and the entire life cycle of the jeopardy. Qwest has been reviewing the request based on a process that supports all products. Jill advised that although Qwest is reviewing this process for all products that the specific products/process for this forum is specifically around Interconnect products. Qwest will review our findings at the ad hoc meeting in January. This CR will remain in Development Status.

11/17/04 November meeting minutes Phyllis Sunins – Qwest advised we held an ad hoc meeting on November 12. Phyllis reviewed the CR request and advised that Qwest proposed that we could send an email jeopardy on the initial jeopardy by responding to the email address that is populated in the initiator field on the ASR for jobs held for engineering. Phyllis advised issues were discussed regarding the email field and whether this should be required or not. (insert comment from Eschelon) AT&T expressed concern about making the E-Mail field mandatory (end comment). Some CLECs had concerns and they expressed if this was changed (insert) and that field was made a mandatory field that (end insert) it needs to be coordinated with an ASOG release. The CLECs would need to identify the impacts to their organizations as they would potentially need a separate email address to receive the jeopardy from Qwest. The request was made to extend the email jeopardy process to all jeopardy conditions, not just K jeps, and the entire life cycle of the jeopardy, not just the initial jeopardy. Qwest will review the request and another ad hoc meeting will be scheduled for a later date. This CR will remain in Development Status.

PC070804-1 ASR Jeopardy Process Ad Hoc Meeting November 12, 2004

In attendance: Liz Balvin – Covad Diane Friend – Time Warner Sharon VanMeter – ATT Stephanie Prull – Eschelon Tomas Soto = SBC Phyllis Sunins – Qwest Cindy Macy – Qwest Terri Lee – SBC Lori Nelson – Mid-Continent Comm Jeff Sonier – Sprint Lynn – ELI Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Bonnie Marnie – TDS MetroComm

Cindy Macy – Qwest reviewed the CR and explained that Eschelon requested that Qwest provide email jeopardy notifications so the process is more consistent with the LSR jeopardy process and that the jeopardy information is documented.

Phyllis Sunins – Qwest reviewed the draft process that Qwest put together. Phyllis explained that the ASR process is not as mechanized as the LSR process. Phyllis explained with the new ASR process the notification would go to Interexchange and Wireless customers also. The key action that the CLEC needs to take is to populate the email address in the field on the ASR. Phyllis advised Qwest would create an email jeopardy notification that will be patterned after the information that is provided on the LSR jep. The format will be different as the LSR jep is generated by a system. The ASR jep would be generated manually and sent via email.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon thanked Qwest for including the other Interexchange products and customers in this process. Bonnie asked what information would be on the email? Would the same jep codes be used for ASRs as LSRs? Phyllis advised yes for UBL and Interexchange products. Phyllis advised that PCAT would be sent out for CLEC review as part of this CR.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked why is this just for the initial jeopardy? Phyllis advised in the LSR world we have the jeopardy process mechanized and the conditions are different between LSRs and ASRs. Phyllis explained there are several other variables and process changes that would have to be developed if we look at more than the initial jeopardy. For example the time frame for the CLECs to respond on an ASR jep would have to be determined. The process becomes much more manual as the systems are not mechanized and for Qwest to pull the information needed and create the manual jeopardy notification is more time consuming than making a phone call.

Phyllis advised she would like to start with the draft process that she proposed and look at improving it, if possible, at a later date. Qwest feels that we can send an email jeopardy notification on the initial jeopardy if there is an engineering job opened. This would be for K jeps only. Phyllis advised we would follow the same patter as LSRs as we will provide the initial jeopardy via email and then follow up 72 hours later to provide additional information. The second jeopardy that provides more information would be a phone call. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon advised this is the situation that they need and want the information to be in writing. Phyllis advised there is not mechanization in place to do this.

Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked if Qwest could change the process to include only K jeopardy notifications but for the entire life cycle, not just for initial jeps. Phyllis advised this increases the cycle time for the SDCs. Phyllis asked if the second email would need to carry the initial jeopardy information? This would require a single mail location for all jeps to be sent from.

Bonnie asked what the time frame is today for a call back from CLECs on phone call jeps? Phyllis advised Qwest has an open but reasonable time frame. Phyllis advised the work goes back and forth between Qwest and the CLECs for approximately 10-20% of the K jeps, so it becomes an interactive process. Bonnie advised the CLECs prefer the entire flow be done via email.

Phyllis explained the additional work will impact the SDCs. Bonnie asked how it would impact the SDCs. Phyllis explained that today they place a phone call and can resolve the issue verbally. Tomorrow we will have to manually check each ASR to determine how to handle it (phone call or email) and gather data to populate the email template.

Diane Friend – Time Warner asked if Qwest required the email field to be populated. Phyllis advised no, that OBF says it is optional. Phyllis advised approximately 80% is populated today. Diane said that Qwest could make it a required field, but they would have to notify all of their operating partners and it would have to be implemented with an ASOG upgrade. ATT expressed their concern if Qwest tries to make it required, as they would have to make programming changes. Qwest is also concerned that if the emails are not monitored it could increase calls into the centers.

Phyllis advised this process would impact the CLECs operating centers also as they would need to make sure they had a designated email address that could be used, or each representative would have to have their own email addresses, and if they were gone the jep would not be worked.

Bonnie asked if we could look at the process and see if we could extend it to the entire jeopardy life cycle for either all jeps or just K jeps.

Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that Qwest looked at the process and determined that we could provide an email jep on initial K jeps only. The process has many variables and became very manual if we provided email jeps on anything else. Phyllis agreed that we can review the request and see if there is anything that we can do.

Phyllis agreed our next steps are to look at the ASR email field (optional or required) and to check the feasibility of sending additional jep notifications via email. We will have to look at the impacts to our centers. Qwest will do further investigation and have another ad hoc meeting.

The CLECs need to determine the impact to their operations also, as this change will impact their centers also.

10/20/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest advised that this process is under development. We are planning on holding an ad hoc meeting to review the draft process in early November. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon asked if we are able to include Private Line Services in the process. Jill Martain – Qwest advised that we are including this product in the review. It is too soon to tell if it will be accepted but we are looking at the process for all products. This CR will remain in Development Status.

9/15/04 CMP Meeting Minutes Cindy Macy – Qwest reviewed the CR request and advised that Qwest is accepting this CR. Qwest is developing a draft ASR Jeopardy process that will focus on Interconnect products ordered via the ASR. Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon commented that the response states that Qwest is focusing on Interconnect products. Bonnie advised that the CLEC Community needs this process to handle additional products ordered via the ASR process, in particular PLT services. Jill Martain – Qwest advised that our focus is on Local Interconnect products as that is what CMP addresses, but Qwest will review the other products and determine what makes the most sense. Bonnie asked what other forum is available for the CLECs to use to address the other products. Jill advised that we will have that discussion if the decision is to not include additional products but for now we will continue working on the draft process. Cindy Macy advised that ad hoc meetings will be set up to review the draft process. This CR will remain in Development Status.

8/16/04 CMP Meeting Mintues Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon presented this CR. Bonnie explained that Eschelon previously submitted a systems CR that Qwest denied for economic reasons. Eschelon understands that this process can not be fully mechanized, but would like an electronic notification that is similar to LSRs. The current ASR jeopardy process is done via voice mail. This doesn’t provide any consistency or tracking. The Clarification Call was held and Eschelon did request the PLT product to be included in this process. Eschelon wants PLT included, especially with Qwest’s TRO position on Unbundled Loop. This CR will move to Presented Status.

PC070804-1 Develop more efficient and effective process for ASR jeopardies Clarification Call July 20, 2004 12:00 1:00

In attendance: Phyllis Sunnis Qwest Liz Balvin MCI Kim Isaacs Eschelon Stephanie Prull Eschelon Connie Nelson US Link Paul M Johnson Qwest Cindy Macy Qwest

Cindy began the call and introduced the attendees. Cindy reviewed the agenda and asked Bonnie Johnson Eschelon to review the CR with the team.

Bonnie Johnson Eschelon advised that she submitted a systems CR asking for mechanized jeopardy for QORA and requested an interim manual process until the system work could be done. The system CR was denied for economically not feasible reasons. Qwest also stated there were issues as this process affects Interexchange customers. Bonnie advised Qwest that if this impacts Interexchange customer they should be included, as she is okay with them attending the meetings. Bonnie was advised to issue a Product Process CR. Additional conversation occurred with Qwest stating that the CMP process is for CLEC customers, not Interexchange customers, so the analysis that is done is based on impacts to Interconnection processes and customers. We do not utilize the CMP process to implement process for Interexchange customers. We only use the CMP process for Interconnection. Qwest also stated that if the process works for Interexchange than it may be implemented, but that would be handled outside of CMP.

Bonnie continued to review the CR with the team. Bonnie explained that the voice mail process for ASR jeopardies leaves room for problems, lack of communication, and no documentation. Bonnie would like to work with Qwest to develop a more efficient and effective process. Bonnie would like for Qwest to look at an alternative such as email. The process that is used for ‘Notification after completion’ may work as a model as it was developed manually first. The voice mail process does not always work as we have a group that manages jeopardies and if we can’t auto forward information to this group it causes delays. Bonnie advised they would like consistency to the LSR side; such as a standard form, standard jeopardy codes. When a jeopardy code is used, it means the same thing whether it is an ASR or an LSR. Eschelon would like an alternative to voice mail.

Liz Balvin MCI advised that it is appropriate to work together to get the process cleaner and to use appropriate jep codes and reasons. This will benefit everyone.

Bonnie stressed that Eschelon has no objection to including IXC and Wireless customers if we need an open forum. Bonnie said that their main focus is LSRs, but with TRO, if Qwest gets their wish, DS1 capable loops go away and Special Access will increase, thus increasing ASR activity.

Phyllis Sunnis Qwest advised that based on past history on the LSR side we have made improvements in this area. We will have ad hoc meetings to discuss this process and work to make it more consistent and efficient. Phyllis advised that for CMP purposes we focus on Interconnect products so we can meet the CLEC needs. We do not want to impede the CMP process with additional players. We want to address the CLEC concerns first. This does not preclude the process from being implemented for additional ASR products, but that will not be included in the CMP process for this CR.

Liz Balvin MCI asked if we have different personnel that handle ASR and LSRs. Phyllis advised it depends on the function, such as ordering, provisioning and billing. Liz stated that wouldn’t Qwest want a standard process for personnel to follow. Phyllis advised that the CMP process is for CLEC needs. Qwest may choose to implement a process for both LSR and ASR products but the focus with this CR is for Interconnect products handled via an ASR. These products include LIS, UDIT, UDF, 911/PS ALI.

Cindy Macy Qwest recapped that CMP is for Interconnection products and certain Interconnection products are handled via an ASR.

Bonnie asked if Private Line was included. Phyllis advised it does not include Private Line that is ordered out of FCC #1 tariff. Bonnie asked how could that product be included. Phyllis advised she will have to check further. Bonnie advised the DS1 capable loop is the CLEC comparable to the Private Line for Retail.

Cindy advised that Qwest will begin to work on this CR. This CR will be presented by Eschelon at the August CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

RESPONSE For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the September 16, 2004 CMP Meeting

Bonnie Johnson Eschelon

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - PC070804-1 “ASR Jeopardy Process”

Eschelon is requesting Qwest to develop a more efficient and effective process for ASR jeopardizes. Eschelon would like a process that provides consistency and tracking

Qwest accepts this CR and is in the process of developing an ASR Jeopardy Process that focus’ on the Interconnect products ordered using the ASR process. Qwest will schedule ad hoc meetings to review the draft process with the CLEC Community. This CR will move to Development Status.

Sincerely,

Phyllis Sunins Process Specialist

Open Product/Process CR PC072505-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Delivery:

ASAP

Status History

Project Meetings

- December 14, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR is pending the decision from Granite, to see if they would accept Qwest’s proposed solution. Jill noted that Granite has requested that the CR be placed in Deferred Status until they can do some testing internally and make their decision. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Eschelon has an interest in sponsoring this CR if Granite chooses to withdraw their request. Bonnie stated that she did not want the effort stopped. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that the effort is not stopping, Granite just wanted to perform some internal tests before they decide whether Qwest’s proposed solution would work for them. Jill stated that Qwest would continue to follow-up, with Granite, and once they make their decision, the CR would move out of deferred status and would be back on the agenda for discussion at CMP.

- December 7, 2005 Email Received from Granite: Hi Peggy, Thanks for your assistance. I hope to contact you in the near future. Happy Holidays. Lisa

-- December 7, 2005 Email Sent to Granite: Hi Lisa, It may be better to place the CR in Deferred Status...for now. Once you make your decision, please let me know and we can then take it out of Deferred Status and see what you want to do regarding the proposed solution. There is no set amount of time that the CR must remain in Deferred; so if you have your decision soon, we can remove it from Deferred and proceed with the next step, at that time. Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Wholesale CMP

December 7, 2005 Email Received from Granite: Hi Peggy, Thanks for your quick response. Apparently, we have to test "how the messages come in, how big they are, if our system can support it". At this time, our team is not ready to do this. Would it be best to put the CR in deferred status until we take this preliminary step? Thanks, Lisa

-- December 7, 2005 Email Sent to Granite: Good Morning Lisa, Thanks for the email. I am a little confused as to what you plan to test. There have been no changes, and nothing implemented so far, as a result of this CR. This CR can’t be implemented until we know which path to pursue and that is based on your accepting the proposed solution or not accepting it. If it is Granite’s preference, we can place the CR in a Deferred Status until you make your decision. Let me know. Thanks much, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Wholesale CMP

-- December 7, 2005 Email Received from Granite: Hi Peggy, We will contact you as soon as we are ready to test the possible solution. Again, thanks for all of your assistance. Thanks, Lisa

December 6, 2005 Email Received from Granite: Hi Peggy, I forwarded this email to get a response for you and unfortunately I didn’t get one. Let me try again and get back to you asap. Thanks for your diligent follow-up. Lisa

December 6, 2005 Email Sent to Granite: Hello Lisa - This email is a follow-up to see if Granite has made their decision regarding PC072505-1. Thank you, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Wholesale CMP

- November 30, 2005 Email Sent to Granite: Good Morning Lisa, This email is just to follow-up to see if you have made a decision to accept Qwest’s proposed solution for your CMP CR for Cable Pair and Binding Post Identification. Please let me know if the solution is acceptable so we can proceed with the development effort. If the proposed solution will not fit your need and is not accepted, let me know that as well. If more time is needed for you to make your decision, please let me know when the decision is anticipated. I appreciate it. Thanks much, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Wholesale CMP

- November 16, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Denise Martinez/Qwest stated that the original request was that the Cable Pair and Binding Post information be provided on the FOC. Denise stated that Qwest investigated the request and determined that it could not be done via the FOC because the information is not yet available and a delay in the FOCs is not desirable. Denise stated that an alternate solution was presented to the CLEC Community, to provide the information via the PSON. Denise stated that at a minimum the PSON Header and a message indicating that there has been no activity would be provided. The majority of the PSONs would contain Cable Pair and Binding Post information. Denise then stated that the CLECs asked if the information could also be provided on the Completion Notice and noted that it could be. Denise stated that the information would be provided on both the PSON and on the Completion Notice. Denise stated that both Notices would contain a disclaimer that states that the assignments could change up to and including the Due Date. Denise stated that this solution was proposed and that it is pending the approval of the CR originator. Stephanie Prull/Eschelon asked why the Completion Notice would have a disclaimer when the order is already done at that point. Denise Martinez/Qwest stated that the same information is needed on both notices and that on the Completion Notice it would identify if there was a change to the assignments from when the PSON was issued. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that on the Completion Notice when the information is sent, because the order has completed, the information should not have changed. Bonnie asked if Qwest wanted the information from the PSON mirrored on the Completion Notice. Denise Martinez/Qwest said yes and stated that it is a snapshot at a different point in time of the process. Denise stated that there had been problems in the past in getting the notices in synch and would like to avoid that risk if can, of having them be different. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that in reality, the information on the Confirmation Notice would not have changed. Denise Martinez/Qwest stated that it shouldn’t. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that there could be a timing issue that may result in the information being different. Denise Martinez/Qwest stated that in a rare instance, it could happen. Denise stated that more would be known when it is developed and tested. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that the CR remains in Evaluation, pending the approval of the proposed solution, from Granite Telecommunications.

November 9, 2005 Email Received from Granite: Hi Peggy, Our EDI group needs to do user and analyst testing and they have a few things ahead of this issue. We are estimating that it will be several weeks before the group can take on this project. Until then, there are no necessary next steps required of Qwest. We will keep you posted on the progress. Thanks for your assistance.

Lisa

November 4, 2005 Email Sent to Granite: Lisa, Thank you for meeting with us on November 1st to discuss the proposed solution for your submitted CMP CR for Cable Pair and Binding Post Identification. This email is a follow-up to see if the solution presented on that call is workable for you. If the proposed solution is acceptable to you and you would like us to proceed with that option, let me know so we can then proceed. Please let me know ASAP so we can determine next steps. Thanks much, Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest Wholesale CMP

November 1, 2005 Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes: ATTENDEES: Jeff Sonnier-Sprint, Joyce Philo-McLeod, Sharon Van Meter-AT&T, Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon, Jody Thompson-TDS, Stephanie Prull-Eschelon, Jennifer Arnold-TDS, Chelsea Payne-Mcleod, Rosalyn Davis-MCI, Kim Tosi-Granite, Lisa Mui-Granite, LouAnn Miller-McLeod, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Jim Recker-Qwest, Shirley Tallman-Qwest, Chris Viveros-Qwest, Denise Martinez-Qwest DISCUSSION: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that the ad hoc call was for Qwest to present a proposed solution to Granite and the CLEC Community, for PC072505-1 Cable Pair and Binding Post Identification. Peggy stated that at the October CMP Meeting, Qwest had indicated that we are unable to provide the information on the FOC, because at FOC, there are no assignments yet. This call is for discussion of the proposed solution. Denise Martinez-Qwest stated that at FOC, the data is not yet available and noted that it would also result in FOCs being delayed. Denise stated that no one wants delays in the FOCs. Denise stated that an Assignments Section would be added to the PSON when the PSON is created. Denise stated that it would include a header and that it would display ‘no activity for section’. Denise stated that when the data was then available, another PSON would be sent. Denise stated that also added to the PSON would be a disclaimer that would state that the assignments could change on and including on the due date. Denise then asked for questions. Lisa Mui-Granite stated that she was not familiar with the PSON. Denise Martinez-Qwest stated that the PSON is sent after the FOC. Denise noted that it is not the completion; it is the Pending Service Order Notice. Denise stated that it is a snapshot of the service order after the FOC and pre-completion. Denise noted that updated PSONs are sent when there has been an update to a service order. Lisa Mui-Granite asked if they could be viewed via IMA. Denise Martinez-Qwest yes and noted that they could not be viewed in the FAX Gateway. Lisa Mui-Granite stated that they do not currently get PSONs. Denise Martinez-Qwest stated that it is a snapshot of the SOP and noted that they could request to start receiving them. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that not all request a PSON and asked what would be done for those CLECs. Denise Martinez-Qwest stated that they would need to request the PSONs in order to get the information. Lisa Mui-Granite stated that she would discuss this proposed solution with their IT people to see why PSONs are not currently requested. Lisa stated that this could be tremendously helpful. Denise Martinez-Qwest stated that the information may or may not change on the due date. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if the information did change on the due date, if another PSON would then be sent. Denise Martinez-Qwest stated that it could and noted that it would depend on timing. Denise stated that if the last PSON was sent and then the information changed, it would then be time for a Completion Notice to be sent. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if the updated information could then be on the Completion Notice. Denise Martinez-Qwest stated that Qwest would internally discuss that request. Lisa Mui-Granite asked if Granite could view the service order. Denise Martinez-Qwest stated that they could view the service order via the PSON. Lisa Mui-Granite stated that she needed to speak internally to see if this solution is acceptable for them. Lisa asked if this was the only solution. Denise Martinez-Qwest said yes and stated that no one want delays in the FOCs. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest asked if there were any other questions. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon advised Granite that Eschelon does receive the PSONs for EDI and GUI and stated that she and/or Stephanie Prull (Eschelon) would be happy to discuss with Granite. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon asked if this was a Systems CR. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that the CR was submitted as a Process change and stated that if today’s proposed solution was acceptable, the CR would be crossed over to a Systems CR. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if Qwest would look into providing the information on the Completions Notice. Denise Martinez-Qwest stated that Qwest would look into that. Jim Recker-Qwest asked if there was feedback from other CLECs. Joyce Philo-McLeod stated that she would check and see if McLeod receives PSONs or if they would need further development. Joyce asked if they could be viewed in IMA. Denise Martinez-Qwest stated that they can view via IMA if they have requested PSONs. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated that McLeod would need to certify for PSON and then they would see them. There were no additional questions. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest asked Granite to please let her know if this solution was acceptable to them.

-- October 19, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Jim Recker/Qwest stated that this request is for Cable Pair and Binding Post to be provided on the LSR FOC. Jim stated that we are unable to do that because at FOC, there are no assignments yet. Jim then stated that Qwest has a potential solution and that an ad hoc meeting was being scheduled for Qwest to present the potential solution and for discussion. Jim stated that this CR would remain in Evaluation Status pending the outcome of the ad hoc meeting.

-- September 21, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting Discussion: Jim Recker/Qwest stated that Granite is requesting that the cable pair and binding post be placed on the order at FOC. Jim stated that another call was held, with Granite, yesterday in order to communicate that some information is currently available to Granite, in CEMR. Jim stated that we are continuing to evaluate this request. Jim noted that when the information is put on the order, at FOC, it has not yet gone through the assignment process. Jim said that changes to the PSON may be an option but if the cable pair & binding post information is placed on the PSON, that information could change and may not be the final assignments. Jim stated that based on the call yesterday, with Granite, we are still looking into items internally to see if we can move forward with this request. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she understands Qwest’s concern regarding the information on the PSON possibly changing and noted that the assignments could change in the course of the installation process. Bonnie asked if that was a common occurrence. Jim Recker/Qwest stated that he was trying to get some numbers around that. There were no additional comments. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR would move to Evaluation status.

-- August 17, 2005 Monthly Product Process CMP Meeting discussion: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that Granite Telecommunications is requesting that Cable Pair & Binding Post Information be provided sooner and that currently the information is provided via repair. This CR moves to presented status.

-- Clarification Meeting-August 4, 2005 Attendees: Lisa Mui-Granite Telecomm, Kim Tosi-Granite Telecomm, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Janean Van Dusen-Qwest, Jim Recker-Qwest, Becky Ferrington-Qwest, Denise Martinez-Qwest, Alan Braegger-Qwest, Terri Kilker-Qwest, Gary Stacy-Qwest, Caroline Myers-Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest read the CRs description: Identification of cable pair and binding post information when the order reaches confirmed status (FOC). The cable pair and binding post information is currently provided via repair after the order is completed.

Obtain the Business Need from the CR Originator: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest asked Granite Telecom for their business reason for the requested change or for information as to what problem has been encountered that prompted this request. Granite Telecomm stated that they need the information as soon as the FOC. As soon as the order confirms, they schedule the installer and they would look for the information. If they wait until the order completes, it is a longer wait for their end user customer to get service. They now have to call repair for the information.

Additional Discussion: Becky Ferrington-Qwest asked if the requested product set is UNE-P POTS. Lisa Mui-Granite Telecom stated that it is for any installation but that the bulk for Granite is POTS. Lisa Mui-Granite asked for the likelihood of getting this request. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that Qwest will need to analyze the request and stated that the next step is for Granite to present this CR to the CLEC Community at the August 17th Monthly CMP Meeting and then Qwest would provide a response in September. There were no additional questions or comments

Confirmed Impacted Area(s): Ordering

Confirmed Impacted Products: All

CenturyLink Response

For Review by the CLEC Community and Discussion at the September 21, 2005 Product Process CMP Meeting

TO: Lisa Mui Granite Telecommunications

SUBJECT: CR # PC072505-1 Cable Pair & Binding Post Identification

This letter is in response to Granite Telecommunications Change Request PC072505-1 (Cable Pair & Binding Post Identification). This CR requests the identification of cable pair and binding post information when the order reaches confirmed status (FOC). The cable pair and binding post information is currently provided via repair after the order is completed.

A clarification call was held on August 4, 2005 for discussion of this request, and this CR was presented at the Product Process Monthly CMP Meeting on August 17, 2005. Qwest has requested another call with Granite Telecommunications, for further discussion of this Change Request.

Qwest would like to place this CR in evaluation status in order to continue with analysis of this request. The current process was developed via several previously submitted Product Process and Systems CMP CRs. Qwest is continuing to and look at viable solutions for this change request. Qwest will provide an updated response at the next CMP meeting. Qwest requests that this CR move to Evaluation status.

Sincerely, Qwest

Open Product/Process CR PC082007-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

1/16/08 Product/Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne-Qwest stated that we are continuing to evaluate and look at additional updates and that no notification has gone out.

12/12/07 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Susan Lorence-Qwest stated that we are continuing to look at additional updates and that no notification has gone out.

11/14/07 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Susan Lorence-Qwest stated that the Level 4 notice was sent on 9/24/07 and was subsequently retracted on 10/24/07. She said that we did not have a date to re-notice.

-- 10/17/07 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Mark Coyne-Qwest stated that the Level 4 notice was sent on 9/24/07. He stated that we did receive comments with the response to comments due on 10/24/07.

9/19/07 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Lori Langston-Qwest stated that this CR is a request to document our process per specific tariffs to provide service installation after a natural disaster. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that the CR is not specific as to whether this is a new process or just documentation for our use. Lori Langston-Qwest stated that this is the deployment of a process not previously documented. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if this process was always available and not just documented. Lori Langston-Qwest stated that this request came in due to how the tariff was implemented and documented. Lori said this effort is to formalize it. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if this was available. [Comment received from Eschelon: Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if this was available to wholesale customers.] Lori Langston-Qwest stated that this was not available in Wholesale Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that the process looks new to them and asked if Qwest would be sending out a redline document. Lori Langston-Qwest stated that there would be a brand new PCAT. Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if Qwest could provide an overview of the process. Lori Langston-Qwest stated that there were quite a few details associated with this process and asked that the CLECs review the document.

Open Product/Process CR PC090208-1CM Detail

Description Of Change

Qwest is proposing that a change be made to how we support the previous Major Release of the Interconnect Mediated Access (IMA) Application-to-Application interface. Rather than supporting a previous release for 180 days, Qwest is proposing that the previous release be supported for a 60 (sixty) calendar day period after the subsequent Major Release of IMA has been implemented. As part of this change, Qwest is proposing a change to how long a release can be extended and a clarification of the process when a CLEC fails to successfully migrate to the next release in the required timeframe.

Qwest is also proposing that the language associated with the number of IMA releases which will be supported be modified to reflect what has been the Qwest standard operating practice since IMA 16 in 2004. The practice has been to implement two Major Releases and two Point Releases, if necessary, (for IMA only) within a calendar year.

Qwest is proposing updating the CMP Document to support this operating standard.

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date (if applicable):

Proposed implementation of April 2009 with IMA 25.0; IMA 24.0 would be retired 60 days after IMA 25.0, i.e., June 2009

Status History

Project Meetings

Lynn Stecklein-Qwest stated that this CR is proposing updates that a change be made to how we support the previous Major Release of the IMA Application-to-Application Interface. She said the redline is located in Attachment E of the distribution package that provides the detail on the changes that have been discussed in adhoc and CMP monthly meetings. Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that during the last adhoc meeting, Integra said they would not agree to the change where Qwest is proposing to change from 3 major releases to 2 because there may be a potential regulatory change Qwest needs to meet outside of the scheduled releases. (1/30/09 Comments to Minutes received from Integra) Bonnie said Integra may agree to something like the CLECs that migrated the last 30 days. Integra believed Qwest was going to change this language. She said that Integra also did not agree to the change where Qwest will confirm with the last CLEC migration off the previous release. Bonnie said that because of these proposed changes as still in the document, Integra will be voting no. Lynn Stecklein-Qwest said Quorum for this vote is 8 and has been achieved. She said that Section 2.1 of the CMP document states that incorporating a change into the Change Management Process requires unanimous agreement. Lynn said that a vote of ‘Yes’ will indicate a preference that updates be made to the CMP Document as identified in the attached document. A vote of ‘No’ will indicate a preference that updates should not be made to the CMP Document as identified in the attached document. Qwest has received 2 e-mail votes, one from Sprint who voted yes and 1 from Velocity who abstained. AT&T - Yes Covad - Abstain Comcast - No Integra - No McLeod/Paetec - No Sprint – Yes Qwest – Yes Time Warner - Yes Velocity – Abstain Verizon Business – No

In this vote, conducted in accordance with Section 16.4 and 17.0 of the CMP Document, the participants voted not to grant the requested change that a change be made to how we support the previous Major Release of the IMA Application-to-Application Interface.

1/12/09 Clarification Meeting

Doug Allen-AT&T, Gloria Velez-AT&T, Dawn Beck-Qwest, Susan Lorence-Qwest, Lynn Stecklein-Qwest

Doug Allen-AT&T asked if the 12/1/08 update was for IMA only.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that we were referring to the XML interface.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said that we are trying to relay that all other app to app interfaces will continue to have a 73 day notification timeline but in the case of IMA we will use a 90 day timeline.

Doug Allen-AT&T asked if the 90 day days won’t change.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said that we will send the draft tech specs at 90 days but we will allow the rest of that section to remain with the timelines that are there. She said that we are going to send the draft specs 90 days prior to the implementation and the walk though will be within the 58 to 68 day timeframe. She said that we weren’t going to change that and it gives them a much longer time and a longer comment cycle.

Gloria Velez-AT&t said that Qwest is changing the 73 day timeframe to 90 days as it relates to the draft. She said that is the difference between 73 and 90 calendar days or 17 days.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said that we are sending them earlier but the important thing to remember is that we are just lengthening your comment cycle. The final goes out in the 45 day timeframe.

Gloria Velez-AT&T said that having a longer comment cycle might be good for some. She said that they are trying to start working on their internal requirements sooner.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that Qwest was asked to provide the draft earlier.

Gloria Velez-AT&T said that she was not sure that there was an agreement to 90 days there but that it was only discussion.

Doug Allen-AT&T said that there was discussion but no final agreement.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said that there was an agreement of what our proposal was.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that that the 73 days was always was in our original draft and now we are trying to provide 90 days.

Gloria Velez-AT&T said that since the final is not changing there is a longer period from draft to final.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that you are going to get notified when changes occur between draft and final. She said that if there are changes to developer worksheets we keep a running log and make changes to the final.

Gloria Velez-AT&T asked if when you do find changes to the worksheets is Qwest sending another versions of the developer worksheets.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that we show what is changing from and to and the changes are very clear.

Gloria Velez-AT&T asked if the information is in the actual e-mail body or in the links.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that it is in the document sent.

Susan Lorence-Qwest asked how we know who to send it to.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said via the subscription process.

Gloria Velez-AT&T said that they have difficulty on the changes being made and asked if the changes would be in the e-mail and is the word document attached.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said yes the documents will be attached.

Gloria Velez-AT&T asked for clarification on the exception process.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that occasionally a late adder is requested in a release and goes through the formal CMP review.

Doug Allen-AT&T asked if everyone has to vote.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said yes and the vote has to be unanimous.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said that the voting process is in Section 16.4 of the CMP document and if it has anything to do with a systems request or changes any part of the CMP Document a unanimous vote is required.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that an example of this was the LNP FCC order that order that came out very late and were not able to meet a 73 day timeline. She said that we had an exception for a point release and that we took a vote to meet the mandated date.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that is the only time that she could remember where we have used the process.

Gloria Velez-AT&T said that in the past other people have asked that Qwest provide the draft prior to the 73 day timeline and it was not well received. She said now Qwest is interested in changing the timeline and asked why. She said her fear with this language unless an exception is granted is that they could see an issue with the timeline.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that may have been true in the past because of the complexity of EDI and that we could not turnaround as quickly as we can now with XML. She said that is why Qwest submitted this CR and also because the releases are now half of what they used to be.

Gloria Velez-AT&T said that based on her knowledge what would be the future likelihood of going through the exception process.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that it would be highly unlikely. Gloria Velez-AT&T asked if it would only be CLEC initiated not associated with internal Qwe work, i.e. trouble tickets that would impact CLEC work.

Dawn Beck- Qwest said that if there was a problem with trouble tickets that would mean that we would have a bug in our systems that would go through the event notification process and would be how we would fix and resolve and is a totally different process and team.

Gloria Velez-AT&T asked for confirmation on the published dates they provide at day-90 are the firm dates and are not tentative and/or subject to change.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that yes the only time it would be tentative is in the event that Qwest is going through, for example, through contract negotiations.

Gloria Velez-AT&T said that she would take this information back to her internal teams and asked when the vote would take place.

Lynn Stecklein-Qwest said that the vote is scheduled on January 21st and to send any questions to CMP CR.

12/17/08 Product/Process CMP Meeting Susan Lorence-Qwest said that we have revised the redline from the feedback we received in the November CMP Meeting. She said that in Section 8.0 under Application to Application OSS Interface we are proposing to add the following: Prior to Retiring the IMA Release, Qwest will confirm with the last CLECs that the migration was completed successfully. She said that we also removed the wording “no later than 30 days prior to the planned retirement date”. Susan said that in Section 8.1.1 Draft Interface Technical Specifications we are proposing to add the following “For IMA Only, Qwest will issue draft Technical Specifications no later than ninety calendar days prior to the implementation date unless an exception has been granted. Susan said that we are also proposing specific to IMA planned available migration dates.

Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that they don’t have questions now but will let us know if they do.

Doug Allen-AT&T said that he will also take this information back and let us know if they have questions.

Samia Majid-Accenture said that they are not thrilled with this change and asked why this change was originated. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that eventually we won’t always be granting a 30 day extension and we want to work towards accommodating the CLECs so that they can migrate earlier.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said that we will propose a vote in the January CMP meeting and we will include this redline.

Mark Coyne-Qwest said that we will address questions from those CLECs that have concerns

11/19/08 Product/Process CMP Meeting Susan Lorence-Qwest said that we discussed this change in last month’s meeting and in the adhoc meeting held on 10/7/08. She said that we have revised the original redline with the new proposed updates. (See redline posted to the Wholesale Calendar) Susan said that in Section 8.0 we left the wording associated with “Qwest standard operating practice…” She said that we had originally proposed a change but left the wording “Qwest will implement no more that four (4) releases”.

Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that she wanted to add the language that “all CLECs agree”.

Mark Coyne-Qwest asked what would be the benefit if all CLECs had migrated off.

Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that Qwest may be having a major issue or the industry may require an additional release and that we had this discussion in the adhoc meeting.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said that we would consider.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that if there is a problem with the migration we would know by that Sunday (or in 5 days). She said that if we had to roll a CLEC back then they are not considered to have been migrated and will still have to schedule a migration. She also pointed out that we have never rolled back a customer.

Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that she couldn’t imagine why a CLEC wouldn’t agree and asked what the harm is.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said if it would require a CMP vote then there wouldn't be much point due to the timely process, the release would already have retired by the time the vote was taken.

Gloria Velez-AT&T said that the track record is good but that is not a guarantee (11/26/08 Comments to minutes received from Integra) for the future.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said that we could add language that would have the last Carrier migrating send an e-mail with their concurrence and ok.

Jeff Sonnier-Sprint asked if he could no longer skip a release. He said that he did not think any CLEC would be able to skip releases with the 150 + 30 day extension = 180 days.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that since migrating onto XML, CLECs haven’t been able to skip releases.

Jeff Sonnier-Sprint said that he has.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that Sprint skipped 20 and with pre-XML went from 17, 19, and 21. Jeff Sonnier-Sprint said that most releases have no impact on Sprint and he likes being able to skip a release so that he isn't wasting resources.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that with only 2 releases per year you go to the next release and the answer would be no a CLEC will not be able to skip a release.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said that with XML it is easier to migrate to a release. Susan said that the next change is based on feedback and we changed to timeline to 150 days.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that in most cases you can just change the release number in the TPID section and do a singular order test case when no changes in the IMA release impact the CLECs implemented products. She said that you can’t technically skip releases with the Qwest release test cycle.

Gloria Velez-AT&T said that Qwest is now talking about 150 days.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that AT&T indicated that they needed the 180 days and Qwest is technically still giving them the 180 days if they need it (150+30 days).

Susan Lorence-Qwest said that any CLEC can submit a CR and we will guarantee an extension of up to 30 days and no vote will be required.

Gloria Velez-AT&T asked if this required a unanimous vote.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said that a vote is required only for a CMP Document language change.

Gloria Velez-AT&T said that there is too much overhead to go through the CR process.

Julia Redman-Carter-McLeodUSA asked if there would ever be a situation when everyone would be migrated prior to the 30 days before the extension requested.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that every CLEC would be migrated before the retirement of the release.

Julia Redman-Carter-McLeodUSA said if there are multiple migration dates and on day 140 (11/26/08 Comments to minutes received from Integra) a CLEC determines they want a 30 day extension. However, the CLEC didn’t put the request in by day 120 (referring to the required 30 days prior to the 150 day to get the extension) because the CLEC was not migrated prior to day 120 and CLEC did not have an opportunity to determine that they need the extension until the 145th day. Based on the current language , the CLEC may not get the 30 day extension because they didn’t give notice by the 120th day. She said that she would like to see language that would protect the CLEC if they miss the extension notice period or an exception to give them the extension without the 30-day prior notice.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that she can see the point that Julia was making.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said that we will take this offline to see if there is something that can be done.

Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that they won’t agree with the requirement of the having to submit the request extension by the 120 day deadline.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said that the next change corrected the word “migration” to “implementation in Section 8.0.

Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that they won’t agree to the change on page 1 where the 3 major releases was changed to 2.

CLEC – said that in Section 8.17 it should say unless an extension has been requested.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said that figure 4 has been updated with changes.

Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that you can’t always identify what is going to happen in the future. She said what if Qwest decides to go back to EDI. She said that some CLECs were opposed to XML (11/26/08 Comments to minutes received from Integra) and Qwest implemented it anyway.

She said that Qwest would vote no if the CLECs submitted a CR to change back to the 180 day timeline. She said that several CLECs have said that they need the 180 days but Qwest changed it to 150 days.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said that we are trying to move forward because it is so easier to migrate to XML.

Bonnie Johnson-Integra asked what is gained with the 180 days and what is the benefit if Qwest knows there will always be three CLECs asking for the extension.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that at some point those CLECs that Integra mentioned will not be asking for an extension. She said that in the beginning of EDI, extensions were always requested but in the last few EDI releases requests for extensions have tapered off and the releases are less impacting.

Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that there used to be 120k hours in a release and now Qwest has reduced the hours to 20k per year. She said that we are not making any headway with the extension.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said that we can regroup to review everyone’s feedback.

Jeff Sonnier-Sprint said that he can live with 150 days.

Gloria Velez-AT&T said that there was some discussion about the length of notification timeframes for business rules and tech specs (73 days)

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that we are not offering that extension anymore because we aren’t looking at the 60 day timeframe.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said that we can look at the migration schedule 90 days prior to the release.

Gloria Velez-AT&T said that Qwest keeps saying that it is ‘easier’ but Qwest does not understand the CLEC side of it. She asked if Qwest has changed the language to provide the cut dates sooner.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that we don’t have the language out there today.

Gloria Velez-AT&T said that the current process has been working fine and that this change has no benefit to the CLEC.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that we removed the language requiring the vote for the extension and would be a benefit to the CLEC.

Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that the CLECs are saying that there is no benefit and that there has to be give and take.

Susan Lorence-Qwest disagreed and said that we tried to modify the proposal based on feedback.

Gloria Velez-AT&T asked if there would ever be a timeline where there is only 1 release.

Dawn Beck-Qwest said that there could possibly be 30 days with 1 release.

Mark Coyne-Qwest said that we will regroup and look at next steps.

10/15/08 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Mark Coyne – Qwest stated that this CR was presented in the September CMP Meeting. Susan Lorence – Qwest said that there was an ad hoc call on October 7th and that the proposed changes were reviewed. Susan noted that Qwest is re-evaluating the proposal and options. Susan stated that we are looking at 120 day option instead of the 60 day option. Susan said that we are looking at guaranteeing an extension of 30 days with caveats prior to the sunset date. Susan said that no vote may be required. Susan said that Qwest is looking at posting the migration windows earlier on the Wholesale Calendar. Susan said that if all customers are migrated we are proposing to sunset early. Susan said that we are reviewing the CMP Document and will submit redlines prior to the November meeting and that we may request an adhoc meeting. Susan said that there could be a vote in December CMP Meeting. . Jeff Sonnier – Sprint asked if there was going to be a vote today. Susan Lorence – Qwest said no. Bonnie Johnson – Integra said that if Qwest is proposing to a change to sunset early and is developing language re: if all customers migrate, then there needs to be by a vote and it has to be unanimous. Susan Lorence – Qwest said that we would take a look at that. Bonnie Johnson – Integra said that she wanted to ask the question surrounding the proposal of 120 days. She told Qwest that Qwest should make sure that there are no CLECs that cannot live without the 180 days. Susan Lorence – Qwest said that if that is the case this proposal would be retracted. Jeff Sonnier – Sprint said that he needs 180 days because of their long and drawn out process, Mark Coyne – Qwest stated that he was hearing that Sprint would vote no on anything less then 180 days. Jeff Sonnier – Sprint said that was correct and even with the 180 days they are still scrambling. He said they have to skip a release now. Susan Lorence – Qwest said based on this discussion we need to review internally to see what to do with this CR. Bonnie Johnson – Integra said she was not sure if all of the changes were related to 180 days. Susan Lorence – Qwest said that Qwest would regroup due to today’s discussion. Leilani Hines – Verizon said that she agreed with Sprint and that they need more time and she would vote no on this request. Susan Lorence – Qwest thanked all for the feedback. Gloria Velez – AT&T clarified that the change to the 90 day notice is when you publish 90 days prior to the next release production date and when they go into production from that date that one they would use. Susan Lorence – Qwest stated that the 90 days prior to the next Release production date would be the firm date if we go forward with this CR.

CMP Adhoc Meeting PC090208-01CM Application to Application Support Change – Change to CMP Doc October 7, 2008

Attendees: Kathy Stamps-Level 3, Doug Allen-AT&T, Tim Kagle-Comcast, Kim Isaacs-Integra, Bonnie Johnson-Integra, Julie Stearns-Integra, Loriann Burke- XO Communications, Jim Hickle-Velocity, Dawn Beck-Qwest, Gloria Velez-AT&T, Bennet Pang-Comcast, Cim Chambers-Qwest, Gary Sallee-Qwest, Susan Lorence-Qwest, Lynn Stecklein-Qwest Susan Lorence-Qwest stated that the redline document and matrix that would be discussed in this meeting can be found at: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/calendar/ Susan Lorence-Qwest stated that with the implementation of XML in 2006and based on Customer feedback, the implementation of a release becomes a much more simplified process. She said that Qwest is proposing shortening the window an old release stays in production after a new release is implemented. She said that changing the implementation timeline would require a change to the CMP Document. She said that an old release now stays in production for 180 days and Qwest is proposing shortening that timeframe to 60 days. She said that in Section 8.0 of the CMP document (Application-to-Application) is cleanup to be more representative of our current practice. Our standard practice for a number of years has been 2 releases per year and a point release if necessary. Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that she has no questions now and understands the change. (10/15/08 Comments to minutes received from Integra) She said she may not agree with the change. Bonnie said she will let Susan explain the changes and then comment rather than commenting on each change. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that we took out segment sentence in the event that IMA major release are implemented more than 6 months apart and with this change the releases will still be implemented approximately 6 months apart. She said that in the sentence that says ‘any CLEC desiring to delay retirement of the previous release’. She said that ‘in the event’ was no longer appropriate. She said that Qwest will review and grant an extension of the planned retirement date up to additional 30 days and our intent is to maintain no more than 2 releases in production at anytime. Gloria Velez-AT&T clarified that if a company wanted to request an extension of an additional 30 days they would have to issue a CR and go through the approval process. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that is the process. Gloria Velez-AT&T confirmed that there is no guarantee with this language that if a customer needed the extension it would be granted and is subject to some type of approval. Cim Chambers-Qwest said there was one instance where this type of request was not granted because the request extended beyond what we were able to support .She said we would have been supporting an additional release in production. She said that it got scaled back and we weren’t able to meet the entire request. Gloria Velez-AT&T said that Qwest maintains no more than 2 major releases in production and was trying to correlate the language to the matrix. She said that when she looks at the proposed chart she did not see how there would be 2 releases up. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that in this instance Qwest will maintain no more than 2 releases. She said that the upcoming release is scheduled on October 20, 2008 and would have IMA 23.0 and IMA 24.0 in production. Gloria Velez-AT&T said that with the new proposal release B comes into play in October and release A goes away in December and when December comes around there is only release B. Lan Nyugen-Neustar said that if you look at next year’s calendar between June and October the only release in production would be IMA 25.0. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that this wording says that we would not have anymore than 2 releases but we don’t guarantee that we would have more than 2 at all times. Gloria Velez-AT&T said that until you implement your next release you will only have 1 release up which is different than what is happening today with the 180 day window. Bennet Pang-Comcast said that with IMA 25.0 and ongoing you would have 60 days with 2 releases at the same time and 120 days with a single release and then 60 days with 2 releases and then 120 days in a single release in that pattern. He said that the language (10/16/08 -Comments to minutes from Comcast) in the CMP Document does not reflect that. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that we can highlight that sentence and consider how we can modify. Leo Dimitriadus-AT&T said that once you implement for example IMA 24.0 you are giving 60 days to move off of IMA 23.0 unless you request an extension and could mean 90 days. He said that he understands the need for Qwest but it may not conform to their schedule. He said that the way Qwest has been doing it so far has worked for them at least from their release schedules. He said that the planning cycle is not the issue it is the release support date that we have to use to upgrade to Qwest release dates. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that we want to discuss all options and would like to get through the changes 1st. She said that the next change is in Section 8.1.7 that is associated with the release documentation addenda to go from 180 days to 60days. She said that there was a sentence at the end of the bullet that says ‘CLEC are not required to support all new releases’. She said that with this proposed change this sentence no longer applies because once the 60 day or with the 90 day extension has occurred every CLEC would have to migrate to each release and there is no chance of skipping a release. Dawn Beck-Qwest said that this sentence is technically not true today. She said that our release schedules are every 6 months and, for example, the CLECs have had to migrate from 22 to 23 they will have to go from 23 to 24. Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that she understood but under the current CMP if it was left at 4 releases and there were regulatory changes and you did do 4 it would be true unless you change that 4 to something else. Dawn Beck-Qwest clarified that it was 3 not 4. Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that the 4 was in the 1st section of 8.0 of the CMP document ‘ unless mandated as a regulatory change, Qwest will implement no more than 4 release per year’. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that the current figure 4 shows the timeline if we were to have 3 releases in a year (180 day timeline). She reviewed the proposed timeline exhibit (see redline for exhibits). Gloria Velez-AT&T said that she had a question on the release B test window. She said that it shows 9/1 to 10/1 and asked if that is when Qwest is expecting all the company’s on XML. Dawn Beck-Qwest said that it is saying that our test window is available 30 days prior to the release date. Gloria Velez-AT&T asked if this was for testing externally. Dawn Beck-Qwest said yes. Gloria Velez-AT&T asked if a CLEC doesn’t take advantage of testing between 9/1 and 10/1 how many test dates or window are there. Dawn Beck-Qwest said that we allow our customers to test at anytime they want and can support everyone at the same time. Gloria Velez-AT&T said with either the 30 or 60 day window the Qwest resources are there today and can support this compressed window. She said the CLEC can pick whatever date to start testing. Dawn Beck-Qwest said yes and that it is the way it is done today. Gloria Velez-AT&T said that there is a big difference today, the window is much larger. Dawn Beck-Qwest said that today, and in the future, the customers can test anytime they want even test outside the schedules. If they have a release on their side and they want to test that change with Qwest, they can file a regression test even though it is not in conjunction with a Qwest release. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that they would work with their IMA contact. Gloria Velez-AT&T said that she was trying to understand with the shortening of days. Dawn Beck-Qwest said that you have 90 days to test unlike other ILECs that restrict the timeframe. Susan Lorence-Qwest clarified that’s the 30 days that’s available in advance of the release production date and the 60 days after in the proposal and if there was a release extension of the prior release granted then there is another 30 days so in effect it is 120 days requested under this current proposal.. She said that this is Qwest’s proposal for change and we are willing to consider other options. She said that we understood that the implementation becomes easier with XML which is why we think this proposal is reasonable. Bennet Pang - Comcast said that if there is no impact to the product (10/15/08 Comments to minutes received from Comcast) used by the CLEC with the new release the minimum he would have to do is change the release number in his application and install the new WSDL provided by Qwest, is this correct. Dawn Beck-Qwest said that is correct and that he would have to send in 1 order regardless of the number of products they have. She said that on pre-order one of each pre-order is needed to test the change. Bennet Pang-Comcast asked how many opportunities of upgrades (10/15/08 Comments to minutes received from Comcast) (meaning mid cycle conversions) do they have within 60 day window. Dawn Beck-Qwest said that Qwest could give concrete (10/15/08 Comments to minutes received from Comcast) dates for mid cycle conversions going forward and is negotiable. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that this may be something we can provide. She said that there would be a minimum of 3 mid cycle dates to allow the opportunity to upgrade and the tentative timeframes would be the 35, 45 and 60. Bennet Pang-Comcast said that is a severe restriction if the duration is only 60 days and you don’t open up all the weekends for mid cycle conversions. Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that there are probably some CLECs that would not agree to the 60 days but may agree to something less than 180. She said that Integra may agree to the 120. Dawn Beck-Qwest asked Integra why they would only agree to 120 when normally Integra mid cycle the very 1st mid cycle date available. Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that it has to do with other changes in the document that they would not agree to and that she is uncertain about what changes may made in the future. She said that this change requires unanimous vote and (10/15/08 Comments to minutes received from Integra) if in the future we need that time back in the past if something changed and we needed more time etc. Qwest would vote no. Bennet Pang-Comcast said that the date is not the only restriction, it is the number of the mid cycle conversions. Bonnie Johnson-Integra asked if this would require additional changes to the document because it is not addressed in the paragraphs that are changing. Dawn Beck-Qwest said that is has never been addressed and we are saying that we could add it in. She said that it would not be feasible to be available every weekend because of other work. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that going back to 8.0 4th paragraph our current practice is to implement 2 major releases and if necessary 2 point release and asked if there was a problem with making this change.She said that this has been the case in the last 3-4 years. Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that they would agree to something like Qwest’s typical practice is to implement 2 major releases and if necessary 2 point releases. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that is a good change and asked if anyone else had any other changes. Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that they are not willing to change the 4 to 2. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that Integra wanted to leave no more than 4. Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that is correct. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that on the App-to-App interface said that we heard from Integra that they would consider the 120 days and asked how everyone else felt. Doug Allen-AT&T said that at this point AT&T could not agree to the 120days and that they prefer no change. He said that he also did not agree that XML is a simplified process from an AT&T perspective. He said that with the coordination of internal releases and resources they can’t agree to any change and that 180 days is the preference. Susan Lorence-Qwest asked if AT&T would consider a phased approach with IMA giving time to plan for that. Doug Allen-AT&T said that they would have to take that back and review the phased approach. Dawn Beck-Qwest asked if AT&T would accept the 120 day with the 30 day available extension which adds up to 180. Doug Allen-AT&T said no because that (the extension) would requires an approval. Dawn Beck-Qwest said that currently AT&T does not go the full 180 days and never has. Gloria Velez-AT&T said that 180 days gives them a buffer and the cut dates Qwest provided they have always had to make adjustment to their schedules. She said that they have specific release timeframes and the 3rd Saturday and Sunday of the month is something that Qwest does not offer. Dawn Beck-Qwest said that that we would be willing to do is provide concrete timelines as to when Qwest would do the mid cycles to help them in planning. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that we could provide the 120 day and guarantee an extension of 30 days if requested and we would provide the mid cycle dates. Gloria Velez-AT&T said that they would have to take this proposal back internally. She asked at what point in this timeline would the mid cycle dates be provided. Dawn Beck-Qwest said that we could take a look at that and asked Susan when we publish our calendar. Susan Lorence-Qwest said we could include it in with the 73 day notification when we send the tech specs. Bennet Pang-Comcast said that (10/15/08 Comments to minutes received from Comcast) the mid cycle conversion dates should be provided when Qwest publishes the release schedule the test windows and the production date is provided.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said that when we submit our draft tech specs 73 days in advance of the release production date we could provide the (10/15/08 Comments to minutes received from Comcast) mid cycle conversion dates. Bennet Pang-Comcast said that would work for Comcast. Bonnie Johnson-Integra asked if Qwest was going to do a new proposal for the CLECs to look at. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that we would consider doing a new proposal based on the feedback and said that if there were too many caveats it would not be as beneficial for Qwest either. We want to make it a collaborative approach on both sides. She said that AT&T can’t agree on anything less than 120 days and that we want to make sure we have all the parameters that might make it more beneficial. CLEC-asked what AT&T’s current policy was re: upgrades and timeframes. He said that what Qwest is asking for is similar to what AT&T’s methods and procedures He asked asked why AT&T could not agree to this change. Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that this question was way off base and that we are in a wholesale discussion with AT&T wholesale people and that this was not an appropriate question. CLEC - said that he thought it was an appropriate question especially since we are delaying things because of one person having that opportunity. He said that there is some standardization that should happen in this environment and if you have one company disagreeing it gets turned down. He said that there is a lot of discussion re: this change and no one even takes 180 days for this process. Gloria Velez-AT&T said that the statement that AT&T has not taken 180 days is not true. Dawn Beck-Qwest said that we have never had a mid cycle at 180 days before. Susan Lorence-Qwest asked if there were any other suggestions beside the phased approach and the mid cycle dates Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that Qwest changed the word migration in the app-to-app interface paragraph and said that they want it retained as migration. She asked Qwest to identify the reason we did that when we do the new proposal Dawn Beck-Qwest said that the reason was because there was a typo in the document. She said out practice is that if a CLEC fails to migrate and we remove them from the electronic order processing, they have to do a new implementation to get back into it. Bonnie Johnson-Integra said she would like to see how this lined up with their ICA. Dawn Beck-Qwest said that she did not know what was in their ICA but when a customer fails to migrate and the release retires they have to do a new implementation. Susan Lorence-Qwest said it was more of a cleanup. Bonnie Johnson-Integra said she would take this back and review. She that they won’t agree to omit the sentence ‘the CLECs are not required to support all new releases’ . She said the reasoning is that if Qwest has a regulatory release they don’t agree that it should count towards the 2 releases. There could be an opportunity to have more than 1 release per year. She said that Qwest may have a regulatory commitment they need to meet that is outside of the scheduled releases and would have to do an additional release. Susan Lorence-Qwest said like the LNP Port release. She asked if there were any other ideas to move past the 180 days to something shortened other than a phased approach. Gloria Velez-AT&T said that historically Qwest has been doing releases in April and October. She said that in the matrix provided using the 60 day example, there would be a sunset occurring in December. She said that December is a tough month because there are a lot of code freezes and blackout dates. Dawn Beck-Qwest said that we are not changing when we would be doing our releases. Gloria Velez-AT&T said that she wants to avoid a sunset at the end of the year. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that was a good point but that we really don’t have that condition since it does not look like the 60 days timeline will get approved and that there won’t be a sunset in December. Gloria Velez-AT&T said unless you go off your April and October schedule. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that we would consider all feedback with the new proposal.

9/17/08 Product/Process CMP Meeting

Susan Lorence-Qwest said that this is a change to the CMP Document. Qwest implemented XML to replace EDI in October of 2006 and with the implementation of XML installing the next upgrade to IMA became a simplified process. She said that because of that, Qwest is proposing that we change from the current 180 days to keep a release up to a 60 day timeline. She said that we are also proposing to change how long a release can be extended. She said clean up language is included to support our standard operating practice since 2004 of only having 2 releases per year. She said that we would like to have an adhoc meeting if there is enough interest. Gloria Velez-AT&T said that she has not had an opportunity to review the documents in detail and asked if a timeline using the current example could be provided to make the language clear. She said that Qwest is implementing IMA 24.0 on 10/20/08 and at some point IMA 23.0 would have to be retired and IMA 25.0 would have to come on board Susan Lorence-Qwest said that we could provide a timeline using this example. She that we are not proposing any changes to IMA 23.0. She said that this change would occur with the implementation of IMA 25.0 on April 20, 2009. She said that if we get agreement on this change, IMA 24.0 would be retired on June 20, 2009 which is 60 days after IMA 25.0 goes in vs. 180 days. Gloria Velez-AT&T said that IMA 25.0 would become available in April of 09 and IMA 24.0 would retire in June of 09 giving them only 60 days to move forward. She asked what constitutes agreement to make this change. Susan Lorence-Qwest said a vote is conducted in the October meeting on the changes to this language and a unanimous vote is required. Gloria Velez-AT&T asked if there is one carrier having difficulty with this timeframe and votes no what happens to the request. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that the change does not get implemented. She said that if there is any concern regarding this request an adhoc meeting can be held to possibly modify any of these changes to make it agreeable to everyone. Bonnie Johnson-Integra said that in the redline changes there are more changes that just changing 3 to 2 releases. She said that she knows Integra would not agree on one of the last deletions in Section 8.1.7 that states CLECs are not required to support all new releases. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that we removed that point because it becomes a given that each CLEC would have to go to the next release because you can’t jump releases any longer. She said that we will schedule an adhoc meeting to review each of the proposed changes. She said that all of the related changes are associated to the proposed change of going from 180 to 60 days. Gloria Velez-AT&T asked if this was the 1st time this information was being presented to the CLEC Community. Susan Lorence-Qwest said yes. Gloria Velez-AT&T asked Qwest if Qwest presented the request in September and your expectation is to vote on the change the following month. Susan Lorence-Qwest said that would be the 1st possible chance to vote on it if there are no questions. Gloria Velez-AT&T said that expectation is a bit much and short and said that they would like an adhoc meeting.

Open Product/Process CR PC050503-2 Detail

Description Of Change

Expected Deliverable:

Grandfather SVDS effective 8/15/03

Status History

Project Meetings

8/16/04 CMP Meeting Mintues Cindy Macy – Qwest advised this CR is pending FCC tariff approval. This CR will remain in Development Status.

July 21, 2004 Janean Van Dusen – Qwest advised that the effective date for this CR is still pending. This CR will remain in Development status.

June 16, 2004 Janean Van Dusen – Qwest reported that this CR is still pending. The FCC tariff is still waiting for an effective date. This CR will remain in Development Status.

May 19, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Janean Van Dusen – Qwest advised that this CR remains on hold pending FCC approval. This CR will remain in Development Status.

April 21, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Janean VanDusen – Qwest advised there is not an implementation date as of yet for this CR. This CR will remain in Development Status.

March 17, 2004 CMP Meeting notes: Janean Van Dusen – Qwest advised that the implementation date is still pending. This CR will remain in Development Status.

February 18, 2004 CMP Meeting Janean Van Dusen – Qwest provided status. This CR is still pending FCC approval. This CR will remain in Development Status.

CMP Meeting 1/21/04 Janean Van Dusen – Qwest advised this CR is still waiting for a date. It is in front of the FCC pending approval. This CR will remain in Development Status.

CMP Meeting 12/17/03 - Janean VanDusen – Qwest advised there is not an effective date for this CR as of yet. The CR will remain in Development status.

CMP Meeting 11/19/03 Janean VanDusen – Qwest advised there is not an effective date for this CR as of yet. The CR will remain in Development status.

CMP Meeting 10-15-03 Janean VanDusen – Qwest advised there is not an effective date for this project as of yet. This CR will remain in Development Status.

CMP Meeting 9-17-03 Janean advised the FCC tariff does not have an effective date as of yet. This CR will stay in Development status.

CMP Meeting 08-20-03

Van Dusen-Qwest stated that no precise implementation date was available.

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

CMP Meeting 07-16-03

Van Dusen-Qwest stated that the implementation date would be pushed back from 8/15.

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

Van Dusen-Qwest stated that the implementation was scheduled for August although it may slip. She recommended that that CR move to Development. ========================================================== Input Meeting – 06-03-03

Attendees Matt White – Qwest Janean Van Dusen – Qwest Skip Olson – Qwest Barb Newton – Qwest Richard Journey – Qwest Mallory Paxton – Qwest Dalene Fuqua – Qwest Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon

White-Qwest welcomed the attendees, described the purpose of the meeting and asked Van Dusen-Qwest to describe the CRs. Van Dusen-Qwest described the CRs.

050703-6

Johnson-Eschelon asked if this CR would follow the same format as the previous grandfathering CRs. Fuqua-Qwest and Newton-Qwest stated that it would.

050503-2

Johnson-Eschelon asked if grandfathering and grandparenting the same and if they were different from retiring. Van Dusen-Qwest stated that grandfathering and grandparenting were synonymous and that they did not mean the same thing as retiring. Johnson-Eschelon asked if only new customers would be impacted. Van Dusen-Qwest stated that was correct.

050503-1

Johnson-Eschelon asked what switchnet 56 was. Olson-Qwest stated that it was digital data just like ISDN. He explained that switchnet can only run at 58 kbps and that there is a lack of demand for this product.

========================================================== CMP Meeting 05-21-03

Open Product/Process CR PC090110-1 Detail

Description Of Change

A letter identifying the disconnection of service and requesting waiver of termination fees will be required. Additionally, a death certificate or military call to duty letter must be provided.

The draft proposal process is:

Fax your Service Manager a copy of the death certificate or military call to duty letter along with a letter requesting waiver of termination fees on designated account(s) and the PON of the LSR requesting the waiver. Submit an LSR to disconnect the QCB package(s), mark it for manual handling, with a comment that the required documentation for a waiver of termination fees has been sent to your Service Manager. Include the Service Manager's name.

ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION

A Reseller may request that Qwest waive termination fees in the event a Reseller customer’s business ceases to operate as a result of a death or military assignment of a sole proprietor or small business owner critical to the operation of the business. This waiver would only apply to Qwest Choice Business (PGOQL), Qwest Choice Business Plus (PGOQM), Qwest Choice Business Add-A-Line (PGOQN) and Qwest Choice Business Prime (PGOQT) Packages with term agreements.

A letter identifying the disconnection of service and requesting waiver of termination fees will be required. Additionally, a death certificate or military call to duty letter must be provided.

The draft proposal process is:

Fax your Service Manager a copy of the death certificate or military call to duty letter along with a letter requesting waiver of termination fees on designated account(s) and the PON of the LSR requesting the waiver. Submit an LSR to disconnect the QCB package(s), mark it for manual handling, with a comment that the required documentation for a waiver of termination fees has been sent to your Service Manager. Include the Service Manager's name.

The proposed implementation date is 11/1/10.

Status History

Project Meetings

Open Product/Process CR PC072010-1ES Detail

Description Of Change

- defined parameters for assignment of copper pairs

- assignment of the pair with the least amount of loss in the cross box

- new levels of conditioning (near and far bridge tap and remove all options)

- enhanced tests for specific types of NCI codes.

092310 REQUEST FROM ORIGINATOR Please revise the Level 4 CR PC072010-1 to also include the state of Montana. Changes in this CR will apply to both Minnesota and Montana and be reflected accordingly in the PCAT documentation.

110910 REVISION CR to apply to Minnesota only. Remove the reference to Montana

12/21/10 REVISION Title change - previous title was

"110910 ADD’L REVISION Change in process in Minnesota for Non Loaded and ADSL Compatible Loops used to provide xDSL services. 092310 REVISED Change in process in Minnesota AND MONTANA for Non Loaded and ADSL Compatible Loops used to provide xDSL services"

Previous title 12/21/10 REVISED Change in process in Minnesota for xDSL Capable Loops, e.g., Non Loaded and ADSL Compatible Loops (aka xDSL services)

Expected Deliverables/Proposed Implementation Date is November 22, 2010

Status History

Project Meetings

Kim Isaacs – Integra relayed that their intent was to provide an Integra response in January and that, barring any problems, the February meeting would be a good time to review the matrix.

Julia Redman-Carter – Windstream said her company was in a transition period but that she would shoot for February. If she was not able to be prepared for the February meeting, Julia said she would identify that in writing one week before the February meeting.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said at this point we would plan to review the Tech Pub matrix in the February meeting. Mark also relayed that on December 29, CenturyLink had sent a notice that included an update on the Conditioning matrix to provide an additional response to # 17 on modifying the PCAT definition of conditioning. The updated document is posted to the Customer Notice Letter Archive (CNLA). On January 6, Integra had provided a response associated with Item 8 on the PCAT matrix which was posted to the CMP calendar. Mark asked if there were any questions; there were none.

12/14/11 Product Process Monthly Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink recapped the Change Request and said that after a discussion in the November meeting regarding the removal of instances of “Unbundled” and “Interconnection”, the matrix with updated comments and a redline of the Technical Publication went out with a notice on December 7, 2011. Mark said that a discussion was to be held in either January or February 2012 and asked if there was consensus as to when this could occur.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra stated that since the documents were just received, they did not know the scope of what their response (12/27/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) WOULD HAVE TO BE and with the holidays and the hearings in Colorado or Washington THE WEEK OF CMP, January does not work.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said we could target February and then revisit the issue in the January meeting.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra stated that (12/27/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) they [delete WOULD] SHOULD have an idea of the scope by then and said others may have questions today.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink asked if there were other questions.

Julia Redman-Carter – Windstream stated she would need to at least February as well with their transitions and the holidays.

11/16/11 Product Process Monthly Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink stated that the download matrix for the Technical Publication matrix was sent out on November 9th and that other related documents were also posted. He said in the October meeting, there was discussion on whether to discuss the Tech Pub matrix in January or February 2012. He asked if there were any preferences as to when to meet.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra stated that from what she could tell, she thought that there (11/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) WOULD be SOME movement on CenturyLink’s part, but it appears CenturyLink simply restated its position. She said she thought Integra would be responding sooner but due to the upcoming holidays, it was hard to say. She said January could be targeted, but that she could not commit to an absolute date.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink asked what others thought, in particular, PAETEC.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC agreed they would try for January meeting but could not promise.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink offered to touch base in the December meeting to see if January or February would be best.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra said that would work but that there were unexplained changes made to the Technical Publication and had sent an email requesting information on that.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink stated that CenturyLink had received an email from Integra that questioned why we had removed the terms “unbundled” and “interconnection” in the Technical Publication. Mark said the Integra email had been posted to the calendar for the CMP meeting and asked if Bonnie wanted to clarify the question. Bonnie Johnson – Integra stated that the email was fairly self-explanatory. She said nothing in the matrix explained the reason for the change.

Jamal Boudhaouia – CenturyLink asked Bonnie to restate the question again before he responded.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra stated CenturyLink had struck “unbundled” and “interconnection” in some places in the Tech Pub and it was unclear why.

Jamal Boudhaouia – CenturyLink responded that the Technical Publication encompasses multiple services and network elements and that when CenturyLink reviewed the document, some sections were defining a finished service (11/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SUCH AS DS1 AND ISDN and some were defining a loop. Jamal said generally, a loop is not for interconnection which implies an exchange of traffic. Anywhere CenturyLink felt that the loop was not specific to interconnection or where it was defining a finished service, those words were removed. He also mentioned that some instances may have been missed AND HE DID NOT MAKE 100% OF THE CHANGES, but that was the concept behind the changes.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked if that explanation could be provided in an email

Mark Coyne –CenturyLink said yes but what about including it in the meeting minutes.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra said she preferred an email to get it sooner.

Mike McCarthy – MN Department of Commerce (11/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SAID IT SOUNDS LIKE JAMAL IS THE RIGHT PERSON AND asked for clarification and referred to page 1-5 and brought up new edits to a previous edit in July. The Qwest responsibilities USED TO SAY BASED ON THE NC/NCI CODE [delete HAD INCLUDED REFERENCE TO THE NC/NCI CODES IN AN EARLIER UPDATE], but had been updated now to refer to Section 1.6.2 instead which included the “old fuzzy language” that stated that Qwest would “take this into account”. He asked if we had completed a cycle back to the spring of 2011 about the use of the NC/NCI codes WHICH SHOULD RELIABLY TRANSMIT A SIGNAL FOR XDSL SERVICE AND A PERSON MIGHT CONSTRUE THAT TO MEAN WE ARE WHERE WE WERE LAST SPRING.

Jamal Boudhaouia – CenturyLink said it did not make sense.

Mike McCarthy – MN Department of Commerce stated he wanted to understand if this was just an error in editing.

Jamal Boudhaouia – CenturyLink stated that it would be readdressed.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC requested to be copied on the response and asked if they had questions, where should they be sent.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said to send them to the CMPCR mailbox.

Liz Tierney – Covad (now Megapath) asked that by removing the language, (11/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) IT WAS NOT MOVE RESTRICTIVE AND did the document cover more than just the unbundled product.

Jamal Boudhaouia – CenturyLink said yes the Tech Pub does not restrict the product at all.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC asked that if it wasn’t restricting it, would customers have to go to a different Technical Publication for unbundled loops?

Jamal Boudhaouia – CenturyLink stated that unbundled loops would be sections of the Tech Pub and some sections would not be unbundled (11/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) LIKE DS1 AND ISDN.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC asked for clarification with “interconnection”.

Jamal Boudhaouia – CenturyLink said interconnection is to connect two networks together. An unbundled loop is not used for interconnection. The term “interconnection” has the connotation that a loop would be used to exchange traffic with CenturyLink and in the loop environment, there’s no exchange of traffic. A loop is delivered in a collocation.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC stated that she understood but was concerned about being able to have a product delivered over the loop. She didn’t want to limit a certain product from being sent through the network.

Jamal Boudhaouia – CenturyLink stated that under the context of 251, CenturyLink delivers the loop based on the NC/NCI codes and what the CLEC does with it is up to them, assuming that the signal is compliant. The CLEC is free to do what they wish with it once the circuit is delivered. CenturyLink does not see the signal and has no way to verify what is being transmitted (11/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) AND WE WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT THE IP PACKETS WERE.

Mike McCarthy – MN Department of Commerce asked if in terms of Spectrum Management, does that mean that CenturyLink will have (11/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) UNEXPECTED mysterious impacts on its system due to the traffic sent by CLECs.

(11/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) [delete JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – CENTURYLINK STATED THAT WE WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT THE IP PACKETS WERE.]

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC stated her ICA allows for enough power to be able to send the signal to their customer and that she wanted to make sure that removing “interconnection” did not impact the Spectrum Management range for these products.

Jamal Boudhaouia – CenturyLink said we are talking about the context of 251. From a loop perspective, CenturyLink is not interconnecting with the CLEC. If there was interconnection with CenturyLink, we would have to agree on protocols to accept between the two networks.

Julia Redman-Carter asked that this be clarified in the response.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra said she knows her ICA and DS1 and ISDN services are unbundled and that Integra will object to the change. Whether or not CenturyLink considers it finished services, they are still unbundled loops in her ICA.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said she has the same concern but would wait to see it in writing.

Jamal Boudhaouia – CenturyLink clarified that he believed that Bonnie was talking about the definition of a loop.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC stated that she understood the concept of the changes and that when she looks at the document, she understands it is from an engineering perspective. By leaving the terms in, it would help clarify points rather than pulling them out for an interpretation issue. Julia said it seems like CenturyLink is setting itself up for a legal argument based on interpretation. She would like to see the response in writing and how these changes do not impact Spectrum Management.

Jamal Boudhaouia – CenturyLink said based on what Julia said, regarding engineering terms and design, perhaps nothing should be included regarding interconnection, but rather pure network facility information. Engineering and technicians only deal with the network. Jamal said he was not advocating it, but if we were to go purely engineering terms then the network should only be defined as network, no interconnect or unbundled, just a facility.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra replied that whether or not Integra would agree to the changes, she has a real concern about Jamal stating that CenturyLink may not have captured all of the changes. She will look at the CenturyLink response but did not think Integra would be agreeable to removing any of them.

Jamal Boudhaouia – CenturyLink said he would like an explanation of why “interconnection” should be kept.

Mike McCarthy – MN Department of Commerce said there is an open docket in Minnesota about what is an unbundled element in regard to copper loops used for xDSL services. Mike said the watershed disagreement appears to be the (11/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SHAPING UP ON THE difference between what is a finished service versus what is an unbundled copper loop. Mike said there is sensitivity on this and said it appears CenturyLink is redefining the product in the Tech Pub which is the [delete BASIS FOR THE CENTURYLINK AND CLEC DISAGREEMENT] LITERALLY THE NUB OF THAT DOCKET.

Jamal Boudhaouia – CenturyLink (11/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SAID OH REALLY AND thanked Mike for his comments.

Kim Isaacs – Integra asked for clarification regarding reference to finished services. Kim said the changes made to the Tech Pub are not to DS1 and ISDN products, but rather to the xDSL loop and asked if it was the intent to change the definition of the xDSL product.

Jamal Boudhaouia – CenturyLink replied that unbundled xDSL is a dry copper wire.

Kim Isaacs – Integra replied that it was conditioned to provide the broadband services based on the NC/NCI codes.

Jamal Boudhaouia – CenturyLink confirmed that when conditioning was requested, CenturyLink would condition to transmit reliably the service ordered.

Kim Isaacs – Integra asked (11/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) FOR JAMAL TO TELL HER the difference between an unbundled xDSL Capable Loop and an xDSL Capable Loop.

Jamal Boudhaouia – CenturyLink stated that a loop was a loop; there was no difference from an engineering perspective. A dry copper loop is an unbundled loop.

Kim Isaacs – Integra asked why take out “unbundled”.

Jamal Boudhaouia – CenturyLink replied that he needed to look at what happened during the last weeks of revisions. In the multiple re-workings of the Tech Pub chapters, Jamal said there could have been instances where words were (11/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) INADVERTENTLY [delete INCORRECTLY] removed and he would clean it up.

Kim Isaacs – Integra stated that CenturyLink inserted “unbundled” in Chapter 5 and is taking it out in Chapter 3. Kim said it seems CenturyLink is trying to tell CLECs something.

Jamal Boudhaouia- CenturyLink said there was no intent but that we were trying to clean it up.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink stated that we would respond to the email questions and that SMEs would make sure the documents were consistent.

Jamal Boudhaouia – CenturyLink stated that was correct.

Julia Redman-Carter asked that if corrections are made, to please send a notice since it would impact their response. Susan Lorence – CenturyLink said if changes are made, CenturyLink would send another Change Management notice with all of the documents.

Julia Redman-Carter said that was fine as long as the changes are specifically identified.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink asked if there were any other comments. There were none. Mark said there was an action item from the October meeting regarding issuing a Change Request for conditioning during repair and an email exchange with Integra is posted to the CMP calendar. Mark said that CenturyLink has determined that there are some basic differences between the installation and repair processes and the efficiencies may not be that great on the CenturyLink side. Mark said the CLECs should issue the CR to express the benefit from their perspective.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra stated that Integra disagrees and that the Amendment is clear it should be done and that CenturyLink should be doing it. Bonnie said (11/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) IT IS NOT THEIR JOB TO CORRECT IT if a process was implemented that was contrary to the Amendment they should not have to submit a CR but will do so with their objection identified.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink acknowledged their position.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC stated that they were in agreement with Integra.

10/19/11 Product Process Monthly Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said he indicated in the last meeting that CenturyLink was working on the responses to CLEC concerns. The Conditioning matrix, PCAT and download are in the package with the CenturyLink response. Mark said CLECs had not had a lot of time to review the documents since last Friday; they were also sent out in Word the day before. Mark said he thought we have agreement on 90-95% of the matrix regarding language and that he would like to have Bob Mohr review the matrix and cover the issues that CenturyLink is in agreement with CLECs. He said there is still disagreement on a couple issues which will need discussion but due to sensitivity, those should be handled in writing vs. in the meeting. Mark proposed keeping the discussion to the first column and last two columns of the matrix.

Bob Mohr – CenturyLink addressed each issue in numerical order as included in the distribution package and CenturyLink’s actions in response to CLEC’s requests.

(10/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS)BOB MOHR – CENTURY LINK STATED FOR ISSUE #1 CENTURYLINK ACCEPTED LANGUAGE AND PUT IT IN THE PCAT. ISSUE #2 CENTURYLINK ACCEPTED LANGUAGE AND ADDED AS RED-LINE TO THE CONDITIONING DOWNLOAD. ISSUE #3 CENTURYLINK UPDATED THE CONDITIONING DOWNLOAD ISSUE #4 CENTURYLINK CHANGED “WILL” TO “MAY” IN THE PCAT ISSUE #5 CENTURYLINK IMPLEMENTED SCA OPTION 3 (CONDITIONING AND/OR REMOVE ALL CONDITIONING) ON 10/17/11 IN IMA RELEASE 31.0 ISSUE #6 CENTURYLINK WILL MAKE THE CHANGES IN THE 10/31/11 ADDENDUM TO IMA RELEASE 31.0

Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked a question about line item #8 and CenturyLink’s determination that no changes were necessary in the process for requesting conditioning during repair. Bonnie asked if CenturyLink thinks this is something that CLECs can already do.

Bob Mohr –CenturyLink replied no, it is either or.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra stated that it doesn’t benefit either company or the end user to submit a repair ticket, dispatch the technician, determine that more conditioning is required, have the CLEC submit another ticket and dispatch the tech again. She said it is not logical and delays customer repair and asked how we get around this.

Bob Mohr – CenturyLink replied that he understood and that the issue had been discussed internally. Bob said if CenturyLink received a Change Request, it would be investigated.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked what that meant and said she felt that CenturyLink had already made a decision on this issue (10/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS)AND WOULD DENY A CR.

Bob Mohr – CenturyLink replied that no decision had been made and that it would be investigated if a CR was received.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra stated that this is basically the same process as Installation and that the same technicians were doing the work. She stated that the Amendment allows CenturyLink to charge in the same manner.

Bob Mohr – CenturyLink asked if there was a concern issuing a CR? Bonnie Johnson – Integra stated that often they are told to submit a CR when it is not needed. She referred to the CMP document and a related document that describes the roles and responsibilities of the Service Manager. She said if there was an issue, the Service Manager was to submit a CR.

Liz Tierney – Covad asked if it was true CenturyLink would dispatch twice.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said yes and asked if Integra had taken this to their Service Manager.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra said they do not think a CR is required (10/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) AND THE AMENDMENT IS SUFFICIENT. If she agreed to submit a CR, they would want it expedited and that it would be submitted with objections.

Bob Mohr – CenturyLink stated that the process for repair is set up is an “either or” and that it would be a process change.

(10/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) MARK COYNE – CENTURYLINK STATED THIS IS FEASIBLE BUT YOU NEED A CHANGE REQUEST?

(10/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) BOB MOHR – CENTURYLINK SAID YES.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC asked for clarification as to how CenturyLink handled its own customers. Does CenturyLink dispatch out twice and bill two dispatches.

Jamal Boudhaouia – CenturyLink said he does not believe CenturyLink does “remove all” for CenturyLink customers.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra said she knows it is feasible since it is done on installation (10/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) AND IN THE SPIRIT OF THE AMENDMENT THIS SHOULD APPLY TO REPAIR AS WELL.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said we would take this off line to work with Service Management to determine how a CR would be submitted and to decide if CenturyLink would need to come back to Integra to submit one.

Bob Mohr – CenturyLink continued reviewing the matrix (10/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) ISSUE #9 CENTURYLINK WILL USE THE “INF” CODE FOR TICKET CLOSURE. CENTURYLINK WILL BE EXPANDING THE INF DEFINITION TO INCLUDE CONDITIONING ON REPAIR UNDER THE XDSL AMENDMENT.

(10/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SUSAN LORENCE – CENTURYLINK – STATED THE NOTICE WOULD BE SENT OUT AS A LEVEL 2 NOTICE

(10/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) BOB MOHR – CENTURYLINK INDICATED THAT THE NOTICE WOULD BE GOING OUT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS. BOB MOHR CONTINUED TO REVIEW THE MATRIX. ISSUE #10 LANGUAGE HAS BEEN ADDED. ISSUE #11 LANGUAGE HAS BEEN INSERTED IN THE CONDITIONING DOWNLOAD PAGE 6, ISSUE #12 LANGUAGE HAS BEEN ADDED AS PROPOSED. ISSUE #13 DELETED LANGUAGE HAS BEEN REMOVED. ISSUE #14 FOR THE K JEP VERSUS C JEP ISSUE. CENTURYLINK IS PROPOSING TO IMPLEMENT A NEW JEP COD. IN THE INTERIM CENTURYLINK WILL IDENTIFY AN EXISTING CODES THAT DOES NOT ASSIGN THE JEP TO CLEC’S RESPONSIBILITY. ISSUE #15 INSERTED LANGUAGE ON PAGE 8. ISSUE #16 INSERTED LANGUAGE ON PAGE 8. In regard to line item 17, Bob stated that was being deferred.

(10/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) BONNIE JOHNSON – INTEGRA SAID ARE WE GOING TO ADDRESS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink clarified that with line item 17 (definition of Conditioning), it is one of the sensitive issues that would have to be addressed by the stakeholders on the CenturyLink side.

(10/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) BONNIE JOHNSON – INTEGRA STATED WE HAVE MADE OUR POSITION CLEAR THERE IS AN FCC DEFINITION OF CONDITIONING AND THAT DEFINITION SHOULD BE USED.

(10/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) MARK COYNE – CENTURYLINK STATED THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WILL NEED WRITTEN RESPONSES. MARK [delete HE]e stated that a lot of progress had been made and that much of the agreed upon language could move forward and be added to the documentation. He asked if there was an opinion as to how much time would be needed to review the matrix and respond if there were any other concerns.

Kim Isaacs – Integra questioned the matrix on Technical Publication 77384.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink agreed that it was a separate matrix and that it was quite long and detailed and would be handled separately from the matrix which was just reviewed. Mark said we planned on sharing the approach for the Technical Publication matrix in the November meeting.

Mike McCarthy – Minnesota Department of Commerce said that since the matrix discussed today cross references Technical Publication 77384, would it be wise to review them side-by-side before they were wrapped up.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said he was premature in saying the PCAT updates could be sent out. He said we would wait to submit the changes just discussed until the Tech Pub matrix was reviewed. Bonnie Johnson – Integra stated that she thought Mike was indicating that the PCAT changes related to the Tech Pub and that the PCAT changes should wait until the Tech Pub matrix was reviewed.

Mike McCarthy – Minnesota Department of Commerce said he needed to digest the content that was just reviewed and that the deferred item #17 Conditioning was a cross-over and that it was not known the standard of conditioning that would be used.

(10/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) BOB MOHR – CENTURYLINK STATED THEY WERE MOVING FORWARD WITH PROCESS CHANGES

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC stated that she was not necessarily agreeing with everything that had been (10/28/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) REVIEWED [delete DISCUSSED] on the xDSL Conditioning Matrix JULIA STATED THAT SHE DID NOT WANT HER SILENCE TO CONSTRUED AS AGREEMENT until resolutions IS MET ON THE XDSL were agreed upon in regard to the Tech Pub matrix and reserved the right to re-address issues WITH XDSL MATRIX AND PCAT during AND delete [OR] after the Technical Publication issues were discussed.

(10/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) MARK COYNE – CENTURYLINK SAID YOU ALWAYS HAVE THAT RIGHT. (10/28/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) MARK COYNE – CENTURYLINK SAID THAT IS ALWAYS THE CASE.

(10/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) BONNIE JOHNSON – INTEGRA SAID QWEST HAS COME BACK BEFORE AND SAID WE DID NOT ADDRESS THAT AT THE TIME OF REVIEW AND WOULD NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE CONCERN.

(10/28/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) BONNIE JOHNSON – INTEGRA STATED THAT HASN’T ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE. PREVIOUS SITUATIONS WHEN WE HAVE ASKED TO ADDRESS AN ISSUE CENTURYLINK HAS STATED THAT THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS BY CLEC’S SO WE THOUGHT WE REACHED AGREEMENT AND IT WAS CLOSED.

(10/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JULIA REDMAN-CARTER – PAETEC DISCUSSED RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AGAIN.

(10/28/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) JULIA REDMAN-CARTER – JULIA REDMAN CARTER SAID, FOR THE RECORD, PAETEC RESERVES OUR RIGHT TO COMMENT ON ANY ISSUES OR ADDRESS NEW ISSUES, INCLUDING THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN CLOSED PREVIOUSLY, RELATED TO THE XDSL MATRIX, PCAT, TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATED TO XDSL UNTIL THE TECHINICAL PULICATION OR RELATED DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN VETTED AND AGREED UPON.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink agreed. He asked (10/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) IF THE DECEMBER CMP MEETING WAS APPROPRIATE FOR CLECS TO WEIGH IN ON EVERYTHING [delete FOR A REASONABLE TIME FRAME TO READDRESS THE MATRIX SINCE THE TECHNICAL PUBLICATION MATRIX WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED A PART OF THE REVIEW].

Bonnie Johnson – Integra stated that since(10/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) NOVEMBER AND December would be busy, perhaps the January 18 CMP meeting would be more logical.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC stated that, provided they get the Technical Publication matrix by the first of November, they (10/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) VERY TENTATIVELY may be able to provide a response by the January meeting, but it might not be feasible due to the upcoming holidays.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC stated that, provided they get the Technical Publication matrix by the first of November, (10/28/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) WE MAY TENTATIVELY [delete THEY MAY] be able to provide COMMENTS TO THE XDSL MATRIX [delete A RESPONSE] by the January meeting. PAETEC IS NOT ABLE TO COMMIT TO THAT DATE BECAUSE IT’S VERY DIFFICULT TO COORDINATE SME’S. IT MAY [delete BUT IT MIGHT] not be feasible due to the upcoming holidays.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink asked to be able to consider the January meeting as a goal and to look at the PCAT and Tech Pub updates side by side and to provide written feedback. Mark said that he did not want to hold up the(10/28/11 Updates received from Integra in BOLD or CAPS) 95 % agreed upon updates to documentation due to [delete ONE OR TWO] A FEW issues that could not be easily agreed upon. He suggested that perhaps, if CLECs and CenturyLink could not agree upon a definition of Conditioning, perhaps it would not be included at this point in time as an interim resolution.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra stated that whether the definition of Conditioning was not included, it would still need to be addressed at some point and not ignored.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink concurred and said not having the definition does not prevent CenturyLink providing service under the amendment.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC stated that she can see moving forward with (10/28/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) SOME OF the agreed upon documentation updates but reserves the right to object or re-open ANY RELATED DOCUMENTATION if there is an issue that comes up later.

(10/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) MARK COYNE – CENTURYLINK ASKED MIKE IF THEY ADDRESSED HIS CONCERNS.

(10/28/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) MARK COYNE – CENTURYLINK ASKED MIKE MCCARTHY IF WE HAD SATISFIED HIS CONCERNS.

Mike McCarthy – Minnesota Department of Commerce said his issue had been acknowledged.

9/21/11 Product Process Monthly Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said based on email exchanges, CenturyLink had agreed to extend the review period to September 1, 2011 and that CenturyLink had received CLEC comments. Mark said those comments are currently being reviewed by SMEs to identify where CenturyLink agrees and doesn’t agree so that we can determine how to move forward.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked when CenturyLink expected to respond.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink replied that without talking to the SME teams, he couldn’t provide a definite answer but thought it would be a few more weeks. He said he hoped there could be a discussion in the October meeting but couldn’t promise that.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked if it could be made a priority to talk about it in October.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said it could be put at the top of the list and hopefully the discussion can occur in October.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said if possible, she would like the information in writing before the meeting to allow time for review and discussion.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said (9/30/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) HE UNDERSTOOD OUR CONCERN AND THAT we would not want to provide it the day of the meeting.

8/17/11 Product Process Monthly Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said this is the CR associated with the change in process for xDSL capable loops, non-loaded and ADSL compatible loops, AKA xDSL services. As identified in the July meeting, a notification was sent on 7/22/2001 that provided the CLECs with draft documents and provided the date of 8/15/2011 for responding with comments. Mark said that based on some additional emails following the call last month regarding the 8/15 date, the date was extended to 9/1. A notification was sent on 8/15 informing all CLECs that the date had been pushed out until 9/1. Mark said once we receive those comments back on 9/1, we will work with the SME team to determine next steps. Mark also said an objection from Integra had been received which has been posted to the calendar for today’s meeting.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra said last month there was a “pat plan” to move forward but now you indicate that you will look at comments to determine next steps. Bonnie asked whether CenturyLink was now considering more calls to work collaboratively to resolve differences.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said that he could not commit until the SME team had time to review any comments that were received. Mark said in the July meeting, we said we (8/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) COMMITTED TO REVIEW THE CLEC COMMENT BEFORE WE would determine the next steps [delete BASED ON THE CLEC COMMENTS]. He said that the plans are to move forward with the Level 3 notice, but that we will review the comments before determining next steps.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra said thank you and that their request for a collaborative effort is an ongoing request.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said that we have that documented and asked if there was anything else on this CR. There was none.

7/20/11 Product Process Monthly Meeting Mark Coyne –CenturyLink (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) PROVIDED AN [Deleted RELAYED THE] update TO THE CHANGE REQUEST. [Deleted AS] CenturyLink held several ad hoc calls going through and reviewing the proposed documentation updates for this CR. Most of that time was spent reviewing TECH PUB (TP) 77384 revisions. As a result of those calls and email exchanges [Deleted CENTURYLINK HAS CAPTURED IN] two matrices WERE CREATED THAT CAPTURED [TO CAPTURE] the concerns and issues the CLECs brought forward for both the TECH PUB and the conditioning download. After further CENTURYLINK review and discussion BY CENTURYLINK about those concerns CenturyLink’s next steps WILL BE [Deleted ARE] to send a response with the two matrices detailing where CenturyLink has made the necessary revisions to address the CLECs concerns. Between the two matrices over 80% [Deleted 805] of the suggested updates by the CLECs will be included. Those responses along with the matrices will be going in the next few days. Following that CenturyLink will proceed forward with updating both the TECH PUB and the conditioning download and send out A level 3 notices. The CLECs under this approach will have two opportunities to comment on the revisions. One under the email response with the matrices and two under the formal level 3 comment cycle. We will be issuing a level 3 notice for the TP and also one for the conditioning download. We will also be issuing a level 1 notice for the process option associated with escalation #47 regarding conditioning during loop delivery and acceptance as was previously suggested by CenturyLink.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED IT APPEARS CENTURYLINK IS [Deleted DEEP BREATH] sending OUT THEIR [Deleted OUT YOUR] position, CHANGING THE [Deleted CHANGE] PCAT, AND STATING THAT THE collaborative process ON THE TP, DOWNLOADS, AND PCATS THAT CENTURYLINK [DELETED IS OVER THAT YOU] committed to work through IS OVER [Deleted TP, DOWNLOAD AND PCAT} and CENTURYLINK IS [Deleted YOU’RE] going to make those changes THEY WANT whether it’s 20% or 75% over CLEC objection.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) STATED THERE IS still opportunities for CLECs to submit comments.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) STATED WE’VE BEEN THERE. THE COMMENTS ORIGINALLY went [Deleted THERE] back and forth and we asked for collaborative process where THE CLECS AND CENTURYLINK could sit down and talk about changes TO ENSURE that THE CHANGES ARE [Deleted WERE] consistent with the XDSL provisions in amendment. Integra DID [Deleted DOES] not agree with many of THE CHANGES CENTURYLINK PROPOSED.. BONNIE REITERATED THAT regardless [Deleted THOSE. REGARDLESS] of PCAT, ICA controls. CENTURYLINK INDICATED THAT YOUR [Deleted YOUR] goal was to include PROCESSES IN THE [Deleted PROCESS FOR] amendments in the PCATs. I AM[Deleted AND] really disappointed that Qwest has taken different turn and IS refusing to be collaborative on ad hoc basis or IN CMP MEETINGS [Deleted MEETING] to get language that ALL PARTIES can agree on. CENTURYLINK IS BACK [Deleted BACK] to THE approach of sending level 3 NOTICES [Deleted NOTICE] as long YOU [Deleted WE] wait appropriate time in CMP, THE changes will be made over CLEC objections.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) STATED we have been collaborative in holding several ad hoc calls to discuss updates and revisions to XDSL.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) [Deleted DON’T] agree. WE [deleted , ] had calls and WERE half way through THE TP. WE [Deleted AND] haven’t talked about downloads or PCATs. WE ABSOLUTELY [Deleted ABSOLUTELY] don’t agree WITH CENTURYLINKS POSITION.

Mark Coyne –CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) STATED I can note your comment. We believe we did get through TP and issues were identified. CENTURYLINK PLANS [Deleted PLAN] to send out RECOMMENDATIONS ON [Deleted RECOMMENDATION] the MATRIX, OUR response TO [Deleted WITH] all ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS [Deleted RECOMMENDATION] from [Deleted CLEC FROM] the CLECS PRESENTED IN THE ad hoc meetings and what CENTURYLINK’s approach is going forward. WE WILL PROVIDE [Deleted PROVIDING] additional opportunities FOR THE CLECS to comment and we feel we have been collaborative.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) STATED [Deleted IF] refusing to have ADDITIONAL meetings IS [Deleted YOU’RE] not being collaborative, you are unilaterally making changes that CLECs don’t agree with. We want collaborative meetings to get language we agree on in the PCATs.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) STATED OUR [Deleted OUR] effort has been anything but unilateral in this case. We have offered up ad hoc meetings, discussed, reviewed the changes we’ve listened to and documented CLEC concerns. We acted upon those issues and concerns and revised our documentation accordingly. I HAVE A HARD [Deleted HARD] time saying this is a unilateral change when we’ve collaborated with the CLECs.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) STATED THERE HAS not BEEN [Deleted HAD] one ad hoc call for download or PCATs. BACK [Deleted SENT BACK] in April, INTEGRA SENT a redline of THE download that Qwest has never responded to. WE HAVE [Deleted HAVE] asked on several occasions for response to that.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) STATED yes, part of the response going out in next several days will include all those suggested changes by the CLEC on that download. It will be a matrix like the TP MATRIX. CENTURYLINK WILL [Deleted WILL] provide AN outline of changes agreed to by CenturyLink AND [Deleted TO] modify the language according to what CLECs have recommended.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) STATED our REQUESTS [Deleted REQUEST] for ad hoc calls and collaborative effort on the PCATs and download are ongoing.

Liz Tierney – Covad (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED CenturyLink IS only agreeing to 80% of changes, so WE ARE not quite there.. THERE NEEDS TO BE [Deleted NEED] additional discussion to make sure 100% of language is concurrent or collaborative.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) STATED the 80% is what we took from the CLECs,

Liz Tierney – Covad, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SAID sorry, THERE IS STILL 20% THAT IS OPEN SO [Deleted 20%] you’re not there.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] THE MEETINGS WERE POSTPONED, WHILE WE WERE still working on TECH PUB AND STILL had several sections OF THAT to go through. PAETEC [Deleted WILL] temporarily AGREED [Delete AGREE] on couple of THE EARLIER points based on how LANGUAGE WAS TO BE INTEGRATED [Deleted INTEGRATE] into the LATER [Deleted DIFFERENT] sections. THE MEETINGS WERE [Deleted MEETINGS] put off and WE WERE waiting for other responses from CenturyLink before continuing calls. WE ARE CONCERNED THAT [Deleted CONCERNED] we did not get through entire piece. THIS CONCERNS [Deleted CONCERNS] me greatly because TP’s are AUTOMATICALLY INCORPORATED [Deleted INTEGRATED in our ICAs AND THIS CAN CAUSE ISSUES IF THE TECH PUB IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ICA LANGUAGE. IT IS IMPORTANT [Deleted IMPORTANT] to go through ALL OF THE TECH PUB AND RELATED DOCUMENTS in an ad hoc meeting.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink, (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) SAID [Deleted STATED] we did get through TECH PUB. (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) THERE ARE STILL [Deleted STILL]some open items on the matrix and CENTURYLINK will be RESPONDING [Deleted RESPONDED] in the response that goes out IN THE next few days.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED THAT SHE CONFIRMED [Deleted CONFIRM] that we did get through all the items on the TECH PUB matrix.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] we reviewed THE ITEMS IN TP MATRIX but did not come to consensus. Now Qwest is saying it is not going to talk about it anymore. THE CHANGES [Deleted CHANGES] will be made whether CLECS [Deleted WE] agree or not. IT DOESN’T [Deleted DOESN’T] matter if WE’VE [CENTURYLINK AND THE CLECS HAVE] been meeting for a year if THE job isn’t FINISHED [COLLABORATIVELY], THERE HAS NOT BEEN [Deleted FINISHED. NOT], [THEN IT IS NOT] a collaborative approach.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) [SAID] STATE I DON’T [Deleted DON’T] want to commit TO ANY CHANGES BEFORE I SEE THEM but I would like to see CENTURYLINK’S redline responses before WE MEET [Deleted MEETING] again. I AM WILLING [Deleted WILLING] to say THAT once we see what’s been incorporated and what hasn’t, WE then can narrow down THE issues AND HAVE ADDITIONAL [Deleted HAVE] ad hoc MEETINGS to address those issues. Hopefully, WE CAN focus on issues where THERE still is not CONSISTENCY [Deleted CONSISTENT].

Bonnie Johnson – Integra, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED WE WILL [SAID WE STILL] need to talk about the 20%.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) STATED I hear you, AND THIS IS not a bad idea but I WILL need to confer with SME team. Let CLECs take a look at the matrices, see what points they feel are still outstanding that we cannot reach resolution on through this process then talk about next steps. I WILL DISCUSS THIS APPROACH WITH THE SME TEAM BUT I CANNOT [Deleted CANNONT] commit at this point.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] I AM trying to get to next step. I DON’T [Deleted DON’T] want to agree that comments will be sufficient. I DON’T [Deleted DON’T] want to stop DISCUSSIONS [Deleted DISCUSSION] or come to halt. WE NEED TO [Deleted AS LONG CAN] get information and agree on next steps. We think is premature TO STOP [Deleted OF] the collaborative process.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] I hear what you’re saying. WE PLAN [Deleted PLAN] on sending out responses and matrices in next few days.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] WE ARE putting final changes on some documents and plan to send THEM IN THE next few days. RESPONSES TO EMAIL ARE [Deleted EMAIL RESPONSE] incorporated into THE documentation. AREAS [Deleted THAT PARTS] where CLECs had concerns were reviewed and some WERE accepted and ON some CENTURYLINK is not willing to move forward on and further discussion will not change that approach. Some of THE ISSUES [Deleted THOSE] are ongoing. One is the name of the amendment, WE WENT back and forth ON THE NAME OF THE AMENDMENT and CenturyLink is not willing to make that change [PAETEC deleted AT THIS TIME] at this time. We’ve talked about it and continuing TO TALK will not make a difference. THE CLECS SHOULD SEE [Deleted SEE] what THE CENTURYLINK responses are and see what CenturyLink is willing to change and what we aren’t and then WE WILL do a check. [Deleted POINT]

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] I AM willing to look at that. I WILL NEED AN [Deleted WOULD LIKE] explanation ON why CenturyLink IS not willing TO CONSIDER change on some of those points. AN DETAILED EXPLANATION [Deleted EXPLANATION] would help us to understand CENTURYLINK’S [Deleted THE] basis for not changing. THE EXPLANATION WILL PROVIDE [Deleted GET] a head start to keep THE PROCESS moving forward.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] WE provided THE REASONS WHY CENTURYLINK IS [Deleted WHY] not willing to make name change to the amendment. CENTURYLINK WILL REVIEW [Deleted SEE] what CLECS [Deleted WE] send back before we decide THE next steps.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [ASKED] will Qwest agree not to send out level 3 notices .

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) ASKED until we hear back on the matrix?

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] until we have a chance to determine what the next step is. For both of us let’s get the feedback and see what next step SHOULD [Deleted WOULD] be. If CENTURYLINK SENDS A level 3 notices NOW [Deleted ARE ALREADY GOING OUT] with A comment period NOW, THEN we’re already at your NEXT step AND THE CLEC IS NOT. [Deleted NOT] able to come back and say WE WOULD LIKE AN ad hoc MEETING ON [Deleted OR] an issue. [PAETEC offered similar language in updates]

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink, (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) SAID [Deleted STATED] CenturyLink is not intending to issue level 3 notices on the heels of sending out the responses and matrices. So as long as CLECs take THE opportunity to review and provide feedback in timely fashion, we’ll take a look at that.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED THAT [SAID IT WOULD BE] most appropriate and helpful. BONNEI ASKED IF CENTURYLINK would be to send OUT the redline TECH PUB AND OTHER DOCUMENTS also. Sometimes what’s in matrix and what you do IN THE TP [IN THE ACTUAL DOCUMENTS] don’t coincide WITHOUT [Deleted .WITHOUT] [IT IS HARD TO TELL WITH JUST] a level 3 notice just attaching [ATTACHED] to the email.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SAID we can look at that and provide that.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] that was the intent that the matrices would go OUT as well as the redlines.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] I knew that FOR [Deleted ON] the TECH PUB. Are we also doing that on the conditioning download as well?

Susan Lorence –CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SAID yes

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] you will get the redline version of both of those documents with the matrices.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) ASKED what about the PCATs? There are 3 PCATs, the Unbundled Loop General , THE ADSL and the 2-Wire Non-Loaded [UNLOADED] Loop.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] our CR is not calling for changes to those PCATs. WE ARE only CHANGING the conditioning download.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] we believe there are inaccuracies in the PCATs also. Is your intent to leave THE INNACURACIES IN those 3 PCATs [Deleted AS THEY ARE TODAY) ?

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) SAID those [3 PCATs] are not changing. It’s the JUST THE conditioning download and the TECH PUB THAT ARE CHANGING.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] that’s true as of today.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC, (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) ASKED what’s a reasonable time to respond?

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink, (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) ASKED what would think is reasonable?

Bonnie Johnson – Integra, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED THAT considering [SAID THE SAME] amount of time Qwest has taken to respond TO THE CONDITIONING DOWNLOAD WE SENT IN APRIL, BUT we don’t need that much time. BUT I AM [Deleted BUT I’M] on vacation for week and a half.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED I AM [SAID I HAVE][Deleted ON] on vacation as well. THIS IS SOMETHING [Deleted SOMETHING] that takes FOLKS a couple of WEEKS TO WORK ON, ADD [Deleted WEEKS. ADD] vacation TIME in and we’re looking at 3-4 weeks AT LEAST.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] that’s where I was going also.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) ASKED is 3 weeks the right number? 21 calendar days?

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) ASKED so you’re looking at the 12th of August?

Bonnie Johnson – Integra, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) RESPONDED IT IS [SAID] actually the 15th.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] that WOULD [Deleted WILL] work BETTER SINCE it gives me the weekend.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] based on responses we’ll determine next steps

Bonnie Johnson – Integra, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED SHE [SAID] HAD [A] ONE final point that regardless of what’s in the documentation if IT IS not consistent with amendment then THE amendment controls. If Qwest is training process off documentation THAT IS and not consistent WITH THE AMENDMENT, THEN OUR AMENDMENT CONTROLS.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] THE amendment controls in that situation.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] THE TP IS IN OUR ICAS AND THE concern is if TECH PUB IS not consistent with amendment, that’s where concern AND ISSUES comes in. TECH PUB is a big deal.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink, (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) ASKED IF THERE WERE any final comments or questions on that CR?

No additional comments.

6/15/11 Product Process Monthly Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest said that there had been a number of Ad hoc meetings and the next meeting is June 23. Mark said the documentation had been posted to the calendar and that the hope was to complete the review of the Tech Pub on June 23.

Karen Clauson – Integra questioned whether Qwest had completed their action items from the last call.

Susan Lorence – Qwest said yes, the SME team had completed a review of the Tech Pub updates and that the calendar included an agenda, the updated matrix and Tech Pub chapters.

Karen Clauson – Integra said there were action items that may not have been on the matrix and asked where that information was.

Susan Lorence – Qwest said that was included under Row 0 on the matrix.

Mark Coyne – Qwest asked if there were any more questions and there was none.

5/18/11 Product Process Monthly Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest relayed there had been multiple ad hoc meetings on the Tech Pub updates and that the minutes from the last Ad hoc on May 11, 2011 were due today but that Qwest was requesting an extension to Monday 5/23 in exchange for allowing the CLECs extra time to comment.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra said she would be on vacation the next week. She said the problem is preparing for the Ad hoc and not have the meeting minutes from the last meeting. She asked when the documentation for the next meeting would be available.

It was determined that based on the upcoming holiday and various folks being on vacation and returning from vacation, the June 2 Tech Pub meeting would be moved to the first full week of June and that the related documentation would be out the week before to allow time for CLEC review. Qwest would send a notice to identify the change in the Ad hoc meeting date.

5/11/11 Ad hoc Meeting Pending updates of CLEC redlines in a format that is retainable in the CR database. In the interim, refer to Wholesale calendar at http://wholesalecalendar.qwestapps.com/detail/323/2011-05-11 for Qwest draft and CLEC combined redlined meeting minutes.

5/2/11 Ad hoc Meeting Attendees: Julia Redman Carter- PAETEC, Brenda Bloemke-Comcast, Mindy Chapman - Neustar, Bonnie Johnson-Integra, Doug DennEy-Integra, Karen Clauson-Integra, Kim Wagner – Integra; Joyce Pederson - Integra, Kim Isaacs – Integra, Abbey Thyer-Ohly – Earthlink New Edge; Mike McCarthy-Minnesota Department of Commerce, Greg Doyle - Minnesota Department of Commerce, Linda Harmon-Qwest, Mark Coyne-Qwest, Carolyn Hammack-Qwest, Jeff Farra – Qwest; Bob Mohr-Qwest, Mark Nickell – Qwest, Jamal Boudhaouia-Qwest, Cindy Orenstein – Qwest, John Hansen-Qwest, Tobechi Agbim – Qwest, Susan Lorence-Qwest Mark Coyne – Qwest said the objective for the meeting was to complete the review of the Tech Pub 77384 matrix associated with the xDSL Amendment updates. He said during the last meeting, the review had completed about half of the document and that we would start with Row 16. Mark said a meeting for next week has been put on the calendar as a followup in case it is necessary. Karen Clauson –Integra suggested as part of Row 15 and the discussion associated with the definition of Conditioning, that Qwest had changed the proposal and suggested we discuss that before proceeding. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest asked if there were any issues with the proposed definition. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON –INTEGRA ASKED JAMAL TO READ THE DEFINITION. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA –QWEST SAID HE WAS NOT AT HIS DESK AND ASKED SUSAN FROM QWEST IF SHE HAD IT. JAMAL STATED HE THOUGHT HE ADDED A COUPLE OF WORDS WHEN IT IS PROVISIONED IT WILL BE FREE OF THOSE. Susan Lorence – Qwest read the definition that Qwest proposed in an email from the CMPCR mailbox on 4/28/11 to be included in Section 1.6 and 3.8.3 of the Tech Pub: At the time of Provisioning, these facilities shall be free of faults and of devices that could diminish the capability of the loop to provide the xDSL Service as indicated by the NC/NCI code combination. Qwest has responsibilities to provision the best available loop based on the NC/NCI code combination requested by the CLEC.

Karen Clauson – Integra said she would respond to the email. Qwest had added the wording “at time of provisioning” because of the embedded base and that she does not think that it does it. The definition is for all copper loops whether they ask for conditioning and repair. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest requested clarification. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) He said the SENTENCE (remove FCC DEFINITION) does not address removal of conditioning or load coil and QWEST WILL DO THAT BASED ON YOUR INSTRUCTION. [remove THAT IS UP TO THE CUSTOMER. QWEST HAS NOT TAKEN THAT CAPABILITY AWAY TO REQUEST CONDITIONING]. Karen Clauson - Integra said (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) THAT SOME ARE MORE GENERAL BUT the definition is repeated in several places and that there should be one definition within the document. She said the FCC definition does not vary depending on when conditioning occurs and what varies is under the amendment and refers to the last piece that references the NC/NCI. If there is a definition of conditioning that reflects the FCC version and Qwest should not add “at time of provisioning.” Karen said in regard to the second sentence, that is separate and Qwest has the responsibility to assign facilities on the best available loop. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said that is correct in provisioning terms and there is a link to specific product PCATs based on NC/NCI. Jamal said the Tech Pub is for additional technical parameters and that Qwest (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT TO (remove WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT TO) condition TO [remove UNLESS THE NC/NCI IS AVAILABLE]. Karen Clauson - Integra said (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SHE WAS GLAD TO HEAR THAT AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR A LONG TIME. SHE SAID if new, there is no embedded base and Qwest would look at the NC/NCI on the order. If it is embedded based in a repair situation, Qwest would look at WHAT WAS [remove THE NC/NCI ON THE] deployed loop. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest agreed and that the NC/NCI controls the transactions. Karen Clauson - Integra said (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) YOU CANNOT LOOK AT IT IN A VACUUM AND she agreed with that at a high level. Karen said Qwest should look at what is deployed on the loop and whether it synchs up with what should be there per NC/NCI code. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST AGREED (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) Karen CLAUSON – INTEGRA said that there are lots of caveats and if looking at the Amendment, look at all factors. Karen asked, in regard to the embedded base, what was the decision on whether to include it in the Tech Pub. Jamal Boudhaouia – (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) Qwest SAID WE ALL AGREE [remove WANTED CONFIRMATION] that regardless of scenario – provisioning or repair or maintenance, that the correct NC/NCI controls – not what is in the system. Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC requested clarification and said she thought the statement is correct as (5/13/11 Updates received from PAETEC and Integra in CAPS) TO IMPLEMENTATION [removed OUTLINED] in the Amendment. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) QWEST WILL ABIDE if conditioning – regardless of the perspective, the NC/NCI must be taken into consideration when provisioning or repair. HE SAID IF WE DON’T HAVE THAT AGREEMENT WE CANNOT OPERATE. Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC said that she may not disagree (5/13/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) THAT THE NC/NCI MUST BE CONSIDERED, but that the definition LIMITED TO PROVISIONING is too narrow and too short. Julia said if JAMAL’S INTENT [delete IT] does NO [remove NOT] conflict with the Amendment LANGUAGE, then it appears WE SHOULD REACH AGREEMENT ON THE [remove THERE IS AGREEMENT] AMENDMENT LANGUAGE. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said if there are caveats, Qwest cannot deliver and must have agreement that the NC/NCI controls. Jamal said based on engineering, provisioning and maintenance principles, regardless of what is in records, he has to have agreement that the NC/NCI codes control. Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC said (5/13/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) IT [remove IF] feels like Qwest is trying to renegotiate THE AMENDMENT TERMS TO [remove HOW IT WILL] deal with it differently. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said he is not renegotiating but talking the technical specifications and that processes are not in the Tech Pub. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JULIA REDMAN-CARTER – PAETEC ASKED SO WHAT ARE WE SAYING THAT IS CAUSING THIS PROBLEM? (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST [delete HE] SAID THERE ARE CAVEATS IN THE PROCESSES AND THEY NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE TECH PUB based on engineering, provisioning and maintenance principles, regardless, when the embedded based is referred to from a Tech Pub perspective, the correct NC/NCI is the controlling parameter for Qwest to provide what is asked for. Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC asked how “correct” is defined. Karen Clauson - Integra said (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SHE AGREES there is no need to introduce ambiguity and that she disagreed AND IT WAS NOT [remove TALKING] only process. THE AMENDMENT LAYS IT OUT. Technical people must understand what to look at. She said for provisioning, the correct NC/NCI is on the order. For the embedded base, it was the NC/NCI deployed on the loop and that Qwest agreed to repair to what is on the loop. If that is not properly reflected in the Tech Pub, that causes confusion. Karen said now that Qwest moved from “unsuitable” to reflect the Federal rule, this part is not so difficult to separate out. If Qwest does not do that, there is big question ABOUT what JAMAL MEANS BY [remove IS] correct. Karen said THE FIRST CLAUSE IS ABOUT PROVISIONING it needs to be explained to the technician the difference on where to look for the NC/NCI code. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest suggested to split this in two places (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS)THE NC/NCI CODE AS REQUESTED ON NEW ORDERS AND THE SERVICE DEPLOYED ON THE LOOP and would write out the definition. Karen Clauson - Integra said she sees where it is going and that it needs a little work on the language. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SHE SAID IT MAKES IT SEEM LIKE A CHOICE BUT IT IS ALREADY THERE. Karen questioned what the objective was to TRY TO FIGURE OUT AND USE A DEFINITION OF EMBEDDED BASE (remove DEFINE) it the way Qwest was. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) NO, NO OBJECTION we have to agree on the NC/NCI CODES AND use of the terms and that we need to find a common ground to move forward if one, deploy new and two, repair so there is no objection. Karen Clauson - Integra said the common ground is already laid out in Section 9.2.2.3.5.5 and that the language should mirror that. Karen said it was helpful to understand the Qwest position and that there is no objection to using the term embedded base. Karen said she will respond to the email and Qwest can then reply. Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC said she agrees with Integra position (5/13/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) ESPOUSED THROUGHOUT THE MEETING unless otherwise SPECIFICALLY noted. Karen Clauson - Integra said in regard to Row 16, Qwest agreed there is a need for a consistency review. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said he thought all references had been caught but please look also. NOTE: An updated matrix dated May 9, 2011 is an attachment along with these meeting minutes. The matrix has also been posted to the Wholesale calendar at http://wholesalecalendar.qwestapps.com/detail/323/2011-05-11. The matrix includes columns that show the March 14, 2011 CLEC Comments, the April 4, 2011 Qwest Response, both the April 11 and April 14, 2011 CLEC reply, an April 19, 2011 Qwest Response and a May 9, 2011 Qwest response. The updated matrix captures the key points of discussion in the April 13, 2011 and May 2, 2011 Ad hoc calls and also what Qwest has subsequently reviewed and responded to following the Ad hoc calls. The matrix is being used to capture discussion in conjunction with these meeting minutes. Karen Clauson - Integra said in regard to Row 17, Qwest agreed to do a synch up. For Row 18, Qwest agreed to insert the xDSL definition (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) IN 6.1 and that she thought Digital Subscriber Loop would also be added. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) HE ADDED IT TO THE END OF 6.1 AND would look at the Amendment and Tech Pub and that the DSL definition would be added in Section 1.1. Jamal confirmed if something was in Section 1.1, it applied everywhere. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON - INTEGRA SAID SHE DID NOT SEE IT. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID WE DID NOT TALK ABOUT ROW 18. Karen Clauson - Integra questioned (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) IF IT WAS ADDED TO Section 1.1 and THAT IT APPLIES THROUGHOUT THE AGREEMENT AND said that the list of RDSL, GHDSL, etc. are different in the Tech Pub and it is a partial list of what is in the Amendment and asked why. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) HE TRIED TO CAPTURE IT AND the list was not to be exhaustive to include every type of service AND THIS WAS THE INTRODUCTION SECTION but that it was intended to catch some within the technical parameters/standards so it would not have to be updated every time there was new technology. Karen Clauson - Integra said she agreed it was not exhaustive nor is the Amendment and recognizes the Amendment does not change with successive technologies. Karen said there are some that are missing (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) AND SECTION 1.1 COVERS WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH TODAY. SINCE WE ARE REFLECTING THE AMENDMENT IT SHOULD HAVE GSDSL AND ASKED IF SHE MISSED IT. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID NO. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA SAID WE MIGHT MISS IT IF IT IS NOT ADDED AND ASKED IF HE WANTED TO ADD IT. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) IF THAT IS A CONCERN he would add all definitions from the Amendment. Karen Clauson - Integra said (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) QWEST MODIFIED THE 4TH PARAGRAPH OF 6.1 AND IN THE APRIL 11TH COMMENTS for Row 19, she agrees with the deletion but all questions have not been answered and asked if it is dealt with separately if it does not apply. She said QWEST CHANGED THE PREAPPROVAL OF CONDITIONING the language has been in the Tech Pub for awhile and deals with if the loop is not available. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said if there is no loop, it does not apply; that it applies to the physical loop. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA QUESTIONED IF THERE WAS NO PLACE IN THE TECH PUB THAT DEALS WITH WHEN NO LOOP IS AVAILABLE? (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID NOT IF THE LOOP DOES NOT EXIST. IF THE LOOP DOESN’T EXIST WE CAN’T APPLY THE PARAMETERS. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA ASKED IF IT WAS IN THE TECH PUB BEFORE AND WAS MOVED SOMEWHERE ELSE. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWESTSAID it was not moved to somewhere else and that current processes and language apply. Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC requested clarification that the Tech Pub applies only if a loop is available. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said if the loop is available, then Qwest will apply NC/NCI codes. If loop is already installed, Qwest will go back to correct NC/NCI codes to (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra and PAETEC in CAPS) SEE WHAT LEVEL TO TEST TO [remove REMOVE]. Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC said that was the point; (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra and PAETEC in CAPS) AND WHAT SHE HEARD WAS THAT conditioning is not an issue if there never was a loop available. Julia suggested adding language “if applicable.” (5/13/11 Updates received from PAETEC and Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID THAT IS RIGHT. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra and PAETEC in CAPS) JULIA REDMAN-CARTER – PAETEC SAID WE MIGHT WANT TO CLARIFY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TECH PUB IF NO LOOP IS AVAILABLE THIS DOES NOT APPLY. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) HE CANNOT WRAP HIS HEAD AROUND IT AND suggested Julia propose some language. Karen Clauson - Integra said Qwest can look at the proposed 4/11 language and read the wording in Section 9.2.2.3.5.1.4.1.1 related to manual steps if there are no loops that meet the criteria. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL WHAT YOU’RE SAYING IS YOU ARE NOT LOOKING TO THE TECH PUB TO VALIDATE? Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said that is correct. Kim Isaacs - Integra and Bonnie Johnson – Integra did not agree. Bonnie Johnson – Integra said the situation could be there was no loop because it did not meet the parameters. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said to insure facilities are available, Qwest must look up 1) is loop available, 2) apply algorithm to meet parameters. Jamal said the Tech Pub is not invoked at this point. Bonnie Johnson – Integra said they have several where the Qwest records are wrong. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) AND ONCE IT IS SENT TO THE TECHNICIAN THEY FIND OUT THERE IS NO LOOP. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said that is correct, sometimes the Qwest records are wrong. LFACs says there are facilities but (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) THEN QWEST LOOKS AT THE XBOX AND TERMINAL AND there really are no facilities, Qwest CANNOT [remove WILL NOT] perform the test on a non-existent loop. Kim Isaacs – Integra said to provide the best available loop, (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) QWEST lookS at the NC/NCI to provision and that is what the NC/NCI is for. Karen Clauson - Integra said (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) LOOK AT THE DEFINITION IN 4.0 OF [remove IT IS] the best available pair with the least amount of conditioning. She said a statement should be added AND WOULD BE BETTER UP FRONT to say if no loop available, see CLEC ICA on what to do in that situation if [remove THE RECORDS ARE WRONG] NO FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE. Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC agreed (5/13/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) WITH INTEGRA’S PROPOSAL and said she will not send language BASED ON THE INTEGRA’S COUNTER PROPOSAL. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra and PAETEC in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID YES SURE. Karen Clauson - Integra said for Row 20, (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SORRY I THINK WE INADVERTENTLY MISSED THIS AND Qwest previously agreed to delete, RIGHT? (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID YES RIGHT. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON -INTEGRA SAID FOR [remove For] Row 21 and the wording “diminished,” Integra will send an email with proposed wording SO THERE IS NO NEED TO GO OVER THIS NOW. For note in Section 6.1 and wording “2 wire or “, Karen questioned where in the Tech Pub it talks about this. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID THE BULLETED ITEMS. Karen (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) CLAUSON- INTEGRA said in the proposal on 4/4, there was no Qwest change and section 6.1.3 was added to refer to what talking about. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said for the last bullet before 6.2, he wanted to understand the reason for the change. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON - INTEGRA SAID ARE YOU FOCUSING ON THE PAIRS MAKING UP THE FACILITY. IS THAT THE ISSUE? (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID HE WANTED TO KNOW THE PURPOSE OF THE CHANGE. Karen Clauson - Integra said there has been a long (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) HISTORY OF DISPUTES [remove FEUD] on 2W 4W, and at the time, there was no bullet. The question is whether need THE LAST BULLET [remove IT] at all. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said it goes (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) THE HEART OF HOW [remove INTO DESIGN] of loop facility DESIGN. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA ASKED JAMAL TO EXPLAIN. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID YOU EXPLAIN. Karen Clauson – Integra questioned why change the wording at all because there was agreement can have mixed gauges of cable; they may not be identical. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said he has moved away from changing it (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) AND ASKED KAREN WHY SHE CHANGED THE LANGUAGE. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA SAID WHAT SHE SAID AND SHOULD SHE REPEAT IT AND SAID SHE WANTS QWEST’S. Jamal (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) BOUDHAOUIA - QWESTsaid YES AND the repeat column in the matrix was repeated in two other areas. Karen Clauson – Integra said the word “two” was missed inadvertently. Integra added, see previous bullet regarding loop lengths – all loops will have the same makeup including loop lengths. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SAID on the last bullet, is to insure design is loop plant go pair by pair AND THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF 2 WIRES COMPRISING PAIRS. Each two pair OF A 4 PAIR could have different loop makeup which is a basic design. Each two copper wires will always have the same makeup but may have different characteristics. Karen Clauson – Integra said it should say “makeup” instead of loop transmission. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said 2 wire/one pair will have the same basic makeup. They will always be the same, they cannot be separated. No telecom provider separates them. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA ASKED THEY WILL NEVER BE SEPARATE? (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID NO THEY ARE TWISTED AND YOU CANNOT SEPARATE THEM. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said when (5/13/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) lookING at the [remove VARIOUS BULLETS,] the second SENTENCE OF THE [remove AND] third bullet [remove S] from the bottom, IT IS [remove ARE] inconsistent with the last bullet. CMP NOTE REPEAT OF ABOVE ENTRY (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS on Julia Redman-Carter statement above) Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said when look at the SECOND SENTENCE IT SEEMS [delete VARIOUS BULLETS, THE SECOND AND THIRD BULLETS FROM THE BOTTOM ARE] inconsistent with the last bullet. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA SAID WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS INCONSISTENCY; CAN YOU MAKE IT CONSISTENT? (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JULIA REDMAN-CARTER – PAETEC READ FROM THE MATRIX AND SAID SHE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS NOT CONSISTENT. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said when Qwest tried to put in practical terms, we have two pairs. In theory, that is good but in practice it might not happen. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra and PAETEC in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA SAID THEN IT IS CHANGING WHAT IS IN THE AMENDMENT. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) Jamal BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST said he was not part of the amendment negotiationS AND EVEN THOUGH IT MAY HAVE BEEN GOOD INTENTIONS AND QWEST AGREED TO IT [delete BUT] he is trying to APPEAL TO CLECS PRACTICAL SENSE AND define IT in practical terms AND THERE MAY BE TIMES WHEN TWO LOOPS ARE NOT THE SAME. [delete JAMAL SAID SECTION 9.2.2.3.5.1.3.3.1 ADDRESSES THE SITUATION IF THE LOOPS ARE NOT IDENTICAL. CMP NOTE REPEAT OF ABOVE ENTRY (5/13/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) Jamal BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST said he was not part of the amendment negotiationS AND EVEN THOUGH IT MAY HAVE BEEN GOOD INTENTIONS AND QWEST AGREED TO IT but he is trying to define in practical terms AND THERE MAY BE TIMES WHEN TWO LOOPS ARE NOT THE SAME. Jamal said Section 9.2.2.3.5.1.3.3.1 addresses the situation if the loops are not identical. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) Karen Clauson – Integra said Carolyn was involved in the Amendment negotiations (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) AND ASKED IF CAROLYN COULD RESPOND. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID SECTION 9.2.2.3.5.1.3.3.1 ADDRESSES THE SITUATION IF THE LOOPS ARE NOT IDENTICAL. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA ASKED IF CAROLYN HANDED THAT TO JAMAL. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID NO IT WAS BOB MOHR. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA SAID THANKS BOB AND JAMAL THAT WAS HELPFUL. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) Karen CLAUSON – INTEGRA said the negotiation team put in a bullet related to main pair ends in Section 3.3.1 that is not there. To resolve concerns of inconsistency, what if added a bullet. Karen suggested that the last bullet in 6.1 be substituted with last bullet in Section 9.2.2.3.5.1.3.3.1 to care for concerns. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID YES FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT THAT IS WHAT HE WANTS. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC (5/13/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) [remove SAID] ASKED THAT when looking at Section 6.1, the second to last bullet shouldn’t that be deleted. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra and PAETEC in CAPS) [delete JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID THE LAST TWO BULLETS WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH THE SECTIONS THAT KAREN READ.] Karen Clauson – Integra said for Row 22, (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) INTEGRA MADE COMMENTS ON 4/11 FOR Section 6.2 associated with Qwest proposal to change the Title, TO ATTACHMENT 3. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, the section goes beyond performance tests IN ATTACHMENT 3 WHICH IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE and it should not be limited to Attachment 3 which lists some of the tests. SO THIS IS WHAT THE PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS ARE AND THE TITLE SHOULD NOT BE THE SAME. Integra does not agree with the Title change; it makes it narrow. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SAID JUST TO BE CLEAR IT SHOULD JUST BE TRANSMISSION PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS? SURE, DONE [remove AGREED TO LEAVE AS TRANSMISSION PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS]. Karen Clauson – Integra said for Row 23, the change is made. Karen said for Row 24 (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SECTION 6.1 WAS 3RD PARAGRAPH AND NOW IT IS THE 2ND PARAGRAPH, why reference the PCAT WHICH COULD BE CHANGED AND NOT THE AMENDMENT? [remove VS. THE ICA]. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said it (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra and PAETEC in CAPS) [REMOVE IS NOT A PROCESS BUT DOES] not have problem taking it out. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA SAID SHE WANTED IT TO REFER TO THE ICA AND ASKED IF THAT WAS A PROBLEM NOW. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID NO (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JULIA REDMAN-CARTER – PAETEC ASKED IF THE WHOLE STATEMENT WAS COMING OUT (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA READ THE TEXT AND SAID THAT WILL COME OUT RIGHT JAMAL? (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID YES. Karen Clauson – Integra said she missed one in Section 6.1 in Row 15 and 16 – April 11 comment, Qwest still using the term non-loaded (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) AND SINCE IT [remove WHICH] is NOT a term USED IN [remove NOT IN] the Amendment SHE ASKED WHAT QWEST PLANS WERE FOR THE USE OF THAT TERM and questioned why it is still used and it is causing concern BECAUSE IT LEADS TO CONFUSION. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST ASKED WHERE? (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA SAID DO A SEARCH FOR NON-LOADED. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) THEY COULD SAY A loop facility with out load coils or free of loads, that is all Qwest is trying to convey. Karen Clauson – Integra said (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) THAT IS INTERESTING ANSWER AND she is not convinced that Qwest is NOT USING NON-LOADED TO REFER [remove REFERRING] to XDSL CAPABLE LOOPS [remove THE SAME THING]. Qwest should do search on term non-loaded AND MAKE SURE XDSL AND LOAD COIL ARE THE PROPER TERMINOLOGY [remove USE APPROPRIATE TERM]. She said the terminology is not in the current amendment. Most are in Chapter 3 or 6. CMP NOTE REPEAT OF ABOVE ENTRY Karen Clauson – Integra said (5/13/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) THAT IS INTERESTING ANSWER AND she is not convinced that Qwest is NOT USING NON-LOADED TO REFER [remove REFERRING] to XDSL CAPABLE LOOPS [remove THE SAME THING]. Qwest should do search on term non-loaded and use appropriate term. She said the terminology is not in the current amendment. Most OCCURENCES APPEAR [remove ARE] in Chapter 3 or 6. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra and PAETEC in CAPS) SAID HE WILL CHECK AND MAKE SURE [remove AGREED TO REVIEW]. Karen Clauson – Integra said for Row 25, paragraph on loop length will be discussed at next meeting. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) IT GOES BACK TO the question ABOVE WHICH is whether it will be applied to all or only to those that sign the amendment. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said loop length is not n Table 6.1., it is gone. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA SAID THE COMMENT GOES TO A FORMER DRAFT SO MAYBE IT IS OUT. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID THE LENGTHS REFERRED TO IN 6.1 ARE BRIDGED TAP AND NOT LOOP. Karen Clauson – Integra (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SAID KIM ISAACS HAS A GOOD QUESTION [remove QUESTIONED] AND KIM ASKED whether AML and EML will apply to CLECs with no Amendment? Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) NO it will not apply to them, only test parameters will be shown. Karen Clauson – Integra questioned if that was clear in the Tech Pub. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest questioned whether that needed to be in the Tech Pub. Karen Clauson – Integra said it (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SEEMS TO ME THAT THESE WILL BE WHAT IS PERFORMED WITH THESE TERMS AND WILL DO TESTING AND IT SHOULD BE CLEAR [remove HAS TO BE TO CLARIFY] UP FRONT what will be done or not done if the Amendment is not signed. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said he would propose language. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA SAID THANKS WE WILL LOOK AT THAT. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) MARK COYNE QWEST SAID HE WAS DOING A QUICK CHECK ON TIME AND WE HAVE A ½ HOUR LEFT. Karen Clauson – Integra said Row 26 is a synch up; Row 27 will have language proposed, Row 28 will have the same issue, same changes related to non – loaded. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID COULD DIMINISH YES. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA SAID for Row 29, Qwest is offering to change THE SECOND PARAGRAPH IN 6.4 IN THE TECH PUB, RIGHT? (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID YES. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA SAID [delete BUT] Integra does not agree with changes. In Section 6.4, the first sentence is related to discussion around “could diminish” wording. Karen said in regard to a process not being in a Tech Pub, this is legal wording that does not belong in the Tech Pub and both sentences should be stricken. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest agreed. Karen Clauson – Integra said for Row 30, there is agreement to synch up. Row 31, there (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) ARE TWO ISSUES. THE COULD DIMINISH AND THE [remove IS A QUESTION RE] bullets; Row 32 same issue/same change as Section 6.5. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS)JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID YES. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS)KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA SAID ROW 33 IS SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT. QWEST MODIFIED 6.5 AND I ASKED QWEST TO DELETE THE PARAGRAPH. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said in regard to Row 33, the language going forward will be removed. Jamal said in the network, Qwest cannot guarantee that there will not be other services in the binder group or in cable. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS). THE CABLE PLANT IS WHAT IT IS IN THERE AND THERE ARE ALWAYS T1’S, THERE ARE MULTIPLE SERVICES RUNNING AND QWEST CANNOT GUARANTEE THERE WILL NOT BE OTHER SERVICES IN THE CABLE. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC questioned if Jamal was stating that if there is a service provisioned that is in a binder group that interferes, that Qwest won’t remove (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra and PAETEC in CAPS) OR ADJUST it? Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said he is not saying that but what is in loop plant (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra and PAETEC in CAPS) IS WHAT’S THERE AND could have interference. QWEST CANNOT GUARANTEE THERE IS NO INTERFERENCE UNTIL Qwest [remove WOULD HAVE TO] look[S] at cable plant. Karen Clauson – Integra said the big answer to be explained (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) BY A DELETION AND EITHER DELETE THE SENTENCE OR MODIFY TO EXPRESS CONTEXT. WHEN WE [remove IS TO] talk about Spectrum Management going forward and whether ADSL and xDSL be put in same OR ADJACENT binder group[S] going forward will interfere. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said the discussion will take a long time. All (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) XDSL are powered from the CO and they are standard compliant for power interference and spectrum management. These will not have interference. YOU GET INTERFERENCE WHEN YOU HAVE THE SAME DSL SERVICE AND ONE IS RUNNING FORM THE CO AND THE OTHER FROM THE TERMINAL BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT POWER LEVELS. JAMAL SAID YOU GET THE SAME THING WHEN YOU PUT THE SAME POWER IT CREATES A WAVE AND IT WILL BE BIGGER FROM THE EDGE. Jamal said that is the physics of power.- WHEN IT TRAVELS it loses its strength. CMP NOTE REPEAT OF ABOVE ENTRY Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said the discussion will take a long time. All (5/13/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) XDSL are powered from the CO and they are standard compliant for power interference and spectrum management. These will not have interference. YOU GET INTERFERENCE WHEN YOU HAVE THE SAME DSL SERVICE AND ONE IS RUNNING FORM THE CO AND THE OTHER FROM THE TERMINAL BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT POWER LEVELS. JAMAL SAID YOU GET THE SAME THING WHEN YOU THROW A STONE IN A LAKE AND IT CREATES A WAVE THAT WILL BE BIGGER FROM THE EDGE. Jamal said that is the physics of power it loses its strength. Karen Clauson – Integra said she tends to disagree. Power will take longer to discuss. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS). POWER IS NOT THE ONLY THING YOU NEED TO CARE ABOUT. THAT IS FOR THE NEXT DISCUSSION. BACK TO WHERE WE LEFT OFF. IF THE PROTOCOL OPTIONS ARE REQUIRED THEN THAT RAISES QUESTIONS AND HOW WILL QWEST USE THEM. WE NEED A DISCUSSION REGARDING [remove THERE IS A NEED TO TAKE] proactive steps QWEST WILL TAKE to manage spectrum IN PARTICULAR HOW THINGS ARE DIFFERENT UNDER THE AMENDMENT [remove AND WHAT IS ADJUSTMENT IN THE BINDER GROUP]. BEFORE THE AMENDMENT NO NC/NCI CODES WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT SINCE THE AMENDMENT THEY ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. WE WILL GO THROUGH AND FINISH THE REST MINUS 33. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) MARK COYNE QWEST SAID OK. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA For Row 34, same changes DIMINISH AND BULLET POINTS AND WILL MAKE THAT CHANGE CORRECT? For Row 35, MODIFIED 6.6 will need to come back to as part of THE BIGGER DISCUSSION OF HOW THE AMENDMENT AFFECTS spectrum management. For Row 36, still talking. For Row 37, no TECH PUB language change is required. For Row 38, this is part of umbrella cleanup. Karen Clauson – Integra said we started with Row 15, we need to go back through 1 through 14 to address consistency, spectrum management, non-loaded loop, diminish capability which wording will be sent back by Karen. Mark Coyne – Qwest said the next call will be Wednesday, May 11 for a two hour slot. We will take a portion of the time for spectrum management and a portion for review of conditioning download. Mike McCarthy – Minnesota Dept of Commerce (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SAID WHEN WE MEET AGAIN CAN WE START OFF WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE [remove SUGGESTED THE] use of the definition of spectrum management from the ANSI manual, Section 3.1.45, as used throughout Clause 5. (5/13/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA ASKED IF JAMAL WOULD SEND THAT OUT. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said he would distribute the ANSI definition to the team. [ Per request from Integra on 5-10-11, the following statement was deleted and the document was deleted which was attached. The ANSI definition is posted to the calendar as a separate document which is available at http://wholesalecalendar.qwestapps.com/detail/322/2011-05-02. delete NOTE: The ANSI definition from Jamal is attached.]

4/20/11 Product Process Monthly Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest said the remaining states of Idaho and Washington went into effect on March 21, 2011. An escalation was received on April 7 associated with Process notice that was sent associated with the related system CR SCR083010-1 that was implemented in IMA during the last release. Mark said the Qwest binding response will be sent out on April 22, 2011. Mark said an ad hoc meeting was held on April 13 and another Ad hoc meeting is scheduled for May 2.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra questioned if Qwest was leaving the system CR open.

Mark Coyne – Qwest said yes.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra requested the review period for the April 13 Ad hoc meeting minutes be extended to the end of day Monday, April 25.

Mark Coyne – Qwest agreed and requested Qwest be given an extra day to send them out.

There were no objections and Mark said the April 13 Ad hoc meeting minutes would be sent out for review by end of day Thursday, April 21 with CLEC response due back at end of day April 25.

4/13/11 Ad hoc Meeting Attendees: Julia Redman Carter- PAETEC, Brenda Bloemke-Comcast, Mindy Chapman - Neustar, Bonnie Johnson-Integra, Doug Denney-Integra, Karen Clauson-Integra, Joyce Pederson - Integra, Kim Isaacs – Integra, Kim Wagner – Integra, Shawn -PAETEC, Chad Alberts - PAETEC, Mitch Moore-Oregon PUC, Kasha Fauscett -Comcast, Jim Hickle-Velocity, Mike McCarthy-Minnesota Department of Commerce, Linda Harmon-Qwest, Rita Urevig – Qwest, Mark Coyne-Qwest, Carolyn Hammack-Qwest, Bob Mohr-Qwest, Mark Nickell – Qwest, Jamal Boudhaouia-Qwest, Cindy Orenstein – Qwest, John Hansen-Qwest, Susan Lorence-Qwest Mark Coyne – Qwest reviewed where the documents for the call could be found and what documents were available. He stated the purpose of the call was not to renegotiate the xDSL Services Amendment but to resolve open points in the documents in relation to the Amendment. He also provided some meeting norms. Susan Lorence - Qwest provided a high level review of the revised Historical timeline that was posted to the CMP calendar. Susan pointed out an addition to the timeline for August 2010 which was the issuance of the Qwest system CR SCR083010-1, Expand the SCA field to allow optional conditioning to be requested, which would mechanize the process of requesting conditioning in IMA. As part of the timeline review, Susan stated that the basis for Qwest to send the Tech Pub updates as a level 2 notification was that there were no process changes with the Tech Pub update; the Tech Pub updates were synching up with the xDSL related documentation that were previously implemented via Level 4 CMP notifications. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) QWEST SAID THAT IT RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM INTEGRA ON THE LEVEL 2 NOTICE REGARDING MECHANIZING THE SCA FIELD. SUSAN SAID THAT, WHEN QWEST RESPONDED, QWEST SAID THERE WAS AN OVERSIGHT IN DESIGN AND QWEST HAD LEFT OUT A THIRD LEVEL OF CONDITIONING. A SUBSEQUENT ESCALATION WAS RECEIVED FROM INTEGRA, AND FOUR CLECS JOINED – COVAD, CBEYOND, VELOCITY, AND PAETEC. SUSAN SAID QWEST IS IN THE PROCESS OF PUTTING TOGETHER A BINDING RESPONSE. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest then began review of the matrix and related Tech Pub updates. Starting with Section 1.1, Jamal said the information included here is general and not specific (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) ON PRODUCTS, AND HE SAID THAT QWEST ADDED THAT THESE ARE EXAMPLES. Jamal said Qwest would follow [ANSI] standards of the ANSI Committee or ANY OTHER other(remove S) STANDARDS COMMITTEES that have a stake in the transport layer. FOR SECTION 1.2, QWEST PROVIDED THE REASON FOR REVISIONS. For Section 1.6, the definition of xDSL Loops was added. Karen Clauson – Integra suggested a more efficient approach would be to respond to CLEC questions as each chapter is reviewed. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest agreed to that approach. Mark Coyne – Qwest suggested reviewing the sections where Qwest agreed to first. Karen Clauson - Integra said she would prefer to focus on the points where Qwest did not agree versus where Qwest did agree. She said it would be good to have dialogue but did not want to lose time and wanted to focus on what Jamal was prepared to discuss. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said if there are questions not on the March 14 comments he would have to take that back. Jamal said in addition if there are questions on the 4/11/11 Matrix from Integra that we do not have answers to, he would also take those back. Karen Clauson - Integra then began to review the Integra xDSL Matrix Reply dated 04-11-11. She said she assumes updates in regard to row #1 are cleanup and will be done at the end. Row #2 deals with (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) [remove THOSE] CLECS that don’t have the Amendment. NOTE: An updated matrix dated April 19, 2011 follows these meeting minutes and will be posted to the Wholesale calendar at http://wholesalecalendar.qwestapps.com/detail/320/2011-04-13. The matrix includes columns that show the March 14, 2011 CLEC Comments, the April 4, 2011 Qwest Response, both the April 11 and April 14, 2011 CLEC reply, and an April(4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) [remove 19, insert 21], 2011 Qwest Response. [insert footnote] The updated matrix captures the key (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) [remove POINTS OF DISCUSSION IN] ACTION ITEMS FROM the April 13, 2011 Ad hoc call in gray shading provided by Integra and also captures Qwest updates that were agreed to on the call in addition to items that Qwest has subsequently reviewed and responded to IN THE MATRIX following the Ad hoc call. The matrix is being used to capture [remove DISCUSSION] ACTION ITEMS in conjunction with these meeting minutes AND DOES NOT REPLACE MEETING MINUTES. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said in regard to row #2, the only difference between those that sign the Amendment and those that don’t is the ability to see the test results. If a CLEC signs the agreement, they see the test results; those that don’t sign it, don’t see them (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) UNLESS THEY ORDERED COORDINATED INSTALL. Jamal said for efficiency, Qwest has to put a process in place for ALL technicians to be trained the same way. Jamal said Qwest will do 196 kHz testing for those CLECs that did not sign the agreement. If you have coordinated testing, you will see the test results. If you do not, you will not see the test results. See row #2. Also, if a CLEC signed the agreement, they will be able to request conditioning as defined in the agreement2/16/11 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest relayed that the notification to implement the additional states was sent out on January 24, 2011. Qwest submitted its final notification and response to comments on February 11, 2011. On February 14, 2011,Qwest received an escalation from Integra on two issues. That escalation has been posted to the CMP external site and on February 15, a notification was sent out to the entire CLEC community to inform them of the escalation. At this point, Qwest is in the process of developing its response and will be sending it out according to the CMP document. Mark said the rollout of the remaining states related to this change will remain on schedule while we try to resolve these two issues. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) BONNIE JOHNSONS - INTEGRA ASKED IF QWEST IS SAYING FOR THOSE THAT DO NOT SIGN THE AMENDMENT THEY WON’T SEE THE TEST RESULTS BUT QWEST WILL TEST OR IS QWEST SAYING THEY WILL COMPLETE THE TEST. JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – JAMAL SAID WE TEST TO 196 KHZ, AND IF YOU SIGN THE AMENDMENT YOU RECEIVE THE TEST RESULTS; IF THE AMENDMENT IS NOT SIGNED, YOU WILL NOT GET THE TEST RESULTS. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) BONNIE JOHNSON – INTEGRA said so Qwest will test and if the Amendment is signed, the test results are provided. If the Amendment is not signed, the test results are not provided BUT QWEST IS STILL DOING THE TESTING. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said yes and that he was referring to testing not conditioning. Karen Clauson - Integra (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) ASKED WHAT ABOUT TESTING ON REPAIRS? SHE said the Tech Pub deals with both testing and conditioning and asked about other differences if a CLEC does not sign the Amendment. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said the Tech Pub does (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) NOT HAVE DIFFERENCES FOR PROCESS. THOSE ARE IN THE PCAT AND DOWNLOAD; THEY DEFINE REQUIREMENTS. HE SAID THE TECH PUB ADDRESSES WHETHER CAN CARRY A SIGNAL BASED ON NC/NCI CODES AND [remove NOT ADDRESS THE PROCESS BUT] addresses technical capabilities or the physical layer of the loop to the CLEC. Jamal said process is addressed in the PCAT and the Conditioning download. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA ASKED WHETHER WE SHOULD BE EDITING THE TECH PUB AND TAKING OUT ALL PROCESSES. JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST STATED THAT THE PHYSICAL PROCESS OF CONDITIONING IS IN THE TECH PUB, WHICH SHOULD MATCH THE ICA. THE PCAT TELLS WHETHER IT IS AVAILABLE.Karen Clauson - Integra asked whether the PCAT and the download (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SHOULD also MATCH[ remove MEANT] the ICA. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said yes, the PCAT should match the ICA. Karen Clauson - Integra then reviewed (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) MATRIX row #3 and reiterated the request to add more examples and the xDSL definition. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest explained that Section 1.1 was for General information only and is to give information of what the Tech Pub is and that this information would be addressed in the relevant Tables in a subsequent section. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL SAID THAT WHEN QWEST UPDATES WITH OTHER FLAVORS THAT ARE INVOLVED OR DEVELOPED, QWEST WILL ADD THEM IN THE RELEVANT TABLE TO INCLUDE THE NC/NCI CODE AND THAT SECTION 1.1 IS AN EXAMPLE ONLY. PARTICULAR TYPES ARE IN THE RELEVANT TABLES, AND THEN QWEST UPDATES THE RELEVANT SECTION. Karen Clauson - Integra said they had not seen the information anywhere else and that it would be important to include in Section 1.1 to cover the general principles and the successive technologies as well. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) INTEGRA ASKED WHETHER QWEST WILL INCLUDE THE DEFINITION OF DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER LOOP FROM THE AMENDMENT. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest requested that Integra send him language and that he would look at it and that he would then look (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) AND, IF APPLICABLE, WILL INCLUDE IT. [remove AT INCLUDING THE DEFINITION IF IT WAS APPLICABLE.] Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SAID THAT JAMAL SAID “IF APPLICABLE,” AND questioned [remove WHETHER THERE WAS] WHAT IS THE [remove A] standard for applicability. Jamal Boudhaouia – (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) QWEST SAID IT IS GENERAL, NOT SPECIFIC, SO QWEST NEEDS TO LOOK AT IT. Qwest said a Tech pub is based on national standards. Jamal said he will look at the definition to see if it aligns with a standard DSL definition and if it does, he will include it. Karen Clauson - Integra read the definition from the Amendment (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) [remove THAT WAS LATER EMAILED TO THE QWEST CMPCR MAILBOX]. She requested it be included in the General Section so it could be referred to in later sections AND WOULD NOT NEED TO BE REPEATED EACH TIME. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) NOTE: INTEGRA SENT THE XDSL AMENDMENT TO THE QWEST CMPCR MAILBOX BY EMAIL DATED APRIL 13, 2011. INTEGRA INDICATED IN THE EMAIL THAT, IF JAMAL DESIRES A COPY OF THE ENTIRE MERGER AGREEMENT, QWEST CAN OBTAIN A COPY FROM CAROLYN HAMMACK AT QWEST, WHO WAS WITH JAMAL ON THE AD HOC CALL THAT DAY, AND WHO WAS PRESENT DURING THE QWEST-CENTURYLINK-INTEGRA NEGOTIATIONS OF THE XDSL AMENDMENT (ATTACHMENT A TO THE MERGER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT). (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA - QWEST: STATED IT SOUNDS OK TO ME. KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA ASKED IF SECTION 1.6 IS PURSUANT TO THE CLEC ICA. JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST ANSWERED YES.Karen Clauson - Integra reviewed (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) MATRIX row # 4 which Qwest agreed to update with the final review of the Tech Pub updates and MATRIX row #5 which Qwest agreed to change TO CLEC’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE. Karen then addressed MATRIX row #6. INTEGRA SAID THAT QWEST HAS INTRODUCED A NEW PHRASE -- “RENDER LOOPS UNSUITABLE” -- INSTEAD OF THE FCC DEFINITION LANGUAGE OF “COULD [remove AND] DIMINISH.” INTEGRA proposed Qwest use the FCC definition of conditioning in Chapter 1 which can then be referred to in later sections. Jamal Boudhaouia –(4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) [remove QWEST PROVIDED AN EXPLANATION OF THE DIFFERENCE] JAMAL SAID THAT HE WAS PUTTING HIS ENGINEERING HAT ON. HE SAID "COULD DIMINISH" MEANS THE LOOP IS ALREADY INSTALLED AND REFERS TO THE CAPABILITY AS INSTALLED AND THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING CIRCUIT THAT COULD DIMINISH OVER TIME. HE SAID “COULD DIMINISH" DOESN'T ADDRESS WHAT HAPPENS AT INSTALLATION. QWEST SAID that the Tech Pub defines WHAT IS THE CAPABILITY OF THE LOOP FACILITY THAT WE PROVIDE YOU [remove THE PARAMETERS OF THE LOOP TO BE PROVIDED] versus the FCC definition which is the capability of the loop over time. Jamal said the Tech Pub was not intended to address the term “diminishing.” Karen Clauson - Integra said (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) [remove THE] A difference is that the Qwest IS FOCUSING [remove EMPHASIS IS] on the word “diminish” and the CLEC FOCUS [remove EMPHASIS] is on the word “could”. Jamal Boudhaouia – (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) QWEST SAID YOU SHOULD DO THAT BEFORE, IF YOU ORDER CONDITIONING, IF YOU WANT TO ADD REMOVE ALL, YOU CAN ADD REMOVE ALL CONDITIONING ON A LOOP. Qwest said the Tech Pub [remove FOCUSES ON WHAT THE CAPABILITIES ARE OF THE LOOP ORDERED AND PROVISIONED. ] PROVIDES THE DEFINITION OF TECHNICAL PARAMETERS BASED ON WHAT WAS ORDERED. He said he did not know the FCC’s intent; HE IS NOT A LAWYER. THE TECH PUB ADDRESSES ONLY THE CAPABILITIES OF THE COPPER LOOP, THE TECHNICAL PARAMETERS. Karen Clauson - Integra said the Amendment doesn’t define conditioning differently (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) [remove THEN] THAN the FCC. She said (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) THERE IS AN AGREEMENT TO PAY A DIFFERENT RATE [remove AMENDMENT PROVIDES THE NEGOTIATED RATE TO BE USED UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.] The Tech Pub and the Amendment both say here is what will occur when performing Conditioning and they need to synch up. Karen said the Qwest language “rendering unsuitable” is a problem and should have been part of negotiation which we are not here to redo. She said the language does not reflect the Amendment and that they cannot agree to it. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said we are talking semantics. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) QWEST SAID THAT THE PROCESS FOR CONDITIONING IS NOT IN THE TECH PUB. IT IS OUTSIDE THE TECH PUB, IF SIGNATORY TO THE AMENDMENT TO GET THE BENEFITS. FROM A TECH PUB PERSPECTIVE, WE DON’T USUALLY REFER TO A DEFINITION OUTSIDE THE TECHNICAL WORLD. LANGUAGE AS FAR AS ICAS WOULD RESIDE IN PROCESSES AND ICAS AND NOT BE PART OF THE TECH PUB, WHICH IS AS DEFINED IN THE ANSI STANDARDS. JAMAL [remove AND] he would review the ANSI standard language and propose something different. [remove SEE ROW #6.] The Tech Pub is intended to reflect the Amendment and not intended to be a PCAT. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA SAID SHE IS GLAD TO HEAR THAT. SHE SAID WE ARETALKING ABOUT THREE CRITICAL WORDS CHANGED FROM THE FCC DEFINITION. KAREN SAID, IF QWEST SENDS SOMETHING, WE WILL LOOK AT IT. KAREN SAID QWEST KNEW IT WAS TO REFLECT THE ICA AND, IF QWEST DOES SOMETHING ELSE, IT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ICA. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST IS REFLECTING THE AMENDMENT, ABSOLUTELY. IT IS NOT WORD-FOR-WORD BUT HAVE DONE IT TO A LARGE EXTENT. THE DEFINITIONS MAY FALL UNDER DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS. TECH PUBS SHOULD REFLECT TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES. AS FAR AS PROCESSES AND PRODUCT DEFINITIONS, THE TECH PUB IS NOT A PRODUCT CATALOG. QWEST SAID AGAIN WE ARE TALKING SEMANTICS. WE NEED TO DISTINGUISH CAPABILITY. “DIMINISHES” IS OVER TIME; LOOK AT THE TIME OF TESTING. Karen Clauson - Integra said, if it is a matter of semantics, then . (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) AS A COURTESY use the CLEC language proposed. This particular language does not reflect the Amendment and if new language is proposed, it should reflect the Amendment and not be left to Qwest to interpret. The language is the same between the two except for the few words. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said he is not ready to agree . (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) AND HE NEEDS TO TAKE THIS BACK. If he agrees to use “could diminish,” that impacts the industry Tech Pubs. . (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL SAID THIS WOULD CHANGE EVERYTHING AND THAT HE WOULD NEED TO GO BACK TO BELLSOUTH AND AT&T AND REVISE IT, and HE SAID that he WOULD [delete COULD] NEED TO PUT IT IN THE [delete TAKE IT TO ] ANSI FORUM for review. Karen Clauson - Integra said . (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) WE NEED TO FOCUS ON the words “could diminish” WHICH are the issue and the FCC DEFINITION IN THE FEDERAL RULE, INCLUDING THE word “could,” has been around for years and is not inconsistent with other industry Tech Pubs. KAREN SAID, IF BRIDGE TAP COULD DIMINISH THE SERVICE, THEN IT COMES OFF TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE. Mark Coyne - Qwest suggested in the interest of making the best use of the remaining hour, the Qwest SMEs take some time to review the most recent proposed changes from Integra and that the meeting moves on to reviewing the Conditioning download and PCAT. Karen Clauson - Integra said she thought the discussion has been useful since it is the most important issue and it is beneficial for Qwest to have that background as further language changes are considered. Karen said she preferred to continue review of the Tech Pub matrix since that was the . (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) STATED intent of today’s meeting IN THE NOTICE, and since the Conditioning Download updates were just received AND, BECAUSE QWEST DID NOT SEND A NOTICE OF THE CHANGE, [delete THEY] WE NEEDED [delete NEED] time to review them. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) MARK COYNE – QWEST SAID THERE WAS NOT ADDITIONAL NOTICE FOR THE CHANGES TO THE DOWNLOAD, AS PART OF THE LEVEL 3 NOTICE WAS PULLED BACK, SO THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL COMMENT PERIOD. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA SAID SHE WAS NOT CRITICIZING; WE JUST NEED TIME TO LOOK AT THE NEW DOWNLOAD CHANGES AND THE MEETING WAS NOTICED TO DISCUSS THE TECH PUB. It was agreed to continue review of the Tech Pub matrix. Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC said that PAETEC agrees 100% with the Integra position and wanted to provide that feedback and will continue as she has unless she has something else to add. Mark Coyne – Qwest agreed and also said if there are other call participants that disagree. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) [delete WITH THE DISCUSION], they [delete WOULD MAKE THAT KNOWN] SHOULD SPEAK UP. Karen Clauson - Integra reviewed (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) MATRIX Row #7, Section 2.2.2, this is a cleanup issue and Qwest agreed. KAREN SAID WHERE ISDN-BRI IS USED IT NEEDS TO BE SPECIFIC AND CONSISTENT SO THE TECH PUB WILL BE CLEAR THAT THESE SECTIONS APPLY TO ISDN-BRI. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID NO PROBLEM. Karen Clauson - Integra reviewed . (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) MATRIX Row #8 and said the issue is not placement as long as it is included and that this relates to Section 1.1 (Row #3) in providing more examples. Qwest agreed to look at it in both places. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID HE WILL PUT IT IN SECTION 1. Karen Clauson - Integra reviewed (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) MATRIX Row #9, Section 3.1 where Qwest had already agreed and Qwest agreed to the proposed expanded update. KAREN SAID IT IS NOT LIMITED TO ASSIGNING FACILITIES, AND QWEST NEEDS TO EXPAND 3.1 INCLUDE PERFORMING REPAIRS AND SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID, NO PROBLEM, QWEST WILL ADD THAT. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON - INTEGRA SAID ALSO [delete also] in regard to Row #9 and the embedded base and the NC/NCI code issue, Integra is requesting wording to be added so the Qwest technicians know what should happen if the codes are different than what is in the Amendment. KAREN SAID SHE UNDERSTANDS THIS IS THE TECH PUB BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE LANGUAGE ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN EVEN IF IT IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT FOR THE EMBEDDED BASE YOU LOOK ELSEWHERE. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID REPAIR ADDRESSES THE EMBEDDED BASE SO IT IS ALREADY INCLUDED. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON - INTEGRA SAID GOING FORWARD IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BUT THE EMBEDDED BASE HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. IF IT IS A RECENT ORDER, THEN THE CLEC HAS TO SUBMIT AN ORDER AND CHANGE THE NC/NCI CODE. BUT, IF IT IS OLD, THEN IT IS A RECORDS UPDATE, AND THAT PROCESS IS IN THE AMENDMENT, SO THIS SHOULD BE A HEADS UP FOR TECHNICAL PEOPLE. WITHOUT THAT, THEY WILL DO SOMETHING ELSE. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said the Qwest technicians don’t see the Tech Pub or the up front order processes. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) HE SAID THE TECH PUB REALLY DOESN’T INFLUENCE WHAT THE TECHNICIAN SHOULD DO OR NOT DO. HE SAID, FOR THE EMBEDDED BASE, WHEN THEY SEE NEW OR CHANGE ORDERS TO NC/NCI CODES, QWEST SEES THE NEW CODES AND TESTS TO PARAMETERS. The technicians see the correct NC/NCI codes ON THE ORDER and perform testing based on whatever is defined for them as required. HE SAID THE TECH PUB DOES NOT CARE ABOUT RECORDS, AND THEY WILL DO WHATEVER IS ON THE ORDER. THEY DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THE RECORDS ARE WRONG OR NOT. HERE ARE THE TEST PARAMETERS AND IT SHOULD FALL WITHIN THIS LIMIT. It has nothing to do with the Tech Pub. Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC said the embedded base is her biggest concern and how (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) THE repair will be handled if Qwest identifies IT AS THE WRONG [delete THAT THE] NCI CODE [delete WRONG]. She said her understanding is THAT QWEST WILL [delete THErepair TO [delete WOULD] WHAT IT SHOULD BE [delete OCCUR] AND then PAETEC would follow-up with an order. JULIA ASKED, UNDER THE TECH PUB, WHAT WILL GET REPAIRED? JULIA SAID SHE IS CONCERNED AS TO HOW THIS GETS REFLECTED. Julia questioned how does the correct work get done PER THE AMENDMENT. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said the question is valid but is really a process and not a Tech Pub issue. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL SAID, IF THERE IS AN ADSL NC/NCI CODE TO RUN ADSL, THEN QWEST WILL TEST TO THE NC/NCI CODE. IT IS PUSHED DOWNSTREAM. Jamal said that the agreed to process would be that Qwest would send [delete A] AN SERVICE order with the correct NC/NCI to test but then request the customer send a records order to correct the Qwest records. QWEST WILL TEST TO THE QWEST SERVICE ORDER, USING THE CORRECT ONE. Karen Clauson - (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) INTEGRA SAID, FOR EMBEDDED BASE CUSTOMERS, THE SERVICE DEPLOYED ON THE LOOPS ASSUMES CERTAIN NC/NCI CODES AND THAT SCENARIO SHOULD BE CAPTURED IN THE TECH PUB. Integra said it does become a Tech Pub issue and is specific to the Amendment language IN 9.2.2.3.5.5, where the going forward process is described. Karen said they are looking for the one scenario where there is the potential for error. Karen said that the embedded base is a key area and one that causes a lot of problems and part of why this has become an issue. She said the Tech Pub is frequently quoted back TO THE CLEC and that the scenario needs to be addressed with [delete AN] THE exception. Karen said she thinks the fix is fairly simple if it isreferenced in this update. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said he was concerned with having to reference all of the possible VARIATIONS [delete SCENARIOS] in the Tech Pub and that it is not designed for that. Jim Hickle – Velocity said (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) THAT IS NOT THE CASE. HE SAID [delete THE] Qwest SHOULD GET ITS techs [delete SHOULD] TO stop throwing THE TECH PUB [IT] back at the CLECs AND TELLING US TO FOLLOW THE TECH PUB. HE ASKED, IF THE TECH PUB IS NOT MEANT TO TELL TECHS TO DO THEIR JOB, WHY IS IT NEEDED AND WHY DO THE TECHS [delete THEN] SAY that [delete THEY] CLECS are not following the Tech Pub [delete .AND] Qwest should address that. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said Qwest has tried to do that and that language was added to say NC/NCI codes are good to use no matter where they come from -- CLECs, Qwest or however they get into the system. Also, the Tech Pub language changed to take into account the NC/NCI codes when assigning facilities (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS), PERFORMING REPAIRS, AND PERFORMING SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT. Julia Redman-Carter – (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JULIA SAID QWEST HAS, IN OTHER PLACES, REFERENCED SOMETHING ELSE THAT CONTAINS THE PROCESS – NOT THAT QWEST GAVE THE PROCESS, BUT WHERE THE PROCESS IS. JULIA SAID THAT, FOR THE EMBEDDED BASE, PAETEC IS NOT ASKING THAT TO EXPLAIN THE PROCESS BUT TO NOTE THE EXCEPTION HERE. PAETEC suggested the exception needs to be noted in the process for the techs [delete AND THAT IT IS] OR THEY ARE still going to follow the NC/NCI codes. Karen Clauson – Integra provided an example of the repair situation using ADSL(4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) ACTUALLY DEPLOYED ON THE LOOP and IDSL AS THE NC/NCI CODES IN THE RECORDS. KAREN SAID, IN [delete in] regard to the embedded base, Amendment section 9.2.2.3.5.5 SAYS THAT, [delete ]IN THIS example,[delete THAT] WHEN the records say IDSL, Qwest will repair to ADSL, and will allow the change TO THE PAPERWORK from IDSL to ADSL later. Karen said the key is to AT LEAST acknowledge the exception [delete AT LEAST] in the Tech Pub. The document needs to be clear on which NC/NCI to use in the repair situation since a lot of time and money has been spent to develop [delete IT] THESE TERMS. Jamal Boudhaouia - Qwest- said he liked Julia’s recommendation to see what processes are out there and point to it. Karen Clauson – Integra said she will only agree to that if the reference is to the ICA (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) FOR [delete AND] the embedded base. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest agreed that it will have the same reference to the download for the embedded base. Karen Clauson – Integra said that is the objection. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SHE SAID WE KNOW WHAT THE PCAT SAYS TODAY BUT WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT WILL SAY TOMORROW. The reference needs to ACKNOWLEDGE THIS SCENARIO AND include the ICA since the PCAT or download can be changed. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) HE AGREES absolutely, it should be the ICA but it might not be in this particular section since there could be a better place for it. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said it may be in other sections but it really (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) ALSO needs to be in Section 3.1 because of the issues with the embedded base and NC/NCI codes. Karen Clauson – Integra said it sounds like we agree the wording can get into the Tech Pub someplace and that maybe Qwest wants to take it back to determine where. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest agreed to take it back. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA SAID IT’S A BIG ISSUE AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT. Karen Clauson – Integra said (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) MATRIS row #10 was agreed to by Qwest. MATRIX Row #11 was agreed to by Qwest. MATRIX Row #12 was agreed to by Qwest. For MATRIX row #13, since it is related to process for both Qwest and CLEC, the question is should the paragraph be removed. KAREN SAID QWEST LEFT IN THE CLEC RESPONSIBILITIES BUT NOT QWEST’S RESPONSIBILITIES. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said it will all be removed. Karen Clauson – Integra said in regard to (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) MATRIX row #14, that no Qwest response had been provided to change the first three fields required to the first four fields that are required AND SHE ASKED IF THE OMISSION WAS INADVERTENT OR IF QWEST HAS A REASON FOR THAT. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) YES, QWEST HAD A REASON. HE SAID the protocol option defines the equipment capabilities to put on and what protocol is. HE SAID THAT, WHETHER IT IS ETHERNET, IP, OR WHATEVER YOU PUT ON IT, YOU DO NOT TEST TO THE PROTOCOL. He said Qwest does not test to protocol but to physical characteristics of the loop. Karen Clauson – Integra said Qwest previously argued in 271 cases that the NCI codes had to be available to do Spectrum management. Karen said now CLECs want (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) QWEST TO USE the NCI code and the question is why Qwest SAYS IT does not need the information. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) to LOOK AT THE FREQUENCY RANGE; SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT IS MORE ABOUT POWER AND NOT PAYLOAD. JAMAL SAID YOU LOOK AT THE POWER INFLUENCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT DSL SERVICES; YOU DO NOT LOOK AT PAYLOAD, EQUIPMENT ON THE LOOP. HE SAID the NC/NCI code without the forth character defines the POWER SPECTRUM OR frequency range IT SHOULD FALL WITHIN AND [delete THE DSL SERVICE IS RUNNING ON THE LOOP AND also defines the power limits. JAMAL SAID POWER SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT IS BASED ON FREQUENCY RANGES AND POWER CARRYING FROM YOUR EQUIPMENT. Jamal said Qwest does not and should not look at the payload [delete FOR THE INFORMATION] IN THAT FREQUENCY RANGE [ delete THAT IS BEING TRANSMITTED]. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA ASKED JAMAL TO SLOW DOWN. SHE SAID THAT HE IS GOING TOO FAST AND THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO ABSORB BECAUSE HE IS TALKING TOO FAST. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – JAMAL SAID MAYBE HE SHOULD BE TALKING TO ENGINEERS INSTEAD. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA SAID THAT SHE BELIEVES SHE HAS SHOWN THAT SHE IS CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THE INFORMATION AND COULD UNDERSTAND IT IF JAMAL TALKED SLOWER. KAREN SAID THAT SHE IS QUITE SURE AN ENGINEER WOULD HAVE TROUBLE KEEPING UP AS WELL BECAUSE JAMAL IS TALKING SO FAST. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST RESPONDED ABSOLUTELY AND APOLOGIZED. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said she understood it made a difference for binder groups to be put together based on whether it was ADSL, SDSL, etc. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS)[delete AND ASKED IF THAT WAS TRUE. SHE SAID IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND BASED ON THE ORDER WE WILL TELL WHAT FLAVOR BECAUSE THE NC/NCI CODES TELL QWEST THAT INFORMATION. JULIA ASKED IF QWEST AGREED. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said the NC/NCI codes DO define (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) [delete THE] WHAT DSL IS RUNNING ON THE LOOP [delete TYPE], WHAT FLAVOR OF DSL IT IS USING. JAMAL SAID THE FOURTH CHARACTER DEFINES THE PROTOCOL, WHATEVER IS PUT ON IT. HE SAID HE NC/NCI CODES DEFINE THE FLAVOR. Kim Isaacs – Integra (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) ASKED, IF QWEST IS NOT LOOKING AT THE FOURTH FIELD IN THE NCI CODE, HOW CAN QWEST DETERMINE WHAT THE TYPE OF DSL. SHE ASKED ABOUT THE IMPEDENCE. SHE ASKED IF THE PROTOCOL OPTIONS ISN’T THE ONLY THING ALLOWING QWEST TO UNDERSTAND THE FREQUENCY. INTEGRA questioned what information provides Qwest everything that is necessary to know about spectrum management.. [delelte ?] (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA – QWEST SAID THE PROTOCOL OPTIONS DEFINE THEPROTOCOL PUSHING DATA THROUGH AND TELLS WHICH DSL IS RUNNING ON THE LOOP. HE SAID, WITHOUT THAT OPTION, WE KNOW FROM THE PHYSICAL LAYER WHICH DSL IS RUNNING ON THE LOOP. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KIM ISAACS – INTEGRA ASKED HOW QWEST DOES THAT. INTEGRA SAID THE FIRST FIELD IS TOTAL CONDUCTORS AND THE SECOND FIELD IS CONNECTION AT THE CO AND THE THIRD FIELD IS THE IMPEDANCE AND NONE OF THESE TELL ME THAT THIS IS ADSL. SHE ASKED, SO HOW DOES THAT TELL QWEST WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) YES, FROM THE IMPEDENCE AND OHMS, QWEST CAN TELL THE FLAVOR. HE SAID, from the combination of the NC/NCI codes in the Tech Pub, Qwest knows which type of DSL flavor. Kim Isaacs – Integra referred to the Table 3-14 (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) AND POINTED OUT THAT, OF ALL THOSE WITH AN “NC” OF “LX-N,” MOST BEGIN WITH A CODE OF “02” FOLLOWED BY “QB” FOR THE MANUAL CROSS CONNECT. WHE SAID THAT, FOR IMPEDENCE, IT IS EITHER A “9” OR “5.” SHE CONCLUDED THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE LOOPS, THEREFORE, IS IN THE PROTOCOL OPTIONS FIELD. SHE ASKED WHETHER THE PROTOCOL OPTIONS FIELD ISN’T THE INFORMATION THAT GETS TO THE MEAT OF WHAT IS RUNNING ON THE LOOP. KIM questioned whether it was the protocol options that provide the key of what is running and that makes the codes different. She said it appears the fourth field is required to understand the spectrum management class. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said no, the NC/NCI codes in Table 3-14 defines the recognizable flavors of DSL. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KIM ISAACS – INTEGRA SAID THE FOURTH FIELD IS THE FIELD THAT GETS TO THE MEAT OF THE MATTER. IT IS WHAT MAKES EACH CODE DIFFERENT, AND IT IS REQUIRED TO UNDERSTAND SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT. KIM ASKED WHETHER QWEST AGREES THAT THE FOURTH FIELD GETS TO THE MEAT OF THE MATTER. KIM SAID THAT IT IS THE PROTOCOL OPTIONS THAT TELL WHETHER IT’S XDSL OR ADSL. KIM ASKED IF JAMAL SEEING WHERE WE’RE GOING WITH THE PROTOCOL OPTIONS – THAT THE FOURTH FIELD HAS TO BE REQUIRED? SHE SAID THAT QWEST NEEDS TO REQUIRE THE FOURTH FIELD. Bonnie Johnson – Integra (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) ASKED IF QWEST’S ANSWER IS THAT QWEST WILL PLACE ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT TYPES OF DSL [delete in the same binder group.[delete ?] Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said yes, (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) QWEST IS ALLOWED TO PUT THE TOGETHER IN THE SAME BINDER GROUP. HE SAID you can put different or multiple DSL signals in a single binder group without interference if they are within the spectrum management guidelines. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said(4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) that she is concerned based on history and that THIS is EXACTLY THE opposite of what she [delete HAS]heard [delete PREVIOUSLY] BEFORE. SHE SAID PAETEC’S [delete HER] experience with the embedded base indicates a problem putting ADSL and SDSL together in a binder group, and that it is a spectrum management issue. SHE SAID THAT THE FOURTH FIELD IS THE BASIS FOR SEPARATING THEM OUT. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) THAT THIS IS A GOOD QUESTION. HE SAID THAT spectrum management is the power influence on each other. HE SAID, WHEN DISCUSSING SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT, IF THERE IS A REMOTE DSL, ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE MAY BE A SUDDEN SHIFT IN THE POWER REFERENCE. HE SAID IF ADSL IS RUNNING FROM THE POWER REFERENCE IT WILL WORK TO HAVE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF DSL. HE SAID IF ADSL IS FROM THE CO AND ADSL IS FROM A REMOTE, OR TWO OF THE SAME SERVICES AT TWO DIFFERENT POINTS, THE POWER OF THE ADSL SIGNAL IS HIGHER THAN THE POWER OF THE ADSL SIGNAL THAT TRAVELS THROUGH THE CROSS BOX. ADSL AT REMOTE WILL INTERFERE. THAT IS WHY THE NC/NCI CODES FIGURE IN THE POWER ISSUE. [delete AND] HE provided an example of HDSL and ADSL services running from a central office will not interfere with each other. Spectrum Management issues arise when the same flavor of DSL is running from a different reference point. For example when you have ADSL running from the Central Office and another ADSL running from a remote DSLAM. Jamal said the NC/NCI codes help with figuring out any power issue at a reference point – most likely at a remote terminal. Mike McCarthy-Minnesota Department of Commerce - said it sounds like there is some agreement on the value of the protocol options. Mike said (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) QWEST SAID EARLY IN THE CALL THAT the INTENT OF THE call [delete BEGAN WITH THE INTENT TO RECONCILE] WAS TO RECONCILE the Tech Pub and the ICA. MIKE SAID THAT ATTACHMENT 2 TO THE AMENDMENT INCLUDES THE PROTOCOL OPTIONS. HE SAID THE [delete PROTOCOL OPTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE ICA AND IN] ANSI [delete STANDARDS] MANUAL ALSO INCLUDES THE PROTOCOL OPTIONS FIELD. HE SAID THEY [delete AND] are the definition of what drives spectrum management. Mike ASKED, SINCE ALL OF THIS IS CALLED OUT IN THE ICA, WHY WOULD QWEST IGNORE [delete QUESTIONED WHY ]that information [delete WOULD BE IGNORED] in [delete THE]directions to PEOPLE IN the field. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said he would propose language to be added to the Tech Pub that allow the protocol options to be optional. Karen Clauson – Integra said the protocol options are already optional in the Tech Pub, (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) WHICH IS WHAT INTEGRA HAS PROPOSED TO CHANGE. [delete AND] SHE said Mike McCarthy described what is in the ICA. Karen used a pizza example and said they wanted the pizza that had been ordered and not just any pizza. Karen said the same is true for xDSL, they want the xDSL flavor specifically ordered which is why the protocol options are listed in the ICA and need to be listed in the Tech Pub and not be allowed to be optional. KAREN SAID THAT OUR REQUEST IS THAT QWEST RECOGNIZE AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE NCI CODE AND GIVE US WHAT WE ORDERED. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest relayed the wording in Chapter 3 of the Tech Pub and said he was willing to AGREE TO TWO OF THE FIELDS [delete CONSIDER A CHANGE]. Karen Clauson – Integra said they had suggested updates on March 14 . See Row #14. Karen said you can review their proposed language. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said he would come up with some words that specifically address the XDSL loop. Karen Clauson – Integra (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) ASKED IF WE UPDATED THE LANGUAGE TO INDICATE THAT XDSL PROTOCOL OPTIONS IS REQUIRED FOR XDSL LOOPS (SO IT DOES NOT SUGGEST THIS APPLIES TO OTHER LOOPS) WILL THAT TAKE CARE OF QWEST’S CONCERNS? KAREN provided some wording options for sub section 3.6.1. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest requested that Karen (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) [delete PROVIDE] SEND TO QWEST the PROPOSED sentence she is referring to IN WRITING. Karen Clauson – Integra agreed. (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) NOTE: INTEGRA PROVIDED THE SENTENCE TO QWEST BY EMAIL DATED APRIL 14, 2011, AS PART OF A MATRIX UPDATED AS TO ACTION ITEMS. Mark Coyne – Qwest said there is about 10 minutes left and he wanted to discuss the next steps. He said we have reviewed through (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) MATRIX Row # 14 [delete 14 WHICH] 14 WHICH is about half way through the matrix. Karen Clauson – Integra said she thought we should count (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) MATRIX Row #15 because that is the issue Qwest took back with respect to 1.1 and that we are actually further along since some of the same language repeats throughout the document so that will take care of some of those. Mark Coyne – Qwest said Qwest would review the matrix and recent Integra responses and provide that back. Mark said we will need another Ad hoc call. Susan Lorence –Qwest asked about several dates. Based on various conflicts, the group determined May 2nd was a workable date. Karen Clauson – Integra suggested if Qwest wanted to send the matrix back in between, they would review it. Mark Coyne – Qwest said we would do that and requested feedback on the Conditioning Download redline. Karen Clauson – Integra agreed. Susan Lorence –Qwest said Qwest will provide feedback on the matrix by 4/21 or 4/22 and then maybe in that same time period would receive feedback from the CLECs on the conditioning download and would plan to get back together May 2nd . Mark Coyne – Qwest said let’s go for that and then provided a recap of what had been accomplished according to the agenda: the historical background, review of Tech Pub Chapters 1, 2, and part of 3, impact of the CLEC’s who do not sign the XDSL amendment. Mark said that leaves us two and half chapters to go through as well as the download for the next meeting. Karen Clauson – Integra said they were looking at addressing some other issues relative to the escalations, terminology, and wanted to take an umbrella approach to see how it is all working together. Mark Coyne – (4/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) MARK SAID ALL RIGHT. Qwest asked if there were any additional comments or questions and there were none. 3/16/11 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest said the rollout of the remaining states continues: Arizona, Oregon and Montana were implemented 3/14 and that Idaho and Washington will go into effect on 3/21. Mark said in regard to the escalation #46 that was identified last month, the Qwest binding response and the Integra binding response are posted to the CMP escalation site. Mark said there was also a Level 3 notice sent to implement an additional change in regard to the escalation on the Single Trouble Report Issue. Qwest submitted the final response to comments on the level 3 notice on 3/14/11 plus Qwest issued a level 2 Network notice on 3/7/11 on Tech Pub 77384 to synch up with the new process that had been implemented first in MN on 1/15/11. Mark said there were no new process changes with the Tech Pub update. Mark said we received a request from PAETEC to extend the comment cycle and a request from Integra to change the disposition to a level 4 notice. Mark said the plan is issue a new level 4 notice which will provide a 15 day extension to the comment cycle. Bonnie Johnson – Integra said piece-mealing the changes is not working and that Integra does not necessarily agree with the changes and that (3/25/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) QWEST MADE TO THE PCAT TO RESOLVE THE SINGLE TROUBLE REPORT TICKET ISSUE AND THAT they have been asking for a collaborative effort. Integra would like to COLLABORATIVELY review the changes including the lastest Tech Pub update which is why they asked for the change in disposition. Mark Coyne – Qwest said the timing of the changes could have been better. We can put together an ad hoc meeting to review the Tech Pub update. Jamal Boudhaouia - Qwest said in regard to the Tech pub update, the major changes are to Chapter 6 which are the performance test parameters. Jamal said the changes that have been copied word for word from the Amendment and settlement agreement. Jamal said the purpose of a Tech Pubs is not intended to be product description but it is intended to cover technical parameters. Bonnie Johnson – Integra thanked Jamal for the explanation but said Qwest has information in the Tech Pub that is in conflict. She said the information is not in line with the xDSL Amendment and that Integra provided some feedback and examples where the Tech Pub is in conflict. Bonnie said a collaborative meeting to review the whole Tech Pub is what was needed. She said it was not just the changes that were made but the changes that were not made. Jamal Boudhaouia - Qwest said he is not opposed to having an Ad hoc call but that he wants to insure that the expectations are clear. He said he did not want the Tech pub to be a futuristic document nor to be a Product Catalog. Mark Coyne – Qwest said we will set up an Ad hoc meeting to review the Tech Pub changes. Bonnie Johnson – Integra said the Ad hoc should not only be to review the Tech Pub but to review changes to other documents such as the Unbundled Loop PCAT or other relevant PCATs. She wants to work together to reflect the xDSL Amendment which is what governs. Bonnie said Qwest is rejecting some orders associated with conditioning and that the Amendment does not say exact verbiage has to be used and a Tech may forget to use specific words. Bonnie said she thought the problem was that Qwest was not training on the Amendment but (3/25/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) INSTEAD TRAINING on the PCAT. Mark Coyne – Qwest said we will schedule an Ad hoc and will get with Qwest SMEs to identify what pieces of the Tech Pub and documentation to discuss. Bonnie Johnson – Integra said that sounds fair and that Qwest should propose some dates/times to some of the main players for the Ad hoc. Mark Coyne – Qwest said we will propose some dates/times for the Ad hoc.

2/16/11 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest relayed that the notification to implement the additional states was sent out on January 24, 2011. Qwest submitted its final notification and response to comments on February 11, 2011. On February 14, 2011,Qwest received an escalation from Integra on two issues. That escalation has been posted to the CMP external site and on February 15, a notification was sent out to the entire CLEC community to inform them of the escalation. At this point, Qwest is in the process of developing its response and will be sending it out according to the CMP document. Mark said the rollout of the remaining states related to this change will remain on schedule while we try to resolve these two issues.

1/19/11 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest relayed an initial Level 4 notice went out on November 30, 2010, the comment cycle closed on December 15, 2010 and the final notice and response to comments went on December 23, 2010 with an effective date of January 15, 2010. This change did go into effect earlier this week and the CR has been moved to CLEC Test. Mark relayed a notification to implement the additional states will probably be sent before the end of this month. Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked if Qwest could relay what that would look like – the states and timeframe. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that we are finalizing the order and the implementation dates and that we do not have the complete schedule yet. Bob confirmed we are planning to put out something before the end of the month. Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked if Qwest can give her an idea if it is going to be all 14 states or the major metropolitan areas are going first and what are the dates. Mark Coyne – Qwest indicated the dates will be staggered. Bob Mohr – Qwest identified we do not have the firm dates yet. Susan Lorence – Qwest said we are thinking we will use a Level 4 notification again. When the dates are finalized, we will show the various states on the Level 4 notice and relay the various dates that they are going in. Susan said we are not going to send separate notices for each state and that we will notify in time for the first date, whatever it is. Bonnie Johnson – Integra said the plan was for the notice to go out before the end of this month and will contain the remaining 13 states and the associated dates. Mark Coyne – Qwest indicated that is correct. 12/15/10 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest provided the following update: an ad hoc meeting was held on November 19, 2010 to discuss the revised documents associated with the CR. An initial Level 4 notice with those changes was sent November 30, 2010 with the comment cycle closing today, December 15, 2010. One comment was received today. Qwest is still planning on a final notice being sent on December 30, 2010 with an effective date of January 15, 2011. Mark asked if there were any questions. There were none. 11/19/10 Ad hoc Meeting Attendees: Loriann Burke – XO, Doug Denney – Integra, Steven Fisher – Integra, Kim Isaacs – Integra, Bonnie Johnson – Integra, Jamie Nelson – POPP, Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC, Bob Mohr – Qwest, Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest, Rita Urevig – Qwest, Linda Harmon – Qwest, JohnHansen – Qwest, Maryann Wiborg – Qwest, Rachel Ruiz – Qwest, Susan Lorence – Qwest Susan Lorence – Qwest began the meeting by providing a background on the CR that was originally introduced in the July CMP meeting. Two ad hoc calls were conducted on August 23 and September 13, 2010 to review the proposed change. On September 23, 2010, the CR was updated to include the state of Montana. The initial Level 4 notice was sent out on September 27, 2010 for Montana and Minnesota and a final notice was sent on October 22, 2010 with the effective date changed to November 22, 2010. On November 9, 2010, the CR was revised to remove the state of Montana with the indication of other revisions. On November 11, 2010, Qwest issued a notice to retract the initial level 4 change and also issued the notice to establish this ad hoc meeting to review the changes and relay a restart to the timeline. Bob Mohr – Qwest said he was going to review each of the PCATs and touch on the changes and then answer questions. Bob first reviewed the various changes to Unbundled Loop General Information V87. Bob relayed that information was added to better define references and that one of the big areas that changed was under Conditioning to be in sync with the latest agreements. Bob explained that the current definition of conditioning had been expanded to include Near and Far end bridge tap removal and then reviewed the two options for conditioning going forward. Bob added that there was a change related to testing that allows for the option for CLECs to escalate directly to their Service Manager. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest clarified that when Qwest completes testing, the results will be provided via CEMR. Jamal said the results would only be available to CEMR when and if the loop was provisioned. Kim Isaacs – Integra said she has found that the ADSL 196 test results are in CEMR when the loop is not completed but is placed in jeopardy status and that is what the ADSL PCAT says also. Kim said she has plenty of examples. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said he would have to check that. Bob Mohr – Qwest reviewed the last UBL General PCAT updates associated with spectrum management. Bob asked if there were any questions before moving on and there were none. Bob Mohr – Qwest then reviewed the ADSL Compatible Loop PCAT updates which were similar to updates made to the UBL General. Bob asked if there were any questions and there were none. Bob Mohr – Qwest then reviewed the updates to 2W 4W Non-loaded Loop PCAT. Bob said Qwest was trying to put most of the detailed information into the downloads and referencing them from the PCATs. Bob asked if there were any questions. There were none. Bob Mohr – Qwest then reviewed the download Assignment of Facilities for xDSL Capable Loops and covered the additional updates to the previous version. Bob said a note was added that Qwest is going to try to apply the same processes to the sub loop offering but that the difference is the sub loop is a non-designed process and that many of the enhancements are not feasible from a non-design perspective. Bob said that Qwest is trying to determine how some of these things can be applied to the sub loop product and that Qwest will probably want input on how we can work together to meet some of the processes. Bob said it will likely have to be done manually and that it will not be the same as for Unbundled Loop. Bob said the other changes were in the facility length limit to go from 25,000 feet to 22,000 feet and the update to review what Qwest would do if there were changes in technology or industry standard associated with loop lengths. Bob said Qwest would be willing to modify those lengths to be consistent with those standards when requested. Bob asked if there were any questions on this download. There were none. Bob Mohr – Qwest said the Conditioning download had the most changes compared to the previous document and reviewed each of the revisions. Bob said we will start with a process where the customer will indicate the type of conditioning they want in the Remarks field but said that Qwest is working on a longer term solution to modify the SCA field which may be in place some time early next year. Bob said we added better defined guidelines around accepting or rejecting the quote on Remove All jobs greater than eight hours. Bob asked if there were any questions on the Conditioning download and there were none. Bob Mohr – Qwest then reviewed the last download which was Testing. Bob said some changes were made to the table but they were made to match up to the agreed upon tests and were not much different from what was reviewed previously. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said in regard to 196 kHz insertion loss, it may not be met or within the parameters of 78 dB loss because of the limitation on the test equipment. Jamal said that the test equipment that is being widely deployed is not able to test to that level but may test to 70 dB plus or minus 2 dB. Of the Qwest test equipment in the field, some may go up to about 80 or so but few can measure to 78 dB so it will not be there at all times. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated one of the biggest changes in the Testing download was the addition of the escalation to Service Management for additional testing. Bob said toward the end of the document, some additional definitions of optional testing were added and when charges apply or do not apply. And finally, information is included regarding the NC/NCI codes for the embedded base of circuits and what happens when they are different from what is on the loop. Bob said Qwest will proceed with the repair but we would like a correcting order to follow so we do not have that same discrepancy going forward. Bob asked if there were any questions. Kim Isaacs – Integra asked if there was a process developed for the NC/NCI code order and questioned if it was R or C order? Linda Harmon – Qwest indicated that we need to take that as a follow-up. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest provided a clarification on the D-Mark that it is not a core test. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that after these redlined documents were posted, a couple of typos were identified that do not change any parameters but reflect how the actual measurement occurs. Bob said we will be making those corrections. Susan Lorence – Qwest said that we are going to start the comment cycle again with a new Level 4 notice to go out on November 30, 2010 with the effective date of January 15, 2010. Bonnie Johnson – Integra said in the monthly CMP call on Wednesday, Qwest said the amendment would not be available until January 7, 2011 and that it was difficult to put things together with out the amendment. Bonnie questioned if it was the same amendment that Qwest and Integra filed in MN last week. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that was correct and that he did not know of any changes but if there were any, they would be minor. Qwest wassticking with what was filed. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said she was not objecting to these changes but was concerned that the amendment would not be available. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that the actual amendment would come out a week before our final implementation date. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said she was concerned with how to address incongruency if the amendment is not consistent with the documentation. Julia said she wanted to be sure the amendment reflects what she was interpreting and needed time if a clarification was required. Bonnie Johnson – Integra said if the idea is to leave the amendment as filed in MN, then it is done and it is feasible to provide it earlier. Susan Lorence – Qwest said we would note the desire to have the amendment available sooner and would take the concern back to our contract folks. Susan said again that Bob had identified there are some minor corrections to be made but that the plan is to send the initial Level 4 notice on November 30, 2010 for the state of MN. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC asked if there was any schedule or timeframes for other states. Bob Mohr – Qwest relayed not at this time but that Qwest is working to establish a schedule for the remaining states. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC requested clarification on binder groups and NCI codes in regard to repair. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said that once we have the correct NC/NCI codes, that will be used for repair going forward. Bob Mohr – Qwest said if a customer was to give Qwest a repair ticket and we find the codes are different, Qwest will proceed with the repair as if the codes were correct but we would want an order to fix it later. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said she understood that piece but that her question is whether Qwest will pull it out of the binder group for repair. Is it considered an issue in the Qwest network. Will the customer get charged for that repair? Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest indicated if you have a repair ticket and there are HDSL NC/NCI codes on the loop but the loop is used for ADSL, the ADSL codes will be used to repair any issues within that loop and within the binder group. Jamal said depending whether the problem is found in the Qwest network or not, current processes will not change. He said Qwest will use the correct NC/NCI code for the maintenance and repair activity and the existing processes will be followed as far as whether to charge or not. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC provided a specific example: An ADSL customer has the wrong NC/NCI code compared to what Qwest has; Qwest identifies it as ADSL and does the repair but discovers it is in the wrong binder group. Qwest takes it out of the binder group and puts it in the correct binder group. An order is sent to change the NC/NCI codes to update records. The question is when Qwest removed the ADSL from the wrong binder group, is that considered an issue in the Qwest network. Julia questioned if she would be charged for it. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest repeated the situation: A repair ticket is placed and you had a HDSL NC/NCI code however you wanted ADSL. The ADSL within binder group 1 is interfered because of certain parameters. Qwest will change it to a different binder group where we believe there is no interference and the question is would you be charged for that maintenance activity. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC indicated yes, is the problem from Qwest network and therefore no charge or is that considered a charge? Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said he would have to investigate the maintenance process and would respond in writing. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said that once an agreed upon answer is received, she wanted that clarified since this was a big deal with the NC/NCI codes and the changes. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest relayed that he will work with Bob to see if that is something to be documented and if so, where it should be documented - in a business procedure or PCAT. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said ok but wanted to see it documented. Susan Lorence – Qwest asked if there are any other questions. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest asked if Kim Isaacs could send a few examples of the results of 196 kHz test that was jep’d and not provisioned. Susan Lorence – Qwest asked if Kim would send them to the CMPCR mailbox and we can forward it on. Kim Isaacs – Integra relayed that she would do that today. Susan Lorence – Qwest thanked everyone for joining the call. The meeting adjourned at 11:11 am MT. 11/17/10 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest provided a background on this CR. The Level 4 notice originally went out on September 27, 2010 with an original effective date of November 8, 2010. However, on November 9, 2010 the CR was revised to remove the state of Montana. On November 11, 2010, Qwest sent a retraction notice in order to make some additional modifications associated with the CR. Those modifications have been posted to the Wholesale Calendar for an ad hoc call that is already established. The planned implementation date is January 15, 2011. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that we did retract the original proposed PCAT changes and have reposted those modifications. Bob said changes were made primarily to the Conditioning and the Testing download but other minor changes were made to the Facility Assignment download and the two PCATs and all documents have been reposted with the modifications in them. Bob said an implementation date of January 15, 2011 for Minnesota is proposed. Bonnie Johnson – Integra said with the ad hoc call on Friday, maybe her questions should be held for that. Bonnie questioned whether Qwest would review the changes to the originally proposed documents. She said the amendment was filed yesterday for the xDSL process in Minnesota with the implementation date of January 15, 2011 and asked if the change in the process will be in line with that amendment. Bob Mohr – Qwest said that the majority of these changes were due to recent agreements and that we also added some clarifying language due to feedback from the ad hoc meetings. Bob said we are syncing up the documents to agree with the agreements made. Bonnie Johnson – Integra indicated that the agreements are public. Bonnie said she had not seen an amendment for the process that was going to be implemented on November 22, 2010 and questioned whether the amendment and rate sheet that will be offered in Minnesota for a January 15, 2011 will be the amendment that Qwest and Integra filed with the Minnesota commission yesterday? Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that yes, we will be creating a template and have a target of January 7, 2011 to have that posted externally. Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked if it was going to be the same amendment. Bob Mohr – Qwest said the template has not been finalized but he did not know of any changes. (11/29/10 Comments to minutes received from Integra in CAPS) Bob Mohr – Qwest said the template has not been finalized but he IS NOT AWARE of any changes BEING MADE. Mark Coyne – Qwest asked if there were any other questions for Bob. There were none. 10/20/10 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest indicated that the initial Level 4 notice went out on September 27, 2010. The final notice is set to go out on October 22, 2010. The planned effective date is November 22, 2010. Kim Isaacs – Integra relayed that Integra has submitted objections and that any implementation of this will be over their objection. Mark Coyne – Qwest indicated that Qwest does have this noted. 09/15/10 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest indicated that an ad hoc meeting was held on August 23, 2010 and another one was held on September 13, 2010. Qwest is following up on some questions that came out of the September 13, 2010 meeting and is planning to create a matrix of specific questions and Qwest responses to include with the meeting minutes. During the September 13, 2010 meeting, the CLECs were asked to review the comparison document/matrix that was included along with the redlined documents and downloads and to submit any questions to the CMPCR mailbox. Mark asked that the CLECS please submit any remaining questions to the CMPCR mailbox by Friday, September 17, 2010. For those CLECs that did not attend, the documents are out on the Wholesale Calendar for you to review. 09/13/10 Ad hoc Meeting Attendees: Brenda Bloemke – Comcast, Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC, Bonnie Johnson – Integra, Kim Isaacs – Integra, Lynn Powers – Integra, Pat Phipps – QSI Consulting (on behalf of Integra), Doug Denney – Integra, Jim Hickle – Velocity, Jamie Nelson – POPP, Bob Mohr – Qwest, Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest, Mark Nickell – Qwest, Linda Harmon – Qwest, John Hansen – Qwest, Rachel Ruiz – Qwest, Mark Coyne – Qwest, Susan Lorence – Qwest Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked if there were any changes to the documents posted on today’s calendar entry other than the ADSL comparison document. Susan Lorence – Qwest said all documents remain the same except the Comparison document which was revised and shows the 090810 date. Susan also said this morning she posted a question received from Integra on Friday and the Qwest response. Susan Lorence – Qwest began the meeting by relaying this is the second meeting on this CR. The first meeting was on August 23 where we progressed through a review of a number of the documents. Susan said we will begin today by reviewing the Testing download and will then review the revised xDSL compatible loop comparison document that includes a matrix added at the end to provide further information due to requests from both PAETEC and Integra. Susan also said there was the new question and Qwest response to review. Hopefully, there is enough time to get through all that today, decide our next steps and see if there are any questions. Bob Mohr – Qwest then reviewed the Testing - xDSL Capable Loops document. Bob said facility assignment is based on the estimated measured loss, EML; loop delivery and acceptance is based on actual measured loss, AML. AML insertion loss will be performed at 196 KHz except for the ISDN NCI codes which will be tested at 40 KHz. Bob said Qwest will conduct the core test (9/21/10 Comments in CAPS or strikethrough to minutes from Integra) AND at your request (deleted AND) will provide additional testing using the testing rates in your ICA. Upon completion of testing, Qwest will provide you with the test results before loop acceptance. Bob said that will apply to any xDSL order and that it will be done via a mutually agreed upon manner either electronically, by email or verbally. Bob said Qwest will provide a loop meeting the performance parameters for the service requested where facilities are available. The key objective of this enhancement is that we will use the specific NC/NCI requested and will test to those performance parameters to meet the service requested. Bob said if after testing, the loop does not meet the performance standards, we will attempt to bring the loop within parameters and locate a facility to meet those parameters. One or more of the conditioning options may be required to bring the facility into parameters and Bob said we need your acceptance of those charges before proceeding with conditioning. If after tests, we are still unable to identify a loop, Qwest will notify you that no compatible facilities exist and will advise you of next steps. Next steps could be supping the order to a different NC/NCI or cancelling the order. Bob said again the final objective is to provide a facility that meets the industry guidelines and the service you are requesting. During repair, Qwest will utilize the same performance tests as needed to fully resolve the trouble - taking into account the existing NC/NCI for the xDSL service. The AML insertion loss will be at 196KHz. Upon completion of the testing, we will provide you with the test results. Bob asked if there were any questions. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC asked what if we have a product that is there, her understanding is that if we put in NC/NCI codes, does that give Qwest permission to change the facilities. In a repair situation, is that going to give Qwest the ability to leave the binder group and force us into new facilities or will Qwest remove our service from the binder group? Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest rephrased the question. If you have a repair ticket, you give Qwest the correct NC/NCI codes to change the order. If for some reason the repair indicates that it is not supporting the ADSL services, we will do whatever is necessary to make sure that the loop works. Jamal said that includes moving the service to a different binder group that will support the ADSL signal. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said she appreciated that and asked where we know that they are in a binder group, will Qwest pursue that first? Julia said she does not want to lose the grandfathered product. If we know it is a binder group, is it going to be removed from the binder group first so we don’t interrupt the customer or lose the grandfathered product. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said you won’t lose the product. Jamal said we want to make sure the loop works end to end and will support ADSL. Jamal said to not be concerned at what is going on in the network in the middle but look at the ends. Jamal said whether we change pairs should not matter; it is just the assignment process. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said the concern is that the NC/NCI codes are changing and she does not want to change the facility the customer is getting; it has been fine for years. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest indicated if that is the case, the loop supports ADSL and we will repair the facilities and not pull out of the binder group. Jamal said we will look at what is not working. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said if it is not working and the issue is in a binder group, are we going to repair it by pulling them out of the binder group first or are you going to test? Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest indicated no we will do the 196KHz test first in addition to other tests to see if the loop has an opening in it and will fix that. But if we have a remote DSL that is in the same cross box, we may need to move to a different binder group to remove interference. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said she wanted to clarify the 196KHz. Her engineers are not aware if the loop is in the wrong binder group and questioned whether they would be able to recognize that with 196KHz. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said absolutely. The 196KHz alone does not tell me that there is an interference problem but the 196KHz will tell if that facility will support ADSL or not. Kim Isaacs – Integra (9/21/10 Comments in CAPS or deletions indicated to minutes from Integra) CONFIRMED THAT (deleted IF) the 196KHz will not tell you whether there is interference.(deleted ?) Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said that is correct. In addition to all the standard tests, we test the electrical characteristics. Then we do the196KHz to tell what kind of DSL it supports. Kim Isaacs – Integra asked why go with 196KHz to be the end all. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said the 196KHz test is recognized as the Industry standard - in T1 417 in addition to 413 and 418 - as the broadband and wideband standard test to use for DSL. Kim Isaacs – Integra said (9/21/10 Comments in CAPS to minutes from Integra) SHE RECALLED it was not the only test recommended. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest indicated yes (9/21/10 Comments in CAPS to minutes from Integra) AND THAT THERE ARE OTHER TESTS. It is part of the battery of tests Qwest will provide. Kim Isaacs – Integra questioned whether we would pay for additional testing? Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said there is no charge for core tests which is to make sure the loop is electrically ok; then we do the broadband test which is the 196KHz testing. Jamal then provided a number of examples of the core tests that are performed at no extra charge. (9/21/10 Comments in CAPS to minutes from Integra) THERE IS NO CHARGE FOR THE CORE TEST AND 196 KHZ TEST. FOR ANY OTHER TESTS, WE WILL DO THE ADDITIONAL TEST AT AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE. Doug Denney – Integra asked when you refer to the additional testing rates on Exhibit A, is that referring to an existing rate or a new rate to be developed? Bob Mohr – Qwest said there is no new rate. It would be the rate that is in Section 9.20. Doug Denney – Integra indicated there is no rate called additional testing. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that it is additional cooperative testing. Doug Denney – Integra said additional cooperative testing applies during provisioning and installation and questioned whether there is an additional testing rate on repair? Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that he would have to look at the full description since he was not familiar with all those descriptions. (MATRIX - QUESTION 1) Bob said it is not a new charge; we would charge from section 9.20 for testing for repair. Doug Denney – Integra asked if the facility fails the 196 KHz test during repair, is Qwest going to code that for performance measures as trouble on the Qwest network? Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest asked if the correct NC/NCI codes are already on the loop? Doug Denney – Integra said let’s take each scenario. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest indicated if the correct NC/NCI codes are on the loop and the customer was working and now is not, if we performed the 196 KHz as well as other battery of tests that were mentioned, it would not be coded against the CLEC but would be a facility repair ticket on the Qwest network. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that if the circuit was in place today, it would not have been tested for 196KHz. If it then gets tested on repair and does not pass, the service can be reassigned to a compatible facility or you have the right to keep that service. Bob said if you keep the facility,we will want that documented since accepting it as is, there is little Qwest can do to better qualify that loop. One thing might be to do conditioning but if you want to go that way, we cannot improve on that insertion loss achieved by conditioning. Doug Denney – Integra questioned if that is on an embedded base circuit regardless if it has the correct NC/NCI codes? Bob Mohr – Qwest said if we find an incorrect NC/NCI code that does not match how the circuit is used, Qwest will test and repair at the level of service you tell us it is working at, but you are required to follow up with an order so there is no future disagreements. Doug Denney – Integra said in this embedded base scenario of using ADSL with the correct NC/NCI code on the loop, how will this get coded if it fails the 196KHz test? (MATRIX - QUESTION 2) Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest indicated if for some reason this facility fails the 196 KHz test, we will look for a facility that will pass the test. Jamal said he has to assume that the service was working before and for some reason it is not working anymore. We will figure out the problem first and then determine steps to correct the problem which might include moving to a different binder group. You are not going to lose the service. Kim Isaacs – Integra asked if that is coded to a Qwest facility issue then. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest indicated right. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC repeated the scenario of an embedded base customer that has the correct NC/NCI code and trouble is reported. Qwest will go in and take care of it. Julia questioned if there is a charge for the repair for the 196KHz? Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest indicated that he was not sure and would followup. (MATRIX - QUESTION 3) Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said the other scenario is an embedded base that has an improper NC/NCI code, is Qwest going to do the repair and then if necessary, I would need to follow up with an order to change NC/NCI code. Are those repairs charged? This would be outside of any conditioning. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated he will have to check but that he thought the same answer will apply to both these scenarios. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC indicated so what I am hearing is if I have to pay for repairs and I have an embedded base where Qwest believes the NC/NCI code is improper that I may have to pay for repairs just to get the right service. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that he does not think we said we would or would not. We are looking into it. (MATRIX - QUESTION 4) Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC questioned another scenario of the wrong NC/NCI code per Qwest. Will Qwest attempt to repair to the ADSL standard? What happens if Qwest does whatever repairs but the problem still exists. I change the NC/NCI code to ADSL. Will Qwest try to correct it then? What is the recourse? Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest verified the scenario: CLEC told Qwest they have ADSL. The assumption is the loop has incorrect NC/NCI codes. We tried to fix it but it does not get fixed for some reason. You put in an order and then the circuit is not working anymore. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said the order is to the wrong NC/NCI code but you are able to repair it. Julia verified if it was correct she had to follow-up with an order to change the NC/NCI code. Julia wanted to know if the order for the NC/NCI code would cause Qwest to change facilities or do something else other than changing paperwork. She wanted confirmation that it was not a new repair or a repeat ticket and that it did not change any facilities. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest indicated yes, that is a record change only. There would not be any change in facility. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC asked if she then has a problem on that repair ticket, she would use the new NC/NCI codes. Julia questioned if this is considered a new repair or a repeat ticket? Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said he was not familiar with that process. (MATRIX - QUESTION 5) Susan Lorence – Qwest said we would take that as an issue and include the answer in the meeting minutes. Kim Isaacs – Integra asked if the circuit ID was going to change if there was a change to the NC/NCI code? Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said the circuit ID will be the same and not change. Kim Isaacs – Integra (9/21/10 Comments in CAPS or deletions indicated to minutes from Integra) (deletes SAID) CONFIRMED QWEST (deleted YOU) will change the DLR and CSR to change NC/NCI codes but the circuit ID remains the same. Linda Harmon – Qwest said she would double check to make sure after Jamal said yes. (MATRIX - QUESTION 6) Bonnie Johnson – Integra said she wanted clarification following the discussion of what Qwest was not charging for. She requested confirmation of the charges recovered in non-recurring rates. Susan Lorence – Qwest said her question was to capture the tests for the notes rather than get into the specifics of how the charges would occur. Bonnie Johnson – Integra questioned that Qwest is not charging an additional charge but has said the tests are not free. (MATRIX - QUESTION 7) Bob Mohr – Qwest said that is right, we are not doing them for free but he did not know if they were recovered in MRC or NRC without knowing the studies. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said he was not sure of the cost docket and how it applies to MRC or NRC but that we don’t charge separately today and we won’t charge separately going forward.

Susan Lorence – Qwest indicated that charges are outside the scope of CMP and that her question was to clarify the tests already there and which ones were part of this change. Bonnie Johnson – Integra said we have been talking about costs for half an hour. Susan Lorence – Qwest indicated not specific costs and what is included in them. Susan said we can clarify that as a separate issue and asked if Bob had finished review of the testing download. Bob Mohr – Qwest said yes and that the tests and their parameters are listed in the download. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC questioned if she has a customer that is on the grandfathered product and puts in an order to change them to ADSL, what happens. Julia wants to be sure it is still covered under their grandfathered product. Bob Mohr – Qwest asked if you are signing into the new enhancement or the current product? Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said if she has an embedded base customer on the ADSL compatible product that Qwest makes a repair on, she sends an order with the corrected NC/NCI. Her question is which NC/NCI to use, the one she has today that was wrong or the NC/NCI code with the ADSL compatible loop code. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that NC/NCI codes do not change regardless of whether it is the existing or enhanced product. The LXR- is the same and referred everyone to the Comparison matrix. Bob then discussed the matrix saying additional information was added to clarify some items. The Comparison matrix addresses pre-grandfathered, post-grandfathered, and then the enhanced offer. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC asked if there will be a distinction to identify the grandfathered customers. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that if you sign the amendment (9/21/10 Comments in CAPS to minutes from Integra) FOR THE ENHANCEMENT, Qwest will “un-grandfather” that product so you can order it. Bob said technically, it won’t be grandfathered in MN with the enhanced offer. Kim Isaacs – Integra said when a product is grandparented, she understood that they could get the product as it is in the ICA but during the next ICA negotiation, the product becomes unavailable and there is no way to move new customers to the product. When Qwest grandparented the ADSL loop, did it eliminate it? Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that was correct; he had misspoke. When ADSL was grandfathered, if it was in your ICA, you could continue to order it. If it was not in your ICA then it was not available for new agreements. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said if she has it in her current agreements and asked why she would need to sign the amendment? Is this just so Qwest can fix it when you wouldn’t before? Bob Mohr – Qwest said we would fix it before. The amendment defines certain parameters for the ADSL loop and referenced an example of the EML limits on page 2. Bob said there is a better definition of industry standards and provided some examples from the Comparison matrix. Kim Isaacs – Integra (9/21/10 Comments in CAPS or strikethrough to minutes from Integra) SAID (deleted ASKED IF) my ICA says I get ADSL compatible loops at industry standards, why sign the agreement. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said you have it in your ICA and your agreement references the industry standards specifically to the 196 KHz. (9/21/10 Comments in CAPS or deletions indicated to minutes from Integra) (deleted THE AMENDEMT OFFERS) BOB IS OFFERING ENHANCEMENTS (deleted ADDITIONAL FEATURES) to the current product that enhances it in a number of ways - specifically conditioning which is offered as two tiers vs. one. Jamal said from a legal perspective, he cannot answer that but what you have in the agreement is what you have. Qwest is offering an amendment with enhancements. Kim Isaacs – Integra said (9/21/10 Comments in CAPS or deletions indicated to minutes from Integra) (deleted IF) what is in my agreement is what you call the enhancements, there is a difference in opinion. Susan Lorence – Qwest said we would take an action item on clarifying the legal definition of grandfathering. (MATRIX - QUESTION 8) Susan said we have talked grandfathering in CMP and she thought it was that you just couldn’t order it new but you could keep what you have in existence. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said she is not disagreeing. Julia questioned what she is getting with this enhancement that she is not getting now. Her agreement says she can get services so that her customers can get the services they ordered and they have been getting it for years. Julia said she was going to send in a repair ticket and that she couldn’t get it fixed before but she is assuming that now this is available. She said it seems the general terms of my agreement are not enough and that specific language is needed and requested that be clarified. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest indicated that we will take that back. (MATRIX - QUESTION 9) Susan Lorence – Qwest asked whether we should go through the Comparison document any further or whether it was clear enough. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC indicated she would like to go through it to understand the differences and where she is now and where to focus. Susan Lorence – Qwest asked if there was something specific or should we start at the top. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said let’s take Ordering; she then reviewed each column. For post-grandfathered, you wanted LXR- but she said many of theirs were ordered LX-N. Julia said she would be trying to get repair; the difference is that on the enhanced offer you have to enter the Remarks on the LSR. She doesn’t know it is an enhanced offer. Some things included are clarifications that are very specific vs. general differences. Julia said she is trying to understand what is the enhancement vs. what is a more detailed process not stated before. Bob Mohr – Qwest said the manual handling information in the Remarks section is related to the new tiers of conditioning. Before, you needed a Y in the SCA field for conditioning. With the enhanced offer, we need to know the type of conditioning you want so we can properly route the request. Or for a trouble ticket, so we can send it to the correct technician.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said in this one for ordering, it is for after the fact. Julia questioned if she needed to put the order in again (9/21/10 Comments in CAPS to minutes from Integra) SHE IS BACK IN A CIRCLE; she is not changing anything. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated if this is a trouble ticket, we want the trouble report to include the type of conditioning so we can route it to the correct technician. Qwest has added scripting in the PCAT. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said yes and submit an order after the fact. Bob Mohr – Qwest said if you only want conditioning and want Remove all conditioning, issue a trouble ticket for Remove all. No follow-up order is necessary. Bob said that assumes the NC/NCI codes are correct with how the circuit is used. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said in a case of repair with the wrong code, an order is sent to change the NC/NCI code; is the order in the beginning? Bob Mohr – Qwest said that is a Record order after repair to change the NC/NCI code so there are no discrepancies going forward. Bob said that is no change from today - no other info is required. Kim Isaacs – Integra asked if manual handling is required on every order or just where they are unable to make the determination via Loop qual, etc. Can an order be sent in with LXR- and not drop to manual handling? (MATRIX - QUESTION 10) Linda Harmon – Qwest questioned if you are not asking for conditioning on the initial request? Kim Isaacs – Integra said yes. They do the pre-order steps and feel comfortable no conditioning is needed. (9/21/10 Comments in CAPS to minutes from Integra) INTEGRA SUBMITS THE ORDER BASED ON THE PRE-ORDER INOFRMATION THAT NO CONDITIONING IS REQUIRED. Linda Harmon – Qwest said to submit as usual; Qwest will still respond (9/21/10 Comments in CAPS or deletions indicated to minutes from Integra) (deleted SIMILAR TO TODAY) WITH A JEP if we find conditioning is needed. Kim Isaacs – Integra said today Qwest (9/21/10 Comments in CAPS to minutes from Integra) DOES NOT RESPOND WITH A JEP AS LINDA THOUGHT BUT QWEST is delivering it with all OF THAT on it. Linda Harmon – Qwest said she would verify what happens if you don’t ask for conditioning on an LXR-. (MATRIX - QUESTION 11) Susan Lorence – Qwest indicated that the time is almost up and there are a number of action items. Susan said she will create a matrix and also identify them in the meeting minutes. Susan requested attendees to review the Comparison matrix over the next couple days to determine if there are still questions; if so, send them to the CMPCR mailbox so we don’t delay in getting a response back. Bonnie Johnson – Integra said they can do that and was interested in next steps. Bonnie said she wanted to again say that Integra is requesting the CR be withdrawn until the MN proceeding has been decided and then a regulatory CR could be submitted. Bonnie said she knows Qwest plans to implement (9/21/10 Comments in CAPS to minutes from Integra) THE CR anyway. Susan Lorence – Qwest said our approach is to see if there are additional questions and to determine then if another ad hoc is required or if the questions can be answered by a response as part of the meeting minutes. Then, if there are no outstanding points, Susan said we would like to proceed with a Level 4 notification for Minnesota as Mark Nickell had originally identified. Mark Nickell – Qwest confirmed that is the strategy at this point. Susan Lorence – Qwest said we will note Integra’s request to withdraw this CR and wait until the MN proceeding. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC questioned if we feel there is a need for an ad hoc, should that be sent in with our questions. Susan Lorence – Qwest said yes. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC indicated that she would like another ad hoc call to understand the testing differences better. Susan Lorence – Qwest said after reviewing the matrix, the discussion from the call, and the documentation that is posted, if you believe another ad hoc call is necessary then please let us know. Jim Hickle – Velocity said he wanted to echo Integra to remove the CR until the MN proceedings are done. Jim said we are re-doing things over and over again and wasting time with this. He said he appreciated all the great conversation on the call especially the work that PAETEC and Integra had done. Jim said from the beginning, he wanted the CR withdrawn immediately and stands by that. Susan Lorence – Qwest indicated that we will note that as well. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said for the record PAETEC feels the same and echo Integra’s position because she feels she is doing this multiple times. Susan Lorence – Qwest thanked everyone for participating and requested participants review the documentation and matrix and send in any additional questions. Susan said we will work on the questions from today and then determine next steps. Susan said our intent is to move forward with this unless there are additional questions. Meeting adjourned at 1:01 pm MT. 9/10/10 Email sent to PAETEC and Integra Attached is a revised document that provides the before/after comparison information requested by both PAETEC and Integra. The document was also posted to the Wholesale calendar entry in preparation for the ad hoc meeting on September 13, 2010. [Comparison document that was attached can be viewed on Wholesale calendar entry http://wholesalecalendar.qwestapps.com/ on 9/13/10.] 8/24/10 Email received from Integra Integra agrees with PAETEC and joinsIntegra agrees with PAETEC and joins in the request. This is not the first time that Integra has requested this information. In my 7/26/10 email to Qwest, I said: “Mark Nickell, who presented Qwest’s short paragraph at the monthly CMP meeting, was also present during negotiations with Integra. In addition, please provide in advance of the call the side-by-side comparison of each aspect of the process previously used for ADSL (including facilities assignment, the algorithm used for facilities assignment, tests conducted for provisioning and repair, NC and NCI codes used, etc.) before and after Qwest grandparented ADSL over CLEC objection, as requested by PAETEC on the CMP call and previously by Integra.” Integra previously requested this information at a meeting in May attended by Mr. Nickell. Please provide the requested information in sufficient time for the CLECs to review the information before the next scheduled ad-hoc call. 8/24/10 Email received from PAETEC Qwest indicated on the CMP Ad Hoc call that it provided the document titled “CR PC072010-1 Change in process in Minnesota for Non Loaded and ADSL Compatible Loops used to provide xDSL services” in response to PAETEC’s earlier request in CMP. That document, however, does not provide the requested information. PAETEC asked for a before/after comparison from before Qwest grandparented ADSL compatible loops with after Qwest would implement its proposed change request. To clarify, PAETEC asked for, in addition to a detailed comparison of the Qwest grandparented ADSL compatible loops with the Qwest proposed change request, the associated details of the differences regarding ordering, repair, standards, intervals, conditioning, processes, etc in a side-by-side, point-by-point comparison. Qwest’s document does not contain most of the “before” information. Under key differences, only the first bullet point gives before and after information (“The reintroduced ADSL Compatible Loop (LXR-) Maximum AML db loss: =78.dB @196khz, whereas the standard in the grandfathered product is = 41db @ 196 khz.”). The other bullets appear give the “after” (i.e., after implementation of the CR). In contrast, for example, the next bullet point, says that, after implementation, ADSL loops will be assigned based on a formula and loop make-up records. It does not address before ADSL was grandparented. Therefore, there is no comparison. Before Qwest grandparented ADSL, ADSL loops were assigned based on a formula and loop make-up records. Therefore, any before/after difference is not apparent. Why is this information identified as a key difference, and what is the difference? Qwest is in the process of scheduling another ad hoc call regarding this CR where the comparison document would be reviewed. Before the next call, please provide an updated document that gives the before, as well as the after, information for each bullet in the document titled “CR PC072010-1 Change in process in Minnesota for Non Loaded and ADSL Compatible Loops used to provide xDSL services” and all the points addressed in the grandparented ADSL product. Also, please include before/after differences, if any, in NC or NCI codes and USOCs as well. 8/23/10 Ad hoc Meeting Attendees: Kasha Fauscett – Comcast, Brenda Bloemke – Comcast, Doug Denney – Integra, Bonnie Johnson – Integra, Kim Isaacs – Integra, Laurie Roberson – Integra, Karen Clausen - Integra, Mike Starkey – QSI Consulting (on behalf of Integra), Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC, Bill Haas – PAETEC, Anna Bell – Enventis/Hickory Tech, Bob Mohr – Qwest, Mark Nickell – Qwest, Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest, Linda Harmon – Qwest, John Hansen – Qwest, Rachel Ruiz - Qwest, Susan Lorence - Qwest Susan Lorence – Qwest began the meeting by relaying that Mark Nickell from Qwest presented this Qwest CR PC072010-1 in the July CMP monthly meeting. The ad hoc meeting is to review the revised PCAT and downloadable documents, and review the comparison document requested by PAETEC of how the ADSL LXR- product differs from the grandfathered ADSL product. We will take questions after each section rather than all at the end. We will then discuss next steps. Mark Nickell – Qwest (9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) SAID IT SHOULD BE AN INTERESTING CALL AND provided an overview of the CR indicating Qwest will be making a change specific to Minnesota to add information regarding new optional processes for Facility Assignment, Conditioning, and Performance Testing of the Unbundled Local Loop - 2-Wire or 4-Wire Non-Loaded Loop and Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) Compatible Loop. Discussion will be led by Bob Mohr and Jamal Boudhaouia, Qwest SMEs. Bob Mohr – Qwest relayed that there are 3 key areas that include proposed changes. First is conditioning, second is facility assignment and third is testing. There are some changes to the Unbundled Local Loop General Information PCAT but the changes are minimal. Bob indicated that unless there are specific comments to the product PCATs, he would like to move on to the downloads. Bonnie Johnson – Integra said the ADSL PCAT updates went from Version 23 to Version 25 and said that there are questions outstanding on Version 24. Bonnie relayed that this causes confusion and Qwest had previously agreed to not make overlapping updates. These proposed changes do not reflect Version 24. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest indicated that these were 2 different areas. The ADSL Version 24 update relates to testing if it is in your ICA. These updates to Version 25 ADSL updates are associated with general 2 or 4 Wire Non-loaded Loop that is xDSL capable associated with an amendment to the ICA.

Susan Lorence – Qwest indicated that we did receive comments on the Version 24 ADSL Level 3 notice and are currently working on setting up an ad hoc call to go over those changes. Susan said we would like to hold off on Version 24 questions until the ad hoc call.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra indicated that this should be retracted until Version 24 is resolved.

Susan Lorence – Qwest said that there is nothing in formal review so there is nothing to retract. Bonnie Johnson – Integra indicated that they disagree. Bonnie questioned the changes in the 2nd paragraph on Unbundled Local Loop 2 & 4 Wire Non loaded Loop. She said that the NC/NCI change that is being removed is not specific to Minnesota and questioned why it is being removed. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that the reason it is being removed is that currently the NC/NCI is informative and not dependent on the Minnesota change but was meant globally. Bonnie Johnson – Integra said shouldn’t this change be a Level 2 for document changes. Susan Lorence – Qwest relayed that per the CMP document, Qwest can include related Level 2 changes in a Level 3 notice but it was noted by Integra that this is a Level 4 change and Susan replied she thought the same language applied. Bonnie Johnson – Integra said this change should not be included in the CR that is for MN only. Brenda Bloemke – Comcast concurred. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC agrees since it affects the 14 state. Susan Lorence – Qwest relayed that we will take this as a point to consider as its own Level 2 update. Bonnie Johnson – Integra requested information on what the determination is. She then asked for an explanation why this is in MN only. Mark Nickell – Qwest indicated that as we moved towards implementation, Qwest ran into a variety of operational challenges and decided on a one state deployment initially to make sure that everything was going to work. Mark said (9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) BECAUSE OF ISSUES IN Minnesota IT was the best choice due to service concerns there but that Qwest fully intends to expand at a later date. Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked what are the challenges. Mark Nickell – Qwest indicated that there were issues with USOCs, (9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) LOOP BACK DEVICES, testing and training to obtain better efficiencies. He said there was more work and a whole host of issues that raised the question of going global or implement at a state level AND BE LESS THAN SATISFACTORY initially. MARK SAID QWEST WAS DOING TESTING FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN MN. Karen Clausen - Integra referred to the variety of stages of a CR and wanted to know if Qwest implemented before the CR was presented and what Qwest was implementing. Mark Nickell – Qwest indicated that no this was not implemented; the analysis all hinged around the operational process which included equipping the wire centers, installing the Loop back devices to do the testing, training technicians, etc. associated with initial preparation to have the field force ready to go. Susan Lorence – Qwest relayed there was no official implementation. Karen Clausen – Integra asked what is the difference between preparation and official implementation. Mark Nickell – Qwest reiterated nothing has started. He indicated that the technicians are now being trained and ready to deploy. Technicians are doing testing for operational efficiencies so that when we are ready to begin, there will be as few issues as possible. (9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) Mark Nickell – Qwest reiterated nothing has started. He indicated that the technicians are now being trained and ready to deploy. Technicians are doing testing for operational efficiencies so that when we are ready to PULL THE TRIGGER, there will be as few issues as possible. Susan Lorence – Qwest relayed that Bob Mohr will go through the first download of process. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that for xDSL capable loops, we will be adding in 3 new options to condition circuits: 1) LXR- Conditioning, 2) LX-N Conditioning and 3) Remove All Conditioning. These will be available on provisioning as well as repair and can be requested via a repair ticket. Bob then reviewed the content included in the Conditioning download. Bob said Qwest is not required to remove Stub Cable and for the Remove All option, Qwest would remove everything from the Loop with the exception of anything that is inaccessible due to safety concerns or buried plant. Bob asked if there were any questions. Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked why are these downloads? We asked for an amendment. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that at this phase, there is a redlined PCAT. The downloads are not in place of the amendment. Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked when will the amendment be available. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated after the PCAT updates. Then will provide rates. Bonnie Johnson – Integra indicated that in the monthly CMP meeting it was relayed that the amendment will have more detail. Mark Nickell – Qwest relayed that was correct. Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked how levels 1 and 2 of conditioning are different than today. Bob Mohr – Qwest said that there is no 3rd option of Remove All. Bonnie Johnson – Integra said that the difference between level 1 and 2 is that you do this today and level 3 is new. (9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) Bonnie Johnson – Integra ASKED IF that the difference between level 1 and 2 is that you do this today and level 3 is new (9/1/10 - Comments inCAPS to minutes received from Integra) BOB MOHR – QWEST STATED 2 IS WHAT WE DO TODAY, 1 IS ADDING REMOVAL OF NEAR AND FAR END BRIDGE TAP AND OPTION 3 IS NEW. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC questioned if LXR- and LX-N conditioning only apply to products with matched NC/NCI codes. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated yes, that was correct. The only way to know is NC/NCI. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC asked if you are addressing old NC/NCI codes that do not match the product. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that this will be covered as part of the assignment of facilities. If NC/NCI code is different, during repair if you advise Qwest, we will repair the service to the new NC/NCI code combination but we will expect an order from the CLEC to correct records. (9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) BOB SAID QWEST WILL NOT REFUSE TO RESTORE THE CIRCUIT BECAUSE OF THE NCI CODE. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC confirmed Qwest would not refuse to repair. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest indicated that as long as we have agreement from the CLEC s to send an order to correct the records. Susan Lorence – Qwest asked for clarification on whether Qwest would or would not refuse to repair service. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest indicated that Qwest will not refuse a repair ticket. (9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest indicated that Qwest will not refuse TO REPAIR. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC asked if there was a guarantee for no change to facility or disruption. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said Qwest can not guarantee no change to facility. In a repair situation, the existing facility may be defective and as such a new facility may be required. Also, if the existing facility does not meet the NC/NCI code loss parameters, Qwest will strive to find the best facilities that would meet these parameters. Bonnie Johnson – Integra requested the definition of inaccessible bridge tap. Bob Mohr – Qwest provided some examples, e.g., if it is buried, Qwest will not dig up buried plant, OSHA standards due to safety restrictions. Bob also said Qwest will not remove stub cable. Mike Starkey – QSI requested to go through LXR- and LX-N 2 or 4 Wire Non Loaded loop terminology. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that LXR- is ADSL Compatible. Bob said to request conditioning, a CLEC may indicate in the Remarks section the type of conditioning they are requesting. The request will drop for manual handling. Bob indicated there was a long-term goal to update the IMA SCA field. Bob said the change could not get into the fall release but possibly the spring release. Bob relayed that Qwest would ask for pre-approval before starting the work by having the customer place a Y in the SCA field to indicate pre-approval. He said that would be a benefit to both parties; there would be no disputed charges. Bob said there was an exception; if first approved for LX-N or LXR- conditioning and then Qwest needed to Remove All bridge tap to meet parameters. (9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that LXR- is ADSL Compatible. Bob said to request conditioning, a CLEC MUST PUT A Y IN THE SCA FIELD. The CLEC MUST DROP THE request for manual handling. Bob indicated there was a long-term goal to update the IMA SCA field. Bob said the change could not get into the fall release but possibly the spring release. Bob relayed that Qwest would ask for pre-approval before starting the work by having the customer place a Y in the SCA field to indicate pre-approval. He said that would be a benefit to both parties; there would be no disputed charges. Bob said there was an exception; if first approved for LX-N or LXR- conditioning and then Qwest needed to Remove All bridge tap to meet parameters. Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked if Qwest is charging for both? Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that if we charge, it would only be a charge to Remove All. (9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that if the THE LXR- OR LX-N CONDITIONING DID NOT BRING THE CIRCUIT IN LIMITS, it would only be a charge to Remove All. THERE WOULD BE BOTH CHARGES IF A SECOND TECHNICIAN HAD TO BE DISPATCHED TO DO THE REMOVE ALL BUT QWEST WOULD NOT CHARGE BOTH CHARGES IF IT DID NOT REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL DISPATCH. Doug Denny – Integra said that there is only one rate in MN and asked if Qwest knew what the rates are. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated there will be three new rate elements planned Susan Lorence – Qwest said charges were outside of the CMP discussion. Mark Nickell – Qwest clarified that two new rates are planned and we are still working on rates. Doug Denny – Integra indicted that this is important for the CLECs to have rates. Bob Mohr – Qwest relayed that the rates have to go through the normal avenue for approval. Doug Denny – Integra indicated that CLECs must authorize conditioning. If it is not requested, do you do it? Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that we will only bill and perform it (9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) ONLY if is necessary for the service. Bob said he does not believe we would automatically Remove All. If the customer authorizes Remove All and it is necessary to achieve parameters, Qwest will perform it. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC asked if that was stated in the document and that clarification would be helpful. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that it is not clearly stated. Doug Denny – Integra asked if request “Remove All,” you will only do if requested? (9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) Doug Denny – Integra asked if request “Remove All,” you will only do if REQUIRED? Bob Mohr – Qwest said yes. Bonnie Johnson – Integra said rates have to be approved by the Commission and that was a commitment due to the Expedite CR. (9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) Bonnie Johnson – Integra said rates have to be approved by the Commission and that was a commitment QWEST MADE FOR the Expedite CR AND DIDN’T DO IT. Bob Mohr – Qwest stated that we would ultimately seek Commission approval. Karen Clausen – Integra asked what the pre-approval rate process is and what process will Qwest follow in MN for unapproved rates. (9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) KAREN ASKED IF QWEST WILL IMPLEMENT THIS BEFORE RATES ARE APPROVED. Mark Nickell – Qwest indicated that Bob and Mark are Product but that we would be adhering to whatever legal guidelines apply. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that in regard to Repair for all options, Qwest is looking for CLEC help in scripting the TR (trouble report). If they are not electronically bonded tickets, Qwest will enter the scripting as we need to insure what is being requested and what we are going to bill for is clear. Bob Mohr – Qwest said for a conditioning request to Remove All, Qwest will provide a quote back and will not do anything until we get a response back. Bob referred to Section 9.20 of the ICA in regard to rates for quoted charges. Bob said for jobs greater than 8 hours, there is a quote prior to removing conditioning. Doug Denny – Integra what happens if there is additional time over 8 hours. (9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra)DOUG ASKED IF QWEST WILL CHARGE THE REMOVE ALL PLUS ANY TIME OVER 8 HOURS. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that we bill additional time and said there are two rate elements and provided a description of the two rate elements. Bob said the quote will only include the time over the 8 hours. A customer does not have to request the first level of conditioning in order to request Remove All. The “Remove All” can be requested up front. Bob said no rates will be applied more than once for the life of the circuit. Mike Starkey – QSI said he heard there are 2 rate elements and asked if the current one was being replaced or are they in addition. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that the new rates will take the place of the current one and that an amendment will replace the current rates. Bob indicated that you currently get BT and LC removal per CSA guidelines. 9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that the new rates will take the place of the current one and that an amendment will replace the current rates. KIM ISAACS – INTEGRA ASKED WHAT YOU GET FOR THE CURRENT RATE. Bob MOHR - QWEST indicated that you currently get BT and LC removal per CSA guidelines. Karen Clausen – Integra asked if this was per CSA guidelines. Bob Mohr – Qwest provided a response that covered the lengths as included in the Conditioning download. Doug Denny – Integra questioned is that the LX-N conditioning today and was the rate replaced? 9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) Doug Denny – Integra IF THE NEGOTIATED RATE WILL BE REPLACED BECAUSE IT WAS NEGOTIATED IN A COST CASE ALONG WITH MANY OTHER RATES? Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that was correct and it will replace what is in the ICA. Bob said that covers conditioning and he would move to assignment of facility where he reviewed the information included in the Facility download and provided examples. 9/1/10 - Commentsin CAPS to minutes received from Integra) BOB MOHR – QWEST SAID QWEST WILL USE THE NC/NCI CODES TO ASSIGN TO INDUSTRY STANDARDS TODAY QWEST IS NOT USING NC/NCI CODES FOR ASSIGNMENT AND QWEST WILL ASSIGN TO EML. Kim Isaacs – Integra asked what Qwest is doing today of these steps. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest responded that today we do not take NC/NCI codes into the equation. Going forward, Qwest will take them into consideration and 9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) WILL USE ANSI STANDARDS AND TEST AT 196 AND will calculate insertion loss. Jamal then described some industry limits based on NC/NCI codes that are included in the download. For instance, limits on the ADSL loops are 18 kfeet in length where as SHDSL and/or MVL could work on loops that are 25 kfeet or longer. Kim Isaacs – Integra relayed that after reading the Tech Pub, she thought that NC/NCI codes are informational and that the LXR- is not considered during provisioning. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest indicated that the NC code is taken into consideration 9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) FOR LXR- AND LX-N WHICH ARE A WHOLE HOST OF SERVICES. It is correct that in the Tech Pub, NCI code is for information only. JAMAL SAID THE COMBINATION OF THE NC AND NCI CODES IS INFORMATIONAL ONLY. In IMA, NC code drives the product USOC to the downstream systems such as LFACs. Jamal indicated that the NC code is considered part of non-loaded. To pre-qualify a loop for a particular service such as ADSL, the CLEC should go through IMA Loop qual tools. Kim Isaacs – Integra indicated that she was aware of the pre-qualification in IMA but you cannot reserve the loop if you see availability. Kim said on an LXR- order, Qwest doesn’t look at it when the order is sent 9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) BECAUSE QWEST SAID THE NCI CODE IS INFORMATIONAL ONLY. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said we do not put a limit on the loop and agreed that you cannot reserve facilities as a matter of process. Qwest can not reserve facilities for itself or any other customer without an order. Kim Isaacs – Integra said we run loop qualification, send the order for ADSL, it goes into the Qwest system and Qwest ignores LXR-. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said that we don’t ignore the LXR-. Kim Isaacs – Integra indicated she is trying to determine the difference between what is done currently today and the change. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that today we have a USOC or 9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) ADSL AND WE USE THE NC/NCI for determining what product you want. Today, we don’t restrict it on length or NC code. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest stated the enhancement is that we will adhere to standards based on EML. Currently, we don’t restrict loop length or loss to assign LXR-. The proposal is to provision loop that meet Loss requirements that are compliant to ANSI standards. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that there are loss limits for those products. Bonnie Johnson – Integra said she was confused on ADSL and questioned when Qwest grandfathered this product over objections, you said you were putting on limitations. How did you come up with 196 kHz? Bob Mohr – Qwest relayed that limits were set up in the past and that he was not familiar with the history. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest said the 196 kHz test is a technical question based on T1 417. Jamal addressed the hypothetical calculation for wide band DSL testing. Karen Clausen – Integra asked 9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) HOW QWEST WAS PICKING THE TESTS AND if this was for wide band testing only and was that the industry standard. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest indicated that the question is for 196 kHz testing and that 196 kHz is 9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) AT THE MFF IS ACCEPTABLE AND IS wide band testing. Jamal raised the question of impulse noise and whether it was important and which standard it applied to. Karen Clausen – Integra said she is trying to find out about the proposed change and questioned whether impulse noise testing is part of the CR and if not part of the proposal, would Qwest consider it. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest 9/1/10 - Commentsin CAPS to minutes received from Integra) ASKED WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT. Jamal relayed that we have not looked at it but will consider it and would talk to the techs to understand. Karen Clausen – Integra 9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) SAID THERE ARE MANY QUESTIONS AND asked what standards were considered. Jamal Boudhaouia – Qwest indicated ANSI T1- 417, 413 and 418. 9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) JAMAL BOUDHAOUIA - QWEST SAID THAT IT WAS A 5 POINT STANDARD AND RELAYED THAT WE HAVE NOT LOOKED AT IT BUT WILL CONSIDER IT AND WOULD TALK TO THE TECHS TO UNDERSTAND. QWEST INDICATED ANSI T1- 417, 413 AND 418. Bob Mohr – Qwest indicated that Testing standards are documented in the next download. Susan Lorence – Qwest indicated that we were out of time and she will schedule another ad hoc meeting. Karen Clausen – Integra said that Integra continues to object 9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) BECAUSE THERE IS A MN PROCEEDING GOING ON and requests that Qwest retract this Minnesota only CR until the legal issues are resolved. She said that at that point, a Regulatory CR should be issued. Karen said however, if Qwest schedules further ad hoc calls, Integra would attend. Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC indicated she did not fully understand the objections but that she wanted to make note that PAETEC 9/1/10 - Comments in CAPS to minutes received from Integra) HAS A GENERAL OBJECTION AND has not agreed to anything until she is sure she understands the issues. Meeting adjourned at 11:07 am MT. 08/18/10 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest indicated that this CR was presented last month. He indicated that Qwest had scheduled an ad hoc meeting on August 12 but it has since been rescheduled to August 23, 2010. The red lined documents have been posted to the Wholesale Calendar. PAETEC requested a comparison of products in last month’s meeting. This comparison document has also been posted to the Wholesale Calendar. Brenda Bloemke – Comcast asked if he said the documents were on the calendar for next Monday. Mark Coyne – Qwest indicated that the meeting is on August 23 and the documents can be pulled from the calendar. Bonnie Johnson – Integra wanted it noted that as stated in her email, Integra objects to Qwest moving forward and Qwest is moving forward anyway. Mark Coyne – Qwest said the objection was so noted. 8/6/10 Email Response received from Integra When rescheduling, Integra is not available August 17th, 18th and 19th so please avoid those dates. 8/6/10 Email Response received from Velocity Due to a previous commitment, I cannot attend this Ad Hoc meeting and due to its importance to Velocity, I respectfully request that it be rescheduled for the following week. 7/27/10 Email Response received from PAETEC Thank you for the heads-up. PAETEC wants to participate on that call. Unfortunately, I have a conflict from 10:00am to 12:30pm CT (Tuesdays and Thursdays) on August 12 that I can not change. I would appreciate it if you would arrange the meeting around that time frame on August 12. 7/26/10 Email Response received from Integra Integra re-iterates its earlier comments, which Qwest has failed to address or satisfy. Although Qwest acknowledges that rates are outside the scope of CMP, Qwest is nonetheless implementing a new process in CMP that it admitted during the monthly CMP meeting will result in new charges. This is the same approach used by Qwest and rejected by the Arizona commission previously, when the Arizona Commission said, in Arizona Decision No. 70557 (p. 32 line 26 – p. 33 line 1), Docket No. T-03406A-06-0257: “We concur with Staff, and caution Qwest to review its procedures so that the CMP is not utilized to change Commission-approved rates.” The fact that Qwest will implement new rates, but refuses to discuss them, highlights the objectionable nature of Qwest’s unilateral action. The federal Act and rules require Qwest to negotiate with CLECs in good faith. It is not good faith to implement a process via CMP that requires an ICA amendment while not providing the ICA amendment to CLECs for review. Regardless of whether Qwest provides its proposed amendment in CMP or separately, please provide Qwest’s proposed amendment (before any ad hoc call or other CMP activity). Please indicate whether Qwest’s proposed amendment (which was referenced by Qwest in CMP) is the same as the proposed amendments that Integra and PAETEC have already rejected in negotiations and, if not, please identify any differences. CLECs cannot meaningfully review proposed changes without knowing what rates would be associated with those changes. As previously indicated, If Qwest does change its PCAT and procedures in this regard, Qwest will have to provide the changed process at existing Commission approved rates, unless and until Qwest obtains approval of different rates from the state commissions. Enclosed is a matrix of Commission-approved line conditioning rates. Please confirm whether Qwest intends to provide any changes to its line conditioning practices at Commission-approved rates. Qwest has not obtained agreement on an input approach as required by CMP Document Section 5.4.5.1 and should not be proceeding without that agreement. If Qwest nonetheless proceeds with its unilateral ad hoc call, please ensure that any Qwest representatives on the call are familiar with all of the written materials and discussions that have occurred to date in both of the previous CRs and associated escalations (see CR #PC082808-1IGX; CR #PC020409) and that they are familiar with the Qwest-Integra negotiations, including the written matrices and explanatory comments provided to Qwest by Integra. Mark Nickell, who presented Qwest’s short paragraph at the monthly CMP meeting, was also present during negotiations with Integra. In addition, please provide in advance of the call the side-by-side comparison of each aspect of the process previously used for ADSL (including facilities assignment, the algorithm used for facilities assignment, tests conducted for provisioning and repair, NC and NCI codes used, etc.) before and after Qwest grandparented ADSL over CLEC objection, as requested by PAETEC on the CMP call and previously by Integra. Even with this information, Qwest’s proposed approach is wholly inadequate to provide input and certainly to reach any kind of business resolution, particularly in this context, when years of raising operational issues, business and CMP escalations, and multi-state negotiations, in addition to MN Commission-ordered settlement negotiations, have not resulted in resolution. As indicated below, timing of events, combined with the fact that Qwest’s Change Request is for Minnesota only, shows that the real driver of Qwest’s sudden and surprise decision to walk-on a short, vague Minnesota-only Change Request about this important, long-disputed CLEC-affecting issue is Qwest litigation tactics directed at Minnesota docket number P-6312, 421/C-08-1381 (the MN UNE Provisioning Docket). ATTACHMENT INCLUDED WITH EMAIL - 1Cable Unloading (100809) 7/26/10 Email Response received from Velocity I still request that this CR request, CR PC072010-1, be removed by Qwest pending the settlement of the 1066 docket in Minnesota. 7/26/10 Email Response sent from Qwest Qwest is planning to hold an ad hoc meeting(s) to gain CLEC input on the proposed optional product offering associated with PC072010-1. We are currently looking at the date of August 12 with meeting notification provided by August 5. At that time, the redlined PCAT documents will be made available on the Wholesale calendar entry along with an agenda. Qwest will not be providing rate or amendment documents as they are outside of the scope of CMP. With that in mind, a discussion of rates and/or amendments will not be a part of the CMP ad hoc meeting. 7/23/10 Email Response received from PAETEC PAETEC agrees with Integra as stated below in the email from Bonnie Johnson. 7/23/10 Email Response received from Integra In response to your email yesterday, Integra and its entities (Integra) disagree with Qwest. Qwest cannot excuse a clear violation of the terms of the CMP Document by claiming it is ok because Qwest always violates it. The CMP Document states in Section 5.4.5.1 on page 45: Qwest will present the Change Request at the Monthly CMP Product/Process Meeting. The purpose of the presentation will be to: · Clarify the proposal with the CLECs · Confirm the disposition level of the Change (see below). · Propose suggested input approach (e.g., a 2 hour meeting, 4 meetings over a two week period, etc.), and obtain agreement for input approach · Confirm deadline, if change is mandated · Provide proposed implementation date, if applicable See http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/ (emphasis added). This shows that it is Qwest’s obligation to propose a suggested input approach. Qwest failed to do so, and clearly Qwest failed to obtain agreement. Qwest is also in violation of CMP because Qwest said at the CMP meeting that there would be rates associated with Qwest’s changes, but rates and the application of rates are outside the scope of CMP and cannot be implemented via CMP. For example, in Arizona Decision No. 70557 (p. 32 line 26 – p. 33 line 1) , Docket No. T-03406A-06-0257, the Commission said: “We concur with Staff, and caution Qwest to review its procedures so that the CMP is not utilized to change Commission-approved rates.” If Qwest does change its PCAT and procedures in this regard, Qwest will have to provide the changed process at existing Commission approved rates, unless and until Qwest obtains approval of different rates from the state commissions. Regarding the point raised by Jim Hickle of Velocity as to improper notice, there is support in the CMP Document for the notion that CLECs may raise issues by walk-on whereas Qwest cannot (for the simple reason that Qwest can control the timing of implementation of CLEC requests, while the reverse is not true and CLECs cannot control the timing of Qwest changes). The CMP Document refers to walk-on items as being originated by CLECs: “CRs that are not submitted fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the Monthly CMP Systems Meeting may be introduced at that Monthly CMP Systems Meeting as walk-on items. The Originating CLEC will present the CR . . .” Section 5.1.4, p. 30 (emphasis added). Even assuming walk-ons are available to Qwest, Qwest should use judgment in, and have defensible reasons for, presenting issues as walk-ons. This is not an issue that arose suddenly so as to prevent Qwest from providing 14 calendar days notice. In fact, this issue has been through CMP twice before, and on both occasions Qwest denied CLECs’ requested resolution of the issues. (See CR #PC082808-1IGX; CR #PC020409 and, e.g., the enclosed documents.) Also enclosed are two chronologies that shed further light on events related to this issue over a number of years. The change is a Level 4 Change Request (CR). The CMP Document states in Section 5.4.5 on page 45: “Level 4 changes are defined as changes that have a major effect on existing CLEC operating procedures or that require the development of new procedures. Level 4 changes will be originated using the CMP CR process and provide CLECs an opportunity to have input into the development of the change prior to implementation” (emphasis added). Yet, Qwest’s Change Request (enclosed) is all of one paragraph long, and it simply lists topics with no information whatsoever about how Qwest’s handling of these major issues will change. Qwest also provided no adequate, legitimate business reason why its Change Request is limited to Minnesota only, when Qwest’s problem processes exist throughout its 14-state territory. It is impossible to provide input on something so short and ill defined. Timing of events shows that the real driver of Qwest’s sudden and surprise decision to walk-on a short, vague Minnesota-only Change Request about this important, long-disputed CLEC-affecting issue is Qwest litigation tactics directed at Minnesota docket number P-6312, 421/C-08-1381 (the MN UNE Provisioning Docket). A Change Request properly submitted fourteen calendar days before the July 21, 2010 monthly CMP meeting would have been submitted on July 7, 2010. The day after, on July 8, 2010, Integra filed with the MN PUC, in the MN UNE Provisioning Docket, a Motion for Prehearing Conference in which Integra requested specifically that the first deadline to be scheduled should be for Qwest’s overdue response to the Joint CLEC’s 11/24/09 comments. (The MN ALJ then scheduled a prehearing conference for July 27, 2010.) The timing, combined with the fact that the Qwest CR is limited to MN-only, shows that Qwest simply threw together a wholly inadequate paragraph and walked it on during the CMP meeting to enable Qwest to argue for more delay in the docket because, according to Qwest, the issues are now being addressed in CMP. Jim Hickle of Velocity has already expressed, in his email below, his view of such tactics. We disagree the issues are being addressed in any meaningful or proper way in CMP. As the ALJ found in the MN Qwest-Eschelon ICA Arbitration: “Eschelon has provided convincing evidence that the CMP process does not always provide CLECs with adequate protection from Qwest making important unilateral changes in the terms and conditions of interconnection.” (MPUC P-5340,421/IC-06-768, Arbitrators’ Report, ¶ 22). CLECs have already used CMP twice for these issues, and Qwest’s Change Request serves no purpose but for Qwest to act unilaterally and cause further delay. It is no response to this to say that Qwest is claiming the changes are allegedly “optional,” when the alternative is the current Qwest process which is already in violation of ICAs and federal law, as explained in detail in Joint CLECs’ 11/24/09 MN comments and attachments. Even assuming the issues go forward in CMP in this manner, Qwest has not provided any workable approach to proceeding in CMP for process and procedures that need changing throughout its territory. To the extent Qwest proposes an input approach at all in its email below (which does not meet the CMP Document requirement of presenting the proposal at a CMP Meeting), Qwest said that it is willing only to schedule “an ad hoc meeting prior to the notification and redlined documents being distributed” (emphasis added). Based on past experience, Qwest’s reference to “redlined documents” refer to redlines to its own online Product Catalog (PCAT). Integra made a specific request to see Qwest’s full proposals, including Qwest’s proposed amendment, which Qwest ignores. At this point, CLECs have no idea if Qwest’s proposed amendment referenced in by Qwest in CMP looks anything like the proposed amendments that CLECs in MN have already rejected in negotiations. CLECs cannot assess a proposal without knowing the associated proposed rates, which based on previous experience, Qwest provides not in the PCAT but in the amendment. Qwest’s email suggestion is not an “input approach,” because CLECs can hardly provide input on proposed changes they have never seen. An ad hoc call, even assuming it occurs after Qwest’s provides its proposed documentation, amendment, and rates, is also wholly inadequate to provide input and certainly to reach any kind of business resolution, particularly in this context, when years of raising operational issues, business and CMP escalations, and multi-state negotiations, in addition to MN Commission-ordered settlement negotiations, have not resulted in resolution. ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED WITH EMAIL - 1 RE: Qwest Binding Response to Integra and affiliates ("Integra") Escalation PC082808-1IGX Denied; 2 Integra position response - Integra and affiliates ("Integra") Escalation PC020409-1EX Denied; 3AttachmentK.xDSL Summary of Key Events; 4ATTACHMENT R.xDSL SUMMARY - PAETEC; 5PC072010-1 7/23/10 Email Response received from Velocity Thanks for the politically correct Qwest response, but I object to this type of “negotiation” tactic by Qwest. The introduction of this CR may be by the rules, but it does not pass the smell test in my mind and I believe it is not ethical and with ulterior motives. If Qwest is going to have some implementation challenges and that is why they chose to implement it in only one state on a trial basis that they choose another state because of the 1066 Docket and Investigation. This issue is important to us and I object to the way it was introduced. I feel like it was introduced under the radar without proper notification to all interested parties especially in light of the 1066 Investigation. I formally request that this CR request, CR PC072010-1, be removed by Qwest pending the settlement of the 1066 docket in Minnesota. 7/22/10 Email Response sent from Qwest Qwest followed the same approach as it has for other CRs. Once the originator has presented the CR, the originator asks if there are any questions. If there are none, Qwest typically relays the notice will be distributed with the proposed documentation updates. In this instance, Mark Nickell presented the CR, took questions from the CLEC community, and relayed the redlined documents would be available soon. Mark Nickell responded to several CLEC questions in regard to the CR however no CLEC requested an ad hoc meeting to discuss this change in more detail. When Mark Coyne relayed the redlined documents would be made available via the notification, there was no disagreement on this proposal during the meeting. Qwest assumed this approach for gaining input to the change request was satisfactory. Typically, if an ad hoc meeting is required, it is requested by the CLEC community. Qwest assumed agreement on this approach to gain input. If members of the CLEC community would prefer to have an ad hoc meeting prior to the notification and redlined documents being distributed, Qwest is certainly willing to schedule one.

7/21/10 Email Response received from Integra On today’s CMP call, Qwest presented a Change Request (CR) that was not provided at least 14 calendar days before the meeting per CMP Document. Instead, Qwest presented the CR as a walk-on agenda item today. Per Section 5.4.5.1 of the CMP Document, when presenting any CR, Qwest must: “Propose suggested input approach (e.g., a 2 hour meeting, 4 meetings over a two week period, etc.) and obtain agreement for input approach” (emphasis added). Qwest did not propose an approach or obtain agreement. The meetings or collaborative to provide input to Qwest’s proposal will naturally be unproductive if CLECs do not have the terms upon which CLECs are to provide input. As I stated on the CMP call today, Integra will review Qwest’s proposal and respond. We need to understand the proposal to provide meaningful input. Integra and its entities (Integra) request that Qwest provide its proposed input approach to CLECs as required by Section 5.4.5.1, as well as Qwest’s full proposal and proposed amendment, for CR # CR PC072010-1.

07/21/10 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Nickell – Qwest presented this CR. Mark indicated Qwest will be making a change specific to Minnesota to add information regarding new optional processes for Facility Assignment, Conditioning, and Performance Testing of the following services: Unbundled Local Loop - 2-Wire or 4-Wire Non-Loaded Loop and Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) Compatible Loop. The enhanced optional processes will include: defined parameters for assignment of copper pairs, assignment of the pair with the least amount of loss in the cross box, new levels of conditioning (near and far bridge tap and remove all options), enhanced tests for specific types of NCI codes. Mark identified that the expected deliverable date is September. Next steps are to provide redlined PCATS regarding proposed changes. Mark relayed this is an optional offering and that the initial target state is Minnesota.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked why this is Minnesota specific.

Mark Nickell – Qwest relayed that when we got to looking at the implementation, we ran into operational challenges and decided on a one state deployment initially to make sure that everything was going to work according to plan. Mark said Minnesota was the most likely choice due to service concerns there.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra said she was not sure that made sense. Bonnie asked if there are associated charges.

Mark Nickell – Qwest indicated that there would be additional charges. Mark relayed the product would be offered under an amendment which would include more specificity.

Mark Nickell – Qwest [7/29/10 - Comments to minutes received from Integra] said that there would be charges and it will require an amendment which will include more detail than usual.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC asked how this ADSL product compared to the one that was grandfathered in 2007.

Mark Nickell – Qwest indicated that it is very close.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC indicated that she would like to see (7/23/10 - Comments to minutes received from PAETEC) the details of how this ADSL product differs from the old grandfathered ADSL product. 7/27/10 NOTE: The grandfathered product is associated with CR PC121106-1 available on the CMP website at url http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/archive/CRPC121106-1.html. The grandfathered PCAT is available at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/pcat/unloopadslcompatloop.html. (7/23/10 - Comments to minutes received from PAETEC) Mark Nickell – Qwest committed to provide a comparison noting the differences between this ADSL product and the grandfathered ADSL product.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra indicated that they would take this back for internal review.

Mark Coyne – Qwest relayed that if we get this information, we will include it in the minutes for this meeting. If is not available by then, we will send out a notice. SEE 7/27/10 NOTE ABOVE.

Open Product/Process CR PC040611-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

12/14/11 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink recapped the Change Request and advised that an updated tracking spreadsheet was included with the package. A notice is going out on December 16, 2011 with several updates.

11/16/11 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink provided a status on the change request and advised that a spreadsheet was included in the package that notified CLECs of the PCATs and Business Procedures that had been updated since the last meeting. He asked if this was sufficient in keeping everyone updated with the changes as they occur.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra stated yes it was.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink stated that CenturyLink would continue to update the spreadsheet for the next several months and that the CR would be left in CLEC Test status.

10/19/11 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said this CR is in CLEC test and that we are working to modify downloads associated with PCATS and Business Procedures as time allows. He reviewed the proposed approach to downloads as included in the Distribution package: Level 1 notice, History Log will be updated, no redlines posted, up to 20 documents per notice, product and process updates on same process notice.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked if CenturyLink was only including rebranding in the notices, was this the full list, and if CenturyLink would include the list with each notice to show which lines were changing.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said only rebranding would be included and that there could be some stragglers that were not on the list.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink stated that we were planning to identify the document name and affected downloads in the actual notice.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked if we could provide a link to the matrix.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink reiterated that CenturyLink was planning to include that in the notice.

Kim Isaacs – Integra said that as long as we have the matrix done, a column could be added to track the documents that had been updated with either the date or notice number.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked if we would review the updated matrix in each monthly meeting. Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said we would review the suggestions to track the updates and said we could address the matrix in each monthly CMP meeting until completed.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink stated that she thought it would work well if we reviewed the updated matrix in every CMP meeting as to the progress.

John Hansen – CenturyLink concurred.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra agreed.

Kim Isaacs – Integra asked if links could be checked as the documents are being reposted to make sure they work.

John Hansen – CenturyLink stated that he had been doing so, found some that were broken and had them fixed, and would continue to do so.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink stated that as other documents are identified as needing updated, they will be added to the matrix so that they could be tracked as well.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked that if they had a question about what changed in a document, could the red line be provided.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink stated yes, the red lines would be available.

9/21/11 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink relayed the CR is in CLEC test since 8/8/11. He said two level 1 notices have been sent to add "AKA" (Also Known As) information to the document title of a number of documents, and that CL is continuing to modify the hundreds of downloads that exist as time allows. He advised that there will be a plan put together and shared with the CLECs on how we plan to do that and asked if there were objections to closing the CR.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra replied that Integra would like to leave it open until all the work was done.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink asked if that meant when all downloads were changed.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra said yes.

Kim Isaacs – Integra stated that she continues to find broken links and had found 2-3 since the last meeting. She said until she could go an entire month without finding errors, she’d like to see the CR kept open.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink asked if the previous ones had been fixed.

Kim Isaacs – Integra replied that she had seen an Event Notice for the SGATs page but did not think it had been closed.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said PAETEC had reported one that has been fixed and that we will leave the CR open.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said she also wanted to leave it open and that PAETEC has also come across (9/30/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) errors, SOME OF WHICH [delete THAT] she HAS SENT [delete SENDS].

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink replied that we try to get those fixed as soon as possible and that the CR will be left open.

8/17/11 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said that this CR was in CLEC Test and that it was effective on August 8, 2011. Mark said there are still some issues with some broken links which are being worked on. Mark said the CR will be left in CLEC test.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra said (8/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) WE [delete SHE] had sent some emails to CenturyLink regarding broken links and that it was problematic. She questioned who in CenturyLink was testing the links. Bonnie said though Susan Lorence – CenturyLink had tried to describe the problem, she was miffed that customers had to identify broken links.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said that CenturyLink had performed testing prior to turn-up but could not provide the names as to who had done the testing of urls. Mark said that CenturyLink had received the Integra concerns but said there were thousands of links to redirect. He said that there were some urls that were having problems but that we were trying to get those resolved as quickly as we can.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked if CenturyLink was (8/26/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) [delete NOT] notifying the CLECs WHEN [delete IF] there were issues.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said no, that was not the case. He said the ones that were identified by the CLECs were the ones that CenturyLink was working on. We’ve been able to get those fixed rather quickly.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink said the Wholesale Web team was retesting some links. There are a few links that were working but (8/25/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) [delete THAT NOW] are not NOW, so they are retesting. Susan said if they can make the fix within an hour or so, an event notice is not sent. If the fix cannot occur within an hour, an event notice is sent. Susan said we appreciate customers identifying any broken links but that the CenturyLink team is also testing and fixing them proactively.

Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC (8/25/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) SAID THIS IS A REQUEST THAT I HAVEN’T MADE IN CMP BEFORE, AND asked if there was a way to identify ON NOTICES if THE [delete A] notice is related to QC versus QCC versus legacy CenturyLink.

Tracy Strombotne – CenturyLink said she had the answer and would send it to Mark to forward (8/25/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) TO EVERYONE.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said great; she was looking for a way to tell which entity a notice relates to since it makes a difference.

Tracy Strombotne – CenturyLink said she had the answer and would share it.

Paulette Hauck – CenturyLink said there was also a memo sent on that.

Kim Isaacs – Integra said she assumed it would be shared with the entire CLEC community.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink said yes, we will. Mark asked if there were any other comments on rebranding. There were none. Mark said he had some information to share from the discussion that had occurred in the July meeting. He said a couple CLECs asked CenturyLink to include an “AKA” on the products that had a name change and that we agreed to check into both an update to the menu drop down as well as in the related PCAT. Mark said he was happy to identify that the AKA had been included into the drop down menus as of the 8/8 date. He said the PCATs were currently being updated with that information and should be done within 30 days.

7/20/11 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – CenturyLink (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) SAID [Deleted RELAYED] two level 2 notices had been sent out on 7/18 – one for Process and one for Product. Also that the notices provided types of (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) CHANGES [Deleted CHANGE] that will be occurring and referenced business procedures and PCAT changes, document change matrix, product name change list and some web page redesign examples. [Deleted ALSO THAT] THE effective date of these notifications is August 8, 2011.

Denise Martinez – CenturyLink (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) SAID [Deleted RELAYED] not all URL’s will be impacted on August 8, 2011. The ones impacted on that date are Qwest.com/Wholesale domain. Anything that has a digital certificate associated to the URL used to access the system will be changed at a later date. (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) CLECS WILL [Deleted WILL] be notified 30 days in advance with new digital certificates NEEDED to access the system.

Kim Isaacs – Integra (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) SAID [Deleted RELAYED] there’s a CEMR release ALSO SCHEDULED on 8/8/2011. The URL to access CEMR is not changing at that time, is that correct?

Denise Martinez – CenturyLink (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [Deleted RELAYED] that is correct. Digital certificates are not impacted at this time. URL’s THAT REQUIRE A DIGITAL CERTIFICATE will be changing at a later date.

Kim Isaacs – Integra asked (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) WHETHER [Deleted COULD] CenturyLink COULD send a clarification on the CEMR final release notice reminding folks that the URL for CEMR is not changing.

Susan Lorence – CenturyLink (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) SAID [Deleted RELAYED] that the final CEMR notice went out on 7/18 so we will send out a revised final and also include a note in the product/process level 2 final notices that it’s the web related documentation URL’s that are impacted and not the system ones. Mark Coyne – CenturyLink asked if there was anything else on this one.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked about product name changes. Has CenturyLink determined that none of new names are the name of a classic CenturyLink product?

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) SAID [Deleted RELAYED] that there were open action items from May meeting. (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) THE [THERE WERE SOME] CONCERNS [Deleted CONCERNS] raised in May. First one had to do with URL changes. QWEST [HAS] CONFIRMED [Deleted CONFIRMED] that URL’s would be redirected indefinitely. [IT WAS] Also IT WAS confirmed with OUR attorneys that if URLS [Deleted URL’S] did change then CenturyLink would have AN obligation to initiate an amendment TO THE ICA to address that CHANGES. A Second one was to provide product list out to CLECs following June meeting. That was included with meeting minutes for June meeting. THE BIGGER [Deleted BIGGER] issue IS around THE ability to differentiate between LEGACY QWEST AND CENTURYLINK product names should CenturyLink have the same or similar product names. MARK STATED [HE SAID] IT WAS CONFIRMED [Deleted CONFIRMED] with OUR attorneys and no changes will be made to customers ICA’s. Legacy Qwest products will continue to have separate documentation and web pages which will be separate from the legacy CenturyLink products. Current terms and conditions will not change with re-branding. CLECs will continue to order products with specific terms and conditions they have today using same ordering tools they use today.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra – (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED SHE WAS not sure SHE AGREED [Deleted AGREE] that ICA’s are in sync. BONNIE INDICATED[HOWEVER,BONNIE SUGGESTED] THAT IF A [Deleted IF] CENTURYLINK COULD INCLUDE A comment in THE PCATs such as “also known as” with old Qwest name that would PROBABLY TAKE care OF [Deleted FOR] that.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink – (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) RESPONDED [SAID] yes we DID [Deleted DONE] [HAVE DONE] that with QORA. We have INCORPORATED THE OLD QWEST NAME [Deleted ACCOMMODATED THAT] in THE documentation BY and INCLUDING [Deleted INCLUDED] “also known as” where appropriate. WE [Deleted WE] have done that. MARK ASKED TO GO [Deleted GO] [HE SAID HE WOULD LIKE TO GO] back to THE comment about contracts being in sync. Were you talking about legacy Qwest vs. legacy CenturyLink contracts being in sync?

Bonnie Johnson – Integra (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) [SAID SHE IS] ANSWERED I’m looking at REBRANDED [Deleted REBRANDING] product name changes, formerly MOE, Qcentral, QLSP or something else. I AM NOT [Deleted NOT] [SHE IS NOT] sure I [SHE] agree [AGREES THAT] none of these former names are in ICA [ICAS] or commercial agreements. As long as documentation FOR THE PRODUCTS is clear AND INCUDES THE LEGACY QWEST NAMES somewhere AND [Deleted SO] [IN] the PCATs ARE to say at least once AN “also known as” so it’s [THE QWEST PRODUCT NAME] identified somewhere IN THE PCAT AND IT SHOULD BE “ALSO KNOWN AS” AND NOT “FORMERLY KNOWN AS”. [Deleted ELSE] INCLUDING THE OLD LEGACY QWEST NAME IN THE PCAT SHOULD [Deleted THAT WOULD] cover if A name is [Deleted IN A] different IN ANOTHER document. As long as i no overlap in product names BETWEEN LEGACY QWEST AND CENTURYLINK, that SHOULD [Deleted WOULD] TAKE care OF [Deleted FOR] Integra’S concern.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC just rejoined call.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) [SAID HE AGREES] stated I agree that INCLUDING [Deleted NEEDS TO] “also known as” AND not “formerly known as” ADDRESSED THOSE CONCERNS. AND CenturyLink has cared for those concerns. I HAVE NOTED YOUR [Deleted WILL NOTE] [HE WILL NOTE THAT] feedback.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) [SAID THERE] THERE NEEDS [Deleted NEEDS] to be AN ABILITY TO SEARCH ON THE OLD PRODUCT NAME somewhere. SO IF [Deleted IF] someone is searching in Qwest system to find OR [Deleted /] search for a product and used AN old LEGACY QWEST name THAT WAS in THE ICA THEY [Deleted THAT] can find it and GET THE [DELETED TAKE TO] [TAKE NOTE OF THE] new name and be clear THAT it’s covered in any document.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) ASKED CENTURYLINK [QWEST] TO GIVE [Deleted GIVE} thought to HAVING THE [ADDING TO THE] Qwest website [Deleted AND DO] pull DOWNS [Deleted DOWN AND] [BOXES THAT WOULD] have THE “also known as’ NAME, [Deleted THERE] to care for Julia’s concern. That way if SOMEONE OR THE AGREEMENT only HAS THE [Deleted HAVE] old name then THEY [Deleted YOU] could still find it.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SAID we will take a look at what we can do.

Kim Isaacs – Integra (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] SHE saw on matrix that grandparent products WERE treated differently. Can you confirm no REBRANDING changes ARE being made?

John Hansen – CenturyLink , (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) ANSWERED [SAID] that is correct. THE GRANDPARENTED PRODUCTS HAVE [Deleted HAVE] not changed where noted. [PAETEC Deleted WHERE NOTED]

Kim Isaacs – Integra ASKED IF THE Grand parented PCATS ARE [Deleted PCAT IS] going to remain on website?

John Hansen – CenturyLink – (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) SAID [Deleted ANSWERED] yes THEY will remain.

Mark /Coyne – CenturyLink (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] just like today.

Kim Isaacs – Integra (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) ASKED just like it is today? THEY ARE CURRENTLY BRANDED [Deleted BRANDED] as Qwest.

John Hansen - CenturyLink (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] yes

Lori Burchett – CenturyLink (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) SAID SHE WAS sorry THAT SHE joined late. SHE didn’t have chance to announce.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) ASKED IF THERE WAS anything additional on that.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) ASKED WHETHER THE [Deleted HAVE] ADSL PCAT that was grandfathered and then came back is [Deleted THAT] being changed?

John Hansen – CenturyLink – (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) INDICATED [SAID] HE will check AND GET BACK TO YOU.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID SHE WANTED]WE want to be clear on those ADSL PCATs [ADSL PRODUCT AND PCATS] because THEY MOVED [Deleted OF MOVING] forward and back FROM GRANDPARENTING STATUS.

John Hansen – CenturyLink (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID THAT IF HE RECALLED, THE THOUGHT] if I recall CORRECTLY I think it [ADSL PCAT] was changed.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] SHE would like CENTURYLINK to make sure or [AND] GET clarification for THE new product name. [SHE] PAETEC HAS CONCERNS [Deleted CONCERNS] [PER THE] on XDSL amendment AND WANTS to make sure what is changing on THE new PCAT [Deleted ONE IS] [AND NAME] and THE relationship between the old and new one. THIS NEEDS [Deleted NEED] to be very clear THIS WAS A BIG ISSUE IN THE NEGOTIATION OF THE AMENDMENT THIS IS A BIG [Deleted BIG] issue for PAETEC

John Hansen – CenturyLink (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED HE [SAID CENTURYLINK] will check on IT.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED WE ARE [SAID SHE IS] still looking at notices from 7/18 and may have more questions/concerns AND ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/CONCERNS.

Mark Coyne – CenturyLink (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) SAID THE comment period runs through 24th or 25th.

Kim Isaacs – Integra (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [CLARIFIED] it’s the 25th.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC (7/28/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) (7/29/11 Updates received from PAETEC in italicized CAPS) STATED [SAID] ditto for PAETEC.

6/15/11 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest relayed that the CR had been presented two months ago and that the draft matrix had been reviewed in last month’s CMP meeting. The changes are targeted for August 8, 2011. Mark said there were three open issues: 1) Product naming list, 2) URL changes, and 3) impacts on ICA. Mark said in regard to the URLs, they will be redirected indefinitely and that at the point that the URL redirects will be eliminated, we will follow the CMP process which is a 21 day notice.

Karen Clauson – Integra said that the Integra ICA and Qwest template refer to Qwest.com and that if Qwest decides to eliminate the redirect, the ICA must also be amended.

Mark Coyne – Qwest said that is true.

Susan Williams – Qwest said Qwest will amend the ICA (6/23/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) TO INCLUDE @CENTURYLINK.COM at the CLECs request. Karen Clauson – Integra said their ICA says Qwest.com and that it is also in the ICA of some CLECs in MN.

Susan Williams – Qwest said that Qwest Corporation doing business as CenturyLink will continue to be the legal name and that the Qwest legal position is that an amendment is not required unless a CLEC requests it.

Karen Clauson – Integra said the issue is the URLs that appear throughout the document that the ICA specifically points to. Karen said if a CLEC does not request the change then (6/23/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) HOW Qwest can act contrary to it?

Susan Williams – Qwest said she was not saying that. She said the Qwest legal position is that the merger agreements cover this and that there is no need to (6/23/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) PROactively pursue an amendment to change each contract. IF THE CLEC DOESN’T REQUEST IT, THEN THERE IS NO NEED TO UPDATE THE CONTRACT.

(6/23/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) KAREN CLAUSON – INTEGRA SAID THAT QWEST IS SEEKING THE CHANGE AND WOULD NEED TO REQUEST A CONTRACT CHANGE.

(6/23/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SUSAN WILLIAMS – QWEST SAID THAT QWEST WILL AMEND THE CONTRACTS, IF THE CLEC DESIRES.

Karen Clauson – Integra they are talking past each other (6/23/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) BECAUSE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ENTITY, AND I AM TALKING ABOUT THE CONTRACT PROVISION WITH QWEST.COM?

Susan Lorence – Qwest said that this issue should be taken out of CMP and to the Contract team.

Susan Williams – Qwest that Integra should contact Bob Kennedy.

Karen Clauson – Integra said she had contacted Qwest/CenturyLink executives and legal and they have said they are working on it but that she was still was owed a response.

Susan Williams – Qwest said she received the information yesterday.

Karen Clauson – Integra said she has not received anything and that Qwest should not present the notification requirements in CMP if they are also saying the ICA question is outside of CMP. Karen said her ICA specifically points to qwest.com and that proper channels need to be followed to make the change. She said what prevents Qwest from doing other things contrary to the ICA if a CLEC does not object. She said it is not the CLECs burden to object.

Mark Coyne – Qwest said her concerns are captured and that we will get with the Contract team to address them. Mark said his other issue is associated with the Product name list and he hopes to share the list when the meeting minutes go out.

Susan Lorence – Qwest said the plan was to share the rebranding product list in June but that it was not yet approved and asked if the list could be sent as a separate attachment with the draft meeting minutes otherwise the list would be made available in July.

Bonnie Johnson- Integra asked if a separate notice could be sent.

Susan Lorence – Qwest said it could be sent with the planned CMP rebranding notice that was going to go out.

Karen Clauson – Integra said they would like the list sooner than July and that the issue is that the list cannot be included in the meeting minutes as if it was part of the meeting. Karen said the list should be considered a separate attachment.

Susan Lorence – Qwest said that was her plan.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC asked if the list was going to show old and new name and potential issues?

Mark Coyne – Qwest said it is just the product list.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said the heart of the (6/28/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) ORIGINAL request was TO IDENTIFY the potential issues WITH THE REPLACEMENT OR ELIMINATION OF “QWEST” IN THE NAME OF THE PRODUCT and gave an example USING A HYPOTHETICAL [delete AROUND] Qwest xDSL PRODUCT NAME. Julia [delete SAID] ASKED what happens if there is Qwest xDSL PRODUCT NAME and CenturyLink has xDSL PRODUCT NAME and the decision is to drop the “Qwest?” IF THIS HAPPENS, THEN THERE [delete There] are still two different products but they BOTH would have the same name. THE REQUEST [delete AND THAT] was THAT the product issues list she was looking for ALSO IDENTIFIED THOSE ISSUES AND CONCERNS.

Mark Coyne – Qwest said that information would not be part of the product list to come out next week but that we would get with the Product team to get their response.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said she understood the URL discussion associated with the ICA was put off (6/28/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) TO ANOTHER TIME, but wondered what QWEST’S [delete THE] response was on the ICA piece.

Mark Coyne – Qwest said the concerns around the ICA would be addressed outside of CMP with the Contract team.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said her concern was if she was directed to resolve issues (6/28/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) BROUGHT UP IN CMP with the contract team, there could be inconsistencies with contracts and the process. WE [delete AND THAT THEY] then end up with a loophole and NO MEANS OR WAY TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES. THUS, THE ORIGINAL ICA REQUEST WAS that she wanted a plan FROM QWEST PRODUCED AS TO HOW THEY PROPOSE to address [delete THESE] THE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE ICA. She said [delete THOSE] THESE potential inconsistencies with the ICA and process needed to be addressed in CMP AND NOT AVOIDED BY REFERRING THEM TO THE CONTRACT GROUP. IF THERE IS A CHANGE IN PROCESS THAT QWEST IS PROPOSING THAT IMPACTS THE ICA, THEN CMP IS [delete AND THAT WAS] where they needed to be ADDRESSING THE ISSUE.

Mark Coyne – Qwest said he would take that back to the Contract team.

5/18/11 Product Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest relayed that the CR was presented in last month’s meeting and that a document to be reviewed this month was under Attachment F.

John Hansen – Qwest presented the example redlined PCAT document and the Business Procedure matrix. He said the typical change was from Qwest to CenturyLink or Qwest may simply be dropped altogether. John said links in the documents are changing but customers are not really impacted since the revised links are provided in the online documents.

Bonnie Johnson- Integra said there are outstanding ICA questions and asked what was going to happen if customers accessed the Qwest.com link.

John Hansen – Qwest said that generally, there are no duplicate links between Qwest and CenturyLink domains except at the Wholesale level itself. John said when accessing the CenturyLink web page, there will be an option to go to legacy Qwest or Legacy CenturyLink.

Bonnie Johnson- Integra asked whether customers would receive a “page not found”or is it a redirect.

Susan Lorence - Qwest said Qwest would like to leave a redirect link up for 30 days but is still confirming that.

Bonnie Johnson- Integra said the change is bigger than just PCATs and it needs to be addressed in its entirety. (6/1/11 Updates received from Integra in CAPS) SHE STATED THE EXISTING ICAS AND THE QWEST NEGOTIATIONS TEMPLATE HAVE THE QWEST.COM ADDRESS. WE SEE THIS AS A BIGGER ISSUE AND NEED TO CARE FOR THIS GLOBALLY. She said the Negotiations Template will probably be considered outside of the scope of CMP.

Mark Coyne – Qwest said that Qwest has an entire team addressing the rebranding changes including those Product/Process, system and CMP document updates addressed in CMP. Mark said the negotiation template changes would be addressed separately.

Bonnie Johnson- Integra said regardless of the venue to address them, there would need to be an overall view of the changes and that it was difficult to comment on the changes without understanding what was happening with the ICA - especially with the current xDSL change.

Susan Williams – Qwest said the ICA updates are administrative and the links have to be identified and have not been created yet.

Bonnie Johnson- Integra said the expectation is the update would take a formal amendment and that customers did not need to know the links but the process that will used to change them.

Susan Williams – Qwest said if ICAs need to be amended through a formal amendment, she would entertain that.

Mark Coyne – Qwest said in regard to the ICA updates, those will be addressed outside of CMP through the Contract/Legal team. Brenda Bloemke - Comcast said if nothing is changing in the ICA, that the links should be redirected for a time.

Susan Williams – Qwest said the links will be redirected and then customers rebookmark those that are used regularly. Susan questioned what are the benefits of redirects.

Brenda Bloemke - Comcast said it prevents receiving a “page not found”.

Bonnie Johnson- Integra said some in Integra use the ICAs as a reference and do not use the ICA links everyday and so do not know where to look if not redirected.

Doug Denney- Integra requested confirmation that none of the content of the ICAs are changing.

John Hansen – Qwest said his changes are to product, process and systems in name only and only cosmetic so Qwest will have a clean document going forward. John relayed that the business procedure matrix is how the changes are being tracked internally and some documents that change frequently have not been touched yet. The matrix shows whether the document is considered CMP or not and has listed some of the changes, such as downloads. John said this is an example of what would be sent with the notice.

Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC requested confirmation that the changes are only name changes (6/2/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) FROM QWEST TO CENTURYLINK and there are no terms or process or changes of substance included.

John Hansen – Qwest said the products may go from Qwest XYZ to CenturyLink XYZ but in some cases the product will just go to XYZ.

Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC provided an example using the DSL product and asked what would happen if both Qwest and CenturyLink have DSL and the company name is dropped. How will the Qwest and CenturyLink products be distinguished?

John Hansen – Qwest said he did not have an answer but would investigate the question since he assumes CenturyLink has a DSL product as well. John said for an unknown period of time, there will still be two sets of documents between Qwest and CenturyLink to link to and that he does not know when those documents will be merged. He said at some point the products will be integrated but customers will be notified when that will happen.

Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC said (6/2/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS) [delete THAT IS] her concern IS that she is able to distinguish BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT COMPANY products and would like to have a minimum time frame TO KNOW HOW TO ADDRESS THESE SITUATIONS BEFORE IMPLEMENTING THE NAME CHANGE. She said the key CONCERN INITIALLY is that she does not want to be linked to a product that has different terms than what was negotiated in her ICA as part of this rebranding.

Kim Isaacs - Integra said if a customer has Qwest DSL and the product changes to DSL, what happens if there are questions about the terms of Qwest DSL.

Susan Williams – Qwest said the new legal name will be Qwest DBA (doing business as) CenturyLink to allow customers to distinguish between various agreements.

Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC said the concern is not with the (6/2/11 Updates received from PAETEC in CAPS ) COMPANY name change but WITH [delete THAT AS] the product name changes, AND that her ICA reflects the correct product. QWEST HAS DRIVEN THEIR ICAS AND TERMS BASED ON THE PRODUCTS OFFERED. She said she does not want to have an issue with a Qwest product and be told the product AS NOTED IN THE ICA does not exist any more and BE SUBJECTED TO OTHER TERMS AND DELAYS. [delete THAT] THOUGH she does not need the answer today., [delete SHE SAID] QWEST customers [delete JUST] need to understand how that situation will be formally addressed before the rebranding identified in the matrix takes place.

Mark Coyne – Qwest said we will take it as an Action Item action item to get a response.

Liz Tierney – Covad said customers need a document that provides the from/to list for product, system and URL changes.

Susan Lorence-Qwest said at the next CMP meeting, Qwest will have a generic list of the various name changes that identifies the from and to name change.

Mark Coyne – Qwest asked if there were any other questions and there were none.

4/20/11 Product Process CMP Meeting John Hansen – Qwest presented the CR associated with how Qwest will be implementing the change from Qwest to Century Link for all Qwest documentation, products, downloads, web updates, etc. The documentation changes are to become effective August 8, 2011. John said rather than posting all of the business procedures and PCATs, we propose sending a draft matrix in the May meeting that identifies all of the documents and the types of changes to be included and send out a level 2 notice since it is not really a process change

Bonnie Johnson – Integra requested one redlined PCAT be made available as an example of the types of changes so the CLECs can see the from/to types of changes.

John Hansen – Qwest said that would work to get the basic idea of the changes. John said there could be a few more extensive URL changes if there are any duplicate documents between Qwest and CenturyLink.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC requested clarification that the URLs changes were not to go to a new process but only to go to a new URL.

John Hansen – Qwest said there were no process changes included, only redirects of URLs, otherwise it is status quo.

Open Product/Process CR PC121109-1 Detail

Description Of Change

The proposed implementation date is 3/5/10

Status History

Project Meetings

01/20/10 Product/Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne-Qwest relayed that notification will be sent early February with a 3/22/10 effective date.

12/16/09 Product/Process CMP Meeting Cindy Schwartze-Qwest presented this CR. Cindy relayed Qwest will be eliminating two Split intercept USOCs – S1WCX (Split Intercept – Change in name or message) and S1W1X (Split Intercept – 1 month) in Washington and there are currently no Resale/Wholesale Customers with these USOCs. Cindy relayed that the proposed implementation date has been changed from 3/5/10 to 3/22/10.

Bonnie Johnson –Integra questioned whether there will be any Intercept options remaining in Washington.

Cindy Schwartze-Qwest relayed that yes, there will be several others available as indicated in the Intercept PCAT.

There were no other questions.

Open Product/Process CR PC020210-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Status History

Project Meetings

Mark Coyne – Qwest relayed he did not have any more information on this and questioned Susan Lorence – Qwest if she had any more information.

Susan Lorence – Qwest indicated that she thought Curtis Ashton –Qwest had some other Tech Pub updates that were taking his time.

4/21/10 Product/Process CMP Meeting Mark Coyne – Qwest relayed that Curtis Ashton was not able to attend today’s meeting due to other meeting conflicts. Mark identified Qwest would move this CR into a deferred status.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked why is this in deferred status.

Mark Coyne – Qwest relayed he was not sure why but he assumed it was to do more evaluation.

04-01-10 Ad hoc meeting minutes APRIL 15, 2010 NOTE: THE REDLINED EDITS TO THE DRAFT MEETING MINUTES THAT WERE PROVIDED BY PAETEC HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN CAPS/BOLD OR ARE IDENTIFIED WITH STRIKETHROUGH. SEE WHOLESALE CALENDAR FOR VERSION WITH STRIKETHROUGH.

Attendees: Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC, Patrick Phipps – QSI Consulting, Inc. (on behalf of PAETEC), Diane Bowers – PAETEC, Al Finnell – PAETEC, Bryan Vanyo – PAETEC, Ross Nielsen – PAETEC, Robert Fuller – PAETEC, Bonnie Johnson - Integra, Kim Isaacs – Integra, Doug Denney – Integra, Mike McCarthy – Minnesota Dept. of Commerce, Curtis Ashton - Qwest, John Hansen - Qwest, Susan Lorence - Qwest

Susan Lorence – Qwest relayed that the last ad hoc call had been held on March 19, 2010. Following that call, Curtis Ashton – Qwest made some updates to the Tech Pub based on the discussion in the last call. Susan relayed a revised version of the Tech Pub was posted to the calendar. Susan relayed that she thought we left off on Section 9.2 and that we would begin there.

Curtis Ashton – Qwest said in Section 9.2, we would begin with the next paragraph that talks about other voltage after the formula discussion from the prior meeting. Curtis said he made some clarifications for 24 V and 130 V battery plants and converter plants that had not been covered before. He added voltage drop rules at the end of this paragraph and clarified the different voltages which apply.

Curtis Ashton – Qwest said in Section 9.4, an addition was made which applies to DC circuits from one cabinet or building to another. This is for when circuits are exposed to lightning because they are connected to DC plant. Some rules were built that apply to Qwest but do not really affect CLECs.

Curtis Ashton – Qwest said in Section 9.5, he added information about the maximum sizing rules (200%). Curtis said we always had the 125% minimum sizing rule and provided an example.. Ross Nielsen – PAETEC asked how that affected the CLEC: If they are only using 10 amps on A and 10 amps on B? Curtis Ashton – Qwest said if the order is for a 100 amp feed regardless of what it is drawing, they will be sized at 125% of the request. Curtis said from a Qwest perspective, it is not related to the draw either. Ross Nielsen – PAETEC asked if this is new regulation that is getting pushed down, will it come back up. Curtis Ashton – Qwest it is not a regulation issue. In many cases, when Qwest reused the feeder, or the feeder was decreased in size, the question was whether we can reuse the cable and the protector. This clarifies that we can reuse the protector if it is not more than 200% of the new request. Ross Nielsen – PAETEC said he wanted to insure that it was not an actual draw. Curtis Ashton – Qwest confirmed that was correct, it is based on the CLEC request. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said the wording “ultimate expected” current is confusing or inaccurate. List 2 is the worst case scenario draw. Curtis Ashton – Qwest questioned if he took out “ultimate expected”, would that help? Curtis asked for alternate verbiage. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said THE PROPOSED REFERENCE TO “CLEC REQUEST” IN SECTION 9.5 it does not seem to ADD do anything. Qwest equates a CLEC POWER feed ORDER to a List 2 DRAIN requirement. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said he will remove “peak current”. He said peak current meant “start up” current. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said this is a situation where two reasonable people disagree. In the Iowa case, the court found that Qwest equates A CLEC POWER FEED the order to the list 2 drain. Doug Denney – Integra said he had a question on CLEC DC Power reduction, does Qwest change the fuses? Curtis Ashton – Qwest then said it was a good question and provided an example. If the CLEC originally ordered 90 amps, the fuse protector would be 125 amps. If the customer downsized to 65 amps, then 90 amps is the proper protector (closest to 125%) however Qwest only requires it to be less than 200%. In this case, the 125 amp protector is less than 200% of the 65 amp order so no change is required. There is a small window that does not have to be changed. Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC ASKED THE PAETEC WHETHER said we need to be specific as to when the CLEC doES and does not need to make a change and questioned whether there was any need to clarify the language due to the discussion. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said this section applies to both equally – when downsizing or upsizing between 125 and 200%. Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC questioned if that was the only time to change fuse and if that was what Doug was talking about. Ross Nielsen - PAETEC said this does not deal with plant but deals with cable. The 125 - 200% is clear. There is no need to deal with changing the language. He said that the one thing that is confusing is List 2 drain or CLEC request. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said it is List 2 drain for Qwest or the request for CLECs.

Ross Nielsen - PAETEC questioned even if the CLEC downsizes the order, the cable does not have to change?

Curtis Ashton – Qwest said that was a good question. Not every fuse position is capable of accepting the new fuse size. In a lot of situations, even when we do not have to run cable to a new power distribution board, we have to change the drop cable to reach the new fuse position. It is generally right that the main cable run does not change. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said add clarifying language. T the trouble with the change is that BY REFERRING TO it is list 2 drain or CLEC request whichever is applicable, THE LANGUAGE. It is a problem to createS a distinction between Qwest’S EQUIPMENT and the CLEC equipment. Access should not be denied based on the owner of the equipment.

Curtis Ashton – Qwest said he would leave in whichever is “applicable”. He said he does want to make a change to be distinct. Curtis Ashton – Qwest next addressed the change that shows differences between local and national later in Section 9.5 where Qwest inserted “(or 1.88 for NNS sites)” which was added for National Network Sites.

At the end of Section 9.6, there was one other change to add the wording “for Qwest equipment” to clarify allowing estimation for a List 1 drain. 04-15-10 NOTE FROM QWEST IN REGARD TO THE REDLINED MEETING MINUTES: FOR READABILITY, THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH PROVIDES A STRIKETHROUGH VERSION OF THE MINUTES AS QWEST CAPTURED THEM. THE NEXT PARAGRAPH PROVIDES THE SAME PARAGRAPH AND THE ADDITIONS FROM PAETEC IN ALL CAPS.

STRIKE THROUGH PARAGRAPH Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC then addressed his objection associated with the change toward the end of Section 9.6 which stems from the dispute related to estimating List 1 drains. Patrick then provided an explanation of the contention between Qwest and PAETEC. He relayed that problem is that some of Qwest technical document conflicts with other technical documents but these are filed as “confidential” in Iowa. He said there is nothing in the industry documents that justifies the difference. In Qwest’s previously filed testimony, it was ruled and upheld that estimation could be done for CLECs. He pointed to an AT&T document in another jurisdiction that allows estimating of CLEC List 1 drains. Patrick said Curtis said it could not be estimated, and now Qwest is trying to make the change to support a public policy position and codify language in the Tech Pub that supports treating CLECs differently. Patrick said he disagrees with Qwest’s later testimony that it should not be done.

Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC then addressed his objection associated with the change toward the end of Section 9.6 WHERE QWEST PROPOSES CHANGES INDICATING THAT QWEST CAN ESTIMATE LIST 1 DRAIN ONLY FOR QWEST EQUIPMENT (PRESUMABLY EXCLUDING CLEC EQUIPMENT). Patrick then explained THAT THIS ISSUE IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT WAS ADDRESSED IN THE COMPLAINT PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING Qwest and PAETEC RELATED TO DC POWER. He DESCRIBED FOUR PRIMARY PROBLEMS WITH QWEST’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE REGARDING ESTIMATING LIST 1 DRAINS. FIRST, QWEST’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT WOULD EXCLUDE CLEC EQUIPMENT FROM THIS ESTIMATION METHOD CONFLICTS WITH OTHER Qwest technical documentATION THAT QWEST filed as “confidential” in Iowa. SECOND, QWEST’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE HAS NO BASIS IN TELCORDIA GR-513, WHICH MAKES NO SUCH DISTINCTION BETWEEN QWEST EQUIPMENT AND CLEC EQUIPMENT. THIRD, QWEST’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE CONFLICTS WITH PRIOR QWEST TESTIMONY SUBMITTED IN IOWA WHICH INDICATED THAT LIST 1 DRAIN CAN BE ESTIMATED AND MADE NO DISTINCTION ABOUT EQUIPMENT OWNERSHIP. HE ADDED THAT it was ruled and upheld IN IOWA that estimation could be done for CLECs. FOURTH, QWEST’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE CONFLICTS WITH TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS OF OTHER ILECS, SUCH AS AT&T. He pointed to an AT&T document in another jurisdiction that allows estimating of CLEC List 1 drains. Patrick said THAT AFTER MR. ASHTON TOOK OVER THE WITNESSING DUTIES ON THE DC POWER ISSUES IN THE COMPLAINT PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN QWEST AND MCLEODUSA, MR. ASHTON BEGAN CLAIMING THAT QWEST COULD ONLY ESTIMATE LIST 1 DRAIN FOR ITS OWN EQUIPMENT AND COULD NOT estimate LIST 1 DRAIN FOR CLEC EQUIPMENT. Patrick said he disagrees with Qwest’s later testimony that it should not be done. PATRICK ADDED THAT QWEST IS APPARENTLY ATTEMPTING TO MATCH UP ITS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS WITH THE ADVOCACY POSITION MR. ASHTON IS TAKING IN LITIGATED PROCEEDINGS, and codify language in the Tech Pub that ATTEMPTS TO JUSTIFY QWEST treating CLECs differently THAN ITSELF IN RELATION TO DC POWER. HE ADDED THAT THIS DIFFERENT TREATMENT WOULD RESULT IN HIGHER COSTS FOR CLECS, OR IN OTHER WORDS, THIS IS QWEST’S ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT OF CLECS. Curtis Ashton – Qwest responded that he had eight separate legal cases in six states. He knows what Iowa found but it was found differently in different states. Curtis said WE COULD CHOOSE ONE OF TWO OPTIONS:the issue is either leave the language the way it is or remove the sentence around estimating entirely. He said GR-513 does not talk about estimates. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said he does not want to risk sharing confidential information, SO HE COULD NOT DESCRIBE IN ANY LEVEL OF DETAIL THE DOCUMENT FROM IOWA THAT CONFLICTS WITH QWEST’S PROPOSED CHANGE TO SECTION 9.6. HOWEVER, HE EXPLAINED THAT Either Qwest can estimate List 1 drains or IT they cannot, AND SINCE ITS CURRENT LANGUAGE INDICATES THAT IT CAN ESTIMATE LIST 1 DRAINS, IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ENTIRELY DELETE That it cannot be both ways. Why take out the requirement. Curtis Ashton - Qwest explained when estimation is done which is almost never. He relayed Qwest sizes based on testing done in the lab. He said he was OK to take out the language since it is not necessary because Qwest is not going to estimate. He offered both options. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said that is a false choice: I.E., WHETHER TO LEAVE IN QWEST’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE “FOR QWEST EQUIPMENT” OR DELETE THE SENTENCE ABOUT ESTIMATING LIST 1 DRAIN ALTOGETHER. Currently he had no position since both are equally problematic. Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC described Patrick’s and Curtis’s points AND SUMMARIZED HER POSITION. IT APPEARS THAT CHANGES TO THE GR-513 NOR ANY OTHER INDUSTRY STANDARD PROVIDES AN OBJECTIVE BASIS FOR CHANGING THIS SENTENCE. AND TO MAKE EITHER OF CHANGES THAT QWEST IS PROPOSING WOULD BE BASED SOLELY ON QWEST’S ADVOCACY AND NOT ON ANY OBJECTIVE STANDARD. IF, INDEED, THE PRACTICE OF “ESTIMATING” HAS NOT BEEN DONE FOR A WHILE AND THE LANGUAGE HAS NOT IMPEDED QWEST’S ACTIONS; AND QWEST HAS NOT HAD A REASON PROPOSE A LANGUAGE CHANGE BEFORE NOW, THEN THERE SHOULD BE NO HARM IN LEAVING THE LANGUAGE AS IT IS. and said ACCORDINLY, PAETEC wants the language to stay as it is WITHOUT ANY REDLINED CHANGES. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said estimating is done sparingly or never and occurs. In the 1993-1996 timeframe, it may have been done but Qwest never estimates anymore because we now have labs to test for true list 1 drains so the sentence is obsolete. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said QWEST’S OPINION THAT THIS LANGUAGE IS it only became obsolete due to CAME ONLY AFTER THE court cases and that DECISION IN IOWA; IF THE SENTENCE WAS ACTUALLY OBSOLETE, there has been ample time FOR QWEST to change it previously. It is now being changed to support Qwest advocacy. Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC said for the record she wanted the language to remain as is. No redline changes for the reasons stated. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said that Qwest would decide what they wanted to do. He then addressed the remaining review of the changes to the Tech Pub. He questioned the process for CLEC final review. Susan Lorence – Qwest said the CLECs would have a chance to formally review the changes and comment during the CLEC comment cycle as part of the CMP notice or that we could have another ad hoc meting to review the additional changes. Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC said she would like to see the changes before the formal comment cycle begins. Susan Lorence – Qwest said that is not following the CMP process to have an extended comment cycle. Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC again said she wanted to see the language first AND THOUGHT but that we may not need another ad hoc meeting. BUT THAT COULD BE DETERMINED BETTER AT THE END OF THIS CALL. Curtis Ashton – Qwest then continued the review of the remaining changes starting at the last change in Section 9.6. Curtis said this change exempted CLECs from fuse coordination. Ross Nielsen - PAETEC asked for clarification that this is not just because Qwest can’t control CLEC fuse size. The previous discussion also relates to this. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said that is correct. That is also the reason for the change. Curtis Ashton –Qwest then reviewed the changes in Chapter 12.2 Curtis explained the difference between emergency and clarified that task lighting is only required in buildings larger than 500 square feet so the technician does not have to hold the flashlight in their teeth. Curtis Ashton –Qwest then reviewed the changes in Chapter 13 where he clarified the Title in the tables in Part 1A and 1B apply to lead acid batteries. Previously only the voltage range was provided. In Table Part 1B, clarification was also added that this applies to batteries at a normal temperature. When outside where the temperature varies a lot, this helps protect them from thermal runaway. These are temperature compensated. In regard to Table 1C, the word “Thresholds” was added to make it clearer. In the next paragraph where there were changes, Curtis said he clarified what constant current charging means. In Table 13-5, Part 1D, Curtis relayed Qwest is just starting to deploy lithium batteries and that we are learning as we go. These changes provide additional information. In Section 13-5, Part 2, new information was added for low gravity cells which have similar thresholds to the old 23 cell strings. A new paragraph was added here also to clarify how temperature compensation should be done. In Table 13-7, a standard message was added for surge arrestor. Qwest is just starting to deploy SNMP protocol in outside plant power equipment. This is not in COs yet but is also in the customer premises world. Curtis Ashton –Qwest then reviewed the changes in Chapter 16. This chapter covers the definitions and acronyms used in the document and Curtis said he added a couple acronyms that were added to the text in the last 10 years or so but not defined. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC questioned whether the ones added were the ones shown in red. Was just OSHA added? There were no definitions shown as redline. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said that was good point. Some of the changes were shown in redline but really were not added. When he was redoing this section and some of the tables, the pages were split and now show as redline but the updates are not really added. Curtis said the only one added was ONU – Optical Network Unit. Curtis Ashton – Qwest then went to Chapter 17 where he added GR-513. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said he takes exception TO with this change as he did not see the basis for it. QWEST’S PROPOSED DEFINITIONS OF LIST 1 AND LIST 2 DRAIN, AS WELL AS QWEST’S PROPOSED CHANGES TO DISTINGUISH QWEST EQUIPMENT FROM CLEC EQUIPMENT HAVE NO BASIS IN TELCORDIA GR-513. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said he did not copy the document word for word. There documents are used as seed docs to build the Tech pubs. Julia Redman-Carter- PAETEC questioned the reason why the LSS GR section 13 was added. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said it was part of the actual title of the document and it is part of a bigger family of documents. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said he now wanted to go back to Section 2.4 where he used GR-513. He said that the language that Qwest used here in certain sections follows the spirit of the document but does not quote the document exactly. For example, AT&T added language to GR-513 about list 2x drains but Qwest does not use these so did not put them in.

04-15-10 NOTE FROM QWEST IN REGARD TO THE REDLINED MEETING MINUTES: FOR READABILITY, THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH PROVIDES A STRIKETHROUGH VERSION OF THE MINUTES AS QWEST CAPTURED THEM. THE NEXT PARAGRAPH PROVIDES THE SAME PARAGRAPH AND THE ADDITIONS FROM PAETEC IN ALL CAPS. SEE WHOLESALE CALENDAR FOR VERSION WITH STRIKETHROUGH.

STRIKETHROUGH PARAGRAPHPatrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said in Section 2.4, he would first like to explain his concerns. Patrick described the concerns that have been brought up previously in this meeting and other arenas in regard to how the Qwest changes in this Tech Pub are an attempt to justify discrimination against the CLEC community and define List 1 drains differently for Qwest vs. the CLECs. He went into his concerns of why this causes the CLECs to pay more than Qwest does. In Iowa, Patrick stated that PAETEC showed no basis for the differences yet Qwest proposed different language for drains. Patrick relayed that Qwest said it would insert verbatim the GR-513 language but did not. Patrick said the new/specific changes that Qwest provided are generally accurate but that he objected to the wording in the old third paragraph that allows Qwest to treat CLECs differently. He said he needed to think about what to do in that paragraph but that dropping it was a good thing. He said the second set of changes were more problematic than the first set. The second set said Qwest will size to CLEC equipment which is a big problem for PAETEC and so he disagrees with both changes to Section 2.4. Patrick stated that Qwest has an obligation to provide non-discriminatory access to power and per the ICA, Section 2.4 updates violate that. His final point was if Qwest insists on making the changes then he just wants language added that states that CLECs won’t pay higher costs for power than Qwest.

Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said in Section 2.4, he would first like to explain his concerns. Patrick STATED THAT QWEST’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR SECTION 2.4 (BOTH SETS OF QWEST REVISIONS), LIKE QWEST’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE IN SECTION 9.6, IS an attempt BY QWEST to justify discrimination against the CLEC community. HE SAID THIS IS PLAIN TO SEE BECAUSE QWEST’S LANGUAGE ATTEMPTS TO DEFINE LIST 1 DRAIN DIFFERENTLY FOR QWEST’S EQUIPMENT THAN FOR CLEC EQUIPMENT. HE EXPLAINED THAT IN LITIGATED PROCEEDINGS, QWEST HAS ATTEMPTED TO JUSTIFY ITS APPLICATION OF DC POWER RATES TO AMPS OF ORDERED CABLE CAPACITY BY CLAIMING THAT QWEST SIZES POWER PLANT DIFFERENTLY FOR CLECS THAN IT DOES FOR QWEST’S OWN EQUIPMENT (I.E., QWEST CLAIMS IT SIZES POWER PLANT TO LIST 1 DRAIN FOR ITSELF AND TO ORDERED CABLE CAPACITY – REPRESENTING A HIGHER LIST 2 DRAIN – FOR CLECS). SINCE LIST 2 DRAIN IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN LIST 1 DRAIN, QWEST’S LOGIC RESULTS IN CLECS PAYING SIGNIFICANTLY more for DC power than Qwest PAYS. In Iowa, Patrick stated that PAETEC showed THAT QWEST DID NOT ACTUALLY SIZE POWER PLANT TO CLEC POWER CABLE ORDERS, AND AS SUCH, THERE IS no basis for TREATING CLECS differenTLY IN THIS REGARD OR FOR Qwest’’S proposed language THAT DEFINES LIST 1 DRAIN DIFFERENTLY DEPENDING ON THE OWNERSHIP OF EQUIPMENT. Patrick STATED THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR QWEST’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE IN EXISTING TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS OR INDUSTRY STANDARDS, INCLUDING THE TELCORDIA GR-513, AND THE FACT THAT QWEST’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE IN SECTION 2.4 DIFFERS FROM THE DEFINITION IN TELCORDIA GR-513 SHOWS THAT QWEST’S PROPOSED CHANGES CONFLICT WITH THE MOST RECENT INDUSTRY STANDARDS. HE ADDED THAT AT THE PRIOR MEETING, Qwest said it would insert verbatim the GR-513 DEFINITION OF LIST 1 DRAIN but did not DO SO. Patrick said QWEST’S second set of changes TO THIS SECTION Are more problematic than QWEST’S first set OF CHANGES. WHEREAS IN QWEST’S FIRST SET OF REVISIONS, QWEST PROPOSED DEFINITIONS OF LIST 1 AND LIST 2 DRAIN THAT WERE generally accurate AND CONCENTRATED THE LANGUAGE MOST OBJECTIONABLE TO CLECS IN A SEPARATE third paragraph, QWEST’S SECOND SET OF REVISIONS RE-DEFINE LIST 1 DRAIN TO INCLUDE THE OBJECTIONABLE LANGUAGE IN THE DEFINITION ITSELF. AS SUCH, he disagrees with both SETS OF QWEST’S changes to Section 2.4. Patrick stated that Qwest has an obligation to provide non-discriminatory access to power UNDER THE ACT and per the ICA, WHICH REQUIRES QWEST TO PROVIDE DC POWER TO CLECS AT RATES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT ARE EQUAL TO HOW QWEST PROVIDES DC POWER TO ITSELF; QWEST’S PROPOSED Section 2.4 updates violate that. His final point was if Qwest insists on making changes THAT COULD RESULT IN QWEST TREATING CLECS DIFFERENTLY THAN ITSELF FOR DC POWER, then QWEST SHOULD, AT A MINIMUM, ALSO ADD LANGUAGE INDICATING that CLECs won’t pay higher costs for power than Qwest. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said to start off with, PAETEC revised the minutes from the first meeting and added a lot of detail that Qwest did not capture word for word and that they must have a better memory then he had. Curtis said there is a continued reference to Iowa and he wanted to make something clear, he/Qwest has no intention of discriminating - and emphasized EVER – against the CLEC. He said Patrick was correct in what was relayed about Iowa but Curtis said Arizona found exactly the opposite. Curtis reiterated that Qwest would not discriminate against the CLECS and that Patrick relayed the Tech pub changes would allow Qwest to treat CLECs differently but he said the updates do not address CLECs at all. Curtis said he was leaving things positively open since every state has different rate cases and that Qwest has to follow each.of the 14 states. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC stated that QWEST’S SUGGESTION THAT ITS ENGINEERS USE A COST DOCKET ORDER FROM A STATE PUC TO SIZE POWER PLANT CAPACITY IN THE REAL WORLD IS FRANKLY HARD TO BELIEVE AND MAKES NO SENSE.never shared that the cost docket requires Qwest to size in a certain way. Qwest needs to charge in different ways. He said this is where two reasonable people disagree. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said he drastically changed the first paragraph and was there anything in the first paragraph that could stay. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said he would have to look BECAUSE HE HAD NOT PERFORMED A LINE-BY-LINE COMPARISON OF QWEST’S SECOND SET OF REVISIONS TO THE TELCORDIA GR-513 DEFINITION – major concerns. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said he did not want to vary too far. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said when you got past the first paragraph things looked very similar. Curtis Ashton – Qwest questioned whether it was OK to remove “serve Qwest equipment” and wondered if there was a need for another opportunity to do a stare and compare of the document updates. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said that was fair. Curtis Ashton – Qwest questioned what to do about List 2 drains. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said he had not had the time to review and was not prepared to comment. He said thereAT QWEST’S PROPOSED DEFINITION OF LIST 2 DRAIN APPEARS TO BE was lots of similarity to GR-513 but wanted to reserve comment. Curtis Ashton – Qwest suggested a short meeting in the future to review the updates. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said he did have comments but they are not on list 2 drains. It was clear that Qwest would interpret A CLEC POWER CABLE ORDER as A list 2 DRAIN REQUIRMENT (or, AS MR. ASHTON HAS PUT IT, A proxy FOR LIST 2 DRAIN). Patrick then focused on List 1 drain. Julia Redman-Carter- PAETEC said she needed to look again at the updates. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said in Section 9.2 we needed to look at the formula. Curtis said Ross Nielsen – PAETEC said during the last meeting that the formula “I” needed to be broken out and listed as bullets. Curtis wondered if anyone had any comments on what had been done there. Julia Redman-Carter- PAETEC said she was not sure everyone saw the language. Ross Nielsen - PAETEC said he pulled the version off the calendar. Does the hour discharge rate apply only to battery cable sizing? Otherwise he had no problems with this. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said good point. Julia Redman-Carter- PAETEC questioned whether the bullets corresponded to the big paragraphs BELOW THE BULLETS and asked if they were in the same order. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said more detail is provided below but they were not in the same order. Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC ASKED said on the paragraph below, FOR EXAMPLE, the second bullet, I cannot tell which drain PROXY is the applicable one AND I DON’T BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE INTERCHANGEABLE. WOULD ANY TECH They can BE ABLE TO derive THE CORRECT PROXY TO BE USED FROM the information BELOW?. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said he thought so. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said he could propose the review and finalization of the changes in two ways: 1) Submit the level 4 and allow the comment period, or 2) Schedule another short ad hoc call to review. Julia Redman-Carter- PAETEC said she preferred a short 30 minute call to review section 2.4 updates and the next set of changes. Susan Lorence – Qwest said she would like to get the remaining questions ahead of time to insure we specifically addressed them in the time period. Julia Redman-Carter- PAETEC said she was not sure that was possible but could identify the sections. Susan Lorence – Qwest said she rather then leaving it open, that we would like to have them in advance. Julia Redman-Carter- PAETEC said she THOUGHT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOME QUESTIONS, AND Would like to see the final redlines of the Tech Pub. HOWEVER, OUR DECISION NOT TO PROVIDE QUESTIONS IS NOT TO LIMIT OUR DISCUSSION OR OUR ABILITY TO ADDRESS ANY OF THE LANGUAGE CHANGES PROPOSED IN THE NEXT AD HOC MEETING. Susan Lorence – Qwest said we would send those out with the meeting minutes and then schedule a short ad hoc call ABOUT five days later. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said he had two ADDITIONAL issues as far as the final version of the Tech Pub: 1) Insure theAT ANY updates regarding “CLEC REQUEST” OR “CLEC ORDER” CLARIFY THAT IT IS cable sizing for CLECs always referRING to the “CLEC power feed order”, and 2) Suggest in the Notice section of the document, that the changes for 2010 are clearly delineated from what was there since 1996. He said there needed to be a history log of the changes made in 2010, ESPECIALLY FOR ANY CHANGES QWEST IMPLEMENTS REGARDING LIST 1/LIST 2 DRAINS. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said to look at Section 1.2, Reason for Reissue. He questioned whether that would be a better place to identify the changes than the Notice section. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said it was a good suggestion and agreed TO CONSIDER HOW BEST TO INCORPORATE THIS LANGUAGE. Curtis Ashton – Qwest requested attendees to review the language of Section 1.2, Reason for Reissue, and propose what to put there.

03-19-10 Ad hoc meeting minutes APRIL 1, 2010 NOTE: THE REDLINED EDITS TO THE DRAFT MEETING MINUTES THAT WERE PROVIDED BY PAETEC HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN CAPS/BOLD OR ARE IDENTIFIED WITH STRIKETHROUGH. SEE WHOLESALE CALENDAR FOR VERSION WITH STRIKETHROUGH.

Attendees: Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC, Patrick Phipps – QSI Consulting, Inc. (on behalf of PAETEC), Diane Bowers – PAETEC, Al Finnell – PAETEC, Bryan Vanyo – PAETEC, Ross Nielsen – PAETEC, Bonnie Johnson - Integra, Kim Isaacs – Integra, Rebecca Beaton – Washington Commission, Eugene Evans - New Mexico Commission, Carolee Hall – Idaho Commission, Curtis Ashton - Qwest, John Hansen - Qwest, Susan Lorence - Qwest

Susan Lorence – Qwest relayed that the last ad hoc call had been held on March 8, 2010. During that call, we agreed that another ad hoc call was necessary to review the remainder of the document and any updates that Curtis Ashton – Qwest would make based on the discussion in the last call. Susan relayed a revised version of the Tech Pub was posted to the calendar.

Curtis Ashton – Qwest relayed that he had a discussion with legal and discussed the paragraph that was of most concern. He said he had removed some content from Section 2.4 and made changes to List 1 and 2 drains to follow the spirit of GR-513. Curtis said he would start where we left off and then go back to the changes that were made. Curtis Ashton – Qwest relayed in the section regarding sizing the rectifier plant, the acronym NNS was defined since it was the first time it occurred. NNS is the unregulated side of Qwest as opposed to the regulated side. Ross Nielsen – PAETEC asked about sizing the rectifier plant and whether it was based on the actual load. He questioned when sizing the rectifier, is Qwest going by the actual List 1 load. Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC questioned if it is possible to make a clarification to the language ADDRESSING THIS. Curtis Ashton – Qwest identified it is as being the busy hour load. Ross Nielsen – PAETEC said he suspected it was based on battery busy hour load and that he was OK with that. Julia Redman-Carter PAETEC said if Ross Nielsen (PAETEC) was good WITH THE LANGUAGE, she was good. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said the next area of change is section 2.6 just below the bulleted items. The update is to clarify that there can be more than one power plant controller when adding newer switch mode rectifiers to a Ferro resonant plant. Curtis said rather than replace whole power plant, it was more economical to grow the plant with switch mode. Curtis said the switch mode required its own controller. There is still a master conventional controller for Ferro resonant rectifiers but there is now a separate sub-controller for the switch modes. He confirmed one master controller is common. Curtis said he can internally mix rectifier plants. Ross Nielsen - PAETEC questioned whether we were really talking separate power plants or parallel. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said in a way, two types of power plant are paralleled: One master and one sub controller. CURTIS ASHTON – QWEST SAID THAT Section 3.6 associated with Battery Types was discussed next – associated with Nickel Cadmium. Curtis Ashton-Qwest said Nickel Cadmium batteries used to be only deployed in engine start applications but are now placed in desert outdoor locations due to longer life. In regard to the section on Lithium, Curtis said he removed all references to Lithium metal polymer batteries since they are no longer commercially available. Curtis said that there was also a change to indicate that Li-ion batteries do not need to be cylindrically wound but can be rectangular as well. Next Curtis Ashton – Qwest NEXTsaid that he added a paragraph on Super Ultra Capacitors. He said they are not new and are generally used for short backup purposes.

Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC questioned whether this was a paragraph that was moved from later pages and Curtis said yes.

Curtis Ashton – Qwest SAID YES. HE next addressed the change at the end of Section 3.9 where he deleted a paragraph. He said he removed it because there was no reason to include it since the information was already in Figure 3.2 and in Chapter 9. The change to Section 3.10 was to add the word “lead-acid” for clarification on end voltage because lithium and NiCd have different numbers. Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC said she noticed the capitalization of the word ampacity was changed. Curtis ASHTON - QWEST provided some history on the term ampere and relayed that both capitalized and not capitalized usage is correct. Julia Redman-Carter- PAETEC questioned was there a definition ASSOCIATED WITH THE CAPITALIZATION OF THE TERM ‘AMPACITY’ that was deleted or adjusted. Curtis Ashton – Qwest relayed no and that ampacity refers to how much current cables or bus bars can carry before becoming too warm. Eugene Evans – New Mexico Commission questioned whether it was just an engineering correctionand Curtis said no, it was more a grammatical correction. Curtis Ashton – Qwest SAID NO, IT WAS MORE A GRAMMATICAL CORRECTION. HE said the next change is Section 6.3.to clarify that the fuse and breaker coordination is Qwest responsibility. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC agreed it was Qwest responsibility and questioned whether thE FUSE COORDINATION LANGUAGE is was associated with all fuses between collocation and power plant. HE INDICATED IT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT QWEST WOULD SIZE FUSES WITHIN ITS CONTROL AND A CLEC WOULD SIZE THE FUSE WITHIN ITS CONTROL. Curtis agreed that it is Qwest responsibility to coordinate all fuses within their control not the CLECs. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said it is the CLEC responsibility to size the 1st fuse within their control. Curtis Ashton - Qwest said the NEC code requires fuse coordination for certain systems and but even where not required, it is a good practice. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said GR-513 talks of fusing coordination but does not make a distinction between the CLEC and Qwest. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said there is no external legal requirement to coordinate; it is only a Qwest requirement. Qwest coordinates all Qwest owned fuses and breakers. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC identified the issue is the smallest fuse will blow first. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said that was correct and it is to minimize the impact of an outage. Curtis Ashton – Qwest then reviewed Section 8.2.1 which talks to the required points that will be monitored. Curtis said this only applies to new points; Qwest cannot retroactively fix old. When put in new, points are required to monitor alarms. There is one minor change associated with collocation circuits at power board; it used to say 75 which is not consistent. The current wording took 125% of 60 amps, which is not true. You really need to take 125% of 61 amps. Curtis said the language was contradictory and was a math error. Curtis Ashton – Qwest then discussed changes toward the end of Section 8.2.3. He said that the updates were made to provide additional clarification. In a Battery String Disconnect, you don’t have to monitor individual breakers, you can daisy chain them. You just need to know the breaker is tripped. Curtis also said two binary points were added for little Li-ion smart batteries. Lead acid is not smart. Two points were added for major and minor alarms. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said for changes in Section 8.5, Qwest does not generally allow power monitors to start and stop rectifiers because Qwest does not want two controllers fighting each other. There needs to be an exception for large sites. Curtis relayed for some sites that are co-owned with AT&T, they do have some sequence of rectifier start due to the size of engines. This rectifier sequencing is to allow power to come up slowly. The next section Curtis Ashton – Qwest SAID THE NEXT SECTION discussed was Section 8.6.3 where clarification was added associated with cell temperature. If the plant is already measuring, you don’t have to run more probes. Curtis also said that at the end of this section, a statement was repeated regarding the Disconnect breaker that they can be daisy chained. Curtis Ashton – Qwest then addressed the change in Section 9.2 where there was a clarification regarding the formula for calculating Voltage drop that is already covered in the next two pages. Curtis relayed “I” defines amperes and sometimes is the List 2 drain and sometimes not. For example, between the chandelier and the return bus, this size of the shunt is used. Curtis said this is obviously of most concern. To size the voltage drop for the CLEC order is based on the CLEC order. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC questioned the CLEC order, what order? Curtis Ashton – Qwest relayed that it was the CLEC power feed order and will clarify that. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said the only observation is that Qwest interprets the power feed order as List 2. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said that is sort of true; it is a proxy for List 2. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC SAID that QWEST’S PROPOSED the language IN SECTION 9.2 SHOWS THAT QWEST said collocation is generally interpretedS A CLEC POWER FEED ORDER as a List 2 drain requirement. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said to be clear, will use the term proxy. He said the only information that Qwest has is what is on the order. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said the CLEC order raises red flags. He said that it does represent List 2 drains. He questioned if it is necessary. If it is a proxy for List 2 drain, the original language should be sufficient. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said Qwest does not know if it is a List 2 drain for CLECs. This is not a universal statement so the ordered amount is used as a proxy. It may or may not be a List 2 drain. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said it must be. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said when sizing cable to a List 2 drain, it is easy to do for individual shelf feeds. When feeding upstream aggregation devices, such as a BDFB from a PBD, we don’t know what is going in in the future so there is no way to calculate List 2 drain upfront. Qwest has to use a proxy for List 2 drain. For a BDFB fused at 600 amps, we never load one side greater than 300 amps so proxies are not just for CLECs. They are also feeding secondary protection. It might be List 2 or it might be proxy. Many CLECs don’t know what their List 1 and List 2 are. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said he did not know whether the bottom line is that this current represents a List 2 drain requirement. Tthe language is not clear AND NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE MR. ASHTON PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT QWEST INTERPRETS A . The CLEC POWER FEED order AS language is List 2 drain. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said he testified it is a proxy for a List 2 requirement. It is not clear. There is disagreement about whether CLEC power feed order is List 2 and by inserting CLEC, it makes clear what order we are talking about. If language goes in, Curtis said it needs to be specific to say CLEC power feed order. Ross Nielsen - PAETEC questioned when doing battery cable sizing for capacity, do you use two hour discharge? Curtis Ashton – Qwest said we use four hour discharge. Ross Nielsen - PAETEC said when feeding CLEC from BDFB, are you using the full CLEC order for voltage drop calculations. Curtis said yes when feeding CLEC owned BDFB. CURTIS ASHTON – QWEST SAID YES WHEN FEEDING CLEC OWNED BDFB. Ross Nielsen - PAETEC questioned on the CLEC voltage drop, do you have to use breaker size? Curtis Ashton – Qwest said we do two calculations for breaker size. The cable has ampacity. If 100 ampere order, if size for voltage drop, will size cable based on circular mills. Curtis said there is a 2nd check to insure that the ampacity meets or exceeds 350kcmil. In our example 100 amp order, if the voltage drop calculation required a 350 kcmil cable, we would then check to insure it equals at least 125 amps. Ross Nielsen - PAETEC said the key was to break out the “I” values to make them more clear. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said he had summarized it in a parenthetical. He said a better way would be to put sub- bullets under “I”. Ross Nielsen - PAETEC said three things come into play. The main thing is to break down between the elements. Curtis Ashton – Qwest said he would rewrite the section and send it out again. Julia Redman-Carter- PAETEC had a suggestion to have ampere represent List 2 drain. Half protector size, battery discharge rate: all are proxy for List 2 drain. She had a question whether it is appropriate if you have the actual List 2, use it. If List 2 is not available, use a proxy. Julia said it should specify what should be used in which scenario. Specify which proxy in which scenario. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said the fact that Qwest interprets Power feed as List 2 NECESSARILY MEANS THAT QWEST, why would NOT you also size the power plant to the same. If QWEST INTERPRETS A take CLEC power feed order as List 2 drain, Qwest should not use THAT ORDER same drain to size the power plant. POWER FEEDS AND POWER PLANT These are sized to TWO different standards in all publications. The group decided a 1 ½ to 2 hour meeting was needed to finish the review. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC said the couple sections that were of PARTICULAR concern TO HIM are 2.4 and 9.6 and that HIS we need to focus IS on policy ISSUES AND NOT vs. engineering ISSUES. Susan Lorence - Qwest questioned whether we need to continue to review change by change or just go over those sections where there were concerns. Eugene Evans – New Mexico Commission said he was interested in where others had questions and thought it was best to go through line by line. Julia Redman-Carter- PAETEC said she was not an engineer but would prefer to go through line by line. Patrick Phipps – QSI/PAETEC reiterated that if Qwest is going to use CLEC power feed order as proxy for List 2 drains, Qwest should not also use this order to also size power plant components.

3/19/10 Additional EMAIL RESPONSE to Qwest from Integra/PAETEC associated with redline updates to Ad Hoc Meeting minutes for 3/8/10

Susan,

Though Qwest may believe that the “meeting minutes that Qwest captured for the March 8 call were … an accurate yet concise summarization of the discussion in the ad hoc call,” the revisions by PAETEC indicate otherwise. PAETEC found that the meeting minutes did not capture most of the “key points” that we made during the discussion, and what was captured tended to dilute and/or misstate the point. PAETEC disagrees with Qwest’s suggestion that PAETEC expanded on what we said in the meeting notes. Obviously since the minutes are not verbatim, its not “exactly what was said”, but all of the points added in the minutes were stated on the call. Based on the CMP document, we don’t expect “a verbatim transcript,” but the minutes should be reflective of the discussion. Again, PAETEC did not “expand content” in our redlines of Qwest’s meeting minutes. Unlike Qwest that omitted key details, PAETEC did not change the discussion or the context of the statements.

In response to your comment about litigation, PAETEC is especially concerned that the meeting minutes accurately reflect the actual conversation. In the recent complaints concerning this very issue of collocation power, Qwest cited its November 2003 CMP meeting minutes to claim that McLeodUSA should have known that Qwest was agreeing to only bill DC power usage based on a measurement of the CLEC’s power usage. However, the CMP meeting minutes on this topic also noted that Qwest told the CLECs that it would not require an ICA amendment for a CLEC to have measured usage. Yet, Qwest later changed its mind and insisted that CLECs in fact had to execute such an amendment, without any modification to the CMP minutes. Had a CLEC relied on the CMP minutes that included that inaccurate statement regarding the necessity of an ICA amendment, the CLEC would have reasonably believed that they were entitled to measured power without an ICA amendment. Thus, the accuracy of CMP minutes is critical seeing as though Qwest itself has shown a propensity to use them as proof as to what exactly was the debate between the Qwest and CLEC position, and what was or was not agreed to.

Finally, PAETEC and Integra agree that there continues to be disagreement as what constitutes meeting minutes. In the 4/13/07 Qwest CMP Oversight Committee meeting referenced below, Qwest’s stated; “Susan said that the intent was to capture action items and the end result. She said that in the past there was a difference in the detail Qwest provided on product/process and system meeting minutes and in good faith started providing detail for both.” Becky Quintana from the Colorado PUC, who was a part of the CMP redesign team, responded “…that she disagreed with the last statement. Meeting minutes from redesign and CMP have always been very detailed and did include ‘he said, she said’.”

Julia

3/19/10 EMAIL RESPONSE from Qwest to Integra/PAETEC associated with redline updates to Ad Hoc Meeting minutes for 3/8/10 Bonnie and Julia,

Unfortunately, based on your email, there continues to be disagreement on what constitutes “meeting minutes” from a CMP perspective – especially when there is litigation involved.

Section 3.2 of the CMP document states: 3.2 Meeting Minutes for Change Management Process Meetings Qwest will record and distribute meeting minutes for all Change Management Process meetings, unless otherwise noted in this CMP.

Qwest will summarize discussions in meeting minutes and include any revised documents such as issues, action items and statuses….

The meeting minutes that Qwest captured for the March 8 call were provided in good faith as an accurate yet concise summarization of the discussion in the ad hoc call. To suggest otherwise is very inappropriate. As required by CMP, the Qwest meeting minutes focused on capturing the key points of the discussion and were not intended to be a verbatim transcript of the entire discussion. Qwest disagrees that the intent of the discussion was lost. Nor was there any omission of detail in the minutes that was material in nature as you suggest.

As has been the Qwest process, we will include these redline revisions to these minutes by documenting the Integra/PAETEC changes in all caps. Because Qwest does not tape record meetings, we do not have the ability to verify the significantly expanded content that has been redlined. No one from Qwest that attended the March 8 call recalls that your edits reflect exactly what was said. However, we do have concern that what was said on the call has been considerably expanded in the redlined changes. That particular issue of elaborating on content is significant and was addressed in the 4/13/2007 CMP Oversight meeting minutes that were referenced in your email. Specifically, as Integra stated in that meeting, changing the discussion or the context of the statements is not appropriate.

Finally, there was agreement in the 4/13/2007 meeting minutes that summarization was fine as long as it was complete and accurate. Qwest believes the summarization was complete and accurate in the minutes that were submitted for review.

Going forward, as we have in the past, Qwest will continue to capture in a concise, accurate manner a summary of the discussion that occurs in CMP meetings. Susan Lorence

3/17/10 EMAIL RESPONSE from Integra/PAETEC associated with redline updates to Ad Hoc Meeting minutes for 3/8/10

Susan/Qwest/CMP, I am attaching the joint redlined changes for PAETEC and Integra. As you can see from the attached document, the changes were significant. PAETEC and Integra were quite surprised that Qwest failed to capture all or portions of complete conversations, or what Qwest did provide did not reflect the entire conversation so in some cases the intent of the comments were lost.

The CMP Oversight Committee discussed the level of detail Qwest was required to provide for ad-hoc call meeting minutes in a CMP Oversight meeting regarding CMP meeting minutes. Becky Quintana from the Colorado PUC, who attended CMP Redesign, commented on the level of detail Qwest should provide. You can find that discussion in the April 13, 2007 CMP Oversight Committee meeting minutes located on Qwest’s website at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/escdisp.html.

While we understand the conversation was of a very technical nature, the omissions were material in nature. PAETEC and Integra would appreciate any effort Qwest could make to provide more complete and accurate minutes for the ad-hoc call scheduled for this Friday. As CLECs have communicated in the past, when you are talking, it is difficult to take notes. Thanks, Bonnie and Julia

3/17/10 Product/Process CMP Meeting Susan Lorence-Qwest relayed that there had been an ad hoc meeting on March 8, 2010. The meeting minutes were out for review and will be posted by Friday. The next ad hoc meeting is scheduled for 3/19 at 10AM MT. Susan relayed that Curtis Ashton–Qwest had provided a revised Tech Pub 77385 due to some follow-up from the ad hoc call. That document is posted to the Wholesale calendar.

March 8, 2010 Ad hoc meeting minutes

MARCH 19, 2010 NOTE: THE REDLINED EDITS TO THE DRAFT MEETING MINUTES THAT WERE PROVIDED BY INTEGRA AND PAETEC HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN CAPS/BOLD OR ARE IDENTIFIED WITH STRIKETHROUGH. SEE WHOLESALE CALENDAR FOR VERSION WITH STRIKETHROUGH.

Attendees: Julia Redman-Carter-PAETEC, Patrick Phipps – QSI CONSULTING, INC.(ON BEHALF OF PAETEC), Diane Bowers – PAETEC, Robert Fuller – PAETEC, Jim Gabberd – PAETEC, Al Finnell – PAETEC, Bryan Vanyo – PAETEC, Ross Nielsen – PAETEC, Bonnie Johnson-Integra, Doug Denney – Integra, Rod Cox – TDS Metrocom, Joe Eldrege – Cbeyond, Loriann Burke – XO Communication, Warren Wendling – Colorado PUC, Suzanne Smith – Oregon PUC, Mike Ripperger – New Mexico Commission, Eugene Evan - New Mexico Commission, Mike McCarthy – Minnesota Dept. of Commerce, Greg Doyle - Minnesota Dept. of Commerce, Curtis Ashton-Qwest, John Hansen-Qwest, Susan Lorence-Qwest

Susan Lorence - Qwest began the meeting by relaying that Curtis Ashton from Qwest presented the Qwest CR PC020210-1 in the February CMP monthly meeting. The ad hoc meeting is to review the planned updates to Technical Publication (Tech Pub) 77385 which is posted to the Wholesale calendar entry in addition to an excerpt from Telcordia GR-513.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra SAID QWEST SENT OUT EXCERPTS OF THE GR-513 CHANGES AND asked if this was the only change being made in GR-513.

Curtis Ashton - Qwest said the document had been significantly expanded. It used to be a 15 page document and now is over a 70 page document.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra asked whether QWEST WAS MAKING ALL OF THE GR-513 CHANGES IN THE there were any other Tech Pubs that are impacted.

Curtis Ashton - Qwest said no, THISother Tech Pubs WAS were not impacted by the multiple changes proposed. Curtis relayed GR-513 covered more areas of power and said that the updates were driven to reflect power standards in AT&T, Qwest and Verizon Tech Pubs, like the AT&T 767-200. It was updated to include a consensus of standards and rules that already existed.

Curtis Ashton - Qwest provided additional background on this Tech Pub update. Last year, updates to Tech Pub 77385 were submitted via a Level 2 notification. Due to CLEC comments, each individual change was reviewed during various ad hoc meetings and it was jointly decided what should be a level 2, level 3 and finally a level 4 change. The level 4 changes were removed from the update last year and have been incorporated in this CR.

Curtis Ashton - Qwest began reviewing the updates by relaying that the primary changes were associated with List 1 and 2 drains. He said he would come back to the Reason for Reissue and began by reviewing Table 1-2 which he said is the same table but now has a title. The next area of review was Section 1.5 on page 1-7 associated with fuse coordination. The document already had fuse coordination in it. This really only applies to Qwest. Curtis said last year Chapter 9 was fixed but now Chapter 1 is being fixed.

Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC questioned the added phrase “feeding Qwest equipment” and the position that CLECs are not treated differently THAN QWEST TREATS THEMSELVES OR IS and that Qwest CLARIFYING THAT IT is not imposing a Qwest requirement on CLEC equipment.

Patrick Phipps – PAETEC QUESTIONED THE LOCATION OF THE FUSES/BREAKERS AND WHETHER THEY WERE FUSES THAT QWEST OR THE CLEC CONTROLS AND said CLECs don’t have control over Qwest fuse siZe.

Curtis Ashton - Qwest said this is at the shelf on circuits that Qwest controls. Curtis said at the end of Section 1.5 on page 1-9 that the changed wording applies only to Qwest. It is a clarification to what would be allowed for Qwest equipment.

Curtis Ashton - Qwest then pointed to Section 2.4 associated with List 1 and 2 drain changes that the coalition addressed in GR-513. Curtis said in Section 1.7 that there is a Note that is being removed. He said the reasoning for removing the Note is that it was adequately covered in the table which gives a good summary of NEBS. The Note was redundant and not necessary to state in text.

Curtis Ashton –Qwest began discussion of Section 2.4. He said the GR was last issued in 1995 and it did not address the primary equipment deployed today. The change was made to reflect more than just POTS and better defines the criteria for List 1 and 2 drains.

Patrick Phipps – PAETEC questioned how the definitions compared to the previous edits.

Curtis Ashton - Qwest relayed the edits are the same as last year.

Patrick Phipps – PAETEC questioned if the purpose was to synch up with GR-513. NOTED THAT QWEST’S CHANGE REQUEST INDICATED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THESE UPDATES IS TO AGREE WITH TELCORDIA GR-513, WHICH WAS ISSUED IN EARLY 2010. PAETEC QUESTIONED HOW THE PURPOSE OF THESE UPDATES COULD BE RELATED TO TELCORDIA GR-513 (ISSUED IN EARLY 2010) WHEN QWEST INITIALLY PROPOSED THE SAME EDITS IN EARLY 2009 (BEFORE THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF TELCORDIA 513 WAS ISSUED).

Curtis Ashton - Qwest said work started on GR-513 in January 2009 but the final published version of GR-513 was not until January 2010. Qwest first started proposing the update to Tech Pub 77385 last March. Curtis said they say the same thing but GR-513 now has more wording. Curtis said he was willing to copy what GR-513 said.

Patrick Phipps – PAETEC said it is the decision of the engineers. There is a dispute between Qwest and PAETEC. The definition in GR-513 is not in the Tech Pub. He said there is good information in GR-513 that is not in the Qwest document. PAETEC NOTED THAT THE UPDATED DEFINITIONS OF LIST 1 AND LIST 2 DRAIN PROPOSED BY QWEST WERE NOT THE SAME DEFINITIONS AS IN TELCORDIA GR-513. PAETEC QUESTIONED WHY QWEST’S DEFINITIONS WOULD BE DIFFERENT THAN THE DEFINITIONS IN TELCORDIA GR-513 IF THE PURPOSE OF THE UPDATES IS TO AGREE WITH GR-513. PAETEC NOTED THAT THE CONCEPTS OF LIST 1 DRAIN AND LIST 2 DRAIN ARE PART AND PARCEL OF LITIGATED PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN QWEST AND CLECS RELATED TO DIRECT CURRENT (“DC”) POWER RATES. PAETEC FURTHER NOTED THAT SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE DEFINITION OF LIST 1 DRAIN FROM GR-513 (WHICH QWEST OMITTED FROM ITS UPDATES) APPEARS TO LEND A DEGREE OF REASONABLENESS TO THE CLECS’ POSITIONS IN THOSE LITIGATED PROCEEDINGS. PAETEC EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT QWEST’S UPDATES TO THE DEFINITIONS OF LIST 1 DRAIN AND LIST 2 DRAIN IN ITS TECHNICAL PUBLICATION 77385 WERE MADE TO SUPPORT QWEST’S ADVOCACY AND UNDERMINE THE CLECS’ ADVOCACY IN THE ONGOING DC POWER RATE PROCEEDINGS. IN RESPONSE TO MR. ASHTON’S SUGGESTION THAT THE DEFINITIONS OF LIST 1 DRAIN AND LIST 2 DRAIN FROM GR-513 BE COPIED VERBATIM INTO QWEST TECHNICAL PUBLICATION 77385, PAETEC INDICATED THAT THIS WAS A DECISION FOR THE ENGINEERS TO MAKE. PAETEC ADDED, HOWEVER, THAT, GIVEN QWEST’S STATED PURPOSE FOR THE CR, IT SEEMS LOGICAL THAT THE DEFINITIONS OF LIST 1 DRAIN AND LIST 2 DRAIN IN QWEST’S TECHNICAL PUBLICATION 77385 SHOULD “AGREE” WITH THOSE IN TELCORDIA GR-513, AND THAT UPDATES TO THESE DEFINITIONS SHOULD NOT BE SELECTIVELY CHOSEN BASED ON WHATEVER LANGUAGE MAY SUPPORT QWEST’S ADVOCACY IN THE ONGOING DC POWER RATE PROCEEDINGS.

Curtis Ashton - Qwest questioned how best to handle. He said he could rewrite Section 2.4. Curtis questioned the CMP process AND THOUGHT THAT THE CLECS COULD RESPOND IN THE FORMAL COMMENT PORTION OF THE CMP PROCESS.

Patrick Phipps – PAETEC said he did not see anything wrong with adding the wording. There would then be no reason to disagree if it was updated to be in agreement. He said lots do not have access to GR-513 REASON TO DISAGREE WITH QWEST’S PROPOSED UPDATES TO THE DEFINITIONS OF LIST 1 DRAIN AND LIST 2 DRAIN AND THAT THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH HOW THESE TERMS HAVE BEEN TRADITIONALLY DEFINED; HOWEVER, THE POINT IS: QWEST’S UPDATED DEFINITIONS ARE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IS IN TELCORDIA GR-513 AND DO NOT INCLUDE ALL INFORMATION IN THE TELCORDIA DEFINITIONS. HE STATED THAT THERE WOULD THEN BE NO REASON TO DISAGREE WITH THE DEFINITIONS OF LIST 1 DRAIN AND LIST 2 DRAIN IN QWEST’S TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS IF THEY WERE UPDATED TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH TELCORDIA GR-513, BUT HE DEFERRED TO THE ENGINEERS AS TO THE TECHNICAL MERITS OF MAKING QWEST’S DEFINITIONS IDENTICAL TO TELCORDIA’S. HE NOTED THAT THE MAJOR DISAGREEMENT PAETEC HAS WITH QWEST’S UPDATED DEFINITIONS PERTAINS TO THE LANGUAGE QWEST IS PROPOSING TO ADD ABOUT :COLLOCATOR LIST 1 AND 2 DC DRAINS…”, NOT SO MUCH QWEST’S PROPOSED UPDATES TO THE DEFINITIONS OF LIST 1 DRAIN AND LIST 2 DRAIN UNDER THE BULLETPOINTS IN SECTION 2.4. HE ADDED THAT, WHILE PAETEC HAS PURCHASED AND REVIEWED THE TELCORDIA GR-513, OTHERS DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO GR-513. Susan Lorence - Qwest said it was OK to add the wording since the document had not been sent out for formal comment. She said we could either send the revised wording out for formal comment or have another ad hoc meeting.

Curtis Ashton - Qwest said he would add the GR-513 text and send out revised language.

Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC said she would like another ad hoc meeting TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE NEW QWEST LANGUAGE PROPOSAL. THE LANGUAGE AND FORMAL COMMENT PERIOD CONTEMPLATES THAT THE CLEC CONCERNS AND FEEDBACK HAVE ALREADY BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE LANGUAGE.

Curtis Ashton - Qwest said we will now get to the problem paragraph. Curtis said that “not generally known” was meant “to Qwest.” He questioned whether adding the words “to Qwest” would help. Curtis said it does not change that the Commission can order and that Qwest can choose to oversize.

Patrick Phipps – PAETEC said that with the phrase “and DC plant components” is the problem wording. If a person read GR-513 in detail, there are no distinguishing characteristics. ” WAS THE PRIMARY PROBLEM WITH THE ADDED LANGUAGE, AND THAT PAETEC CANNOT AGREE WITH THIS PARAGRAPH WITH THIS PHRASE INCLUDED. HE INDICATED THAT THIS ISSUE GOES TO THE HEART OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN QWEST AND CLECS REGARDING DC POWER RATES. HE EXPLAINED THAT QWEST HAS CLAIMED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS THAT IT SIZES DC POWER PLANT COMPONENTS BASED ON THE CLEC ORDER FOR POWER FEEDS, AND ACCORDING TO QWEST, IT IS THEREFORE APPROPRIATE FOR QWEST TO CHARGE CLECS FOR DC POWER PLANT BASED ON THE SIZE OF THEIR POWER FEED. HE EXPLAINED THAT CLECS DISAGREE WITH QWEST ON THIS POINT AND HAVE SHOWN IN THESE PROCEEDINGS THAT QWEST’S CLAIM (ABOUT SIZING DC POWER PLANT TO CLEC CABLE FEEDS SIZE) IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ITS OWN TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS, AND IN FACT, CONFLICTS WITH THOSE TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS. HE EXPLAINED THAT THIS PROPOSED LANGUAGE IS AN APPARENT EFFORT TO BOLSTER QWEST’S ADVOCACY (AND UNDERCUT CLEC ADVOCACY) IN THE ONGOING DISPUTES WITH CLECS BY INSERTING LANGUAGE INTO ITS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS INDICATING THAT QWEST SIZES POWER PLANT AS IT CLAIMS IT DOES IN THOSE DISPUTES. IN OTHER WORDS, QWEST IS ATTEMPTING TO FILL THE HOLE IN ITS ADVOCACY EXPOSED BY THE CLECS IN THE ONGOING DISPUTES – I.E., THAT THERE IS NO QWEST TECHNICAL PUBLICATION THAT SUPPORTS THE WAY QWEST CLAIMS IT SIZES POWER PLANT IN THOSE ONGOING DISPUTES. PAETEC ALSO NOTED THAT IT HAD REVIEWED THE ENTIRE TELCORDIA GR-513 AND QWEST’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE HAS NO BASIS IN THAT DOCUMENT, NOR DOES TELCORDIA GR-513 DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CLEC EQUIPMENT AND ILEC EQUIPMENT WHEN DISCUSSING LIST 1 DRAIN AND LIST 2 DRAIN.

Curtis Ashton - Qwest said he is not claiming that we put the paragraph in due to GR-513 AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THIS PARAGRAPH REFLECTED QWEST’S ADVOCACY POSITIONS IN THE ONGOING DC POWER RATE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT HE WAS AWARE THAT CLECS DISAGREED WITH QWEST’S POSITION. He said that is how Qwest sizes.

Patrick Phipps – PAETEC said when we get into Cost Dockets, the state PUC looks at the ILEC engineering design standard. Patrick said one could make the case that Qwest has sized according to the standard. He has never seen it in AT&Ts. He said the state commission does not allow Qwest to recover oversizing. He said there is no basis for it and that he is saying sizing power plant and power raises problems. PAETEC RESPONDED TO MR. ASHTON’S STATEMENT THAT THIS LANGUAGE DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT A STATE COMMISSION COULD ORDER REGARDING A DC POWER RATE. PAETEC EXPLAINED THAT IN TELRIC PRICING PROCEEDINGS, COSTS ARE DEVELOPED BASED ON A MODELED NETWORK, AND TYPICALLY A STATE PUC LOOKS AT THE ILEC ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARD TO EVALUATE THE REASONABLENESS OF THE MODELED NETWORK. HE EXPLAINED THAT WHEN MODELING A DC POWER PLANT FOR TELRIC COST STUDY PURPOSES, THE STATE PUC MAY LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE QWEST IS PROPOSING TO ADD, AND THAT LANGUAGE WOULD GIVE QWEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THE CASE THAT QWEST HAS SIZED POWER PLANT ACCORDING TO ITS STANDARD – EVEN THOUGH QWEST’S LANGUAGE WOULD RESULT IN AN OVER-SIZED POWER PLANT. HE EXPLAINED THAT WHILE TELRIC DOES NOT PERMIT QWEST TO RECOVER COST OF AN OVER-SIZED POWER PLANT, THE CONCERN IS THAT ADDING THIS LANGUAGE TO THE TECHNICAL PUBLICATION WOULD GIVE QWEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE THAT SIZING POWER PLANT TO CLEC ORDERS IS NOT OVER-SIZING. PAETEC ADDED THAT THIS LANGUAGE DOES NOT EXIST IN AT&T’S TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS.

Curtis Ashton - Qwest said he wants what Qwest wants IS ADVOCATING which is to codify how Qwest sizes power plant.

Patrick Phipps – PAETEC said it gives Qwest a leg up on advocacy by codifying it in the Technical publication. HE ADDED THAT QWEST SHOULD NOT CODIFY ITS ADVOCACY POSITIONS IN ITS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS, PARTICULARLY WHEN there is no basis for it in standards.

Curtis Ashton - Qwest said that is the sticking point. He said he has not been through what Qwest can and cannot do. Qwest sets the rules on why things are sized the way they are.

Patrick Phipps – PAETEC said Qwest should not codify QWEST ADVOCACY it in the Tech Pub.

Curtis Ashton - Qwest said he is aware THAT THE LANGUAGE IN THE QWEST TECH PUB IS QWEST’S of the advocacy.

Patrick Phipps – PAETEC said this is Qwest choice ALSO TOOK ISSUE WITH OTHER LANGUAGE IN THIS PARAGRAPH: “COLLOCATOR LIST 1 AND 2 DC DRAINS ARE NOT GENERALLY KNOWN…” PAETEC EXPLAINED THAT IT DISAGREED WITH THIS LANGUAGE BECAUSE QWEST MAY, IN FACT, KNOW THE LIST 1 AND 2 DRAINS OF COLLOCATED EQUIPMENT. FURTHER, PAETEC EXPLAINED THAT IF QWEST DOES NOT KNOW COLLOCATOR LIST 1 AND 2 DRAINS, THEN THAT IS QWEST’S CHOICE BECAUSE QWEST COULD EASILY ASK FOR THIS INFORMATION ON THE COLLOCATION ORDER FORM OR PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL THE COLLOCATOR AND REQUEST THAT INFORMATION. PAETEC ADDED THAT IF QWEST ACTUALLY NEEDED THIS INFORMATION IN ORDER TO SIZE POWER PLANT FOR CLECS THE SAME WAY QWEST DOES FOR ITSELF, IT SHOULD BE QWEST’S RESPONSIBILITY TO ACQUIRE THAT INFORMATION – QWEST SHOULD NOT WRITE AN EXCEPTION INTO ITS TECHNICAL PUBLICATION THAT APPLIES ONLY TO CLECS THAT RESULTS IN DIFFERENT TREATMENT AND HIGHER COSTS TO CLECS FOR DC POWER PLANT.

Curtis Ashton - Qwest said even if we ask, there is not enough experience COLLOCATORS FOR LIST 1 AND LIST 2 DRAIN INFORMATION, QWEST CANNOT BE SURE THAT THE INFORMATION CLECS WOULD PROVIDE COULD BE RELIED UPON BECAUSE QWEST DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH EXPERIENCE WITH THAT EQUIPMENT. If Qwest chooses to oversize, it helps the CLEC.

Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC questioned if Qwest oversizes, could it increase cost?

Curtis Ashton - Qwest said it depends.

Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC said this TYPE OF Tech Pub update could increase cost on CLECs. She said if they agree to update the Tech pub, she does not see an update to the ICA. TO CLECS AND IT WOULD NOT BE REFLECTED AS A NEGOTIATED POINT IN THE ICA ITSELF BECAUSE THE ICAS INCORPORATE THE TECH PUBS. SO THE TECH PUB UPDATE CAUSES A COST INCREASE THAT IS NOT NEGOTIATED OR AGREED TO BY CLECS, AND, IS NOT REFLECTED SEPARATELY IN THE ICA.

Curtis Ashton - Qwest said it does not change the cost at all. The rates are already ordered.

Doug Denny - Integra said there is some disagreement REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE TECH PUB ON RATES. and HE questioned whether QWEST’S STATEMENT ON COSTS that is factually true. SINCE Qwest will use the Tech Pub update for advocacy.

Curtis Ashton - Qwest said he has been involved in every one of the cost dockets. The rules are not in there and they cannot be used to advocate.

Doug Denny - Integra said it is the only reason QWEST WISHES to put THIS LANGUAGE it is in IS for advocacy.

Patrick Phipps – PAETEC said users should pay for it. The CLEC advocacy is that the rate should be billed and cost incurred based on power usage. He said we would argue about what Qwest charges. When Collo submits the request, Qwest will build to the Tech Pub and say there is no reason CLECs should not pay. It is inconsistent with sizing. If sizing power plant as required, no reason for this rule. EXPLAINED THAT THE WAY QWEST’S PROPOSED UPDATES COULD INCREASE CLECS COSTS IS THAT QWEST IS ATTEMPTING TO ADD LANGUAGE IN ITS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS TO COMBAT MEASURED-USAGE BASED DC POWER RATES. HE EXPLAINED THAT CLECS ARE ADVOCATING FOR MEASURED USAGE-BASED DC POWER RATES BECAUSE SUCH RATES RESULT IN EACH USER PAYING FOR ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE POWER PLANT, SIGNIFICANT COST SAVINGS FOR CLECS AND WOULD SOLVE THE CONCERN RAISED BY CLECS OF QWEST OVERCHARGING AND DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THEM BY APPLYING DC POWER RATES TO CABLE FEED SIZE. HE EXPLAINED THAT BY ADDING LANGUAGE THAT STATES THAT QWEST SIZES DC PLANT COMPONENTS TO A CLEC POWER FEED ORDER, QWEST IS ATTEMPTING TO JUSTIFY CHARGING CLECS FOR DC POWER BASED ON THE SIZE OF THEIR POWER CABLE FEEDS (AND AT THE SAME TIME, UNDERMINE MEASURED USAGE-BASED DC POWER RATES). IN OTHER WORDS, QWEST’S PROPOSED UPDATES COULD PROVIDE QWEST A LEG UP IN ARGUING FOR HIGHER DC POWER CHARGES FOR CLECS. PAETEC NOTED THAT QWEST’S LANGUAGE WAS INCONSISTENT WITH CURRENT STANDARDS ON POWER PLANT SIZING AND THAT THERE IS NO REASON FOR A NEW RULE GIVEN EXISTING DOCUMENTATION ABOUT SIZING POWER PLANT.

Curtis Ashton – Qwest said Qwest is not sizing that way. THAT QWEST’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE ABOUT SIZING DC POWER PLANT TO CLEC ORDERS REFLECTS THE WAY QWEST ACTUALLY SIZES POWER PLANT

Patrick Phipps – PAETEC said the Iowa Board disagrees and it creates disagreement on whether we size in a different way. PAETEC RESPONDED TO QWEST’S CLAIM THAT THIS LANGUAGE REFLECTS HOW QWEST ACTUALLY SIZES POWER PLANT. PAETEC EXPLAINED THAT THE IOWA UTILITIES BOARD (AND REVIEWING COURT) FOUND THAT QWEST DID NOT, IN FACT, SIZE POWER PLANT TO A CLEC ORDER FOR POWER FEEDS, AND AS SUCH, QWEST’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE CONFLICTS WITH THE FACTS.

Bonnie Johnson – Integra said she did not know a lot about List 1 and 2 drains but that CURTIS SAID QWEST it was putting advocacy in the Tech Pub. BONNIE SAID THIS IS IN CONFLICT THAT Qwest claims the Tech PubS ARE is in line with Industry StandardS of GR-513.

Curtis Ashton - Qwest said GR-513 does not address CLEC drains in it.

Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC said THE INFORMATION IS NOT UNKNOWN TO QWEST AND THAT LANGUAGE IN THE GR-513 STATES THAT THE requirements are provided by equipment manufacturers. WHY IS THAT NOT INCLUDED IN THE TECH PUB?

Curtis Ashton – Qwest said Qwest does not take manufacturer’s word for it. He said he does not think GR-513 addresses the issue. Qwest measures the drain itself in our Labs. On List 2 drains, there is not an argument. List 1 drains vary and are much harder to figure out which becomes the big sticking point.

Patrick Phipps – PAETEC questioned is there a reason why Qwest does not reference List 2X drain IN ITS PROPOSED UPDATES?

Curtis Ashton - Qwest said this is an AT&T thing and that he had never heard of List 2X drains until AT&T brought it up. List 2X drain only has to do with A and B feeds and loss of one of those. Curtis said he will put it in the Tech Pub.

Patrick Phipps – PAETEC said List 2X is a new concept to Qwest. He questioned what is the difference between projected peak vs. total peak AND WHY QWEST’S TECHNICAL PUBLICATION USES “PROJECTED PEAK” WHEN TELCORDIA GR-513 USES “TOTAL PEAK”?

Curtis Ashton - Qwest said Qwest would use projected peak but agree total peak is better. He will work to make it agree with GR-513. From a legal perspective, there is disagreement about the 3rd paragraph. The question is whether Qwest can legally make the change. CLECs will have a comment period. Curtis said is it amenable to have the lawyers handle the question?

Julia Redman-Carter - PAETEC said let’s make language we can agree on. She said the first part of the phrase and the last part should be reviewed. Julia agreed this was not the place to have a legal argument. SHE SAID THAT PAETEC’S POSITION IS THAT THE FIRST PHRASE AND THE LAST PHRASEOF THE SENTENCE SHOULD BE REMOVED. THESE COMMENTS ARE NOT AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD AND THERE ARE ISSUES AS TO THE PROCESS, AND THIS IS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN IF QWEST BELIEVES THE DETERMINATION RESTS ON QWEST’S LEGAL REVIEW RATHER THAN ENGINEERING. JULIA AGREED THIS TECH PUB WAS NOT THE PROPER PLACE TO HAVE THIS LEGAL ARGUMENT, SO THOSE CHANGES SHOULD NOT BE INCORPORATED.

Ross Nielsen – PAETEC said when you are lumping in the DC plant component, Qwest is not actually going to size to that. AB is not clear . THE LAST PHRASE OF THE SENTENCE REGARDING LUMPING IN THE DC PLANT COMPONENTS WITH THE CLEC REQUEST SIZE IS INACCURATE. QWEST IS NOT GOING TO AUGMENT THEIR DC PLANT COMPONENTS TO THE FULL CAPACITY OF THE REQUESTED FEEDS SUMMED. FOR EXAMPLE, IF A CLEC ORDERS A 100 AMP A AND 100 AMP B FEED SET THE DC PLANT COMPONENTS WILL NOT BE EXPANDED TO PROVIDE 200 AMPS ASSUMING PROPER USAGE OF THE A AND B FEEDS.

Curtis Ashton - Qwest said when Qwest sizes the DC component, we size per List 1 for ourselves. The way we size for CLECs is based on the amount that is ordered. CLEC fuses are sized at 125%. We will clarify that point and discuss with legal on whether we remove the first and last part of the SENTENCE phrase. He said he will take that feedback and based on that, will rewrite section 2.4.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said this CHANGE is not due to GR-513 but is due to sizing.

Bonnie Johnson- Integra said THAT WITH the way CMP works, Qwest will implement anyway. BONNIE ASKED CURTIS IF HE WAS SAYING THAT EVEN IF CLECS OBJECTED THAT QWEST WILL PUBLISH THE CHANGES ANYWAY?

Curtis Ashton - Qwest said YES if we decide to leave it in. Every state is different especially MN and OR and possibly CO based on what is going on in the cost docket.

Julia Redman-Carter – PAETEC said she would like to see the proposed changes FOR THIS LANGUAGE before the next meeting SO THAT WE CAN DISCUSS THEM AT THE NEXT MEETING.

Curtis Ashton - Qwest said we would schedule another ad hoc meeting to review the rest of the changes which are not contentious, AND THEN COME BACK TO THIS SECTION. THIS WAY WE COULD GET THROUGHT THE REMAINDER OF THE DOCUMENT. ALSO and that he appreciated the calm discussion that had occurred.

Warren Wendling – CPUC said he wanted to make a suggestion. If the discussion hits upon a note where the language is inflexible, some measuring language should be included. He said that effort should be made to work hard at putting wording in where knowledge can be measured.

Susan Lorence – Qwest said she would set up another ad hoc meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.

2/17/10 Product/Process CMP Meeting Curtis Ashton-Qwest said this is the follow-up to the change to the Tech Pub 77385 that occurred last year. (2/25/10 Comments to minutes received from PAETEC in CAPS) PRIOR TO LAST YEAR, this Tech Pub had not been updated for six years. We initially proposed changes on a level 2 notice last year. After a detailed review of the changes, Qwest issued a level 3 notice and removed updates that were viewed as a level 4. As promised, these are the level 4 changes that include about 20 changes in the document. Curtis said he is happy to have an ad hoc meeting to review the changes. Curtis relayed that Telcordia GR-513 was re-issued in January and the TP update reflects those changes that are primarily to do with drain changes.

Julia Redman Carter-PAETEC said she would like an ad hoc meeting and wanted to know what issue of the Telcordia document. Curtis Ashton-Qwest said it is Issue 2 of Telcordia GR-513 that came out in January. Mark Coyne-Qwest said we would schedule an ad hoc meeting.