I would like to introduce today s leader, Ms. Jean Derrig. Ma am, please begin.

Transcription

1 Verizon Internal June 14, 2005 Confirmation # Operator: Excuse me everyone, we will now begin today s teleconference. All lines will be interactive and open throughout the conference call. If you would like to mute your line from background noises please press star, six, on your touchtone phone and that will also unmute your line. Again please press star, six, to mute your line from background noises, hold music and any other disturbances during the call. Star, six, will also unmute your line. I would like to introduce today s leader, Ms. Jean Derrig. Ma am, please begin. Thank you. Good morning everyone and welcome to the June East change management meeting. We have also invited West CLECs to join for any of our upfront discussions, mainly the CMP document and we are readdressing a change request from Covad that we discussed last month, and we will put that in the beginning of the meeting as well; however Mr. Clancy, unless he is on the phone, is not here yet. So let s go round; we have a very small audience today and I m thinking we may have train problems because I know some people who are coming in from New York and they are not here. So let s start with the people on the line first and hopefully we will get more participants here in the room; if the CLECs on the line can introduce themselves first please. Peggy Rubino: Hi Jean, its Peggy Rubino from Trinsic. Mary Halpin: Mary Halpin, AT & T. Bob Urisay: Elliott Goldberg: Carrie Burke: Richard Hanley: Bennie Almis: Maddison Berry: Andrea: Bob Urisay, XO. This is Elliott Goldberg from Met Tel. Carrie Burke from Comcast. Richard Hanley, Intelos. Bennie Almis with Neustar. Madison Berry, CTSI. Andrea from Conversant.

2 Lori Fredrickson: James McCluskey: Mary Conquest: Melanie Desmarais: Dok Matthews: Dok from Penn Telecom. Rebecca Baldwin: Gail Gissandanner: Dave Thomas: introduced themselves? Erica: that please? Erica: Erica: Paul Figlestahler: John Guzman: Technologies. Lori Fredrickson, Integra Telecom. James McCluskey with Accenture. Mary Conquest (sp?), ITC Deltacom. Melanie Desmarais, HTC Communications. Michael Jackson, Neverland Telecom. Hi guys, it s Rebecca Baldwin with Telcove. Gail Gissandanner with Cox Communications. Dave Thomas with Cavalier Telephone. Any other CLECs that are on the line and not Erica from Richmond Networks. Can you repeat the name please. Can you repeat Erica from Richmond Networks. Richmond Networks? Yes. OK. Gloria Velez from AT & T local business. This is Paul Figlestahler with MCI for Verizon West. This is John Guzman (sp?) with Synchronous Anybody else out there? OK, we will introduce us around the room. Jean Derrig, as everyone knows. Chris Gambino: Beth Cohen from Verizon. Chris Gambino (sp?) from Cablevision Lightcast.

3 Janice Ziegele: Collin Skinner: Janice Ziegele from Broadview. Collin Skinner (sp?) from ATX. And that s all we have in the room right now, although I am expecting some others. The first agenda topic is the CMP document changes. We had a very lively discussion last month. Verizon was going to take back the CLECs concerns and work internally to see if there was going to be any change in Verizon s position as well as potentially from more proposed language. Beth and I did take that back; we did come up with at least a proposal from our standpoint and we ve been running that through our internal network of what we need to, who we need to get approved before we can bring it back out, and that s kind of where it stands. So I don t have much to report but I do want to assure you that we have looked at it, its just the matter of getting the appropriate approvals to bring it back to the forum has not been completed at this point. And I just want to assure you we heard your concerns, we tried to implement that into our next proposal; its just that we re not, from an entire Verizon standpoint, at a point where we can bring it back out to the forum. My guess is though that we would probably be able to send something as soon as we get that internal. background. Could someone mute, whoever has sirens in the That we will send something out, both East and West, just as soon as we have the internal sign off. Peggy Rubino: Peggy Rubino: Does anyone have any comments? Do you have any idea when that will be? Peggy, that was you, correct? Yes. Like I said, I have it to the internal groups that I believe need to look at it. Because of other issues either on their plate or vacations or surgeries, in once case, it just hasn t like gotten back to us, so we communicated it, it s just a matter of getting all the troops together and conferring and coming to a general decision on what we are going to present back. Peggy Rubino: OK, I understand. It wasn t a complaint.

4 The plan is to actually have it prior to the July meeting and out to you prior to the July meeting. Peggy Rubino: OK. My thought was that if we had it in time for my CLEC only call we could provide a response to you at the next meeting. Peggy Rubino: Peggy Rubino: Peggy Rubino: Peggy Rubino: going on the line. When is your CLEC only call? I haven t scheduled it yet. When typically is it? Sometime, probably the end of next week. Yes. I was going to say, we can work to try to do that. OK, thank you. OK. No guarantees but we can work to try to do it. OK. OK, any other questions? Now we have Morse code The next topic, which is not actually the next topic on the agenda, was to revisit Covad s change request. That was CO in the East and 1008 in the West, and that was: Maintain DSL capability on a shared loop when the TN is ported. Last month we discussed it; we rated it at a group East/West forum. The very next day, for those of you who are in CUF, Mr. Clancy wanted realized he had a change of heart and one actually got rated and he wanted to readdress it at this meeting. However, I don t see him and I don t believe he is on the phone unless he has come on. Mike are you out there? Elliott Goldberg: Jean, this is Elliott. I know Mike was planning to come in but he might have been held up by the railroad. Why don t you move this till later (inaudible) in? We have several I don t know who, unless you get the operator, but there are several West CLECs on here that have joined probably for one of the topics but I don t think we can really proceed without Mike.

5 Elliott Goldberg: Jean. Yes? Elliott Goldberg: I know Mike was this is Elliott. I know Mike was planning to come in but he may be held up on the railroad. OK. How many CLECs do we have on the call from the West who came just for this topic? Lori Fredrickson: reason I called in. Paul Figlestahler: Paul Figlestahler: Lori Fredrickson: Peggy Rubino: her. Integra. This is Lori with Integra. That s the main OK. And this is Paul with MCI in the West as well. All right, are you willing to hang in a little bit? I can for a while yes. I can as well. (Inaudible) than I am to Boshier. He is trying to find Yes. He did say, he did respond saying he was coming in. I figure with the heat there s probably some railroad problem, so as soon as he gets here we will pull it into the agenda, but I just wanted to let everybody know kind of why this was being asked to be coming back. So right, moving on... Well actually, just so that folks know so we don t lose some other folks, we also as part of that discussion, believe that we will get into it will easily slide into the discussion about the dual LOA component of kind of like the next step beyond just porting with no facilities, and so we do want to have that discussion today as well, just so folks know. We actually have several CLECs who are coming in different channels to try to get this process going and we ve pushed everybody into the forum. We didn t want to wait until July to have the, at least the initial dual LOA discussion so we will be talking about that as well, so hang on. That wasn t Mike Clancy that came in the door.

6 out there? Sue Pistacchio: Carol Yozzo: OK, moving on to our agenda, Carol and Sue are you Sorry, Sue. Carol? Yes. OK, moving on to LSOG 5 sunset and LSOG 9 implementation, Carol I believe you are going to go first with the sunset. Carol Yozzo: Yes, I think we straightened that one out. Hello everyone, good morning. This is Carol Yozzo. I want to start by reminding everyone, and this will probably be the last time I get to say this, but reminding everyone that the due date edit will be implemented this weekend and that is for any LSOG 5 LSRs that are submitted, the desired due date must be before October 15 th 2005 or they will be rejected. I think I ve said that at least a dozen times now so that should be clear; any questions on that? Chris Gambino: Carol, this is Chris Gambino. Are you still getting LSOG 5 LSRs from my team? Carol Yozzo: Offhand I don t know, Chris. I will have to Chris Gambino: It s all been straightened out. I just want to make sure there were no stragglers (inaudible). Carol Yozzo: Carol Yozzo: ringing? Mike Clancy just walked in, hence the ruckus. I get no respect! Well, let s finish this. Yes, we re going to finish this off. OK, can I speak or should I wait till the phone stops No, go ahead. Carol Yozzo: OK, and then the other thing on LSOG 5, I did mention this also in prior meetings, that after this weekend s edit goes in I will run the pipeline report, see what s out there and contact any CLECs with that have LSRs that I think need attention, certainly any that have due dates after October

7 15 th. We will advise you of that and we will take it from there. I guess we will see what the volume is and hope it s not too high. Any questions on LSOG 5 sunset? Great; I m expecting to see with the June release another jump in the LSOG 6 activity but I m not going to continue to quote percent every month though. I ll turn it over to Sue. Sue Pistacchio: This is Sue Pistacchio and for the LSOG 9 implementation really the only thing that I need to report is the addition of the LSOG initiative on the items by release. Jean do you prefer me to get into a little detail on that now or do you want me to wait until the items by release? Let s wait till the items by release. Sue Pistacchio: And that s really the only thing new to report on LSOG 9, so we can go over those in detail then. Sue, this is Gloria Velez. I have a question relative to like the documentation. I know that you have like a preliminary draft, if you will, of 9 out on the website. I know you have the change log in the Excel spreadsheet and also the other document that has the overview. The material that s out there right now, did it incorporate changes for June? Sue Pistacchio: Sue Pistacchio: Yes. OK. For the change log, yes it did. OK, the other overview document? Sue Pistacchio: The other overview document that we put out just shows the changes that we did for LSOG 9. If you look at the LSOG 9 draft business rules that are on the web, we used June as the baseline document, so the June changes are included. OK, but only in the in order to be able to I guess determine what you added to it as a result of June, it s the Excel spreadsheet, the change log. Sue Pistacchio: similar? Yes. OK, and then in October will you be doing something

8 Sue Pistacchio: In October it will become a regular release so when we come up with our 73 document, any changes that we need to make to that preliminary draft based on that would be included in the 73 day document. And that would have the normal change log that will be within the business rules. OK. Sue Pistacchio: So if you have the Excel spreadsheet and then you get the 73 day change log, that would show the changes. Sue Pistacchio: OK. So that s, you know, as we ve done before. And then my last question is LSOG 6 sunset; any additional news to report on that? Sue Pistacchio: No, none. OK, so is it safe for me to assume at this point you have no date to sunset 6? Sue Pistacchio: That s correct. (Inaudible). OK, thank you. Just hold on, I m going to get the operator. We are getting a lot of feedback on this end. Hello, is this the operator? guys hear me? Peggy Rubino: questions on LSOGs? OK, is the conference bridge still going on? Can you Yes, we can hear you. OK, the operator is not coming on; any other All right, Mike Clancy OK, Mike Clancy arrived so we are going to go back to his change request. Mike we re moving you to the front of the line, because we had some West CLECs on the line as well. OK. We kind of introduced it that after the meeting last month at the CUF you reconsidered and you want to bring back the initiative for discussion, so for those in the room the actual initiative that we are talking about

9 is in the PWG section of the document, and for those who have it on line its also in the PWG document. It s kind of under the deferred section and what we did in page 7 of the PWG document. What we did is I believe after last month s during last month s meeting we sort of changed the definition, or the description, so what we did here is we put the original description as Mike entered it and then we put what we talked about and we rated in May, so we kind of have this contrast here. So I m going to let Mike go from there to where he wants to go from here. OK, what happened is that the day after the change management meeting was a CUF meeting and there was a lot of anxiety expressed about this change request. That s why I decided that I would put it back to its unadulterated form, which was the way I submitted it, and have it revoted. And basically the unadulterated form is when an alternative network provider like cable MSO, or wireless provider, or a voice provider with their own network, ports a number off the existing legacy ILEC network that Verizon maintains, that instead of having a right of first refusal which existed and caused the problem with number porting, Verizon would provide the opportunity to CLECs to elect, to data LECS, to elect to keep the loop. And the reason that I want to do that is the same reason we had a right of first refusal. There are only a certain number of loops that are capable of supporting the high frequency transmission required for DSL and other data services, so this would provide Covad, for example, an opportunity to go back to its partners, let them know that there was activity on the line, ask them if they want to pay for a full, basically a full loop, because Covad wouldn t be giving that away for free. We would have to pay more for that, and if they don t want it we would process the disconnect to Verizon, but Verizon wouldn t be sitting there waiting for us to make a decision in terms of Oh, we will keep this facility available for you while you decide. Because somebody could take, you know, 6 or 7 years to make a decision and it wouldn t cost me anything. Basically this would require Verizon to send a DLEC a notifier that they are paying for the loop. It would also require that the DLEC and Verizon have an agreement that says Verizon can do that because that I wouldn t want it to be an involuntary thing that just happens and CLECs have no control over their business with Verizon. So what it would require is Verizon as the off net provider would only need to provide a single LOA to Verizon for the voice service. The data service that was on the high frequency portion of the loop may be being transferred to that data provider as well. This gives the data LEC the opportunity to clean up their business with their ISP partners and the ISP partners to clear their books of the arrangement they had with the end user. would want voted on. So, that s the gist of the proposal and that s what I

10 OK, before we get into discussion I just want to remind everyone that if you re not speaking, put your phone on mute. We are still getting some background noise. OK. Just let me state, I also have a change request pending that wasn t on the official agenda. I don t know if I spoke to Beth about putting it on the agenda. I put it in at the same time as this one. That is for a double LOA and that is for when the provider is taking both voice and data and they want the loop; they want the underlying UNE that supports the services, and we can discuss that one too. Well, what I said to the group before you came in was, number one, that we were going to revisit the CR that we rated last time and that that would (and operator, hopefully you are listening and hearing that) and that that would indeed really generate the next step in the production, which was on the dual LOA. I m not sure that it s actually the scenario that you ve just proposed but it, we re going to have a discussion about dual LOA here because we have several customers who are actually knocking on the door, pushing to do something. OK. Can folks please mute their phones. There s lots of background noise. Thank you. So the unadulterated version is single LOA goes to Verizon to port the number. If there is underlying DSL and the DLEC has an arrangement with Verizon to do so, Verizon will send a notifier that the DLEC is paying for full loop and then the DLEC has to do something about it, right. So basically what we have, right I just want to confirm. From what we ranked last month, the change would be, would just be a single LOA and really this first bullet would disappear. concerns? Janice Ziegele: speaking. that s a yes. Yes. Does anyone have any questions on that; comments, I have lots. I think you know that without me Are we ready to rate it? Hearing nothing I m guessing I m ready.

11 OK, as you rate it, because this is kind of an East/West discussion we will recap it again next week for those that may not have participated on this call, so Mike I m going to ask you to speak again in the next West meeting. If you re here and you are representing both East/West, let me know or if you re just one or the other let me know as you rate it please. Dok Matthews: Jean I m sorry, this is Dok. I have a question sort of fazed out a little bit on this. Mike, under the scenario there are CLECs out there that, rather than there being a splitter at the CO for voice and data, there are CLECs out there that rent the loop, have a phone number on it, and also are providing DSL on that line. Would this scenario cover that at all as well, because I don t want to lose that loop? It depends on if you re buying an analog loop and put data - and providing both voice and data on it, you re taking a risk that Verizon engineering group will come in and upgrade that facility to DLC. So if that s the case it wouldn t work on anything that s like a TXNU. If you have an IDSL type arrangement, or a Dok Matthews: Yes I m buying an XDSL loop. OK, if you have an XDSL loop and its an ARDU and you have this agreement that, you know, you work out with Verizon saying on my ARDUs if the telephone number is ported, I want Verizon to consider that the same as porting off of a shared loop. Dok Matthews: with it. Thanks. OK, as long as the scenario covers that I m all right And will that work? You guys - you ve got to run that one by me again because I think clearly what we are talking about here is a situation where it is a shared loop. Right, well it s an SWXX. We are talking about a situation where the loop has both voice and data on it, and the new voice provider is coming in to literally just take the telephone number, not taking the loop. Hey Dok, when you do that, when you provide that service what s the CLTI to the service? Dok Matthews: It s an ARD.

12 Dok Matthews: ARDU? Yes, and With a telephone number on it? Dok Matthews: Well I m thinking Mike, because this is always (inaudible) number I mean we port that number in so Verizon isn t actually involved in porting that number out, so I ve confused the situation and I m sorry. Dok Matthews: Dok Matthews: Right, it wouldn t be even in right. It wouldn t be involved in the port out. Now if it s an SWXX or a URXX they are. Thanks Mike. So this is about shared loops, not where you provide the voice over an ARDU because that s transparent to Verizon (inaudible). Pat Stevens: Any other questions? Is Pat Stevens on the phone? Yes I am. He s the one with that telegraph cable. Jack, are we talking about situations where it is an SWXX loop, or it actually it is already. We re talking about a situation where it is an ARDU isn t it? Pat Stevens: No, you ve got it backwards. SWXX is the starting situation because SWXX is the service coded modifier that denotes a shared loop. Pat Stevens: digitally qualified. Or URXX right? URXX. ARDU would be a standalone two wired, OK.

13 Pat Stevens: So, if you were taking a number and porting it and the voice carrier wanted to retain the loop, which is the second of Mike s two scenarios, the voice LEC would come in, request the number portability, ask to have the loop retained. If they wanted to have the loop as the data qualified loop they would order it as a data qualified loop, which would mean we would hot cut the voice. confusing enough. Pat Stevens: What s the start point? Pat Stevens: Pat, don t go there yet because we re going to this is OK. I just wanted to try to be clear on where we re starting. Starting point is the shared service, the SWXX. SWXX, OK. Can I this is Gloria Velez from AT & T. I sometimes get a little bit mixed up with the terminology of shared and split, and you were just referencing the nomenclature for these loops and someone just previously said they could be URXXs. I was under the understanding that a URXX is split. Are you making a distinction here? Its terminology, Gloria. A URXX is line split, which was terminology invented by actually I think it was invented by a former New York Public Service Commission judge and line sharing is the exact same service when Verizon is the voice provider. So URXX is a CLEC voice provider and a CLEC data provider, which could be the same CLEC. An SWXX is the ILEC voice provider and a CLEC data provider. And in this scenario we re talking about an SWXX. Or URXX. Or URXX. Pat Stevens: URXX, and Mike the one qualifier you have there is when the CLEC is the voice provider in the scenario as you just described it, it s UNE Platform. OK. Right.

14 Right, the URXX is UNE Platform. OK, so this initiative would apply to the case where you have a I ll use the word split, because you would have a CLEC data provider and a CLEC voice provider but it s under a UNE-P arrangement. Correct. OK, so this applies to that. Right so if - the voice line should port off. The data provider would opt in, basically by amending their IA, to let Verizon automatically change the billing arrangement to standalone loop. They don t necessarily change any wiring, they port the number off the switch and the number isn t on the line anymore. And then the data provider decides what they want to do with that loop. They can retain the loop, and they may want to retain it then as an ARDU, which may require network reconfiguration, so then the service order to Verizon is changed to a CFA, or they may want to disconnect it. But this way their partner knows there was activity and the disconnect happened. The partner stops billing the end user so there is no billing confusion on that side. The DLEC stops billing its partner and all accounts can be settled. Or, the end user says Oh yes, I know, I ported to the wireless company but didn t realize I was going to lose my data service. I want to keep my data service. Mary Halpin: Pat Stevens: Mary Halpin: they currently share. Mary Halpin: Mike, or Verizon, would the CLECs receive a lost line? The voice LEC yes. There would be absolutely no change in that. Yes, and the DLEC will also receive a notifier in this. All right. Letting them know there was a change to the line that All right, thank you. And any DLEC that opts into that arrangement would have to do something with that notifier, or just keep paying Verizon. Lisa Provenzo: notifier for the DLEC? This is Lisa. Would that be an electronic line loss

15 happen yet. I don t think that we know exactly how that is going to And if I may ask another question, I know you re talking about the voice side porting away from the existing carrier, whether it s the CLEC in the split arrangement or like a Verizon, I guess in the share arrangement. What happens if the, if you re in a URXX scenario and the DLEC disconnects the loop? Are we still losing the voice side? No. OK, because that s what I thought occurs today. Are you asking if it s in a shared arrangement the DLEC comes in and disconnects the data, the voice would still be there. This is in the I don t know. This was in the split arrangement, the URXX type nomenclature. Right, so you have a UNE-P on the line and a DLEC. Right, that was a problem in another ILEC. It was never a problem in Verizon. OK then I must be wrong. I thought that when the DLEC comes in and disconnects the CSL portion, the voice terminated. No. OK. No, Verizon just takes the splitter out and rewires it from the office equipment to the cable bed. OK, anything else? Lori Fredrickson: This is Lori with Integra. On this dual LOA thing, so if the number that we re interested in porting does not have anything to do with DSL, we re still down to one LOA; but if it has anything to do with DSL or data We re not talking about the dual LOA right now. We re removing the dual LOA from the description. Lets reground here. This is - the only thing were talking about is when the telephone number that is currently being provided on a

16 Verizon switch is ported off of the Verizon switch, to another switch that isn t a Verizon switch, and isn t using the underlying UNE loop to provide the service. So it s porting either to a cable MSO, a wireless provider, or a voice provider who is using some other kind of magical network to provide the service; it s not when you need the other line UNE loop to provide the service to the end user. And that s the other change request. that s it. So, you re taking literally the telephone number only, And you have your own network to put it on. We will get to the next step in a minute. We re going to do this one step at a time. Covad? Covad: OK, any other questions? We re going on to rating; For both East and West, five. AT & T? AT & T: AT & T: AT & T: you an . ATX: ATX: Broadview: For the East five. And the West? I will vote on that next week. We would like to get the vote now. We re not going to vote on it again. All right, five for both. If I have to qualify I will send OK, ATX? Four. East? East. Broadview? We ll give a five.

17 Cablevision: Cavalier: Conversant: CTC: ITC Deltacom: Cablevision? One, East. Cavalier? Five. Five. Comcast; no Comcast? Conversant? For the East four. Cox; Cox? CTSI; CTSI? CTC? For the East five. ITC Deltacom? Pass. MCI? MCI: This is Lisa. I m going to have to get back to you Jean and Beth, and I can do that today. OK. That s East; is Paul voting for the West or are you guys going to stand together on this one? Paul Figlestahler: Lisa Provenzo: Intelos: Penn Telecom: We would stand together with Lisa s vote. OK. Met-Tel - where is everybody? Elliott? Does the operator have people muted? I don t think so. I mean I m calling in. Intelos? Pass. Penn Telecom? Give it a five for the East. Telcove?

18 Telcove: Telcove: Did you say Telcove? Yes. Five East and West. Trinsic? Trinsic: I will pass and Elliott is giving it a four. He says he is screaming and you can t hear him. Peggy Rubino: Can you guys hear him? I can hear him. (Inaudible) Trinsic: a five. Peggy Rubino: Peggy Rubino: Peggy Rubino: XO: Integra: I m sorry Peggy, what did you say? I m going to pass for both sides for me. He is giving it OK, a five or a four? Sorry, ask me that again. A five or a four for Met-Tel? Five. I thought you said four the last time. East and West he is giving it to. OK, giving it a (inaudible). XO? Four for East and West. Integra? Four for West. Richmond Network? Neustar? They don t vote.

19 Vartec: Vartec: Cox: Cox: Cox: Cox: mute? CTSI: CTSI: repeat what I think I have. They don t vote, OK. Who did I miss? This is Teresa from Vartec. OK, you must have come a little late Teresa. It will be a four for both East and West. OK. This is Gail from Cox. You must have been on mute. One. One? Yes. OK. Are you both East and you re just East, right? Yes. Anyone else I missed or had problems coming off of CTSI a four. And that s East. Yes. Anybody else? What about Comcast, are they? Comcast come back on? Anyone else? OK let me AT & T, five for both - Mary if you want to get back to me in the next day or two let me know. ATX is four for the East. Broadview is five for the East. Cablevision is one for the East. Cavalier is a five for the East. Conversant is a four for the East. Covad is a five for both. Cox is a one for the

20 East. CTSI is a four for the East. CTC is a five for the East. ICT Deltacom is a pass. Met-Tel is a five for both. No, they re going to get back to you. Met-Tel was a five; MCI is going to get back to us. I m sorry. Intelos is a pass. Penn Telecom is a five for the East. Telcove is a five for both. Trinsic is a pass for both. Vartec is a four for both. XO is four for both. Integra is a four for the West. Sprint: Hey Jean, this is Carol Frike with Sprint, and I just finally got my line unmated. Sorry. Sprint: That s OK. Four for both East and West. OK. Jean could you just go over the initiative number. The CR number is CO in the East and 1008 in the West, and the initiative number is I m assuming that s 842 in the West; I don t have that information in front of me. Right, thank you. And if you re looking at the documentation, under Dual LOAs the first bullet is removed. Going to be removed. And it s a single LOA. Right, and we will update that. OK, so that s the initiative. So do we want to move into the dual LOA? Yes. And where Verizon feels it s most appropriate. (Inaudible)

21 It s not in here. We have had multiple change requests actually over the years about how to do any kind of activity where there is DSL on the line and the facility is actually involved, so we decided we re not sure which one this actually goes to so we couldn t do it as a CR. We re going to kind of have it as a discussion. We will try to limit this discussion and stick to one component today. We re going to see if we can get there, but I think what we ve been hearing very we ve been hearing a lot actually from CLECs in the community, in the industry, that are trying to do this particular activity. What we ve been hearing is that we want to go now to the next step, which is local number portability. So it s literally porting the number and taking the facility along with it, the loop, when there is DSL on the line. And I think what we have, and I think we have even heard this from the CLEC community, but Peggy you can correct me if I m wrong in terms of the CLEC proposed scenarios here. I think where we re at is we d like to see, or you d like to see, a number being able to be ported, the porting CLEC to take the facility with them, and have the ability to disconnect the data. I m seeing shakes of heads around the room. Now, I tried to do that, be very simple with it. I think that s why - lots of nuances and lots of spin off but I wanted to try to narrow it to just numbers being ported, loops being taken by the number porter, and the number porter wants to also disconnect the data. They are going to do whatever they are going to do but whatever data is on it gets disconnected. There would be a notifier to the loosing voice provider and a notifier to the DLEC as well. Peggy Rubino: Yes, that is one scenario. OK, so we re actually willing to try to put that forth to be rated today if we have concurrence that we can kind of move forward with that and bring that into change management and get it rated, but I d like to know if there s any discussion around that particular scenario. pay me for the loop. Yes! I don t think they re going to like this one. What are you going to do with the loop? You have to (Inaudible) It is the loop that it is on. It s not changing any configuration of the loop. I mean presumably it s an XD it s a DSL capable loop, its already got data on it. So it s taking that loop which is the key so.

22 It is taking that loop; that is correct. OK, so I just want to understand if because you know, the scenario described is very clean, plain vanilla, and it sounds good, but I just want to make sure that all the CLECs are voting on the same thing. OK. Now, can a CLEC come in and say taking the number, and I m taking the loop. Is my splitter assignment put them on that so it s kind of like URXX or SWXX to URXX; different voice, different data. No. No, OK. So this is taking the loop, I m taking the number. I m not putting it on, you know, I m not putting it into a new data configuration. Right. I m just telling you I m taking the number and I m taking the loop so here it is and this is And we ll disconnect and you the number porter have the double LOA. You now have the end user s authority to take the number and the loop and disconnect the data. Elliott Goldberg: Speakers: OK, what Hello. Hey, Elliott. What is the service then that remains? So you re saying it s not like a migration of voice to voice and data, its strictly number porting. That s the scenario you described. Yes, with the facility. With the facility, no I understand. So what remains So if someone wanted that data they would have to do another transaction to add the data.

23 Janice Ziegele: migration (inaudible). talking about, right. Dok Matthews: OK, OK I see where you re going. Because we at Broadview would want to see that And another scenario might be the one Dok was Yes Mike, this is where I m getting a little confused. Well, let me try and take a shot at what you might want to do based on what you asked about before. Dok Matthews: Janice Ziegele: Dok Matthews: Could this be an ARDU loop? It is an ARDU loop. This is an ARDU loop. The underlying loop is capable of being an ARDU. You know, the issue here is Dok Matthews: And its true UNE Loop, it s not UNE-P? Right, correct; yes. Right. So now it might have been UNE-P in the old condition, so now the question is condition, right. That s true. It might have been UNE-P in the old So now there are that s why I m trying to clarify what you re willing to vote on right now and what so people know what we re talking about and if they require that we put in subsequent CRs to do the other thing. Hold on a second because Pat, I want to make sure that you re out there listening to this. Pat Stevens: I m listening to this. Here s I think I m concurring with what s being said, is we re going from a shared service arrangement, either underlying voice being Verizon retail (which would be line sharing) or underlying voice being UNE Platform (which would be line splitting), porting the telephone number and using the loop, and the reuse of the loop would be a two wire cable pair handoff to a collocation node redesignated at the voice LEC s request as

24 either a TXNU, which is totally voice capable guarantees, or its already being used as digital and qualified as a digital loop that can be designated as a ARDU; or the other at the porting CLEC s direction. So it s either a and there are two conditions, the ported new conditions. It s either going to be TXNU or ARDU, that s it. It sounds like he said in order for it to be an ARDU in your migration you would have to specify that. You have to specify (inaudible). So that would be really you re porting the number kind of off the (inaudible) because now I want to provide the voice service. Dok Matthews: Dok Matthews: Dok Matthews: Pat Stevens: Dok Matthews: Dok Matthews: Janice Ziegele: Mr. Clancy. Yes? One more can I ask, may I please? Go ahead, absolutely. Could it be an AR or an AQ DU as well? I don t know what that is. It s an AQ DU. That s correct, it is an AQDU. What is it? HDSL. HDSL? But that s not in the scenario. See I m not sure if the loop that s qualified for DSL is qualified for HDSL. Pat do you know that? Pat Stevens: I don t know what the characteristics of the loop that needs to support HDSL are and we would have to go back and look at it. I mean I don t know if in all cases a loop that s used today with an SWXX or URDX is capable of supporting HDSL. The underlying premise here is you re reusing that loop as it is today.

25 Dok Matthews: Well what I m asking is if the line in the current, in today s condition pre LMP is an AQDU. Would that also be eligible for this status for this situation? This is only the beginning point on this Dok is there is a shared loop which is SWXX or URXX. Dok Matthews: Thanks for the clarification Mike. OK. Any other questions Elliott we did hear you. I don t know if you have any questions or not but - unless you didn t still speak. Speaker: Peggy Rubino: Does Peggy hear him yelling? I don t see him typing either. Are there any other questions out there? Is there any confusion on what is being actually presented here? Peggy Rubino: Beth he is yelling again. He is yelling. Peggy Rubino: I don t know what he is yelling. Maybe we should take a two minute break and let him call back in. I suspect he has some (inaudible) he wants to say. Dok Matthews: Elliott Goldberg: Speakers: Second. Can you hear me? Yes. Lisa Provenzo: Mike Clancy, this is Lisa. This is the original that we kind of discussed before right. Elliott Goldberg: Elliott was in for a second. Hello. Go ahead, Elliott. Now we can t hear you. Elliott, hang up, find another phone and dial back in and we will wait.

26 Dok Matthews: conference him in. Dok Matthews: right now. Dok Matthews: Peggy Rubino: Beth, if we have to I ll do what we did before and I will OK. Let me put you on hold and I m going to dial to him I think he s got a funky phone in his office. Let me pick up the line. He s trying to call in. (Inaudible) Dok Matthews: Bathing suits someone is talking about that? Somebody is not on mute and we can hear your whole conversation in the background. Peggy Rubino: I don t think Dok was complaining. Dok Matthews: Beth when you, when I put you on hold did I unfortunately drop the on-hold music on to you guys? Speakers: No. Dok Matthews: OK, well I m going to try Elliott one more time. If you can hear me Elliott, pick up the phone when I ring. Elliott Goldberg: Dok Matthews: you. Dok Matthews: Hello. Hello. Elliott? We got like a hello and that s about it. Dok is trying to bridge you in, Elliott. Thank you. Beth, I have Mr. Goldberg on the line for Hi, Elliott. And it s not Mr. Jackson from Neverland Ranch. Elliott Goldberg: I don t know why the operator keeps kicking me out but I get a huge amount of background noise and I m being muted out

27 continuously and I know it s not the star six, because I keep unmuting it on star six. Yes there s a lot of feedback in your, just in your talking even with Dok having conferenced you in, so. background noise. Elliott Goldberg: to say here? Speakers: Dok Matthews: Elliott Goldberg: Dok Matthews: Yes you might be muted out because of the I m on a landline so. Well you re on now. You re on now do you have something you wanted Hello, Elliott. Dok? I m still showing him active. I m here. Do you have anything to say? You have the floor Mr. Goldberg. Elliott Goldberg: I ve tried to ask about this proposal in the sense that it will not allow the situation I face is not that I want to disconnect the data but I want to move the data. Elliott Goldberg: Right, but that s not what we re talking about here. Provider. That s not what we re talking about here. We re talking about a situation where the data gets disconnected. Elliott, your issue is one of those migration things? Is it one of the ones we were talking about, the one from December 2003? Elliott Goldberg: I still want to be able to move the voice and the data. Right. That s not what we re talking about right here. We understand that that s That s one of the re-ranked ones, right?

28 Yes. Elliott, I think that s one of the re-ranked ones that we have to talk about, come back to Verizon with a priority like we discussed at the CUF. Elliott Goldberg: Yes well this one Mike, with all due respect, I m not willing to put anything ahead of the ones that have been waiting a year to be done. OK. I will tell you that any scenarios that we come up with that have a change of data provider, right now they any of those sit on the existing priority list as not scheduled, which I think you all know what that means. It means that Verizon isn t doing them, so if you think that there is going to be something with a change of data provider that s going to get ahead of any of these, then think again because it s not happening right now. So I think that s what we re trying to deal with, those scenarios where movement can indeed be made and where there are CLECs within the industry who are asking for these particular types of scenarios to occur. Now just a question on - they re not moving because we haven t given you any priority on them or they re just not moving? Change of data provider is a major issue and they still sit right now in the not scheduled category. CUF, right? then challenge, OK. So that s probably going to be conversation during the Well we can certainly discuss it. For those 15 more change of data provider. Yes, exactly. Maybe you can enlighten us at the CUF as to why, OK. So what we re sitting with now is the scenario to do a shared service, an SWXX or a URXX is the beginning point and the end point would be that the number has been ported, the loop has been taken by the number porter and the data has been disconnected. A dual LOA from the

29 number porter has to be gained by that number porter with the end user and the notification will go both to the losing voice CLEC and the data LEC. And the dual LOA is basically saying you can have my voice and we can disconnect my current data, right. Lisa Provenzo: Beth this is Lisa. This impacts just the loop facility, a true number portability or are we talking about migration of a UNE-P? We re not talking about migration, we re merely talking I mean you could think that, you could think about it as a migration versus number portability but because Lisa Provenzo: Well when I think of a true local number portability I m thinking of taking a TN to someone s facility. talking about. Lisa Provenzo: Dok Matthews: Yes. This is grouped with number portability is what we re Right, that s what a true number portability is. That s where I m getting confused. No there are situations where the winning CLEC is taking just the telephone number and putting that number on their facility. Lisa Provenzo: Lisa Provenzo: OK. That s what we voted for earlier. That s what we just voted on that was the original. Just single LOA. Single LOA. Correct, OK. In this situation the winning CLEC is taking both the telephone number and the loop, but they are putting that loop on their they are somehow tying it to their facility. It s not right it s not really riding Verizon's facility, network, right.

30 The switch and telephone number that was on a Verizon switch is now on a different switch, somebody else s switch, and the end loop can be designated as TXNU, which is basically an analog loop providing voice service or an ARDU, which is a digitally qualified loop providing visually qualified stuff. Any questions? This time we will take back now I think we need to and we will write this up but I would like to rate it, I would like to get it into the mix. Those of you who can t vote on it we will ask you to come back to us once you take it back. Janice Ziegele: don t think I do. I will, I just need to understand the whole picture and I (Inaudible) I m actually going to we re actually assuming that this is a Type 5 because this has actually been requested by several folks and I m going to ask if there is someone who, based on this scenario that I have put forward Dok Matthews: Elliott Goldberg: I ll sponsor it. Covad will sponsor it. Under the one I put in. Elliott, are you out there? Hey, Dok. Sue Pistacchio: This is Sue. I was looking and it seems like we already have a Type 5. It looks like I think that we do but there s been so convoluted and so confused at this point Susan I m concerned. We may come back and ask the original initiator to remove that, or we may tie this into it. I mean we will have to work that out but This is very much in sync with what I proposed in my CR, which was in response to Verizon s response to the FCC order which is we re going to disconnect the DSL, so this is very much in response to, being responsive to that CR. Lisa Provenzo: But Mike, this is not part of our 15 right?

31 Lisa Provenzo: No. No. It s a little bit different because of the loop and the TN. No, and then I think its something less than 15 now but it could be more than 15 after we meet, who knows. Lisa Provenzo: OK. OK, we re going to go and vote. For those who need more time let me know and what I will try to do is This might actually cover maybe 1 or 2 of those 15 though. (Inaudible) Lisa Provenzo: It makes me feel we should have a whole separate meeting on this whole thing, the 15 and these. Well you know we ve been trying to have discussions about DSL for a while and I think that, you know, the reason that we are bringing this one in particular to the table is because we thought it was a natural progression from the one that we did get through and because we have several customers who are looking to actually do this and who have customers out there that they want to do this with. So volume is also driving this. This is also I mean the sense of urgency resulted from the FCC order. That s the reason I put the two different CRs in. Covad: OK. OK. Covad? East and West, five. AT & T? AT & T: AT & T: I ll pass right now. Is that a get back to me? Yes.

32 ATX: Broadview: OK, make a distinction please. ATX? Four. Broadview? Five. (Inaudible) Cavalier: Conversant: Cox: CTSI: CTC: ITC Deltacom: Elliott Goldberg: Dok Matthews: Dok Matthews: Cavalier? Definite five. Conversant? I ll pass. Cox? Pass CTSI? Five. CTC? Pass please. ITC Deltacom? Pass please. Met-Tel, Elliott? One. Intelos; Intelos? Penn Telecom? Jean, did you hear Elliott s vote? One, yes. OK.

33 Penn Telecom: Sprint: Telcove: Trinsic: Vartec: Integra: meeting. MCI: Was that East and West Elliott? Yes. Penn Telecom will give it a four for the East. Sprint? Four for East and West. Telcove? Four East and West. Trinsic? Three for both. Vartec? Three for both. XO; XO? Integra? I ll get back to you or vote at next week s West OK, and MCI? Jean I will get back with you today. OK. Did Intelos or XO get back on the line? OK, and the people that I have getting back to me is AT & T; Cablevision; Integra; and MCI. OK, anybody else do you want me to repeat them? Yes, repeat them. OK. AT & T will get back to us; ATX is a four for the East; Broadview is a five for the East; Cablevision will get back to us; Cavalier is a five for the East; Conversant is pass; Covad is a five for both; Cox is a five for the East; CTSI is a five for the East; CTC is a pass; ITC Deltacom is a pass; Met- Tel is a one for both; Penn Telecom is a four for the East; Sprint is a four for both; Telcove four for both; Trinsic a three for both; Vartec is three for both; Integra and MCI will get back to us.

34 Was Cox East, I had them as East before. But were they a five? (Inaudible) Cox: Cox: there? Dan Duris: Cox are you still out there? Yes it s East. And it was a five? Yes. OK, back to our normal agenda. Dan are you out I am here. All right, thank you Dan. That s progress. You can, the West folks you can Yes, the West folks you can stay or you can drop. I think right now we have mainly East topics only going forward, and I thank you for your participation and keep me honest next week when I recap this. All right, Dan is going to give us an update on CABS consolidation. Dan Duris: Dan Duris: day ahead of you I think. Good morning everyone. Thank you for being patient! I m glad I get to drop off after this. You have quite a OK, I m here to report on the plan to convert CABS South to the CABS East billing system and specifically the phase that we are on right now is dealing with the states of Pennsylvania and Delaware. We plan to convert Pennsylvania and Delaware to CABS East effective with the July bills. (Inaudible)

35 If you re not on mute could you please mute your phone if you re not speaking. Thank you. Sorry Dan. Dan Duris: Speaker: No problem. I know what it is, I can t think right now. Dan Duris: That wasn t me. We have published an all users of access letter on our web site as of May 27 th announcing the same consolidation to be effective with July bills. My group has received some (Inaudible) All right, someone is speaking right now and you re not on mute. Can you please mute it? Dan Duris: Star, six, to mute. Thank you. Sorry Dan. Dan Duris: No problem. My group has received some customer requests for customer specific old/new BAN spread sheets and we have not fulfilled any of those yet, but we are starting on those today as we have now received the preliminary master old BAN/new BAN spreadsheets that we need to be able to fulfill those requests, and I know that some of the customers on this call have requests in with me and we will get to those just as quickly as possible. Any other customers that would like a spreadsheet showing the new Pennsylvania, Delaware CABS East BAN or account numbers may contact me via , which is my preference, but you can also contact me by telephone. What we need from you to be able to do this is we will need you to supply us with your ACNA for any non-zzz ACNA BANS, and for any ZZZ ACNA BANS that you might have, we would need you to provide us with the CABS South account number. My address is daniel.g.duris@verizon.com and my telephone number is I m also willing to try to assist any of you with any other issues that are directly related to the CABS East consolidation. If you want to contact me by , that would be fine. It may be that I assist you by simply referring you to someone that is better able to assist you but I am willing to try to fulfill that role also. Does anyone have any questions today that I might be able to answer, if they are not too hard? Dok Matthews: Dan Duris: OK Dan, here comes a curve ball. OK.