Tom Boshier: Hi Tom, this is John Boshier of COVAD Communications. Sarah Housan from Conversant Communications. Dani Hackel, Quest Communications.

Transcription

1 Verizon Service Group March 11, 2003 Confirmation # Operator: Pardon me everyone. At this time, Mr. Tom Rodgers now joins. All lines will remain open. To minimize background noise, please press star six to mute and unmute your lines as needed. Mr. Rodgers, please go ahead. Good morning. Welcome. My name is Tom Rodgers. I m the manager of CLEC communications for Verizon. This is the March Change Management Meeting. Let s see I guess we should start by an introduction of CLEC s that would be participating on the call via conference bridge, then a roll call of those that are joining us here in the 1095 New York location. And then I would ask my Verizon presenters to identify themselves. So at this time I would ask the CLEC s that are joining on the conference bridge to introduce themselves. Tom Boshier: Hi Tom, this is John Boshier of COVAD Communications. Sarah Housan (sp?): Dani Hackel: Jay: Jay: Lissa Provenzo: Diana Yeager: Amy Kwak: Gail: A.J. Dunbar: Sarah Housan from Conversant Communications. Dani Hackel, Quest Communications. Jay from DSL.net. I m sorry? This is Jay from DSL.net. This is Lissa with WorldCom. Diana Yeager with Metro TeleConnect. Amy Kwak with CTSI. Gail (inaudible) with COX Communications. A.J. Dunbar with CAT Communications. I m sorry, A.J. at? A.J. Dunbar: A.J. Dunbar with CAT Communications. Can someone remind me how to mute and unmute the phone?

2 A.J. Dunbar: Janice Segal: Mary Clark: Karen Dubourg: Services. Cathy Welsh: Deb Keegan: Deb Keegan: Star six. And that s to mute it? Yes. And star six to unmute. Janice Segal from Broadview. This is Mary Clark from COX Communications. Hi, it s Karen Dubourg from Verizon Advanced Cathy Welsh, Cavalier Telephone. Deb Keegan from CEI Networks. Deb, I m sorry your company name again? CEI Networks. Is this your first time on the call? Deb Keegan: No. It might be listed under Conestoga or C&E Communications. I m not sure what name we have. Tom Rogers: Larry Blair: Nancy Thompson: Laura Tillet: Peggy Rubino: Tammy Swanson: Reba Blake: Steve Cap: Steve Cap: Okay. Welcome to the call. Larry Blair, Remi Communications. Nancy Thompson with Telcordia Technologies. Laura Tillet with DSL.net. Peggy Rubino with V-Tel. Tammy Swanson with Accenture. Good morning. This is Reba Blake with WorldCom. Steve Cap with Allegiance. Steve, good morning. Is Alex with you? No, I haven t heard from Alex this morning.

3 Steve Cap: Steve Cap: roll call? Don Matthews: Mary Halpin: Laura Tillet: Cory Slobaceski (sp?): Communications. Flip Glover: Flip Glover: Flip Glover: Tom Rogers: Flip Glover: Rebecca Baldwin: Solutions. start in the room. Loriann Ercan: Okay. I m just trying to get an update on the baby. I talked to him last week and he was fine and healthy. Great. What did he have? A boy. Great. That s good news. Okay, continuing with the Don Matthews with Penn Telecom. Mary Halpin, AT&T. Laura Tillet with DSL.net. Anyone else? I m sorry. This is Cory Slobaceski from First Line Hi, Flip Glover from Mountain Communications. I m sorry, I didn t catch your first name. Flip. I m sorry, I still didn t catch it. F as in Frank, L-I-P. Flip. Oh, okay. I did get it correct. And you re with? Mountain Communications, DDA ProCom. This is Rebecca Baldwin with Adelphia Business Vartek, are you out there? Okay. I guess we can Loriann Ercan from Allegiance. Elliott Goldberg from MetTel.

4 Joyce Perry: Ron Gerald: Teresa Latimer: Sylvia Hillard: Arlene Ross: Business Support. Arlene Ross: Joyce Perry, AT&T. Ron Gerald, New York PSC. Teresa Latimer, Verizon East Change Management. This is also Sylvia Hillard with Verizon. Arlene Ross, Verizon Corporate Planning and You re going to be doing PAVA today, right Arlene? Yes, I am. Great. Pat Cunningham, are you out there? okay. Nancy Puskar? Would you give Pat and Nancy a call, please? Farid Zsufar: Good morning, Tom. This is Farid Zsufar with Nightfire Software. They had me on mute. I don t know how many times I said my name, but Gang, it s star six to mute and star six to unmute. And I asked the conference coordinator specifically that everybody coming on the bridge would be unmuted. So, if you re hearing me but not able to respond, please star six. Kim Brown: Laura Tillet: Dexter Lilly: Tom, this is Kim Brown. This is Laura Tillet with DSL.net. Good morning, Tom. This is Dexter with Vartek. There you are. Good morning, Dex. Okay. We did have a little problem with the distribution of the meeting material information. The information that was sent out last Tuesday in PDF format contained the PWG items by prioritized change request was in a landscape format that was almost impossible to print. It was cutting off half of the right column. That document was resent this morning. The only change to the document is the change to the format of this afternoon s meeting information. We apologize for the problem with the format. Rebecca Baldwin: Tom, this is Rebecca Baldwin. I m wondering if I was dropped off the distribution list because I didn t receive either one of those notifications.

5 Lissa Provenzo: the format? Tom, this is Lissa. Now, what was changed? Just Yeah, the rated type 5 change requests. I think it started on about page 109 through 164 were in a portrait format in the document, and the content was in landscape. So when you went to print it, you were missing about a third of the far right column. So the document that we resent this morning is, the only change is to the format of the PWG section that we ll talk about this afternoon. I m sorry Rebecca, may I have your address and we ll try to forward that to you? Rebecca Baldwin: Sure. It s Rebecca.Baldwin@adelphia.com. Is there anyone else on the call this morning that would like a resend of the document. Reba Blake: Lissa Provenzo: Yes this is Reba Blake. It s reba.blake@wcom.com. I can send that, Reba. Alex: Additionally, Tom this is Alex with Allegiance. I did receive it this morning about 5:04 a.m. So it did come through, at least to some of us. But not everybody, I guess. Okay, super. As far as the agenda items this morning, we have an update on the PAVA conformity project. Kim Brown and Arlene Ross will provide, followed by standing agenda items. The WCCC, billing, Pat Cunningham wants to cover the website enhancement, Nancy Puskar was to cover the provider notification. As far as the CMP issues, the LMP, EDID, 2LSR process has been withdrawn, so we re not going to discuss it today. Are there any other agenda items that CLEC s would like to add? Lissa Provenzo: Tom, this is Lissa. I would like to add and it may not be this meeting, but we have a separate meeting on your caller ID feature that is running out, it s maxed out at the switch and you have a grandfather procedure. And I m finding that you err back orders if those particular customers have a caller ID that s in a grandfather status. There s not really any visibility for the CLEC s to view or to see on this pre-order transaction. So, like I said, it might be a lengthy discussion. We can set this up at that meeting, if it s causing an issue. I assume it s rejecting LSR s?

6 Lissa Provenzo: Yeah, it s rejecting LSR s, not volume. But then you have to kind of work out that particular piece with the NMC. Sometimes they have to really look to see if it s embedded in there in the CSR, sometimes. If it s already been migrated over to another CLEC and they were not aware of it, you can t seem to get that caller ID feature back on the order for the customer. Because it s exhausting the switch? Lissa Provenzo: I guess it s because if they didn t migrate it with the first time with one CLEC, the next CLEC is unable to restore it for the customer. And I mean, there doesn t seem to be a really clear process. It s something kind of new we ve never ran into before. It s definitely a new topic for me. My preference would be to host an interim call if there s CLEC interest in doing so. And in the meantime, I will see if I can locate a knowledgeable expert on that to see if we might be able to address it yet today. Lissa Provenzo: meeting. Okay. Or next week is fine if we can schedule a Okay. Are there any other agenda items? Alex: This is Alex with Allegiance. I have one quick question for you, and it may not be appropriate for this call. But I m not sure. We re right now in a complete work stoppage with regard to ASR s due to some functionality, I guess, that went in. Do you know if that functionality was associated with anything that went in yesterday? Or is that a new topic? I just didn t know if that something that you were aware of, the ASR WCCC? Yesterday you have a case of trouble in to the Alex: Yeah. I think they re going to be getting it fixed today at some point, because it s affecting a large, the footprint. I think it s affecting multiple CLEC s. They re aware of it, I was just curious is that was associated with any particular change request or other editing that went in to place through change management. I m not aware of it. Steve Cap: Alex, this is Steve. It went in this weekend because the ASOC 26 slash cut happened this past weekend. Alex: Oh, okay.

7 Don Matthews: This is Don from Penn Telecom. I have been placing orders on it for the last two days, and it s functional for us. Steve Cap: It s from a conflicting edit that we re implanted for UNI type orders, is the problem. Alex: So if you re running special access, then you may not run into it. But if you run in UNI orders, then you may? Steve Cap: That s correct. Alex: We appreciate it. At least we know where it is with the flash cuts. Thank you. Kathleen Conroy: Excuse me, Tom. This is Kathleen Conroy. How are you? I didn t hear you mention billing. I don t have anything new for billing, but I didn t know if anyone had anything for the agenda for it. Okay. Well I was going to go back and recap and just start the meeting now. Is Pat Cunningham and Nancy Puskar on the line with us? Nancy Puskar: Yes, I am, Tom. Super. Okay, the first agenda item this morning is a continuing discussion on the PAVA uniformity project. Kim, are you going to start it, or will Arlene? Kim Brown: I m going to start it and then turn it over to Arlene. I just have a couple things this morning that I want to remind everybody that you all should have received notice through the change management process a month ago stating that we were changing the March conversion dates to May. That will occur the weekend on May 17 th. We are in the process of updating the CLEC guide that is posted on the PA OSS uniformity website, and make sure that we have all the dates, the changes identified in those documents. And that should be out there shortly. I m going to turn it over to Arlene today. She has a couple things that she would like to remind you all. Arlene Ross: Thank you, Kim. Good morning everyone. I hope my voice holds up. I ll only be speaking for a couple of minutes. I hear a lot of familiar voices out there and a lot of familiar names. I m interacted with a lot of people through the Virginia conversion, and now with the Pennsylvania conversion. And we have some issues that I d just like to bring everyone up to date on. Again, I d like to thank everyone, all the CLEC s who

8 participated on the one to one calls that we ve had so far with the CLEC s that are going to be involved in the pilot conversion. And also for all the CLEC s who may not be going through the pilot conversion but who have submitted questions to us. We really appreciate that. We will be having another Pennsylvania conversion workshop, and that will be held on April 16 th. And I believe the time will be 1 p.m. Eastern, in the afternoon. We will be sending out advance notification on that through the change management process, so all of you will be getting a copy of that. If you re not on the change management distribution I know some of you over the last few weeks have requested to be added, and we have added you. But if you haven t been receiving those notifications, I m going to give you an e- mail as I go further on, that you can send your requests to, to have your name added to that distribution. We have had all of the CLEC s who will be going through the conversion, we ve had all of you fill out these profiles. And we started that process last year, and everyone does have them in to us. Right now we are updating (inaudible) databases in preparation for the pilot conversion, and we found a few discrepancies. Nothing major. You re account managers will be contacting those of you who are impacted with those. Right now, just to let you know, what we did find were some discrepancies in the tax exempt status. And as I said, your account managers will be contacting you to get verification, and in some cases to have your information corrected on your profile, and you would submit that back to the profile manager. One of the things that will also be going on over the next couple of weeks. I don t know if any of those CLEC s are in attendance today, but we did have some CLEC s who had summary bill masters that were set up for them a few years ago under former GTE in the Pennsylvania jurisdiction that will be going through the conversion. You have informed us that you will not be doing business in that jurisdiction, and also taking no billing telephone numbers were ever assigned to those summary bill masters. You will be receiving a certified letter from me listing those summary bill masters and requesting your authorization to have those deactivated. What we re basically doing is cleaning up all of our databases in preparation for the conversion. So when you get those letters, you ll have the option of either faxing them back to me, or you could even mail them back. Within the next two weeks all the impacted CLEC s will be receiving a letter. I know that some of you may still have a few questions related to the conversion. We do have a PAVA conversion mailbox

9 that we invite all of you to submit your questions to. And the mailbox address is We constantly monitor the mailbox (inaudible) questions or issues, we do respond immediately to confirm that we did receive it. And if it s something we can t answer immediately, we will go to one of our subject matter experts and get a response back to you. And that s all I have today as far as updates on the Pennsylvania conservation. Speaker: Can you repeat that? Arlene Ross: The mailbox number, address again? Yes, it s pava.clec.communication@verizon.com. Okay, thank you. And Arlene, April 16 th is the date for the workshop? Arlene Ross: Yes, it s April 16 th. And we will be sending out advance notification with all of the call in details. It will probably be on Webex also, so we ll have all of that registration information and everything included in the notification. Okay, thank you. Lissa Provenzo: Arlene, this is Lissa with WorldCom. Have you updated the website yet to finalize that you re going to be following the GTE West directory listing publication? Or I know that you were going to do some research. Has that been updated? Arlene Ross: haven t updated that yet. I don t believe that has. It s still being (inaudible). We Lissa Provenzo: Okay. Do you know when you re going to update that, or when there s going to be any type of documentation that you re going to, that s the only area you re going to deviate from the Verizon East? Arlene Ross: I know that right now we do have some questions that are pending to be posted to the website. We re just waiting for authorization to have those posted. And those should be done by the end of the week. I haven t gone through the entire list, so I can t say that that particular question is on that list, but I can check for you, Lissa, to find out if it is. And I have your address. I can get back to you on that. Lissa Provenzo: Yeah, most importantly that the documentation on the website should be properly updated, what Verizon s intentions are for directory listings, the publications, and what business rules to follow, if you re going to deviate from the Verizon East.

10 Arlene Ross: Okay. And I ll get back to you on that. That ll affect the people that are going the other way, that are moving into the GTE territory. Because up to now it s always been don t worry, you re using the Verizon East rules. Lissa Provenzo: Arlene Ross: That s correct. I see a problem there. We will get tha t update listed and (inaudible). Lissa Provenzo: Okay. Because otherwise I think the other CLEC s are going to think that it s going to be the Verizon East ruling. Kim Brown: can And that will be a topic on the April 16 th workshop? Yes, Tom, we ll put that on the list so that discussion Thanks, Kim. Are there any other questions from the CLEC community this morning? Any new CLEC participants joining the call for the first time? Actually, Tom, I did have a question. What s happening in Virginia now in terms of rules that are not totally consistent with the old East rules? Virginia s done. Lissa Provenzo: I believe they follow the East. But Arlene, you re going to correct me if I m wrong. Kim Brown: question was? Let me ask Lissa can you restate what your Lissa Provenzo: We had discussions with Arlene before about directory listings, your publications, and what you plan to use for Verizon East in the former GTE region of Pennsylvania. At that time, that question could not be responded to, so we just didn t know the publication date. And what directory listing rules are you following? Kim Brown: Let me try and restate. I think it s two questions that you have. You want to know what the directory publication dates are going to be. Lissa Provenzo: an open ended question. Right. I believe Arlene has all our questions still, as

11 Kim Brown: Okay, but I just want to make sure that everyone on this call understands what the questions are. And I want to make sure that we address both questions, because I think there are two. And if I m hearing you correctly, you want to know what the directory, former GTE directory publication dates are going to be post conversion, and you also want to know what directory listing rules are going to be followed post conversion. Lissa Provenzo: Business rules. Kim Brown: They will be following the East business rules, I can tell you that. There may be some modifications to those business rules to care for some of the directory listings, if there are any directory listing product differences between East and West. But I will verify that. And the directory listing publications, I think, we re getting an answer to that. I can follow up with that. But the business rules, for Virginia, the business rules that we follow now are the East business rules for directory listing to answer the gentleman s question. Thank you. Lissa Provenzo: Can you tell us, is there any differences for Virginia former GTE that you may follow anything different, or is everything 100% follows the? Kim Brown: I would have to go back and do a lot of research to see what changes, if any, were made for Virginia. The conversion occurred over a year ago, or just about a year ago now. And I don t remember what we did with Virginia, if there were any changes to those business rules for directories. Mary Halpin: This is Mary Halpin. Is the general premise then that for Virginia GTE area that, for the OSS merge, they pretty much are following the Verizon East former Bell Atlantic rules? Kim Brown: We re following the former East business rules. If there were any for example, any product differences that needed to be added to those business rules, those were done and should be posted out on the website. Lissa Provenzo: And the directory listing publishing, did GTE keep their books, or did they merge into the Verizon East? Kim Brown: The books did not merge. Lissa Provenzo: Okay. And that s where there s no clear documentation noting that, so that there will be some differences there.

12 Kim Brown: And it s my understanding in Pennsylvania that there are no books that are merging for publication. Lissa Provenzo: Right, that s what we found out too. But if you read all the documentation, it doesn t indicate that. Mary Halpin: And again, other than these directory books, and other than some maybe tariff rules for services and features, it sounds like the Bell Atlantic, or former Bell Atlantic, current Verizon East business rules prevail. Kim Brown: Mary Halpin: Yes, that was a requirement of the merger order. All right, thank you. Kim and Arlene, I appreciate the update this morning. Of course, we will talk again in April prior to the 16 th workshop. The next item on the discussion, Kathleen Conroy will give us an update on billing issues. If there are any WCCC issues, if you will those to me in Pat s absence this morning. I will forward those to her. Mary Halpin: Tom, this is Mary. I have one question. We ve been experiencing some long wait times to even get through to reach someone. And it could be increase in issues, I m not really sure what the root cause is, but this seems to be something that we re encountering frequently within the past month to two months, maybe since the beginning of the year. I m just wondering if anyone knows of any particular reason why? This is when you need to open up a trouble ticket and you re calling the 800 number. Okay, so the feedback is long waiting time. At the last I don t know if it was the interim call or if it was at the CMP meeting, Tom Thirsk joined the call and made a commitment as to improved response time into the WCCC, and your feedback is you haven t seen that yet. Right, you re not experiencing the shorter. Joyce Perry: Right, because when our centers have problems, we go on and make that call for them. And it is there. Okay. I will forward that on to Tom Thirsk and to Pat, and ask for a response and participation at the next call. Kathleen, good morning. Kathleen Conroy: Good morning, Tom. How you doing? I don t have anything new to bring for billing. If anyone has any questions or anything, we ve done a couple of enhancements with adding silly code (sp?) and adding surcharge dates to surcharge and tax records. But other than that, there s not a

13 lot, not anything else to discuss. Did anyone have any questions for billing? No? Everyone s happy getting their bills, paying their bills? Okay. Okay. Kathleen, it looks like you got the rest of the morning free. Go out there and generate a bill for us, okay? Kathleen Conroy: All right, thank you. Thank you. Pat Cunningham is joining us to discuss enhancements to the website. Good morning, Pat. Pat Cunningham: Good morning. How are you today? Doing well. Pat Cunningham: Good. I just have a few quick updates that I d like to bring. First off, I d like to let everybody know and remind everybody that our training and education department will be providing CLEC ordering workshops on March 19 th, and it will be for the East ordering processes. You can sign up through the training and education link on the website. Does that include the how to order directory? Pat Cunningham: I m not sure, Tom. This was just in a note that they sent me to let everybody know. Lissa Provenzo: Is it all phases of ordering, like line splitting and platform, unbundled loops, et cetera? Pat Cunningham: I m really sorry, I can t tell you because I don t know myself. Like I said, it s just a note, reminder note that they wanted me to say. I m really sorry, I don t know. I believe if you do go out to the training and education, that you can pull up and they ll have an agenda with the information on it, telling you exactly what will be covered. Okay. First off what I d like to cover is on our sample site, on the website today, we have sample orders out there. We are going to keep updating those sample orders. We just have plans for launching some more updates on March 19 th. This might answer a little bit, as well. UNI P, dial 9 that s going to be part of the workshop on the 19 th. And UNI P message waiting indicator. So it might cover a lot of different aspects of ordering. But it looks like UNI P will be part of that March 19 th workshop. So on March 19 th we re going to launch some new samples, and it s UNI P East assume dial 9 samples, UNI P East message waiting indicator samples. And then right now we have West and East samples

14 have been updated current with LSOG And LSOG 6 samples are targeted for December Here s a little update on connectivity. You can submit and access requests directly from the connectivity guide for the various connectivity options via the online forms that are available on the site. And another update is that connectivity information for billing is targeted to be implemented at the end of April Now we have an update on the ordering portion of the guide. Of course we re planning additional enhancements to the guide continually. And we re going to launch our new ordering guide. It s going to be in April. We re going to rollout the new ordering guide. It s going to have a new look to it. It s going to be easier to access and find in formation that you ll want. And it has a lot of good ordering type information in it. And of course the guide and wizard for the CLEC guide today can be accessed via the online library on the LSP page. So we are going to rollout that new look and feel of the website for ordering in April. That s all I have right now. Is there any questions? Mary Halpin: Pat Cunnhingham: This is Linda, right? No. I m just sitting in for Linda today. This is Pat. Mary Halpin: This is Mary Halpin from AT&T. If we have particular questions, who can we contact directly about any of this information? Pat Cunningham: Particular questions regarding samples orders or? It s a variety of different people, that s why I would ask maybe specifically Tom, do you have any idea of where I can send them? Because sample orders or one individual (inaudible). Mary, if you ll send it to me, I ll filter it for you. We have folks that are dedicated to producing the samples and such, and they re not normally handle CLEC calls. So if you could just summarize the area or the specific question, I ll be happy to work that for you. Mary Halpin: All right, thank you. Thank you, Pat. Alex: One last question there. And I m checking the website now, but I think it came up before. We sure could use some examples

15 on how to process CID orders if they re not already out there. I d like to make that request again. Pat Cunningham: I ll make a note of it, and I m sure that it will come out in the meeting minutes, as well. And we ll put it through the correct individual. Alex: I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, Pat, thanks for your participation this morning. You re certainly welcome to stay on the rest of the call this morning if you like. Pat Cunningham: Thank you, Tom, but I think I ll drop off. Thanks. Don t take it wrong, I ve got 101 other things biting me. I know you do. I appreciate your time. Good morning, Nancy. Nancy has the provider notification update that she provides every month. So, Nancy, what s new? Nancy Puskar: Well, I was going to kind of turn that around to the CLEC s to see if they have any specific questions on line loss or provider notification. John Boshier: This is John Boshier. I had a question about the loss notification. We ve been getting our reports for COVAD since last November with no data found or no data, basically reporting the losses. And we ve opened a trouble ticket on it, but haven t had the folks discover anything. And I d like to believe that we weren t actually losing any customers over all that time, but I find that hard to believe. I m trying, we re in kind of a chicken and egg situation with trouble shooting the report, because they need me to send them examples of customers we ve lost, and of course we re looking for that information from the report. As we didn t even, in the recovery file that came out a few weeks ago, didn t even show any information. So, I m wondering what can be done to trouble shoot the report to figure out where our loss notices are going. Nancy Puskar: John, I d be happy to help direct you sort of on that. You still, I m hoping, still have the trouble reports open, based on what you just said? John Boshier: Yes, I believe it is. I haven t heard back from the folks at the WCCC in a couple of days now, but I do have a trouble ticket open, yes. Nancy Puskar: Okay. What I ve been asked to direct you to, or any CLEC that would have a similar scenario like this, is to use the WCCC escalation procedure, and to escalate that up through as documented on the website

16 either calling There s three different management steps there, or you can call Tom Thirsk directly. John Boshier: Okay. Is Tom s number on the procedure, too? Nancy Puskar: Yes, it is. And I ve been instructed to suggest that follow that process, it does work. And then it can be escalated appropriately. John Boshier: Nancy Puskar: Okay. All right, that s what I ll do. Okay, thank you, John. Nancy, one of the big housekeeping issues that we ve tracking is issue number 70, and it s what s called line loss. Is it appropriate to close that with the replacement of the line report with provider notification? Or should we rename this issue? Nancy Puskar: consensus to close it. I don t have an issue with closing it if there s a We an rename it if you want. Provider notification formerly known as line loss. And I m just trying to clarify that the line loss report has not been provided for several months now, and that this is really a provider notification report. Nancy Puskar: Provider notification was as a result of the LSOG 6 in the East. And the West, I believe, kind of jump started that back in June of 2002 with the rename. Right. John Boshier? One of the things you might try doing to get your examples is if you compare two months bills and look at the deletions from the first to the second, and then cross reference them with the provider notification report, you get a good indication. I ve had some results doing that. John Boshier: Okay. We could look at two months bills, of course cross referencing with the provider notification doesn t help because there s no data. That s my point. You simply subtract if you ignore the gain and simply look at the loss column, you ll get a cross reference to your loss of line accuracy.

17 John Boshier: John Boshier: Okay. It s interesting. You should do it. All right, I ll give that a shot. Thanks. Any other provider notification questions? We ll go ahead and add, change the name to line loss/provider notification on there. Sadia Mendez: This is Sadia from McGraw. I m sorry, I had my phone on mute, and I was talking and wondering why you were ignoring me. It s star six to mute and star six to unmute. Sadia Mendez: Yeah, I did that. I just had forgotten that I had star sixed it, and I m hitting my mute button on my phone. I m sorry. Anyway, on the provider notification, I don t want to waste the time on this call, I know that this has been going on for a while. Can I just get the change management notes, should I be able to just go in there and see what s been going on with that? Because we re still actually seeing them, but I want to put in the request to get them via NDM. And I just want to get the background on what s been going on with that. Nancy Puskar: Sadia Mendez: This is Claudia from Sadia from McGraw Communications. Nancy Puskar: Sadia, you can follow the procedures on the web if you re just looking to change your connectivity for receiving the report. You would just go through the connectivity management process, get your connectivity to be able to get Sadia Mendez: So just switch it from having to (inaudible)? Nancy Puskar: Unless you want to still receive it, still have logons and passwords to receive it via FTP to retrieve NMDM. There are CLEC s that do both. Sadia Mendez: Nancy Puskar: Oh, I could actually keep both of them? Yes, you can. Sadia Mendez: How would I find out why (inaudible), they actually get the line loss report automatically sent to them?

18 Nancy Puskar: NDM or EDI. Your company? Okay, so you are getting it either Sadia Mendez: Well it can t be EDI and it can t be NDM, but somehow they re saying that they re getting some type of loss report. I ll look into it to see exactly what they re getting. Nancy Puskar: And then there s a couple of avenues you can pursue. You can speak with connectivity management and we ll follow the address to have them get back in touch with you and validate your connectivity. That might be a good start. And then determine where you d like to go from there. Sadia Menez: Sounds good. Thanks. So the answer to the question is the website will have references to how to change connectivity? Nancy Puskar: It ll allow Sadia to navigate, but is sounds like she s familiar with getting connectivity. It s a matter of (inaudible) for her. Sadia Mendez: (inaudible) any information of any changes to the line loss report that I haven t exactly paid attention to on the last few calls. I must confess. Nancy Puskar: In the last couple calls we ve just changed the backend system that was producing it, which would be the large project, if you will. Then with LSOG 6 there were a couple issues that impacted the line loss report from a coding perspective with a couple (inaudible). They were communicated. So if you need additional information on that, either the connectivity team and/or the WCCC will further direct you. Sadia Mendez: Nancy Puskar: line loss? Nancy Puskar: Okay. Thank you. Okay, Tom, anything else for provider notification or Nothing from this side. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Nancy. Probably a good time to run through the open issues. Sue Pistacchio, are you on the call this morning? Sue Pistacchio: I m here, I was unmuting. I was unmuting when you said my name. I just heard you say my name and I did pound six or whatever. What do you need?

19 Nothing. I was just making sure you were out there. Sue Pistacchio: I m here. So you want me to mute again while you go through your issues? I ll go back to mute. And in a minute I ll tee you up again. Thanks. I guess this portion of the meeting we look at the open issues from prior months, and in a couple of cases, from prior years. That s the first one up is issue 26, backwards compatibility, page one of the topic number 26. This was initiated back in June of 99. And since I ve I guess accepted change management responsibility in January of this year, I ve requested for clarification of the expectations of the CLEC community on this topic. Specifically I m asking for what is it you d like me to change, what advocacy do I need to pursue with you. I guess I ll ask again. Lissa Provenzo: Lissa Provenzo: Mary Halpin: Mary, do you remember this? Lissa, you are our living history here. I know, Mary and I, right? Mary, are you still there? Yes, I am. Lissa Provenzo: I can t remember what this backwards compatibility is. But Dave Burley would remember. Mary Halpin: I think we had this conversation last month too. I know. And I guess what I was asking to confirm is that I d like to close it. In the event that anyone would like to define it, I will be happy to reopen the issue. But my focus really is on trying to reduce the number of pages we produce every month and focusing in the quality issues that we have. And if there is an issue to work out, my preference is to move it to close, or just move it off of the prime time list, I guess. So, we ll consider this one closed and take it off the list. Topic 51 is the wholesale customer care center. What we have here on probably 8-10 pages of meeting status. Lissa Provenzo: This is where we asked them to improve the help desk, where we had problems when it first was in Silver Springs. And then new management took it over and moved it, and they reestablished a new help desk. So, I think as long as you keep on your agenda each month for status, if anybody s having problems. I think the original problem was taken care of.

20 Lissa, Mary my recollection is originally we wanted the help desk to be a one stop shop. And we still don t have that. Loriann Ercan: And I think we talked about that at that other meeting, the relationship between the WCCC, and the Cert, and the NMC. But I don t think we ever (inaudible). Basically, it s still a problem. Our people have to be experts on Verizon s organization to get a problem solved. Alex: Correct. I m going through some old s here. I did get an from Tom McGuire on this a while back. The one thing he said was he is looking in to it with his people and trying to determine if there s a way to streamline things, perhaps by using a VRU up front to get you to the right area. That s all he said. Well, the (inaudible) Was that somebody s opinion of the? That s going to look funny on the notes. Let s see how they transcribe that. I guess to Lissa s point, we did move it to a standing agenda item, so every month we ll have a discussion on WCCC, and billing, and other topics. And we did have the interim call last month to talk about organizational issues and items. Lissa Provenzo: How is the follow up from that call? I mean, was Who was to get back with us? I sent out the summary of the meeting material. I guess we recapped the meeting expectations I guess there were of them and we are Lissa Provenzo: Monica. Yeah, Monica Moore. Lissa Provenzo: Yeah. Because the original notes on this was really just about the WCCC, because at the time it was very poor. But I think part of our discussions was supposed to be a one stop shop. But more importantly was to get the whole foundation of the WCCC in place, the help desk that works with the CLEC s. Reba Blake: I m sorry, Tom. This is Reba Blake. You just mentioned, you said you sent out the summary of the meeting minutes from that last call. Okay, did you send it out to all the CLEC s?

21 Lissa Provenzo: name? one. Lissa Provenzo: Reba Blake: Lissa Provenzo: look, Reba. Of course. I m sorry, the Did it come through Verizon Change Control, or your I ll go back and check. Come on, Lissa, you woulnd t have ignored either I could have. I don t recall seeing that. You might have not been on the (inaudible). I ll go Okay. We ll take the action to resend that status of the call that we had on February 4 th. And we ll see how many we can obtain a status on when we send it out. Okay. Item 65, workshop on notification requirements. This topic I m not sure as the expected action. Lissa Provenzo: This is for our documentation. The workshops that Joanne holds with the draft documentation. Oh, you mean associated with the CLEC impacting release? Okay. Those are being held like clockwork, aren t they? So can I close this issue? Lissa Provenzo: Yeah, it should have been Yeah, it s part of your change control principals of providing notification of a draft and final workshop. Right. Okay. In fact, we ll probably announce the date for the June one here later today. Issue 67. I guess before we move off of that one, I m going to accept silence as concurrence to close on 65, workshop on notification requirements. Anyone that s not receiving an invitation to participate on the conference calls in advance of the CLEC impacting release should contact me and we ll immediately provide you with, make sure your name s on that list. And if you are an EDI or CORBA customer, we definitely encourage participation in that call because it sets up the CLEC test environment, explains the testex scenarios that will follow. 67 CLEC to CLEC migration. hasn t been resolved. (inaudible) and/or line share, line splitting (inaudible)

22 Lissa Provenzo: What s the next step on that, Elliott? Are they going to be holding collaboratives, or what? There is a collaborative ongoing in Pennsylvania that I hope one of these years will get wrapped up. I understand that New Hampshire has now taken it up, because I have a draft of their guidelines, which look pretty much like the New York guidelines, but I haven t finished reading them yet. So I don t know. But we can certainly figure out how to I can give you a buzz later and try to track down some information. I know the New York guidelines are being pushed by Verizon in the Verizon West areas. I shouldn t say pushed, let s say introduced in Advocate. Advocated, right. As far as Florida, Texas, I think I ve heard a rumor of California. So we did some good work in the New York collaborative. We did it right. As a CMP action item for me and my team to handle, this issue is rather too big for us to get our arms around because it appears to want us to status the results of regulatory proceedings. I don t know if it s regulatory (inaudible). Let s go back to the source, if you will. The issue of split lines has to be resolved. This is going to involve change management. The issue of data migration. Were I you, I don t know that I d worry about the out states until such time as the regulators make whatever changes they re going to make in those states. Because every state tweaks it a little. I agree. But I would worry about functionalities that are going to come in. Now, whether they come in through the old collaborative or if they come in through the DSO collaborative, they re still going to come from some place. It s still the same subject, it s just a question of what forum the argument s heard in. I guess, assuming we have a regulatory decision in a state, and we have active Verizon participation in that proceeding, the bulk of that order would be incorporated into a type 2 change request that would be part of the CMP process. And to date those changes have been pretty minimal because the ones I m a part of, I know Verizon and the CLEC s have been trying to push them through as unchanged as possible.

23 Good. I guess I m just seeking clarification as to what I need to work on on this. And that s going to be worked on as the change request for that enhancement is submitted. It s more than that because there s no docket. You don t want the New York 018A. Verizon actually participated in the development of the rules, and made recommendations, came up with suggested procedures. I don t know if that s your organization or not, but certainly Bob Citrell at the time was an integral part of the process. Sure, and he still is. Mary Halpin: My opinion is I d like to see this kept on the issues log, and as changes come about to reflect either, as changes are identified in one of the collaboratives and they come through as functionality change, to have those noted here. Or if there are new type 2 requests that come through. As discussed, it s been a collaborative effort, and there have been changes within Verizon and within the CLEC s to work towards better processes. But it s such a huge area, and there will be changes that will continue to be made by Verizon. And if they could even just be noted here as they re made, as CR s are done, I think it s good because to me, it s such a critical area. I would hate to see this removed completely, and then have CR s that are related to CLEC to CLEC migration just be looked at on an individual basis, and then done and closed. I think it s good to see the progress that s made. Tom, from your perspective, I guess I can see well what s the step, what s the next CR and it s just such a critical area, and it s so huge, I don t think we can say it s only one change or one process. It s going to be an evolving process as other changes are identified. For example, there was one change request that was brought up, and I think it may have been December or January, and it was going to be reworded because it may have actually been I don t know if it was the loop loss notification but the way that it was worded, you woulnd t recognize it was loop loss notification. The way the CR was worded. And that came out of some of the collaborative work. So I think it would be good to kind of note that here so that it kind of ties all the pieces of the puzzle together as changes are made as a result of the collaborative. Mary, we ll take the action item for the April meeting to recap those that have completed and that might be on the schedule. Mary Halpin: Yeah, because I know we did discuss one, I think it was two months ago. But I don t think, it was going to be taken back and reworded because I don t think you could even recognize that s what it really was. Okay. Issue 68 is a LIDBE (sp?) request.

24 Lissa Provenzo: That s a Broadview issue. Yeah, a Broadview issue. I still do not understand the action that is expected of us, and again request clarification of what that action should be. Janice Segal: I believe that this can be closed. There s been LIDBE updates since then to the business rules. So right now we re not having any issues with LIDBE. Janice, I appreciate you for closing that. No such luck on the next one. Okay, moving right along. We ll just go right to 70. I am prepared to discuss it any time you want. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I m beginning to understand where the mine fields are and I want to skip over that one. subject, I am available. Any time you want to have a discussion on the Issue 70, line loss, will include a topic for provider notification and just change the title. 72, GUI performance enhancements. This appears to be a running status of website enhancements. Lissa Provenzo: You re going to leave the line loss stuff, right? Yes, I ll leave it there. I ll just rename it, or add provider notification to it. The 72, GUI performance enhancements I assume this is related to the predecessor of the LSI. But it s since kind of morphed into a discussion of all of the activities that are associated with I guess my question is to ask for the CLEC s to identify any problems they might have with LSI, or any action you would expect us to take that wouldn t be associated with a trouble report. A.J. Dunbar: The only I don t know if it s really a system problem or what it is, but when you go under the LSR processing and you go to undelete, and it gives you the option to undelete PON s that you ve deleted. I get a notice coming up saying you have violated this system s integrity and your user ID has been recorded. Whoa, don t do that.

25 A.J. Dunbar: intended to do, or? A.J. Dunbar: And I don t know exactly, is that something Verizon Did you call in a case of trouble? No, no yet. I would recommend you do that. That s not a typical error message, and obviously you scared the system into thinking you were trying to hack it or something, I guess. A.J. Dunbar: I don t know, it s hard to Normally a message like that is followed by a database administrator with a shotgun. A.J. Dunbar: trouble ticket, then. No, I didn t get shot. Okay, I ll do that. I ll call in a Thanks for the humor. Any other LSI related topics? Okay. I will ask again for closure of the issue. Should there be an issue with LSI performance or an enhancement If it was performance, then I would direct you to the WCCC. If it was an enhancement or a function that you d like to see, I would refer you to a type 5 change request. So I m kind of stuck as to the action on this item that you d like us to pursue. We do have representation from Monica Moore s team every month that talks about enhancements to the GUI, or to the web-based training, and to the website. But this one appears to be more aimed at the old GUI interface itself. Tim Burkhart: Tom, this is Tim Burkhart. Basically this goes back to a time when we were having some system problems with the web GUI, and there were some performance issues, and we wanted to clean up the databases from old PON s that were out there. So this is really an old issue and probably should be closed down. I appreciate your support, Tim. If we could get the rest of the CLEC s to either Joyce Perry: I don t have a problem. I don t have a problem with it. Mary, how do you feel? Mary Halpin: No, because I think if there are new issues or questions around the LSI, we ll have to go through the normal production processes and bring them up in this forum as well.

26 Joyce Perry: are expecting a report. Right, that s what I figured. You won another one. Won another one. Don t worry about the next one, you won t. But we Okay then, before we jump to 73, I will with CLEC concurrence close 72, GUI performance enhancement. 73 prioritization process documentation. That is an issue that we are continuing to work on. I think we ll see some examples today in our documentation where we could do a better job internally on categorizing the enhancements. Yeah, because I ran some numbers to be presented when we got to this. Basically, for the year 2002, 57% of the implemented total and that includes those that were denied were type 2 s. Of those type 2 s, 64% were categorized as flow through. Of that 64% that were categorized as flow through, 55% related to the North. Yet when I checked the New York reported (inaudible) numbers from Verizon using OR 501 and 503, I see essentially no change. So my question is, given this fairly significant effort of all changes that were implements last year, an effort which probably took away resources that could have been used for other changes, I think we should have seen some sort of results. And it s my contention that all these results went into automating Verizon internal processes, which you handle through layoffs or whatever, and we re experiencing that in other areas. There s a fallout from that. But the point is, we didn t get any benefit from it. If anything, because of the other implications, we re being hurt by it. And I think that many of these flow through items that were put to the top of the list should have been your type 4 s because had they been true flow through enhancements, then the numbers would not have stayed flat for the entire year. And again, this is all based on your numbers from analysis of 12 months of these change management reports that come out at every meeting, and comparing that to your reported cap notes. Lissa Provenzo: Is any of this flow through associated with matrix that are discussed in the carrier to carrier agreements, where Verizon has to meet a certain percentage of flow through? OR 501 has no standard, but is reported. OR 503 is 95% and is being achieved, and has been achieved virtually all year, as I recall