Verizon Change Management Meeting. Moderator: Wanda Cox January 8, :00 pm ET

Transcription

1 Verizon Change Management Meeting Moderator: Wanda Cox January 8, :00 pm ET Coordinator: This is the operator, we'd like to begin the call and remind all the parties the call is being recorded. If you have any objections, you may disconnect thank you. Good afternoon everyone, this is (Wanda Cox) and welcome to the January '08 Verizon change management meeting, how's everyone today? Fine, thank you. Very good. As usual I would just ask that when you speak if you would identify yourself so we can keep good notes for the transcripts. And I would like to start with taking the roll call please. Who's on the phone? Janice Ziegele: Janice Ziegele from Broadview. Thank you. Hi (Janice). Page 1

2 Janice Ziegele: Hi, how are you today? I'm doing well. Terri Mansir: Terri Mansir AT&T, Texas. (Mary Halpin): (Mary Halpin), AT&T. Ninfa Bennett: Ninfa Bennett and (Rosalyn) Benadle with Cox Communications. (Unintelligible) Nelson with AT&T. I'm sorry can I go back to Cox Communications please? Ninfa can I have your last name again? Ninfa Bennett: The last name is (Bennett). And the second name was? Ninfa Bennett: Benadle, B-E-N-N-E-T-T. I know, and we're sitting here laughing, like okay they're not going to get our names. Oh that's a guarantee. And who's next? (Gloria Nelson): (Gloria Nelson) from AT&T. Thank you. Page 2

3 Tim Kagele: Tim Kagele, Comcast. Liz Balvin: Liz Balvin from Covad Communications. I'm sorry, from Comcast that was Jim? Tim Kagele: Tim, with a T. And your last name? Tim Kagele: Kagele, K-A-G-E-L-E. Thank you. Liz Balvin: Liz Balvin from Covad Communications. Kim Isaacs, Eschelon. PJ Koller: PJ Koller, Priority One. I'm sorry from Priority One we have? PJ Koller: PJ, like in pajamas, last name Koller, K-O-L-L-E-R. I think I've mentioned, nice to have you on the call. PJ Koller: Thank you. (Julia Whitfield): Julia Whitfield, Consolidated Communications. Page 3

4 Just a second, I'm trying to add you. Another new one. And your name again please? (Julia Whitfield): (Julia Whitfield). Thank you. (Julia Whitfield): Thank you. Carol Frike: Carol Frike with Sprint. Hi Carol. Carol Frike: Hello. Laurie Roberson: Lori Roberson (Sandra Boyd): (Sandra Boyd) with HTC. I'm sorry, I heard - there was some crosstalk there, (Sandra Boyd)? (Sandra Boyd): (Crystal Caulfield) and (Sandra Boyd) with HTC. Thank you. (Sandra Boyd): Thank you. Laurie Roberson: Laurie Roberson IntegraTelecom. Page 4

5 Hi Laurie. Who else do we have? Eddie Pimentel: Eddie Pimentel, Granite Communications. I'm sorry, please repeat your name? Eddie Pimentel: Eddie Pimentel. Thank you. (Amanda Silva): (Amanda Silva) VCI Company. Hi (Amanda). (Sherry) Zheng: (Sherry) Zheng, (Neustar). (Sherry). Anyone else? Dok Mathews: Dok Mathews Consolidated Communications. Hi Dok. Dok Mathews: Hey, you doing? I'm hanging in there. Dok Mathews: Is it warm up there? (Peggy Rubino): (Peggy Rubino) from Paetec. Page 5

6 I'm sorry, who was that from Paetec? (Peggy Rubino): (Peggy Rubino). Thank you. Metek Tessema: This is Metek Tessema from Accenture. I'm sorry, who from Accenture? Metek Tessema: Metek Tessema. Thank you. Metek Tessema: Thank you. Jeanne Kulesa: Jeanne Kulesa with Synchronous Technologies. Jeanne, I'm sorry your last name? Jeanne Kulesa: Kulesa. K-U-L-E-S-A. K-U-L-E-S-A? Okay, anyone else? Gloria Velez: Gloria Velez from AT&T. Loriann Burke: Hi this is Loriann Burke from XO. Page 6

7 Hello Loriann. We got a full house today. Anyone else? Leo Dimitriadis: Yes, Leo Dimitriadis from AT&T Services please. I'm sorry, can you spell your name for me please? Leo Dimitriadis: D as in Dave, I-M-I-T-R-I-A-E-I-S. Okay. Anyone else? That's fine. I think I missed a couple names, so I'm just going to ask you to bear with me as I go through roll call. From Accenture we have Metek, am I saying that correctly? Metek Tessema: Yes. Okay, thanks. We have, from AT&T, (Gloria Nelson), (Marry Halpin), (Terry Mansir), (Gloria Velez), is this everyone from AT&T? From Broadview we have Janice Ziegele, Comcast, Tim Kagele Mona Foroutan: And Mona Foroutan. I'm sorry your last name? Mona Foroutan: Mona Foroutan. Spell your last name for me please. Page 7

8 Mona Foroutan: F like Frank, O-R-O-U-T-A-N. Thank you. And from Covad, was that (Liz) I got, (Balvin)? Liz Balvin: Yes, Liz Balvin. Thank you. Liz Balvin: Thanks. And from Cox Communications I have Ninfa Bennett. Ninfa Bennett: Yes, and (Rosalyn) Benadle. Okay, I have your last name (Rosalyn), thank you. From Consolidated Telecom, (Julia Whitfield), from Granite, Eddie Pimentel, Integra Laurie Roberson, (Kim Isaacs), (Sandra Boyd) from HTC, and I'm sorry (Sherry) from Neustar I didn't get your last name? (Sherri) Zheng: Zheng. I'm sorry? (Sherri) Zheng: Zheng. Z-H-E-N-G. Thank you. From Paetec, (Peggy Rubino), and from Primary One PJ Koller. Did I miss anyone? Page 8

9 (Chris Gambino): (Chris Gambino), Cable Vision. I'm sorry, can you repeat that please? (Chris Gambino): Sure, (Chris Gambino) from Cable Vision. Thank you. PJ Koller: This is PJ Koller, it's Priority One. I'm sorry. PJ Koller: That's okay. Priority One. Carol Frike: I didn't hear you say Carol Frike with Sprint, but I might have missed it. Sorry. I think you're correct, I got you (Carol) thank you. Leo Dimitriadis: I think that you also captured Leo Dimitriadis under AT&T. Yes I did, thank you. Leo Dimitriadis: Okay thanks. Dok: And it's Consolidated Communications, not Consolidated Telecom. This is Dok. Page 9

10 Dok? Okay, anyone else? Excellent, thank you very much. Let's start with the departmental updates, from CTE, we have (Joanne Thetga). (Joanne Thetga): Thanks (Wanda). Good afternoon everyone. Just to give you a reminder, this Friday for Verizon West, CTE will be down. We will be rolling the February code into CTE on Friday, doing validation over the weekend and posting (test techs) on Monday and testing can begin on Monday for the west. As usual, the east is a week after. So next Friday, the -- let's see if I got the dates right -- the 18th, CTE will be down in the east. We'll be rolling February code then, posting (test techs) on Monday the 21st, and testing will begin on the 21st. Any questions? Okay, I'll turn it back to you Wanda. Thank you. And next we have (Tom Scanlon) from PSCC. (Tom Scanlon): Hi everybody, good afternoon Happy New Year. Verizon systems interfaces our operational with normal transaction processing, everything looks good. Good (Tom Scanlon): That's it. Any questions for (Tom)? Page 10

11 Excellent, thank you. Okay, we're moving right along on our agenda. Next we have items by release. We had one item, which was C , line station transfer notification. That was denied for the January, excuse me, for the February release. Any questions on that? Okay. Next if you could move to your PWG package and then go through our open type 5. Excuse me, I have way too many papers on my desk. If you turn to page 2, we introduce one new type 5, which was 55246, provide access to resold customer service records that was rank and rated at a 4.9. Questions on that one? And also, just for record keeping, we show that we did withdraw 8 type 5 in our previous meeting. Okay, next we'd like to move on to new business and if you turn to page 5 of our documentation, we'll see that we have two new type fives that we'll introduce. The first one is 60857, provides access to UNE-P wholesale advantage CSRs. And Carol if you wanted to give us a summary of this request please? Carol: Sure it's just basically tagalong for the previous one that was open to be able to review customer service records for UNE-P customers in addition to the resale ones that was open previously. We talked about it, pretty much last week, or last month, but basically the same idea including UNE-P, in addition to resale customers. And I know we also - there was some question about how this would actually be implemented. And it's my understanding in the past, when UNE-P Page 11

12 providers were polled on this that there wasn't much interest in making this information available to other carriers. Does anyone recall that? Because part of the problem is that we would have to get each (unintelligible) to agree to make this information available. Loriann Burke: So -- this is Loriann from XO -- so it was the UNE-P providers who don't want to share that information. That's correct. Man: So, just to clarify what this request was. Is this request for a particular collect to view their own customer's CSR under UNE-P? Or to view So that's I think this is for eve of hoarding customers when it s a collect that is not a UNE-P provider, wants to view a CSR. That's correct. They don't have access to CABs, so they cannot, they have to go through this nightmare between the UNE-P provider and Verizon to -- and Tom I know you can explain this very well -- to get a CSR. And it could take weeks, sometimes months to get a full CSR, depending on the size of the account. Leo Dimitriadis: So Verizon is maintaining some sort of a CSR in their system. But that customer could belong to, let's say, another UNE-P collector is that it? Page 12

13 Exactly. The UNE-P resale. Typically - straight resale you could get through, I guess, the normal process, Verizon retains those. But on a UNE-P, they go into CABs. And we don't - none of us has access to that. Leo Dimitriadis: So in resale you can view anybody's CSR, no matter who that customer may belong to. On resale you would just go to Verizon as you always do to get a CSR. But UNE-P is a little different. A lot different. Leo Dimitriadis: But if the CSR, let's say, belongs to another collect like Verizon? We can do that for resale, yet. Dok: Yes (Leo) this is Doc, if, for example, if AT&T wanted to take a customer that's current with Consolidated Communications has as a resale customer, you could look up our customer service records because they're essentially just sitting there residing in the Verizon database under a recent account. And what this is asking is that, say Sprint has a customer of theirs that wants to take a, has a (unintelligible) that they represent that wants to take a Consolidated Communications UNE-P wholesale advantage customer. Those records are not open for viewing by other companies. They must request the CSR directly from the CLEC that is serving the customer. And this is only in New York and I believe New England, if I'm not mistaken. Page 13

14 Dok: I believe that the, under, and this is going back to (MetTel) when (Elliot) was representing, but I believe that the CLEC to CLEC migration for a UNE-P wholesale advantage was Verizon east footprint, years ago. (Gloria Velez): I believe that's true -- this is (Gloria Velez). Dok: I think they were. (Gloria Velez): Yes, currently today in the south, the UNE-P accounts are maintained in (chris); however if that account belongs to (Metcal), then (Metcal) is the only carrier that can do it. That's my understanding. Janice Ziegele: This (Janice), that's mine also. Leo Dimitriadis: In UNE-P but I think (Dok's) saying that in resale Yes, in resale it's different. Leo Dimitriadis:..it's different so Dok: That's correct Leo. Leo Dimitriadis: So the request is sort of extending the capability for UNE-P to have that same capability to view everybody's CSR. Is that what that is? Dok: That's correct Leo. Yes. Page 14

15 Leo Dimitriadis: So it's like anybody will be able to take a look at the CSR for whatever reason they would need to then. Right, of course they would still have to have authorization. I mean, wouldn't - and this is the idea just to (unintelligible) going to the other CLEC to get the information when Verizon has it, you know, residents already. Man: Right. Makes sense. It's just current practice now, correct? You still have to reach out to the CLEC now? Right. Man: Yes, it seems like the CLEC migration is to require an interested CLEC must seek the information from the maintaining CLEC. Man: Which is Verizon? Man: No. No. No. The other CLEC. Page 15

16 Man: Oh the other CLEC? Right. Dok: For example, if XO wanted to take a customer that currently Consolidated Communications services, a wholesale advantage customer, XO would need to contact Consolidated Communications to request that CSR. And the only way they would truly know that it is a Consolidated customer would be to have an LOA from the end user permitting them to seek that information. And the biggest problem that I've experienced, is that the UNE-P with the resale providers - UNE-P reseller does not keep the CSR in the same form that is acceptable from a port from Verizon but you'd still have to port from the network service provider. Man: Which is Verizon? Verizon. And if the UNE-P splits up that account into individual BTNs, you've got a place, you know, hunt and peck until you find the BTN that Verizon shows all the numbers working for. Man: So if you're forwarding the TN then if you look at the CSR you'd get into that information then you would just send the port request to Verizon? Yes, but you need an accurate CSR or Verizon will keep rejecting your LSR. Right. Man: And that other CLEC might have some other business arrangement or some Page 16

17 They split it up, you know, they could do anything with the telephone numbers once they have it. The problem is if they don't have it the same way as Verizon has it in their records, you're going to go through a nightmare trying to port the customer. Man: So getting a CSR format and then Verizon's format, anybody would be familiar with, would be able to read it. It's - right. Man: If the account belonged, let's say to another CLEC, then maybe, let's say BSL on that account, then if you port the TN, because (unintelligible) and maybe a two year contract with BSL or some other business arrangement, the customer may be unaware that importing the TN they may be subject to, what do they call that? Man: Early termination? Man: Yes, termination. Or, even more, you know, like more common is the fact that you go to port something thinking you got a complete CSR and you find that you're missing numbers or there are more number in the account that you would have expected and Verizon rejects the LSR back to you. Sometimes 10, 15, 20 times. Man: I definitely agree the source of the information from Verizon's probably more accurately maintained, let's say, from Verizon. So that would be the main place to get it from - for everybody. Page 17

18 (Gloria Velez): This is (Gloria Velez), Sprint also kind of requesting that the CSR information for the northern states now be pulled out of CABS and put into (CRIS)? I don't (Gloria Velez): Do you support this? That was -- this is (unintelligible) -- that was my question too because you wouldn t want to be going to into other company's CAB records right? Yes, I don't really, I've never really tried to tell Verizon how to do it. Just kind of put the requirements out there and I wouldn't, I don't know what the ramifications are to do that, but it seems like if you have to ask Verizon to port the number that they should be able to give you information to accurately populate the LSR. Exactly. Exactly the same way you do on any other CSR. Well can I ask - this is (Beth) (unintelligible) -- can I ask this question for my own clarification because I don't - I think I'm missing some of this. Today though, if you needed to get information from a customer that was an old UNE-P or Hopeful Advantage, you would need to go to the other CLEC correct? Correct. To get that information? So is that information not accurate and that's why, or are you saying that information is pulled in a different format? I'm confused. Page 18

19 It's hard to get the information, in fact it's usually impossible. Yes, usually it's easier to get 20 rejects from Verizon and do trial and error than to mess with getting the CSR from the other provider. Okay, so we can get the infor - so the information from the other provider isn't, it doesn't come easily but then to make it more difficult, then if you submit it without all the information, then that's a problem for Verizon because we keep rejecting it. Right. It's more work for both sides. Okay. Dok: (Beth) this is Dok at Consolidated Communications, I'm sorry. Now I wouldn't say that this has ever happened, but you can understand theoretically there could be a CLEC out there, we'll call it Fred's CLEC, that may not want to give up customers it has won, that its holding under the wholesale advantage product and so if Fred's were out there to manipulate the data and be sluggish in responding CLEC s request for the CSR, it could make it extremely difficult for a winning CLEC to take back or to take over that customer that currently belongs to Fred's CLEC. And Fred could play the game as much as he wants and keep that customer for months on end and the winning CLEC that maybe is using Sprint for example to do the work is frustrated because Sprint's put in maybe 15, 20, versions of an LSR, trying to do what they can to win this customer or take the customer over and well, just because the way the game is played, they're not going to be too successful. I guess I'm just thinking, and I understand, thank you Dok. Well said Dok, very well said. Page 19

20 But Dok: But there are no Fred's out there are there? Oh no. No because (Elliot's) gone. I'm just thinking is the solution more in the end user type guidelines that I know, are at, a certain commissions have proceedings that have been opened in the past, where the process was suppose to evolve where there was some kind of standard for getting that information. Well there are standards, you know the collaborative clone and there are certainly standards out there where a local service provider is obligated to provide to CSR. If the customer gives their permission then the potential new local service provider has every, you know, they're expected to understand from the customer's current local service provider what features and services they have TNs, etcetera and that should be in the CSR they're maintaining for the customer and the potential new local service provider has every, you know, right to ask for that. Right. And the proceedings close the New York, and I think those type of end user migration guidelines were copied over, discussed and closed on in most of the other commissions for the country. Well only a few states actually issued order though. Page 20

21 But the guidelines are out there. And I think It has nothing adhere to? I have no idea. I haven't heard that. The collaborative closed a few years ago, so, and one of the first - the reason for the collaborative to begin was that once the local market was opened and then the next step was customers wanted to move around. They were having some difficulty with some carriers and so that's why those rules and guidelines were developed over a period of a couple of years so I think, you know, I think that it - regardless what may happen with the CR, and I realize I think it needs to be really detailed at what this would mean, you know, if Verizon entertaining this, how this would be done, but they've also for a couple of years, and one of the main reasons for the first items, topic that was really discussed and resolved was that the local service providers should have the CSR and have to make that available, they can't hold it hostage. And secondly the network service provider, who in this case, were using Verizon as the example, also has customer service information and they detailed when they would make that available based on where the customer information was resident in their systems. They're either a retail customer, resale customer, (unintelligible) wholesale advantage, so I think this needs to be detailed out a little bit more so we could kind of figure out - what would - if this to resolve, you know, would we be seeing a CSR similar to resale or retail and it would be at a preorder? What would be available? Page 21

22 And also to emphasize that they still might be some information a local service provider would have, you know, maybe over and above what Verizon might. Dok: (Mary) thanks, this is Dok. My other concern is, and you have more history to the forum than I do. (Beth): Well thank you (Mary) - this is (Beth), I appreciate that. I didn't have that history. Mary Halpin: No problem. Dok: My concern, I mean, it - on one hand I like what they're proposing here. In order to facilitate the movement of customers, but my concern is also the simple fact that I'm not sure that in facilitating it, you know, will we take it away to the point of trying to keep the purses, playing games and maintaining the customers they've legitimately lost. If it's not going to tip the other way to potentially open it up to make it easier for certain people to slam or steal our customers, that, you know, haven't totally agreed to be moved, and in doing this CR, if the way the wholesale advantage is written, if it's not actually going to counter to somebody's agreement. Well that's the other thing Dok -- this is (Beth) -- and I was thinking is, is that you know, this now, you know, the UNE-P light product, which is wholesale advantage, is not covered under something like this. These are individual agreements and I'm not really sure that would be something we'd have to take back and investigate but my first sense is that, you know, our attorneys are going to say, we don't have an obligation, why would we want to do this? Page 22

23 What if we don't get a 100% agreement, no but I'm not an attorney, so I mean, we'd have to bring it back but I could see them saying that to us. Is why would we want to do this if this is - why wouldn't you just want to fix the process? Dok: Right and our legal counsel is literally right down the hall from me and I'm not sure that council would sign off on Allowing you to make your records available Dok: Exactly. Right. In order to make that affective we would have to get that from everyone. Right, everybody would have to because we could make their- be agreeable to make their records available. Dok: I mean, the concept behind it is, makes complete sense. Unfortunately, the details devil involve in this is where I'm concerned about it at this point in time. (Kim Isaacs): This is (Kim Isaacs) with Eschelon, and, you know I would just like to, you know, remind folks with the FCC's new porting order, they didn t sound too sympathetic for anything that got in the way of having a port go through very quickly. So I mean, the proposal we're making for that port order was talking about applying those for field validations to all forwarding. No, not to all. Simple port. Page 23

24 Simple porting, which they can Kim Isaacs: No, the order was for simple port, but if you read on they're talking about proposed rule making. They want to solicit comments on applying no through all ports. Man: They reduced the need for information on porting order didn't they? Kim Isaacs: Yes they did. For simple port but if you read the proposed rule making, they're talking, they're investigating lowering the intervals for all ports. But what that would mean to me (Kim), would be then, that it would be the obligation would fall even stronger on the providers of the service to hand over the documentation of the customer service record in a timely and efficient manner. Kim Isaacs: But if you look at what they said about the voice over IP as well, Right. Kim Isaacs: Where carriers are considered the number providers? The number providers have an obligation in the (voight) piece to provide the porting quickly. In this case it's almost like Verizon is the number provider for the UNE-P carrier and if push comes to shove, I think the FCC would say a similar thing about Verizon. That they have to facilitate the port in an efficient manner as well. Well they could court the line but that would still leave the mess of the billing. Which then would fall on the other provider which they're going to come Page 24

25 back, I mean, likely so, if it were you, you'd come back and say, wait a minute, you took, you ported the line but my billing records are all wrong. This is (Wanda) but to continue the point is, with the FCC's involvement, if we're moving more towards those four fields, what is the office CSR that you would need? Well, you'd - that's going to be, those four fields are identified and I agree whoever said its migrating towards more than just a simple port, but when you don't have a simple port and you're doing director or anything like that, you need all that information off the customer service record. And you know, just like, I was talking to the wireless committee, you need that CSI to even tell you if it is a simple port, at least for the time being right? Right, you need to know. You need to know what you're dealing with. PJ Koller: Well - this is PJ with Priority One - and I think it'd be much simpler to have the CSR than choking down, you know, umpteenth orders to Verizon with errors and wasting their time and our time. It just and inconveniencing a customer over and over and over again. Right. Yes. Because there's no Bottom line. Page 25

26 Because the one that suffers is the customer. Yes. Bottom line, if cooperation was happening, this would not be an issue correct? When I went to the sixth incumbent CLEC, they give me the CSR. You can process that order and go on your way. Well unless nothing has changed. Janice Ziegele: This is (Janice) from Broadview. I think they're still an issue, because what happens is CLECs that owns that UNE-P can actually have their own BTN and they're own BTN don't match the way that Verizon's BTNs match. And you can't get an order through with a BTN that doesn't match Verizon's BTN bottom line. So even though the CLECs can be cooperating, there's still can be issues because, CLEC A says BTN is 1234, Verizon says it's Leo Dimitriadis: Actually when the CLECs migrates, they're establishing the BTN even though it might be different from than the one it all settles out, Verizon's maintaining the BTN as was ordered on the order by the CLECs. The BTN should be in sync between the CLEC and Verizon. Dok: Well Leo Dimitriadis: after migrating. What's say? Page 26

27 Dok: Leo this is Dok, that's not necessarily the case but you - because the winning CLEC may establish in their own records a BTN or a series of BTNs under which the accounts could be working from. And in, I can think of at least in one specific, a case where the order processing center that would be providing the CSR information to a winning CLEC, would not necessarily have in their records or even access to, because it would belong to the accounting department or something like that. The information that correlates to the Verizon CSR and the Verizon BTNs, so even if you have a winning, or a losing CLEC trying to be cooperative, it is entirely possible with the way their records have been set up, that they will not match what Verizon's CSR has and therefore, even if they were attempting to facilitate the winning CLEC to take the account over, they may not have access to the records that are needed to assist the winning CLEC to process the order correctly. Leo Dimitriadis: I agree. Yes from a billing perspective the CLEC is probably creating their own BTN and their customer service record as they know it, but in their interface in relation with Verizon specifically, for change ordering where you need to, in many cases, specify with an existing account telephone number with the existing BTN to change orders. But that's maintained separately from the account level BTN, so that if another CLEC is looking for CSR information from a CLEC they know is an account, I agree that the telephone number, the BTN they think it is, might not be synchronous with that other CLEC because it was established differently. Even though they do maintain it downstream, so I can understand and you're going to that billing entity in that CLEC in order to get that CSR so, I could Page 27

28 see where they would not be the same. In that case if you were trying to get it from there. PJ Koller: Well - this is PJ with Priority One - another issue is the inconvenience to Verizon it plays, because eventually, you know, when you're at conversion 7 or 8, you call Verizon that you need help, they say we're not suppose to give you information, you say I've got the LOA and that, you know, I' resubmitting these orders, they wind up giving you the information anyways, so it might as well be available just to make it easier. (Chris Gambino): They do give you the information, and actually - I'm sorry, missed the name, this is (Chris) - they actually have a requirement as a network service provider to give you the information but it's a grueling process. Yes, you know and you have the degree of guilt calling the bag and they have the degree of guilt following procedure and not giving out inappropriate information but the ultimate bottom line is that they do give you the information, but the wasted time of, ILEC to CLEC to end user is not, it's making - bottom line is it's making our industry look really bad. I agree. Eddie Pimentel: This is Eddie from Granite, I agree with the whole of thing of records being better kept; however, I wouldn't feel comfortable leaving, you know, I think it's more of a legal thing, the decision to allow other CLECs to view other, you know, other CLECs Right. Eddie Pimentel: information. Page 28

29 But it's generally available information now if you're porting. If you have an LOA, the information really is not yours, it's the customer's. Eddie Pimentel: Which is understandable, but like, I think Dok said it, was - who, was it Fred's Telecom? Dok: Yes. I was Fred? Eddie Pimentel: You know, I'm worried about Fred's Telecom out there you know? And I think with our legal department, I don't think, you know, I don't think they'd be too pleased with us making a decision of, oh well; we're going to allow everyone to view any record they want. But it's not any record, it's customer's CSR you're talking about. Eddie Pimentel: Which I understand. Which has to have an authorization, I mean it's not like we're asking for a transaction that just anybody can pull up at anytime. Right, nobody can be patrolling through anybody's records and just start looking at everything and targeting customers like that but I mean, if you have another wait from a customer, you have a right to the CSR. Eddie Pimentel: I think it's more You have a right, don't you have a right to the CSR the same way from the provider that has that service? I mean I think that Page 29

30 Yes. (Beth): I think what we're saying here, and this is (Beth) at the (unintelligible) Group, but is that - it just sounds to me, I mean, I have two concerns; selfish but one concern is if this dated today for the UNE-P like accounts resides in CABS, I can tell you Verizon is not going to do anything. (Chris): That is not true (Beth), Verizon provides us that information today but we have to go through a grueling manual process to get it. (Beth): But Chris I didn't finish, I didn't say that we don't have it, what I'm saying is if this is a request that comes in, there was a comment that was made that said what would you do? What would you make it look like? My guess is going to be is that since it's in CABs today, if in fact we would even agree to provide it based upon some of this discussion and having to go back to legal, I don't see Verizon making any changes to how the data would come out. We would have to provide, but I don't think it's going to be that nice neat way that it comes out of Chris as the customer service record, which I think that's part of the issue and why you probably have issues when we have to provide the information today too, it sounds to me that the customer, the CLEC that has this customer should really be coning up to provide the right information. (Chris): Well no I don't disagree with you, but if we got to issue an order to Verizon to port a customer from a UNE-P provider, the order ultimately has to go through Verizon. And if Verizon is going to require certain information on that LSR, then Verizon has got to give us the information. Right. Page 30

31 Dok: Is that (Carol) from Sprint speaking? (Chris): No it's (Chris). I agree. Dok: First off, what if - I mean I could see Why couldn't the end user? Dok: If I got a request from Verizon or if I get a notice, for example, from XS saying that they're going to take XYZ customers away from me, I'm not sure I would have a problem having a mechanism to release Verizon to permit them to provide what records are salient to that customer and, you know, as well, as you obviously trying to provide you with our CSR, but, you know, in other words, try to cut it down from 7 version to maybe 2, in that when you're first reject comes through, you would then have a release from me to permit Verizon to interact with you, to produce a proper version 2 with the adequate information. Isn't that what the LOA is stating though? Exactly. Dok: But I don't (Chris): We don t, I don't, we don't need that Dok from my perspective now, I mean I could be wrong but it seems to me if you have a legitimate LOA, you have a right to the CSR if the CSR is what you need to produce an order. Page 31

32 And we can get that CSR from one of two places, we can get it from the old local service provider, the UNE-P provider or we could get it from the network service provider, which is Verizon. And that's what the phase 2 guidelines call for. Well are the phase 2 guidelines implemented (Chris)? (Chris): Yes. I can refer you to - they were ordered by the commissions - back in Dok: Then doesn't this become a type (Chris): and I can tell you today what, the way we do it okay. I mean we run into this all the time and (Tom Scanlon's) group has been great in helping us out. But I'm sure he'd wish that there was a solution to this rather than going, you know, through this whole manual. But we put a trouble ticket in and we copied (Tom) and he assigns it to somebody and we end up getting the CSR, but we end up delaying customer orders, you know, from time to time, a long time. Dok: And I'm not disputing that in the slightest. Leo Dimitriadis: Are you saying that in resale terms you have that information available, is that right? Right. Dok: But resale isn't a contractual service Leo, that's, I guess that's where I m getting concerned about it. But if there are guidelines established by regulatory bodies then that takes us out of being a type 5 and it takes it to being and I'm sorry I can't remember this type 1 or type 2 then. Page 32

33 A regulatory order would be type 2; however, I mean, remember something what you said is that these are contractual product. That's right, and So it's different than whatever might be in that guide lines. And I guess I'd like to go back and look at that myself too. A CLEC to CLEC migration guidelines cover UNE-P as well as straight resale as well as facility based CLECs and it gives you - I can actually ((crosstalk)) Then everybody would be an example of a UNE-P to facility based, you know, port, getting a CSR and how it's done. I can - it's very clear. Janice Ziegele: And - this is (Janice), - when those guidelines were drawn up, UNE-P was not contractual. Right, right. Janice Ziegele: That's the other thing to BMI. And also those guidelines have not been adopted by every state. (Chris): I'm talking actually, the biggest problem we have is New York. New York is weird. They are adopted though. (Chris): Exactly. Page 33

34 Maybe there needs to be some discussion to have, I mean, from a profit standpoint, knowing what's going on in the industry anyway with porting too, that these types of collaboratives should be opened up. Because, I mean, I'm sure this isn't going to be the only problem but that, we would have as an industry in being able to access each other's record. Right. when needed. I'll tell you this is one of the driving points for the petition that was filed because it gets so difficult to get a hold of some of the customer service records in the past. Right. Dok: I don't dispute that my only - and this is Dok again - my only problem, and I mean, I've said I think that the fundamental basis behind it is down. I think that we have two issues that we have to have Verizon research before I would feel confident that we could write this, that's all I'm saying.. Eddie Pimentel: That's true. We don't know what each other's - what we have in each other's contracts. Right. Eddie Pimentel: It could be literature they have that could prevent Verizon from even going further with this. Page 34

35 Well there is actually Eddie Pimentel: I think that this is not the right forum and these discussions to be handling this. I think it's more of than just regulatory. Dok: That's Eddie right? Eddie Pimentel: Yes, this is Eddie. Loriann Burke: Yes, this is Loriann from XO, I mean, if it, if the customer service record is the part that we can't attack, what about looking at the actual, you know, migration from - but I guess we would have to go through the commission again - just the process. There's information that could be different on the CLEC CSR from what Verizon has in their records, what can we do to ensure that those orders go through if, now the account has broken up into three BPNs instead of two? What difference does it make as long as you have all the telephone numbers listed? Janice Ziegele: This is (Janice) from Broadview though. I think it's a broader issue, what if you want to go from keeping Union P and just change carriers and you want to provide the same services? That should be a pretty simple migration. Man: Yes, but go back to the scenario, you got Fred out there who doesn't want to give it up, so what's Yes, but you know what? I don't think we should, you know, create a whole new system process because of a Fred company, especially in the state of New York. Page 35

36 If a company is not compliant and they're not responding to a request to see SORs and never giving all the information, you know, I think that needs to be addressed. (Beth): Well can I ask this question? This is (Beth) again not to be so silly with this, and (Chris) I'm not implying Cable Vision does this, but as a cable provider right? If you had, if you ported a number out then an ILEC would not have any of that information so if the cable company or somebody else ported the number, how would anybody that would want to take that customer back get that information? (Chris): I'm sorry, say that again (Beth), I didn't get your (Beth): Okay, if you're Man: You have to go to the cable company. (Beth): Right but that's what I'm saying is, it's like, let's just say for arguments sake that Verizon can, for the UNE-P like products, provide the customer service record by going forward as the industry churns the way that it is. If there is numbers ported outside an ILEC type, where we're a network provider say to Cable Vision (Woman): Right (Beth): If somebody wants to take that customer from you (Chris): And they come to us like they do today. Page 36

37 (Beth): Right but they come to you and you guys supply the record but what do you do when the industry if there's a Fred Cable Vision company that wouldn't give that record, it would not be available through (Chris): Then you have a PSCC complaint but the bottom line it's not not the fact that, you know, anybody is not providing a CSR. Eddie Pimentel: Then there's your answer, that's what you should be doing then, is probably just going to the PUC, if there is, that carrier who is not releasing you the information, then that should be your route to go just as - if let's say we can't get information because you're a solely facilities based and Verizon doesn't store your CSR, has no connection to you CSR and we can't get it.. (Chris):..and you don't need. Eddie Pimentel: you'd have to go in and complain to the PUC. (Chris): Okay, but the difference is ((crosstalk)) (Chris): The difference is this, in the case of a UNE-P provider, we still have to deal with Verizon. If you want to port a number from Cable Vision or Sprint, you have to issue your order to Cable Vision or Sprint, you can, which is a very very simple process, but Eddie Pimentel: I'd have to submit my LSR to Verizon after I get the information from you. Page 37

38 (Chris): Oh, now if you're porting a number from us, okay, a facility base carrier, you don't have to do anything through Verizon. Now you may have to do a listing through Verizon, but as far as porting the number, you issued your LSR to us. Eddie Pimentel: No, no, no. If I was going to take from a facilities based and put it onto Verizon wholesale advantage I would need to process (unintelligible). (Chris): Oh, well then, yes but that's a different story, not to get the number. Eddie Pimentel: Well that's my story, we don't do facilities based, we are wholesale advantage. Right but the whole point is that we have turn in the LSR to Verizon to get that number from you. (Chris): We can get the number to port without going through Verizon, so if you don't give us, as a UNE-P, if you don't give us an accurate CSR or, you know, you change it for whatever reason, and I'm not saying for any nefarious reasons, you know. It may be just the way you keep records, but if it doesn't agree with what Verizon has, I can't port that account. Man: One thing I do agree is (Chris): I've got hospitals and schools that have taken months to port because of this. Eddie Pimentel: But I understand, records just, especially in the north. It's just horrible. Every time we have to look at a CAB record it's all over the place, so what I agree is that, you know, records to be, I wish we could just put it all in the CRIS format, just like they have it in the south, but Verizon's pretty much shot that down already. Page 38

39 Liz Balvin: This is Liz Balvin from Covad, can I just ask some clarifying questions? Because I understand the, the concept of the network provider actually having the CSR, I also understand that the owner of the record may consider some of the information of the CSR proprietary but I guess. I'm not an attorney, but I think to overlook an LLA is really not the appropriate step to take because I think that legally binds the person querying that information to get that - and see the re-proprietary information. And not all of the CSR is proprietary so, some outlets have limited that response but I think if you have an LLA and you're issuing a launch to get that information and you suggest to Verizon that you have an LOA on file, I think that's binding, legally from any PUC's perspective. I think that they're going to look at that and say, did the end user have authorization and where is that record keeping? That is the way it would work right? I mean, the CSR launch would not - would actually identify that you have an LOA on file? (Chris): Correct. Same as it does today with every, you know, any other kind of port or CSR request, yes. Liz Balvin: Right. Who's with (Sandra Boyd) with HTC? Liz Balvin: That's the legal question that - the attorneys, you know, we have our own set of attorneys here but I think that proprietary nature of CSR information can be addressed as well as if that launching query CLEC is saying they have authorization from the end user, I do think that that's binding. Well I think it's a little bit different in the case with Wholesale Advantage because these are our individual agreements. I'd have to go back and (Wanda) Page 39

40 would have to go back and we'll have to take a look and see if there's like some standard language in all the agreements or is there individual language, or something related to that customer's customer information. Yes, I would find it very hard to believe that Verizon would contract anything, would direct any kind of a contact, that would hinder porting of a customer fro m a UNE-P provider or wholesale advantage provider to another class. No, no and I'm not saying they're hindering it, I'm saying that Verizon may have in their agreement with their individual wholesale advantage customer that says Verizon will not be the party responsible to provide their customer information. So I wouldn't consider that hindering, I would just, but I don t know, we'd have to go back and check that (Chris), in the agreements because if the rules were followed in the industry according to the CLEC to CLEC migration the taking party should be able to get all the information necessary to take that customer. I understand what you're saying is there may be records that get changed by that incumbent CLEC that don't match what the network provider, in this case being Verizon, had as the last record which is what Verizon would keep. So I can see that. and what Verizon would require on a port order. Right because that's how, but that's the way - right. So absolutely and I can see where you would have those issues but I'm just wondering, and we would have to go back and look because I don't know off the top of my head what Page 40

41 our obligations are or are not with, related to this product and releasing information unilaterally. Okay, I can just tell you that it is released today. You know, it's a grueling process as I said, but we do get it today if we can't get it from the UNE-P provider. Right and I think it's a grueling process probably back to the point of because it's the back in forth of should it be released, shouldn't it be released to this guy. (Chris): No that's not really it. It's not really should it or shouldn't it be released, its just Verizon having to put it together because, you know, I'm not sure, you know, they maintain it the way, you know, easily acceptable fashion. Right. Right. It's not a CRIS like, easily, easy to get (Chris): Exactly, so you know. I don't think it's ever been an issue of should we or shouldn't we provide it because the LNP Phase 2 guidelines are pretty clear that you have to. Now if you have contracts that, you know, are subsequent to the LNP Phase 2 guidelines that don't adhere to that, that's another story. Well I mean, I don't know. I'd have to go back and look at that. (Chris): Okay. And I'm not saying that, I'm just saying is I don't know what our obligation is, but it doesn't sound like from this call that everybody's in agreement that they Page 41

42 would want to have their information readily available. I think that everybody's is (Chris): I'm just going to go back to the bottom line that it's not their information, it's the customer's information. Well then if it's the customer's information then the customer really should be the one able to request it right? We shouldn't have this issue. (Chris): Oh I've had customers request it from UNE-P providers and, you know, be told that no, they have to go to Verizon to get it. So, we will definitely take this back. (Chris): It's a very mangled mess. Right. And that's just what makes keep thinking that the process should be more laid down and straight forward (Chris): I agree. that everybody should adhere to. Whether or not we're able to get the information or not or come up with some kind, you know, a fixed process. It just seems like it's broken somewhere. (Chris): It certainly is. Okay. (Chris): Yes it certainly is. Page 42

43 Janice Ziegele: (Janice) from Broadview. I think that it is broke because in the east we use a different billing system and that billing system for UNE-P, the customer service records look a little different. It's not done by BTN, it's just done line by line, so to, you know, if you were requesting one of those CSRs, you'd have to request it on a TN level because I don't believe that it actually gives you all the telephone numbers that are associated with the Verizon BTN. Somewhere it's held but you're not going to see it, you know when we bring up those CSRs, you know, we're hunting and pecking for all the lines that we believe belong to that BTN. And if one of the main sticking points is how things are done for the customer from a billing perspective then that really, the place for all of that resides, and is pulled together, is with the local service provider on the end user's bill. So Verizon wouldn't have that. And I guess also we need, we would really need to understand if Verizon is going to entertain this, how it would be done. Agreed. You know, and talk about it because - Janice Ziegele: And this is (Janice) from Broadview again, when we pull up a resold CSR, you see the prices on it. Under UNE-P, wholesale advantage, those prices are contractual so I certainly wouldn't want my prices to be shown to any other CLECs. Man: Touché. Page 43

44 Right. Absolutely. Oh, I can understand that completely. Yes. Now that's Right. But that's on a CSR, that s obviously information that should be redacted. So does this need to be deferred until Verizon can research the contracts? Yes, I guess they're going to have to, you know. I think it's for both right? I think a company should go back too, especially the wholesale advantage customers and talk with their organizations to see if there's anything else. Like you brought up a good point about the pricing, you know, not being available if it's on the record, things of that nature so that we can put together a full story here. I don t think I've ever seen, and I'll have to take a look, I mean, we've gotten number of CSRs from, you know, Verizon, on UNE-P providers, customers that, I don t ever remember seeing in pricing or anything. I don't know whether they just put it I'm sure they delete it. Okay. It would be illegal to show that to you. Page 44

45 Yes, I would think, so I mean what's wrong with that? That's, you know, that's fine we're getting what we need, we're not, you know, obviously not interested in the rates. I do have a question, (Mary) you were involved in the collaborative to begin with weren't you? Mary Halpin: Yes. Mary Halpin. Wasn't one of the reasons that this is done was because the CSR was coming out of CABS in New York and that full CSRs could not be given because everything was on a line by line basis. Mary Halpin: Well I'm sure that was part of the discussion, but I think one of the main premises was that the current local service provider should have the full record of their own customer's and users account. And, you know, have their billing them and all the features and services and all the lines. And that they would have some information that's not in the Verizon record. But what would make this different than a resold Verizon account? Mary Halpin: Well the resold accounts I think are in a completely different system than Verizon. Right, but I - well I believe the genesis of pushing all of this and that's why the collaborative came about was because these CSRs were coming out of CABS. Mary Halpin: No that wasn't - I don't think that was the genesis, to the whole collaborative because it really was, I think, complaints to the commission that some Page 45