Mr. Rodgers, you may go ahead. I want to know if Tom Jones is going to sing for us.

Transcription

1 Verizon Service Group March 16, 2004 Confirmation # Operator: Excuse me everyone, this is the conference operator. Tom Jones Tom Rodgers has now joined. I just want to let you know that we will be opening all the lines in the conference and in order to reduce background noise, we suggest that you either use the mute button on your phone or if you're placing us on hold, use star 6 to mute your lines through the bridge. Star 6 to mute your lines to the bridge and no sound will come through if you put us on hold. We will be disconnecting lines with excessive noise. Mr. Rodgers, you may go ahead. Speaker: Thanks Ben. I want to know if Tom Jones is going to sing for us. There you go. Who started that? And immediately we go to music on hold, huh. Speaker: Operator: That's the bridge. I'm going to actually take Thanks, Ben. Take care of him. Operator: Yeah, I'll take care of it. Okay, Mr. Rodgers, you may go ahead and I'll open up lines one at a time. Okay, thanks Ben. Good morning everyone. Welcome to the call. This is the Verizon Change Management call for March. My name is Tom Rodgers, Manager of CLEC Communications for Verizon. I think we have a pretty good list of folks on line, so I would recommend we would proceed with introductions. Beth McReynolds, are you there in Irving? Star 6 to un-mute. Is anyone out there? Beth McReynolds: Tom? Yeah, there you are.

2 Beth McReynolds: the room. Steve Elliott: Beth McReynolds: Okay. Yeah, I'm here and Steve Elliott from SBC is in Hi Steve. Hi Tom. Anyone else there with you? No, no one else. Okay. Beth Cohen, you out there? I'm here, Tom. Great. Good morning. Okay, CLECs joining us on the call. Would you introduce yourselves please? Dexter Lilly: Dexter Lilly: Bob Urisay: Kim Isaacs: John Boshier, Covad Communications. Hi John. Good morning Tom. Dexter Lilly with VarTec Hey Dex. Hey Tom. Bob Urisay, Allegiance. Bob. Good morning, Tom. Cheryl Peterson, AT&T. Hello hot Cheryl. Hi. Good morning. Kim Isaacs from Eschelon. Hi Kim.

3 Kim Isaacs: Nancy Sanders: COMCAST. Paul Figglestaller: Paul Figglestaller: Teresa Castro: Benny Omlis: Did you hear me? Benny Omlis: Ian Coleman: Ian Coleman: Tammy Swensen: Accenture. Tammy Swensen: Female Speaker: HTC. Amy Kwak: Hello. Good morning Tom. Nancy Sanders from Hi. Good morning, Nancy. Paul Figglestaller (sp?) from MCI. Hey Paul. Hey. Good morning. This is Teresa Castro from VarTec. Hi Teresa. Tom, this is Benny. I think I came over Allegiance. Yeah, we did now. Thanks Benny. Okay, great. This is Ian Coleman from Allegiance. Hi Ian. Good morning. Good morning Tom. It's Tammy Swensen from Hi Tammy. Good morning. Good morning. Crystal Callsey and Sandra Boyd with Hi Crystal and Sandra. Good morning. Amy Kwak with CTSI. Hey Amy.

4 Amy Kwak: Stacy Hizzon: Stacy Hizzon: Stacy Hizzon: Matt Connelly: Noreen Carroll: Noreen Carroll: Rebecca Baldwin: Hey Tom. Stacy Hizzon, Birch Telecom. Stacy, you're with who? Birch Telecom. Oh, good morning. Hi. And Tom, Matt Connelly with Birch is also here. Hi Matt. And Noreen Carroll. Hi Noreen. Hi. Hi Tom. It's Rebecca Baldwin with TelCove. Hi Rebecca. Deanna Golkendren: Hi Tom. This is Deanna Golkendren (sp?) and I'm with the MCO organizations in Verizon. Oh, okay. Now would be a good time to ask my Verizon folks to introduce themselves. Steven Cuttle: Steven Cuttle: Hi Tom. This is Steven Cuttle from Verizon. Hi Steven. How are you? Good buddy. Cindy Towne: Tom, this is Cindy Towne from Connectivity Management East & West Hi Cindy.

5 Cindy Towne: Jan Tanzer: Jan Tanzer: Bobbie Dodson: Karen Edwards: Web content team. Karen Edwards: here in a minute. And CTE East & West. Okay. Jamie, you out there? Hi Tom, this is Jan Tanzer from the Web portal team. Hi Jan. Welcome to the call. Thank you. Hi. This is Bobbie Dodson. Hi Bobbie. Hi Tom, this is Karen Edwards from the Wholesale Oh hi. Good morning. Good morning. Is Carol Yozzo out there? I m sure she'll be joining us I guess I wanted to add something to the agenda right now as far as discussing the need for meetings in person or to designate CMP meetings for direct face-to-face conversation versus a conference bridge. What appears to be happening is about one CMP meeting a month we have I guess more than one CLEC actually show up. You mean a quarter. A quarter, yeah. So what we'd like to propose is a face-to-face once per quarter and then a conference bridge. We think that doing that might I mean I know Steve from SBC is sitting there in the conference room by himself today pretty much with Beth. It might help in given that everybody seems to be rather travel constrained at the moment. Any discussion on that? Bob Urisay: Tom, this is Bob Urisay. We were talking about a face-to-face in April. I think a lot of us are planning on coming there for the April meeting. anyway, right? Okay, so it looks like everybody's kind of decided that

6 Bob Urisay: Uh huh. Okay. Okay. Do you want us to change the documentation to reflect that? Tom. It's John. I'm sorry. Well, how do you mean change the documentation, Sure. Just from a I guess basically just remove the meeting room from those meetings where we would not be there in person. We're still going to have the bridge and have the call and everything. Yeah, that's, you know, fine by me. Tom, are you suggest this is Cheryl. Are you suggesting that we pick one month out of the quarter where we would meet faceto-face, which would I think would be the most feasible for planning purposes? Yeah, that's pretty much it, Cheryl. Why don't we make it the first month in the quarter making April the first month obviously in the second quarter and just go through the year that way? Well, it doesn't always work because of just different circumstances that come up throughout the year or sometimes January's not always the see how it goes. Yeah. Could we maybe do some short-term planning and Well sure and really the only reason for bringing it up is I'm sure Beth is sitting there in a room with about 15 extra copies of material that we didn't need to produce today, and we might be able to resolve that just by asking for an RSVP for the in-person so that we can size how many books to produce, not that it's a big issue with us. It's just one of those we're being a little bit wasteful as far creating documents that we don't need to create. Well, I think Tom, it's Beth and I think that it also goes to both Tom's and my travel since we're neither one of us are in Dallas, and we'd like to be there when they're clearly is going to be folks in the room, so that was one of the other reasons that we thought about going to a quarter, and again this is not to say anything Steve, who is sitting in the room.

7 I think it sounds like a good idea. I know I plan on being there in April, but you know, as you know as you just mentioned a little bit ago, every company has its different travel constraints, but if we could sort of target April, we know that several folks are planning on attending in April, just for you knowledge of that, and then we can maybe look at the next quarter, which would still give us all some time, as well as you guys, time in planning. In other words, we'll all discuss this in April as to when the next time everyone thought they could get back together. That's fine too. Well, we don't have to wait for the next quarter. That was just a suggestion, but just as an FYI, it looks right now that April will be a travel month for at least a few of us. Okay, all right. Tom, I would suggest that we say that we will be in Dallas for the April meeting for those folks who wish to travel to Dallas for April and then I would say let's talk in April about when our next what would be the next feasible travel month for most folks. Okay. That's a fair way to leave it. Yeah, obviously there will always be a conference bridge, so you know, because there are folks who will not travel and we recognize that. Yeah, and we just want to we just want to make sure that if you guys are going to show up, we'll be there, and if you're not, then we can stay home and enjoy the snow and not travel, so Anyhow, on with the agenda. Amy Kwak: Amy Kwak: Amy Kwak: Excuse me, Tom. Hi. This is Amy with CTSI. Hi Amy. I can't pull up any of the meeting materials. Really? Okay.

8 Amy Kwak: And I tried three different browsers. Well, not really different browsers, but I tried Netscape 7.1, 4.7, and I tried Internet Explorer 5.5, and I can t I just get a blank screen whenever I click on the topic. Amy Kwak: sometimes Amy Kwak: problem. you get that far? Okay. Have you hit refresh a couple of times? I did. Well, let's see if I've got a problem out there. Do you have Acrobat Reader because that Yes, I do. This is the only time I've ever had a And you're looking at the upcoming meetings or can Amy Kwak: Yes, I get the list of the upcoming well, I click on upcoming meetings and then I get to the most current meeting and I can see all the various attachments, but I cannot open them. Is anybody else having a problem? Male Speaker 1: Amy Kwak: I've ever had a problem. Male Speaker 1: Are you clicking on the actual PDF icon? I mean I do this every month. This is the only time I was trying to help. Yeah, mine's launching just fine. Let's see. Yeah, I've got it just fine here, so you can see everything. It's just that when you go to launch the document, you can't extract it, huh? Amy Kwak: your ID again? Amy Kwak: Amy Kwak: Correct. Okay. And I'm sorry. I can it to you. What's Amy.kwak@ct-enterprises.com Charlie Enterprises.com. Charlie Tom dash enterprises.

9 Dash, okay. Anyone else having this problem? Okay, Amy, I can you the documents as I introduce Cindy Towne to discuss the CLEC test environment. Amy Kwak: Amy Kwak: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. No problem. Alright, bye. Mike Salazar: Hey Tom, this is Mike. Can you me also? But I'm not having I'm actually having a different issue? Mike Salazar: John Olsen: late. John Olsen: Cindy Towne: technically adept. Okay. Thanks. Hi Tom. This is John Olsen. I joined a few minutes Hi John. Welcome to the call. Thank you. Okay, Cindy you out there? Oop, sorry. I'm talking to my mute button. I'm so Hi. My name is Cindy Towne. Some of you may know me through connectivity manager and through CLEC testing in the East. What I'm on for this morning is to announce the transition that Jamie Rawls will be taking some new responsibilities and I will be assuming responsibilities for CLEC testing for EDI and CORBA and test at publication in West, so all of you EDI and CORBA testing and connectivity to CTE in testing will now be handled under my teams and if anyone has any questions or concerns about that, please feel free to address them now. The websites have been updated to reflect my name and number; so that you can find it easy to reach me, and Tom, I believe that's all I was committed to talk about this morning. Oh, okay. Cindy Towne: Unless someone has something for me that I'm not aware of, but I can speak to. I'd be happy to.

10 Cindy, this is Mike from AT&T. I just is Laurie still Laurie Shoemates (sp?) Yes. Yes. Okay, so it's those at that level, they'll still continue That is correct. Okay, thanks. So I may be getting off very easy this morning. Yeah, Cindy, I guess you'd be involved with the pre- I will be. Yes. Okay. Tom, what was Cindy's last name again? It was Towne, T like in Tom, O-W, N like in Nancy, E Thank you. Would you like my telephone number too? Yes please. Mike Salazar: on the team then? Cindy Towne: Mike Salazar: Cindy Towne: Mike Salazar: to Cindy Towne: Mike Salazar: Cindy Towne: release call as well? Cindy Towne: Female Speaker 1: Cindy Towne: as in eagle. Female Speaker 1: Cindy Towne: Female Speaker 1: Cindy Towne: I know I'm crazy to do this, but its Female Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Okay. Steven Cuttle has been joining the call to discuss Website enhancements. Steve, you out there? Steven Cuttle: Yes. Good morning.

11 Steven Cuttle: Good morning. Good morning everyone. Just wanted to go over some highlights for what's coming this month or at the beginning of next month for Web documentation. For CLEC ordering there will be just to bring to your attention it's now on the Training & Education page as well as the Events Calendar. There will be a connectivity review and digital certificate download review workshop and that's scheduled for April 6 th. The agenda the workshop invitation and agenda notification did go out through Change Management on March 10 th to both the East and West communities, and that is a combination East & West workshop. There will be some updates coming at the end of the month for the Web-based training material. The existing UNE course will actually be separated into one for UNE and one for UNE Platform, and again that's coming at the end of March. And in addition, a new directory listing course will also be rolled out at the end of the month for directory listing content. for training. So that would be some of the updates that are coming As far as two updates for content to the Website, my team directly is involved with the conversion of order samples, pre-order samples, and local ordering guide content from LSOG 5 to the LSOG 6 version, and that is well underway, and we should be having the new content or the updated content launched by the end of March, the first week of April. No later, so that would impact the LSR order samples, the pre-order samples found in the local ordering guide, as well as the supporting guide pages. We will be launching this is really for the East, but for those of you who might be doing orders in the West also at the end of March, first week of April we will have a new resale DID PBX sample. Specific to the West we are currently working on launching CLEC to CLEC migration scenarios. This would be like to like. We had launched some East content samples at the end of October and we're trying to get the equivalent West samples launched. The way it's looking now, those will probably be on the Web by the end of April. And then finally, in the area of new or updated development for the Web, there is in the works a redesign of the local ordering

12 guide portal page, nothing too major, just we're trying to reorganize the page so it makes more sense and hopefully is more user friendly and that is in development with our IT partners in Verizon and hoping to have that launched within the April time frame. Just an update as far as the Linda Senne has been reporting up until I took on this responsibility there's a new Establish & Maintain portal page on the Web that was supposed to launch in December. That obviously is still not out yet. There are some delays with that and hoping Linda is still involved in that project and hoping to have that launched certainly by the April May timeframe at this point, but as I get updates, I'll be sure to share those with you. And one action item that came up from the February Change Management meetings both in East and West was the Contact Us portal. Actually, two items on that. One is I have taken on overseeing responsibility for that portal page, and we have been making several updates to the Contact Us information in the portal page. We are receiving those both from customers as well as we've been working with the actual domain owners within Verizon to make those updates, so I would just mention to you that if you do find inaccurate information that you can certainly pass that along to me via the VST mailbox or through the Change Management process as well. But one of the action items specifically was to come with a user-friendly printable version of the escalation lists from the Contact Us portal, and Linda Senne is actually continuing to manage that effort. She has been working with our IT partners for the last month to come up with some options and I believe, Tom, I'm not sure if that was going to be something you were going to bring to the customers attention this afternoon in the way of maybe making that a CLEC initiated request. Yes, we're still waiting for the enhancement to come from Doc at Penn Telecom. Steven Cuttle: Okay. But at that point, so that would be basically all I had to report on specific to Web content. Are there any questions? Steven Cuttle: Hi Steve. This is Cheryl Peterson with AT&T. Hi. Hi. There are a couple of identified issues that came up recently that I understood that were being sent over to you. One was the directory proof instructions for connectivity for Verizon West because that attachment specifies Verizon East, and CERT was passing that along to you.

13 Steven Cuttle: Yes, and I am I m actually working with the domain owners of that actual document. That came to me I guess at the end of February, so I've just asked them for a status as to when that document is going to be updated, so I am following up on that. Steven Cuttle: month at this point. Steven Cuttle: Okay, and And I'm hoping to get that updated by the end of this Thank you. Sure. The other one went through the account team where there seems to be some confusion on UNE-P product information that's out there. We have escalated for more than a year to get product information for Verizon West on the new Wholesale site. On the How to Order local ordering services, it has information on there that doesn't seem to match what we're being told by the account team, and supposedly they were passing all that along to you to check it out. Have you seen that? Steven Cuttle: Yes, I have, and the specific issue that came up was regarding UNE Platform PBX, and that was given to me by Mary Beth O'Brien from the account team, so I am my team is actually working on making updates to the log in particular to that issue. Okay, because it's quite confusing because the business rules support things that don't match the text descriptions or the "How to Order" and so it's very disconcerting about what is really being offered by Verizon West for the UNE Platform product. Steven Cuttle: No, I I'm sorry. Or in like you said, you know, this has been an ongoing thing, recognizing you just came into this, just the background on it, it's been more than a year that we've had that request to get that Website corrected, particularly because if the Business Rules support a product, then we would expect that that offer that product is offered. Otherwise it means that the Business Rules are incorrect as well. Steven Cuttle: No, I understand your concern, and I know what the local ordering guide the idea behind the local ordering guide was to, whenever possible, address products and services and ordering processes should say from a Verizon footprint perspective, realizing however that there are definite differences between the West footprint and the East footprint, so I have taken on,

14 you know, in taking over the responsibility for the local ordering guide. It is a work in progress, but I've asked my team whereas if we start looking at some of the content that we are doing some additional validation, and a lot of that has to be done with the Verizon product management group to because we what we've tried to do with documentation is we are trying to document. You know, we're not documenting content in a vacuum. We are trying to document content based on established processes and procedures and so forth, so a lot of that and I realize you know you mentioned this has been an ongoing issue for over a year so I'm certainly trying to ensure that content is in sync with the requirements both from East and West, so certainly if there are specific issues, you know, I welcome that feedback, as I mentioned, through the VST mailbox or through the account management team, as you've been doing, Cheryl, and we're trying to address those as they come through. And we realize that comes from the product team, and that's where it's been escalated, and when we've had absolutely zero improvement to that at all, so we realize that you're getting that fed down to you, so anything that we can help you push to get that correct because obviously the CERT team uses that very same Website and they would be giving your own resources would be giving out incorrect information if the product team doesn't provide the correct details, but thank you for following up on that. Steven Cuttle: questions? Tom. Steven Cuttle: Steven Cuttle: Carol Yozzo: Carol Yozzo: meeting, you come back. Sure, my pleasure. Would there be any other Okay, well thank you very much and I'll pass it back to Thanks Steven. Sure. get the update. Okay. I don't believe Carol Yozzo has joined us. Yes, I have, Tom. Hey. Welcome back. Welcome back? Okay. Thank you. Well, just when we thought you were going to be in a

15 Carol Yozzo: I should have given you a couple of minutes to say something about me before I said I was here just to see what you said. OSS Workshop. All I was going to say was point towards the upcoming Carol Yozzo: Right. That's actually all I'm going to say anyway. I did want to take just a minute or two to remind any CLECs that are doing business in Pennsylvania as former GTE that we are running a workshop on Thursday. A notice did go out, but a new notice will be coming out. I guess that'll go out today, Tom. Is that right? Female Speaker: It's out now, Carol. Carol Yozzo: It is out. Okay, thank you, but and I wanted to draw everyone's attention to it not only as reminder, but we had to change the bridge number because of the overwhelming response, so everyone who is planning on attending the workshop on Thursday, take a look in your for the new notice with the new bridge number and the meeting, just as a reminder, is 10 am Eastern and that's Thursday the 18 th of March. Any questions? Great, then that's it for me. Thank you, Tom. that good information. Carol Yozzo: Thanks Carol. We'll be listening in Thursday for all Okay, great. About two months ago we introduced the topic of Service Activation Report version 3 versus SAR version 4, and while I was on vacation, I think Bobbie and Beth hosted a call to discuss that topic. Bobbie had produced a second document excuse me a second document that compares SAR 3 to SAR 4. Bobbie or Beth, could you give us an update of what happened at the last call and where we're at on this project? Bobbie Dodson: Fine. We sent out a new document from our meeting and I hope everybody's been able to pull that up and view that. We removed anything that refers to the LR and now what we have on here is just strictly the information for the fields that are currently on SAR version 3 and the fields that are on currently on version 4, and what we're doing is we've shown these items that are highlighted in yellow on version 3. Those are the ones that are also available on the version 4 today. The ones that are highlighted in blue are the fields that you are requesting to move to version 4 so that we could sunset version 3, and then the ones that are highlighted in red, those three fields, which are the SN, AC, and LL. Those are the ones that we're looking at doing, possibly

16 replacing those three fields on the version 4 with the just strictly with the ALI code if we can, and what we would like to do with that and we're working with our IT group now to see if it's feasible, and that would be to take the ALI code that you provide on the LSR and then match that up with the actual ALI code that we from Verizon may assign to that, so that you have a compare on that, and that would be able to replace those three fields with the ALI field and have the compare on that. And that's what we would like to propose with removing the version 3 and having the version 4 come on if you guys are in agreement with that. One of the other things that I had been asked to check on was to make sure something had come up with the timeline for the completion and with the completion of the orders and completion of the SAR with CSI, and we did verify that it is an average of 3 days and our bill cycles are not related to that, so it doesn't really matter what bill cycle even though we have ten bill cycles. It doesn't matter what bill cycle you're on, we still will complete within an average of three days regardless of the bill cycle, and you should be able to see that on the CSI itself, so what we would like to do is to look at moving forward with this and removing of the version 3 and trying to move these fields over and then looking at the possibility of using the ALI and doing the compare on that if you guys are in agreement with that. Does anybody have any questions on that or on the field that we've highlighted? Would this be something that we possibly review this afternoon as a Type 4 initiative. Bobbie Dodson: It would be a Type 4. We have not issued a Type 4 yet though. Bobbie Dodson: in April. proposed action on this? Okay. We would have that issued for the next CMP meeting Cheryl, are you comfortable with evaluation and Can you send that out to me? I need to run that by both of our business units. already. Okay. It's well, its part of the meeting documents Oh, okay. Sorry, haven't gotten through all those.

17 Okay. Let me re-check with them and then I will notify you. Bobbie Dodson: Okay. Is there anybody who has any questions on those fields or what we're wanting to propose? Yeah, if I wasn't clear, our intent is to retire SAR version 3 and make any necessary changes to SAR version 4. Female Speaker: Do you have a proposed time frame for this? Well, I guess it really depends on the any size of the changes that we're making. Female Speaker: Okay. Would it be something that would be in a standard release or is it something you're thinking of putting out earlier? Bobbie Dodson: Female Speaker: Bobbie Dodson: Female Speaker: Paul Figglestaller: too. Paul Figglestaller: No, it would be in a standard release. Okay, so we're still looking at maybe the June? No, it would not be June. Not this year. Okay. Thank you. And Tom, this is Paul. I'd have to run this by my guys Okay. For the MCI. Yeah, really what we're after is anybody that's still relying on SAR version 3 and we want to talk to them and see if we can address any issues that would prevent them from just using SAR 4. Paul Figglestaller: Right. And if we need another call to do that, just let us know. I assume that we would proceed with packaging this into Type 4 enhancement for the April meeting, and that'll give you another shot to look at it.

18 Okay. Next up on the we're moving right along here. I assume there's no need for a break at this point, is there? We'll just keep going. Bobbie, you're next up with a review of the development schedule or items by release report. Bobbie Dodson: Alright, well we'll start with the April release, and we have three initiatives in the April release. The first one is what Carol Yozzo's already gone over, which is for the PA conversion, and what we've actually listed in here is that the code will actually go in with the April release, but it will not be operational until May the 10 th. It's on May the 10 th that we will start the first pilot. We've listed the exchanges here that will be part of the pilot for May the 10 th, and then actual remaining exchanges in the former GTE Pennsylvania area will convert over on July the 12 th. And we have one edit change that will be going in with that and that edit will if you tried to put it into an area that's converted over, you'll get an error message back that's linked to tell you that you need to resubmit your LSR to Verizoning. Is there any questions? The next one is the batch hot cut process that's going in the for West, and we're going to be putting two new values in the corded (sp?) cut field and that's going to be an A for large jobs and a B for batch hot cut, and again this is only if you elect to go with the batch hot cut would you need to open up your code and put these new values in. If you are not planning to use either one of these, then you do not need to do anything and you can remain as you are today, and a large jobs will be for if you wanted to do this for 20 more loops at a single address. You would use that one. We did have the difference between this release or this March and February is that we did remove one edit that we had originally put in there, and that edit was I think the third one down. It's on the DFBT field, and that one we are not going to be implementing with this. Are there any questions? And then the last one we have for the April release is the full automation for the jeopardies and this is phase 2, and what we're going to be doing with this one is adding in additional information into the remarks field. We have two remarks fields out there. It's the LRDDT fields and the LR remarks fields. Both of those fields are staying the same length. We're not changing anything there. All we're going to be doing here is adding additional information, and this is going to be adding information regarding when there is no facilities, when there are facilities, and when facilities have been ordered by the CLEC and when that projected completion date would be for those facilities. And again the reason that we're listing this here is that we feel that this will meeting the requirements requested on Type 5 initiative C , so we're tracking it for that reason, and again, this is not going to require you to do anything different. The fields are staying the same. We're just going to be adding the additional information on from the field, so they'll be adding that information and we'll be

19 returning that back when we have jeopardy conditions out there. Are there any questions? Okay, moving on to the June release. We have a connectivity place holder that we have out there and I'm not aware at this time of anything that is pertaining to the June release with anything special on the connectivity. Tom, are you aware of anything? No, just changes in the East, nothing so far in the West. And I need to move that up in the conversation when we have Cindy on line and ask that question there with her, so I'll make a note to myself. No nothing in the West. Bobbie Dodson: Okay, the first one we have committed for June is the provider notification report that is now going to show when we have losses from wire line to wireless, and we have a new indicator of a W that's going to show up on the NT fields on the PN form, so that will indicate that this is from a wire land to wireless wire line to wireless. Are there any questions on this one? The next one that's committed for the June release is a Type 5, and this is to retain the directory listings on when you have a loop and you're doing a disconnect on loop and you want to keep those directories, and basically you're going to be able to disconnect the loop, but go ahead and keep the listings that are associated with it, and you're going to be able to do that by indicating this on either the ERL or the ELT fields on the end-user form by adding a value of either Y on the ERL or a value of A on the ELT field. Any questions? The next one for June that is committed is a flowthrough one for auto reject and basically we're going to be adding some additional edits into both our flow-through edits and also into our edit engine, and we're going to be looking at the RSPF and CRS forms and doing some additional edit checks against the O&T fields and looking at some edits on the hunting. With the 73-day notification that is scheduled to go out on March 31 st, we should have all of the edit information for you for this initiative and also for the April CMP you'll see the edits that will posted out against this one. Are there any questions? The next one that is committed for the June release is a Type 5, and this is the CSR data engine or migrations for loop and line share, and this is basically going to if you're going to do a CSI against a line share account, this is going to allow us to provide the additional fictitious telephone number that's associated with the data side of the line that you need on your accounts that right now today we do not return back. Are there any questions on this?

20 The next one for June that is committed is a new product, and it's fiber to the end-user for wholesale, and this is Verizon is going to provide a voice service in areas that are going to be served by fiber to the enduser. We have two different areas. Its overlay in the green field, and in our overlay environment, we're going to deploy fiber facility alongside of our existing copper facilities in our in certain wire centers. And green field is new areas, and in that area we are going to deploy fiber instead of copper out into those areas. And you're going to see that we're going to have some new business rules set out for order and pre-order. Pre-order will return information allowing you to see whether or not it's got copper or fiber out there. And then you are also going to have some changes to our trouble administration, and the changes here are going to be that if you're in an area that has fiber, then you are going see that we're going to be using the East LSI trouble administration system to report any trouble administration. The first area that is going to be the pilot for this is going to be in Keller, Texas, so that will be our first area that we'll be rolling this out on. Okay, the next one we have committed for the June release is a Type 1 that was generated by a trouble ticket, and this is to change the field length for our LD1, LD2, and LD3 fields, and this is to expand it from the current 4 character length to a 10 character length, and this is to accommodate our current embedded base that we have out there. Are there any questions? The next one we have is a candidate. It's a Type 5. It is still marked as a candidate for the June release and it's not been committed yet, and it is for the hunt group data at the account level, and this is the Phase 2 one, and this is to work on the embedded base issues for the hunt group and the hunt to help with the customer profiles that are existing out there. Are there any questions? As soon as we know that this has been committed, we will definitely obviously next month have that and we will know by our 73-day notification what is going to be in the June release. Actually, Bobbie. It's Beth. I think that because we still have so many projects both East and West that are still listed as candidates for June, one of the things that we're hoping to do here is in each of the weekly meetings that happen for these, the bulletin reviews, where we have a change in status from candidate to committed at least for the next two weeks until the business rules come out we want to be able to tell you that as we know, so we're going to use those bulletin meetings to deliver any change in status information as well. Bobbie Dodson: Okay. The next one is a Type 5 for provider notification, NY, for all products and this one is listed as a candidate, but I did receive word this morning that this one is going to be committed for the June release, so it is going to be officially committed for the June release tomorrow, so

21 this one will be making it into that, and this one is to provide the provider notifications, all of the reports coming back into the Y that are already currently happening in our EDI. Are there any questions? The next one that we have that is a candidate for the June release is called our B Repair West and it's for our current replacement of our trouble administration system, and this is to move our current trouble administration system over to the East repair system, and what this will be doing is that we'll be moving from our current Y system that you use today over to the East LSI Local Service Interface trouble administration system, and this is going to be a phased in approach that we're going to be using, and you will need to get new digital certificates when you move over to the new system unless you currently have an East digital certificate. If you have an East digital certificate, then you will not need to get a new digital certificate, but if you currently do not use the trouble administration system in the East, then you will have to get a new digital certificate before you can go over. The We will be providing you with the detailed information as to what the differences are between the current Y system and what the LSI system will be. If you use the old Y system after the area has been converted over, you will receive an error message in the Y system telling you that you now have to use the East LSI system, and the way the current rollout system is scheduled is that we are looking at implementing the system, start putting the code in in June with the actual first implementation of this just strictly being for anybody that has the FTTP, the Fiber To The End User Processes in the June time frame, and then the actual first state that we would be using to roll out is going to be implemented in the State of Texas in the August time frame, so we actually wouldn't be using this until August, and that we're going to have training that will be available for those customers that are not familiar with the trouble admin system, and we'll have other things that will be available and coming down that we'll be providing to us. Are there any questions? The next one that's a candidate for the June release is our second phase to the batch hot cut process, and this phase is basically to just add the current process that we're putting in April to make this mechanized to our flow-through system, and we will be adding three new edits into it that are going to be part of our flow-through system. Are there any questions with that one? The next one that is a candidate for the June release is the FCC Triennial 4D Network Modifications no bill for the UNE loop, and this one is to have so that there are no compatible facilities available from your request for new wholesale services for UNE-P and UNE Loop, and this one again is only a candidate at this time, and we will let you know when that will be changing on our bulletin meetings that we have scheduled on Thursdays. Are there any questions?

22 This is Beth again. First of all, is anybody out there? I mean I'm wondering if are folks still there? Speakers: Yes [many responses]. Because we hadn't heard anything, it was like, okay, I'm going to make sure that you're still out there. We're just waiting for you to get to the end, Beth. On this one that Bobbie just talked about, the Network Modifications, there is a I didn't realize actually that we had this one in the West, but there is a notification that will be coming, hopefully by close of business today, that I had actually promised I would send out for the East community, so I think that we need to include this one for the West in terms of giving the actual site for the Triennial Review order for the Type 2's, so I wanted to make sure that you know that there'll be something coming out on this that will speak to the specific site and our continuing to go forward with this triennial project. Sorry, Bobbie. Bobbie Dodson: That's okay. The next that is a candidate for June is a Type 5 and this is for that basically there were four initiatives for this Type 5, and this is for the shared UNE Loop products. And basically what we're actually going to be putting in is for the June release, we're going to be in a portion of this, not being able to get all of it in for the June release, so what we're looking at is doing just a portion of it for the June release, so we're going to be putting in the new product for the loop share itself and being able to disconnect the loop share and then also be looking in the migrations from a line split to a loop share and being able to put in a migration from a line share to a loop share as a single line only over to both of those. And the first one would be the line split to the loop share would be with or without number portability, and the line share is going to be just without number portability. What does the asterisks on the 5 mean? Bobbie Dodson: There's a note down here that says that this initiative incorporates the following three type 5 CR, so it's listing all of the Type 5's that are associated with it. Okay, and my question the second question is why is the so this really several CRs together. There's the loop share product, which was an initial request that I submitted this is John Boshier, I'm sorry and then the three migration scenarios, which came subsequently. Why is the

23 product still a Type 5? That should be a Type 2, as loop sharing was included as part of the definition in line sharing in the Triennial Review. though? John, didn't you submit a CR for the product as well Well, Type 2s can come from the CLECs or the ILECs, and I also submitted the specific sites to the TRO, I think, last October. don't remember. Did you submit it as a Type 2? I'm asking because I Yes. I submitted it even before the TRO was even actually issued back in, I think, it was April, wasn't it, Tom? I don't know. be a Type 2. Yeah, it was April. Yeah. So John, what you're saying is you believe this would Well the product and migration scenarios are certainly still 5 because I don't think there was anything mandated about those, but the product, and since you're splitting them up now anyway, you might as well list that product as a 2. Okay. We'll I think we agree with you, but we'll double check it and make sure it's consistent East and West. Okay. Thank you. I don't think we've changed it in the West, excuse me, the East either. Right, exactly. That's what I just didn't ask the question, but I agree. I think it should be a Type 2 in both East and West Bobbie Dodson: Okay. The product part. Okay. Okay, are there any other questions on this one?

24 No, I'm okay. Bobbie Dodson: Then the last one we have that is still showing as a candidate for the June on our tracking, and this one here is to be able to track the different types of products and who has signed their Triennial Order, and the products that we're looking at on this one are for the batch hot cut and for line sharing and network modification. Bob Urisay: that you'll be looking for? Bobby, this is Bob Urisay. Are those the only three Bobbie Dodson: I do believe so. We'll make sure that that's spelled out on our notification at 73 days exactly which ones are incorporated in here, but I believe those are the three. Bob Urisay: other one? Bobbie Dodson: Bob Urisay: Bobbie Dodson: So it's batch hot cuts, line sharing. What was the Network modification. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Okay. Thank you. I do have a question, and I'm not sure this is Cheryl I am not sure if this goes to Beth or to you, Bobbie, but on the CLEC tracking one, I'm not understanding that fall under the FCC Triennial Review when it appears to be that that's coming from what the ICA is. Cheryl, actually that'll be out also as one of the items on the list that we hope to get out by close of business today with the specific Triennial Sites. You're correct that it does have to do with ICAs. Triennial actually speaks to almost renegotiating contracts, so it's kind of both. Beth, can you help me with even a picture of what's going to happen? Does this mean that there's going to be a table set up in the Verizon side of the house, a table where if we, a CLEC, sends for a product that's not negotiated under their ICA or this respective order, that we would get an up front edit? Is that table going to be like the table that's built for the CLEC profiles? Bobbie Dodson: Yes. This is Bobbie, Cheryl. Yes, and that is exactly. It's going to be tied back to your CLEC profile and it will be rejected up front.

25 Well, again I guess from AT&T's attorneys' standpoint, they're still questioning the Type 2's because of the fact that these aren't mandated yet. And that is precisely the reason why we're sending out the message this afternoon and frankly, you know, I guess there's a lot of question as to kind of where do we sit right now, so at the moment Verizon is really going forward with its plan because we're sitting in muddy waters, basically, and it's not we're in a period of time where there's, I guess, opportunity for back and forth, and so we Verizon's position is right now at this point in time we are continuing as we were before. Hey, Beth. This is John Boshier. In what you're going to put out this afternoon, I guess the question I have is also related to what Cheryl was saying. Last week Verizon filed in 14 states to suspend TRO proceedings because of the Ninth Circuit, I guess it's the Ninth Circuit order, and yet you're still adding TRO mandates for up to the Change Management list here as Type 2, so I mean those are completely contrary positions. Are you going to try and reconcile those for us as well this afternoon? No. And I think that I can't speak to the legal and regulatory activities that are going on other than right now I think they're at this point in time, there isn't any kind of a firm statement one way or another, and so for us to stop doing something I guess that could come back or that, you know, who knows how it's going to turn out, the development cycle is such that that would create incredible havoc, and so the position right now is that we are going ahead with what is currently kind of on the plate. Well, that certainly makes sense, but why wouldn't they be Type 4's in view of the I think that that becomes a question I mean we've also talked about that, but right now we have FCC Triennial Sites, and that's what we're going forward with. is But you're on the record saying the Triennial Order Yeah, I can't speak to what we're on the record about. I can only tell you what Verizon's position is in regards these particular initiatives and where we're at in terms of today. And Beth, we recognize and understand Verizon's position, however from a CLEC position, we have a number of Type 5's out there to do business in today's environment that we know the market is there. We know that we need those things from functionality, but different Type 5's have

26 been put on hold for various CLECs just to go ahead and move forward on an unknown on the Verizon. I understand the position. A good example of that is, I mean, the recent discussion about the migrations associated with loop sharing. We're now splitting up that cluster of Type 5's, one of which actually should be a Type 2, because June has become very crowded, and yet there's three new initiatives that you've added claiming mandate on an order that you're also claiming is moot, so I mean I understand the position. And Beth, we recognize your understanding it, but how who do we really need to be talking to because we recognize you're caught in the middle, but there's somebody out there in Verizon that's making these decisions and we obviously need to be discussing that with them. I can tell you that we obviously have a communication process, and I can tell you that all the concerns that you've just raised they have been discussed at great length internally and at very high levels in the corporation. I think that the corporation does understand the comments and concerns that you're raising right now. It has been communicated, and I can't tell you kind of where else you can go with this at this moment. I mean obviously there is a we do have a process here in terms of communicating concerns about things, and that exists in the documentation. Let's say the Triennial Review and everything doesn't go the way Verizon thinks it's going to go, that particular point then then what's the backup plan? I don't understand what you mean by that. In other words, Verizon's figuring that TRO is going to go only their way and so therefore moving forward, but in the event that it doesn't go the way Verizon's predicting it's going to go, what is the backup plan to ensure that everything the CLECs have been looking for is in place? If you're talking about the June release I made this same statement that this question came up at the East meeting there will be nothing added to the June release, so if there is something that is pulled out of it, there will be nothing put in it's place. We are too far down the development cycle to begin to put anything else in.

27 Well, I mean several of these that you just added are new right now, so you mean after today as far as adding things to the June release? Well I mean there's three here that weren't there last month, right? Three or four? I mean I think internally they have been in the works and they have just bubbled up to us, so they may be new on this list, but they have clearly internally they're not new. And Beth, that goes back to something, that as you're aware, and if you're not aware, Tom's certainly aware, that we have continually asked for that Type 2 list so that we are aware of what's coming up for implementation in different releases. We need to understand not only from the fact of what you're implementing, but to ensure that we're not impacted from a coding perspective on our side because Verizon isn't privy to know how each and every CLEC codes, and each one of us, I'm sure, code just a slight bit differently, and that impact can be great to us in the production environment. I'm very well aware of that concern, and have expressed that internally a lot. I thank you again, but I guess what I keep hearing is whoever it is in the current position of director or above in the IT environment in Verizon just goes forth and does whatever they darn well want to do. And what we're advocating from a CLEC world, none of that it just falls on deaf ears even if you take it back. I don't think it's falling on deaf ears, Cheryl, and I think that, you know, clearly there has been we have had a lot of successes, and so I think that I get concerned when we have this conversation that no progress and nothing done for the CLECs and I think that that's an inaccurate way to look at this. I mean, after all, we currently have 1½ million LSRs and 2½ million preorder transactions that are coming through the interfaces every month, and we've done that based on a Change Management relationship, so clearly something works here, and I think that we are doing everything that we can in this very kind of muddy water environment that we are living in right now to try to make sure that we are still doing what we need to do to make business go forward. Well, Beth, we don't disagree about the fact that maybe they're good things for you to be putting in. It's just the how you're doing it and the surprise and the fact that you're moving forward without mandates. That's the concern. We're not saying that you're not doing a little bit of each, but