Nick Amroni (sp?), Director for WCCC within Verizon. Katheryn Hannonbush: Katheryn Hannonbush (sp?) from International.

Transcription

1 Verizon Service Group April 13, 2004 Confirmation # Operator: Pardon me, everyone. We are now beginning the conference call. All the lines will be open during the presentation. To keep background noise to a minimum, please press star, 6, to mute and unmute your lines as needed. Again, please press star, 6, to mute and unmute your lines as needed. Good morning. My name is Tom Rodgers, the Manager of Change Management. This is the Verizon Change Management call for April. Joining me in the room are: Nick Amroni (sp?), Director for WCCC within Verizon. Katheryn Hannonbush: Katheryn Hannonbush (sp?) from International. Costello: Tom McCarol: Pat Gerillo: Service. (Inaudible) Costello, Verizon. Tom McCarol, Verizon. Lissa Provenzo, MCI. Pat Gerillo, New York State Department of Public And Beth Cohen is here, but out of the room at the moment. Could I ask the CLECs participating on the conference bridge to introduce themselves, please? John Boshier: John Boshier: Joyce Atwell: Joyce Atwell: John Boshier, Covad Communications. Good Morning John. Morning. Joyce Atwell, AT&T. I'm sorry. Joyce Atwell, AT&T. How was your vacation?

2 Joyce Atwell: Carol Frike: Carol Frike: Dexter Lilly: Dexter Lilly: Teresa Castro: Linda Dorsey: Linda Dorsey: Bennie Almas: Bennie Almas: Rebecca Baldwin: Rebecca Baldwin: Loriann Ercan: Loriann Ercan: It was it never happened. Oh, sorry. Okay. Carol Frike, Sprint. Hi Carol. Hi. Dexter Lilly, VarTec. Hello Dex. Good morning. Teresa Castro with VarTec. Hi Dok. Good morning. Linda Dorsey, PSC. Hi Linda. Hi Linda. Hi. Bennie Almas with New Star. Hi Bennie. Good morning. Rebecca Baldwin, TelCove. Hey Rebecca. Oh yes. Hi Tom. It s Loriann at Allegiance. Good morning, Loriann Good morning.

3 Tammi Swensen: Tammi Swensen: Annmarie Sturtz: Annmarie Sturtz: Amy Kwak: Amy Kwak: Janice Ziegele: Broadview. Jennifer Kuhns: Jennifer Kuhns: Peggy Rubino: Peggy Rubino: Dok Matthews: Rich Brauchle: Rich Brauchle: I'm Tammi Swensen, Accenture. Hi Tam. Good morning. Annmarie Sturtz, Choice One. Annmarie, good morning. Morning. Amy Kwak, CTSI. Hi Amy. Hi. Good morning, Tom. It's Janice Ziegele from Hi Janice. Jennifer Kuhns also from Broadview. Good morning. Morning. Hi Tom. Peggy Rubino, VTEL. Hey Peggy, we miss you. Thank you. Tom, it's Dok Matthews, PennTelecom, sir. Hello Dok. Rich Brauchle, AT&T. Hello Rich. How ya doing, Tom? Good.

4 Gloria Velez: Gloria Velez: Amy Blackman: Amy Blackman: I'm Gloria Velez, AT&T. Miss you too, Gloria. Hi there. Amy Blackman, Talk America. Hi Amy. Hi. Good morning. Okay. Can I ask Verizon's folks that are going to participate on the call to identify themselves, please? Stephen Cuttle: Stephen Cuttle: Tim Burkhart: Tim Burkhart: Sue Pistacchio Hi Sue. Hi. Stephen Cuttle, web documentation. Good morning. Good morning. Tim Burkhart, LSI. Hi Tim. Hi. Carol Yozzo: Carol Yozzo is here for PA conversation and provisioning notification report. Carol Yozzo: Carol Yozzo: losing my mind. Okay. Cool. Good morning, Carol. Good morning, Tom. Okay. The agenda That's Provider Notification Report. I'm think I'm

5 Nah, you're not. The agenda's kind of thick on the special projects, so I suggest we go ahead and proceed through those. Carol, you're up first to give us the status of the Pennsylvania OSS Conversion Project. Carol Yozzo: Okay. First of all, good morning everyone. Since this is essentially a Verizon West impacting project, yet a few of the CLECs involved are on this call, I don't I won't have a lot to say today, but I will still cover it. We are still on track for our May 15 th conversion of the Erie LATA. The main thing I want to point out though is that there have been a few additions to the Pennsylvania OSS Uniformity website, and basically the CLLI codes have been posted out there, and the Q&A from the March 18 th informational seminar have been posted out to the website, so if you have not seen those things yet, take a look. They are out there. And also the IOSC USOC mapping document has been updated. So are there any questions on Pennsylvania OSS Uniformity? Gloria Velez: Carol, this is Gloria Velez. Did any of the NPA NXXs get changed from when you originally published the CLEC guide? Carol Yozzo: Gloria Velez: No. Okay, so Carol Yozzo: You mean the listed in the CLEC reference. Is that what you were referring to? Gloria Velez: Right, right. You published another one yesterday. You sent it out to us for the call. One the one site Carol Yozzo: Are you talking about engines they're listing there? Gloria Velez: No, I'm sorry. Yeah. I meant to refer to the actual CLEC handbook for the OSS conversation. Carol Yozzo: Right. No, that has not changed. Gloria Velez: Okay, so when you mentioned the CLLI codes just now, referring to something else, because you had CLLI codes in that document. Carol Yozzo: Right, but there are now two documents that are on the Pennsylvania OSS Uniformity website, and I'll give you the URL in a minute, but basically, we have added out there and I'm not sure of the dates that they were added so the last time you went out there that you may have seen them there, but there's a Pennsylvania non pilot CLLI code list and the Pennsylvania pilot CLLI code list. I believe Tim mentioned that on the March 18 th call that we

6 would provide the list of CLLI codes, and now they are on the website, and the URL is well, you can get there from the Wholesale Home Page, but it's very long. Let's see. I'll read it to you if you want to take it down: PA_uniformity,00.html. I think your best bet is to go the Verizon Wholesale Home page and drill down to the OSS Uniformity site, unless you already have it bookmarked. Gloria Velez: Is that where it is? It's under the Carol Yozzo: It is on the PA OSS Uniformity site, and there are three new entries out there. There's the non-pilot CLLI code list, the pilot CLLI code list, and the March 18 th seminar Q&A. Gloria Velez: So, Carol, let me ask again. The CLLI codes that were listed as part of the NPA NXX listing that were included in the CLEC guide have they changed? Carol Yozzo: I don't believe CLLI codes were listed in the guide initially. It was when NPA and NXX Gloria Velez: expanded? No, you have the switch CLLIs in there. Are you asking if the scope for the project has Gloria Velez: No. No, I just want to make sure that the CLLI codes that were listed with the exchanges have not changed, so if some people are utilizing CLLI codes to determine things that what was given to us hasn't changed. Carol Yozzo: No, it has not changed, but we what we have done is provided separate CLLI code lists. I'm just looking through the guide. I don't see the CLLI codes in there, and I thought that was a question on the March 18 th. Julie Remion: Yeah, Carol, this is Julie Remion (sp?). Let me help too. Gloria, that information that's posted on the web the CLLIs we have it in two categories pilot and non-pilot. That's just additional information that we decided to provide. That is question number one on the March 18 th workshop. It was a request from a few of the CLECs if we could also provide the CLLIs and not just the NPA NXX, so this additional information, but nothing's changed in the guide as far as the CLLIs. Gloria Velez: Okay, because the CLLI is there, right?

7 Julie Remion: The list on the web is the CLLIs by NPA NXX. That information is not in the CLEC guide. Gloria Velez: Okay. Julie Remion: Nothing's changed. You know, to answer your question, well, this is just additional information that's on the web. Gloria Velez: Carol Yozzo: conversion in PA? Female Speaker: Okay, thank you. Okay, any other questions on the Uniformity GTE Sometimes targets were made? That was a Carol Yozzo: That's correct for the Erie LATA first phase of the conversion is on target for May. call next week. Carol Yozzo: Carol Yozzo: We'll look forward to hearing more about that on West Basically, I will say the same thing next week. Okay. Thank you. Thanks Carol. Tim Burkhart joins us to give us an update on the LSI redesign project that he's been spearheading for the last four months now, Tim? Tim Burkhart: I think it's been about that, yes. Yeah. Tim Burkhart: Well, basically we came to a slight stop in the trying to get the pilot off the ground because we found out that we weren't able to get confirmations sent back correctly. That should be fixed this coming weekend and we'll be back on target for rolling the pilot down the pike here so that we can get the total redesign implemented for June. So, again, I have requests and I'm still taking those requests for folks that want to be part of the pilot, and I will be contacting them as soon as we get the system functioning, so that you get your responses. We didn't think it was going to be very prudent to roll out the new design and have you put your orders in if you couldn't see your responses. I really don't have a lot to say other than we are going to run another LSI user

8 forum on the 21 st to go through the changes that we're making. If you participated before, you're welcome to attend again, but it's not necessary because it will be basically the same presentation. Would there be any questions at this point? Tim Burkhart: Tim Burkhart: Tim, this is Lissa. Yes. Hi, how are you doing today? Good. I have two questions. One, can you tell me again when the old LSI is going to be decommissioned? Tim Burkhart: August. Yes, we're planning on decommissioning that in Okay, August of 2004? Tim Burkhart: Yes. Okay and I just have a question for you just This is for our part of the discussion later on, but I was noticing a Type 5 Change Request that was submitted to retain the function of continue for remaining and values for remaining in the LSI redesign. Are we losing something on that redesign? Is that Tim Burkhart: It's really it's really the total redesign, the way orders are processed today are it's going to be a little bit different than how they're going to be processed in the future. And we're actually put it into we're really putting it onto more to a different platform in terms of making it function more dynamically, and in doing so, currently when you go through your order, you go into an LSR, an end user, and then you get a page that's called "Key Values." Okay. Tim Burkhart: And in the Key Values page you have the option to put in information and then continue with values. In the redesign, that particular element is not there. Tim Burkhart: Okay. Would the Okay.

9 Alright. Tim Burkhart: So the request came: can we add that? And to be honest with you, we're looking at it. We're looking at putting that possibility back into the but the way the way the wizard functions, you know, we looked at it and we said we didn't see that that was going to be of great value. Now, on the last LSI user forum call, the question came up and said we really would like to have that, so we're looking at it. Right, but that has nothing to do with clicking on the field and understanding the business rules Tim Burkhart: Absolutely not. Okay, so what value does the Key Value page have? Tim Burkhart: Well, what it does is if you put in you put in the information in one spot and then you continue with those values, it'll populate 25 well, 25 or however many you want pages or service specific forms with all the exact same data, so then you'd have to go into all of those forms and change each one of those if there was anything changing. Okay. Tim Burkhart: But, you know, again, looking at the redesign and the way we populate like for a loop we populate row upon row upon row, and it's just a couple of fields that you're filling out anyhow, so we weren't quite sure why that continuous values would be beneficial, but Okay. Tim Burkhart: We're looking at it. We're not sure we can put it into the redesign, but if we can, we will attempt to do it. it. Tim Burkhart: Tim Burkhart: Alright, thanks. That helps me out a lot. I appreciate No problem. And your workshop was really good. Thanks. Tim, is this the second or third redesign of LSR?

10 Tim Burkhart: We've been in this well, this is probably this is like the fourth version, I guess, of the web GUI, as it was known. And we started with the pre-order redesigning the way that works about two years ago, and you know, now we're into the LSR processing piece. Okay. The reason I brought it up is I assume you're not going to be here for the whole call? Tim Burkhart: stay if you want me to. I was going to come back for the afternoon. I can Well, I just wanted to introduce a topic. One of the issues that has been sent to me for, I guess, evaluation involves the removing the LSI private line option where the CLECs would access LSI over a private line and then use a secure ID card. And I think this type of interconnection option was very prevalent when it was the web GUI. It was the beginning because it was costly with the secure ID card, then you have a window I think of two years to repurchase it. Okay, so are there any and we've been tracking the volumes on this, and it's they're practically nil. We're going to send out an announcement, probably within the next week, that would retire that connectivity option, and I was just asking for CLEC comment on why we shouldn't do so immediately, I guess. I didn't know you offered it. Yeah, it was kind of held over from the good old days when private line secure ID card was the norm, and now it's certainly not. It's internet access, and we still have a server committed to this, and it's time to retrieve it, I think the way we'll craft that notice would be to ask for immediate retirement of the connectivity option, subject to someone contacting me to challenge it, I guess, but we really see no reason why this would be useful anymore, so. You should see that note later this week on that. through on it. I thought you decommissioned it already. I was Yeah, we did too. I mean, so there's probably A good thing, yeah. There's been a couple of transactions that have come

11 And we're all surprised through and most months there's nothing, and then, yeah. Yeah. That's true. I thought that maybe a CLEC hadn't somebody working out of their home, and you know it was Could be. Just somebody's who's kind of been out there and hasn't been maybe was pulled off of submitting orders, and now is back submitting them. I mean who knows exactly the reason for it, but when we started seeing more activity, you know. Tim Burkhart: Tim Burkhart: Okay. Thanks Tim. Okay. And look forward to talking to you this afternoon. Okay. Stephen Cuttle joins us to give us an update on the enhancements to the website. Good morning, Stephen. Stephen Cuttle: Good morning, Tom. Thank you and good morning everyone. Just a couple of points to go over with web documentation, and I'll start off with web-based training. The web-based training currently on the website has been updated for the February 2004 LSOC five release. Kathy Ham's (sp?) team just launched some updated web-based training, and for the East that includes a separated UNI platform module as well as a Verizon East directory listing module, and that training those training materials will be featured in the April 28 th CLEC Ordering workshop. It is directed for both East and West CLECs, but some of the topic will include the directory listing module for those of you interested. It will go over some of the in greater detail than I am some of the updates that have been made to the website in general. That workshop you can register vis-à-vis CLEC Training Page as well as the Events Calendar on the web. And finally, as far as web-based training goes, Kathy and her team have begun the conversation of the content over to LSOC 6. That's just begun, so there I don't have a definitive time when it will be completed, but they're hoping by the end of the second quarter, which would be June, but they're obviously shooting to get it done as quickly as possible, and I will certainly update you on future Change Management calls.

12 Our other documentation updates, as far as order and pre-order samples, the conversion to LSOC six has been completed, that content just launched at the end of the last week. The additional content contained in the local ordering guide is in the process of being updated this week to LSOC 6, and that will also complete at the end of this week. I did want to make note that we did launch a new resale sample on PBX DID and DOD, that is resale sample R27 for those of you I know have been asking about that, so that sample is now live, and includes a USOC bid information as part of the sample. Also, at the end of last month, we did launch a slightly redesigned local ordering guide portal page. Hopefully, you're finding it a little more helpful, but that did launch at the end of March, and that will also that will be one of the items that Kathy and her team will go over in the February excuse me, the April 28 th workshop. There was one update I just wanted to bring to your attention on the CLEC support page retirement effort. The CTE testing information was moved out of that page. Actually the links were removed. The information can already be found in Systems & Support just as Systems & Measures, so nothing has changed with that content, but if some of your folks have old bookmarks, they'd want to go in through the System & Measures page and get to CTE East or West, and then create new bookmarks, if that's the case. Finally, last week, Lissa, you mentioned creating some content for buried wire, which I have taken note of. We haven't we've just been in the process with other things going on, but we are in the process of reviewing internal documentation, so as CLLI can put out some viable and helpful information on that topic for the CLEC community, so I'm hoping to have some content live on the web by the end of second quarter, which would be in the June time frame, but as we get closer, I'll certainly provide updates on that item. Thank you, Stephen, because always seems to be, every once in a while, confusion in the different ordering centers, so Stephen Cuttle: And I would, if things if you have some particular issues that are coming up, I would certainly welcome that kind of feedback. If you want to send that, you can send it to the VST mailbox. helpful? Stephen Cuttle: Okay. Do you want unusual things that might be Well, we could I have another one for you.

13 Stephen Cuttle: We could take some unusual and also, you know, some common problems that seem to keep occurring. That would be helpful too. Yeah, because there are more process business procedural issues that I think would be helpful, and I wanted to ask you: do you have hunting exhibit scenarios for anything you can do on hunting? You know as is for the folks East and West, do you have business I mean I've been out there looking in the West particularly. Stephen Cuttle: Stephen Cuttle: samples page. On hunting? Right. Yes, we do have some hunting samples on the order Okay. For all those scenario types or LSOC five or 6? anything on the hunting. Stephen Cuttle: LSOC I don't care, either one, both. I would think five would be more completed. Right. I mean I'll take some forward, backward, Okay. I think it would be real helpful because there seems to be a lot of confusion around that feature that I can't get out of, so Stephen Cuttle: Stephen Cuttle: Maryland? Stephen Cuttle: Okay, I'll Thank you. Sure, no problem. And how do I get a hold of you? You're in Virginia or I'm actually in Massachusetts. Oh.

14 Stephen Cuttle: always going in there. But my team maintains the VST mailbox, so we're Okay. Stephen Cuttle: So that's where I'd be. That way you can just send it to that mailbox. It would be fine. Okay, super. Thank you. Stephen Cuttle: Sure. Were there that was basically what I had to report on at today's meeting. Were there any questions from other folks? but since you're here I was going to challenge you later on this afternoon, Okay, go for it. This is a CR, and it made me think after I left last month's meeting, and this is where you were going to enhance the escalation list, Stephen. Stephen Cuttle: Yes. You had asked me to put it in a CR, you know, a Change Type 5, and after I left, I started thinking about it. I thought, "You know, I was wondering if could instead of voting on it, why couldn't it be a maintenance of part of the redesign? I mean, because it really doesn't impact software or the OSF or business rules, and it really is part of a project of the redesign. I just I don't that. And it's something that you want, so it's a Type 5, so? Yeah, and I wanted to just kind of talk to you about Okay. I can speak to that in terms, you know, it I think that in terms of the LSR redesign, there was a certain budget amount that was appropriated for the redesign. If we now put in yet another piece of functionality into that, then redesign team probably has to refigure they have to reallocate their money that they have available. If you put it in as a Type 5, then it goes into a different bucket of dollars and resources, and so I would absolutely suggest that it come in as a Type 5 because it was not in the redesign plan.

15 Okay. Yeah, there is the invisibility of the CLEC. I didn't know that. I was unaware, so that's good to know. Yeah. This is one to get stuck and it is important when you go to click, if you ever try to go one by one and you're trying to escalate, just so you know, or just trying to get to the contact and not even be escalating. getting off easy, kid. Okay. You know so. Okay. Any other questions for Stephen? Sounds like you're Stephen Cuttle: Okay, well I'll welcome that. Lissa, just those samples on hunting, if you want to note down, there are two platform samples currently a platform six and platform 15, and then for others, there's also a resale sample resale 20. Yeah. I don t Stephen Cuttle: And those are the LSOC 6. Stephen Cuttle: Stephen Cuttle: Okay. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. Sure. Is Beth McReynolds on line? Beth? Okay. Sue, you're up next. Status of the business rule engine. everybody? Speakers: Yup, I'm here. Good morning everybody. How is Good. Good. How are you? Good. I'm providing a status on some new business rule requirements. We held a meeting I think it was about two months ago to go over some required changes to the new business rule engine. We did review it with our internal organization, and the request that the CLECs were looking for got accepted, and we are aiming to get them put into the new business rule

16 engine with the June 20 th release, so these changes would be effective with the June 20 th release. Here is some of the things that had what was that? Here are some of the things that have been brought to the table. The first was to have the naming conversions or naming conventions for the release in version information modified, so there was a change to go with current and next as I mean current and schedule as opposed to current and next. The format that was provided to us was accepted and it'll be the new format that will be posted on the web with one modification. There was some discussion we started to go into the desire to have the publication date and time listed, and it was noted that for the scheduled documents that there is actually a different publication date and time for the business rules as opposed to the technical specifications, so the current will be as the CLECs have sent it to us, but for the scheduled documents, there will be for each version there will be a header for business rules and it will give the publication date and time for the business rules, and then they'll be another header for the technical specification, so the publication date and time for both of those documents when they're in the schedule state will be posted. In addition to that, the 73 document will get listed as draft. The 45-day document will get listed as final. The West will have a revised final. That is something that we will not support in the East. Publication date and time will be presented as requested by the CLEC community in a month-month, day-day, year-year (mm/dd/yy) format with the hours and seconds, so that will be posted. Another requirement is when we move from schedule to current not to increment a version, and we will no longer do that, so with the June release, the 45-day document would be the dot one (.1) document. When it moves to current, there would be no move to a doc two version. There would be no change log. And last, but not least, there was a request to have a link to well, at one point I think there was a request to have the bulletins listed, and it was agreed to by the CLEC community since there could be, you know, numerous bulletins we hope not that it would just be better to have a hot rank to the CMP site where the bulletins are listed, and that hot link will be presented with the June release. Lastly, and these weren't part of CLEC-submitted requirements, but we had discussed with an initiative that's going in that has to do with putting the Trouble Ad in business rules on for the West, and since it will be the same business rules, trouble administration business rules will be a little bit different starting with the June 20 th release. When you go on the website, you will have a Verizon East. You will have a Verizon West, and then you'll have a

17 Trouble Admin, and the Trouble Admin East and West there will be no impact from an East perspective. There will be some West only fields that will be added. And that's basically it for the changes for the business rules that will be apparent with the June 20 th release? Are there any questions? Rich Brauchle: in some blurb? Rich Brauchle: Rich Brauchle: okay? Rich Brauchle: Sue, Rich Brauchle. Could you possibly put that out Yes, I can. Okay, appreciate it. Thank you. Let me write that down. Alright. You know all the items you just covered, Un-huh. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. Gloria Velez: And Sue, this is Gloria Velez. For the June, I had noticed that some of the documents and maybe all of them start out to the website a couple of days earlier, and then I think the official notification came out on either April 8 th or April 9 th late in the day, so my question is: when the material shows up a little bit sooner, are there still the potential problems that the material could change? Gloria Velez: No. Like what has happened, you know, in the past? If there was any problem with the documentation, we would send notification out. That was one of the agreements that we made. The fixes that we had in, we did have some deficiencies when it went out in February. Those deficiencies are not apparent with the June release. It did go out clean. We did look at it to make sure that there were not deficiencies, and if there had been, we would have notified the CLEC community. Gloria Velez: Okay, so in other words, when I noticed it out on the website, which I think was the 6 th, I think, we could have started to use that material?

18 Yes, you could have. Again, we weren't looking because due to the problems that we had with February, we did want to look and make sure that everything had been cleaned up, and we were pleasantly surprised and happy that everything got in exactly the way we wanted it, so knock on wood it looks like all of the deficiencies have been settled with the new business rule, so yeah it was good to go. The position would be once it's posted, we would send out immediate notification. We did want to take a peek for you though, Gloria. Gloria Velez: Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you. Alright. I did field a couple of CLEC questions about having access to the business rules and tech specs on the initial notification date. I know that there was one problem where they were trying to get the text up, and there is actually that was being looked at as a trouble ticket. They want to modify the message that goes back out, so it specifically notes that the tech specs are not ready. Right. Yeah, the situation is that for the June release, we published the business rules first and then six days later, we published the technical specs, and if you select business rule and tech specs from your option business rule option, you received an error message, so what Sue's saying is we're clarifying that error message to say that the tech specs are not ready yet. Beth McReynolds: Beth McReynolds: Beth McReynolds: Beth McReynolds: I'm done, Tom. Sue, would you IM Beth McReynolds for me? I'm on the line, Tom. Oh, hi Beth. Hi. Did you get the Yes, I've sent it out just about five minutes ago. Thank you. You're welcome.

19 Okay. Thank you, Sue. This is Lissa. You're welcome. Okay. Carol, you're back up. Carol Yozzo: Okay. Thanks, Tom. Alright, this is regarding the retirement of one of the provider notification report files, and that is the SRPT file. A notice went out to the CLEC community on March 15 th announcing that effective June 19 th, we will no longer distribute the the file is the mm/dd/yy for the date.srpt, and any CLEC that currently uses that file will have to or may have to change their processes. Currently, you get two reports. You get the SRPT file along with the LLR prod file, and this has been going on, I guess, about two years now that the LLR prod was introduced, but we agreed to keep both of those files available until all of the features of the SRPT were carried over to the LLR prod. As of the February 2004 release, the last of the additions to the LLR prod make it to bring it into parody anyway with the SRPT was completed, so we are retiring the SRPT with the June release. We recommend that you do adjust your processes by the beginning of June to make sure that you re falling in line with the LLR prod file well before the release. You're actually you may not need to do anything. You certainly don't need to do anything to receive to continue to receive the file. It will just automatically you will receive one instead of two, but however, if you have any manual or automated processes that point to the SRPT file, you'll have to adjust them to point to the LLR prod. Any questions on that? Carol Yozzo: Is this a paper report or? Carol, do you hear LIssa's question? No, I didn't. I'm sorry, Carol. It's kind of hard to hear from you. I just wanted to get validation. This has nothing to do with the NDM report currently that's in process today, right? Is this an old I guess I don't know. I'm not aware of this method of reporting. Carol Yozzo: Well, okay, well actually you receive the you can receive the provider notification report in three ways. Most CLECs receive it via FTP. They log into the server and retrieve the report. There are some CLECs that receive it via NDM or via EDI, so I'm not sure if you Everybody has access to the FTP. As I said, you do need a log-on ID and password, but the EDI and NDM are optional.

20 Carol Yozzo: Carol Yozzo: Carol, you're referring the FTP process? Correct. Right. Thank you. I didn't realize that wasn't clear. Sorry. Be careful what you (inaudible) poor mother. So, Carol, just to be clear. If you get the provider notification information currently via NDM or EDI, then the SRPT is, I guess, not included currently in that distribution? Carol Yozzo: Correct the LLR Prod. The FTP server gives you both of them, but some people process one or the other. Not everyone processes the LLR prod file. So if you're currently not processing or using maybe I should say may be the better word if you're not using the LLR file, LLR prod file, then you need to switch over. And it sounds like what you're saying is that all of the components that are on the LLR prod file I mean on SRPT file are not included in the LLR prod file. There's no Carol Yozzo: That's correct. As of the February, the last piece was the partial migration, and that was implemented in the February release. Thanks. I just wanted to be clear because it was actually a little hard to hear you. Carol Yozzo: Yeah, okay. Sorry. I think my headset might be out of line with my mouth. Is that better? heard. That's got to be the nicest way to put it I've ever Carol Yozzo: Well, I could have set my mouth out of line with my headset. That would conjure up some interesting pictures, but That's it, Tom. Thanks Carol. Peggy, are you here? Margaret? here. I know Sue's here. I guess I'll leave some in case we'll come back to

21 name OQS? We added the operational quality report. Is that the Open Query System. Open Query System. You could stand for any number of things... We just make them up. Female Speaker: we're trying to From the old collaborative days. Yeah. We've been accusing you of that for a long time. It's another one of those, you know, old things that Sue, do you want to kick this off? Yes, I will. I seem to remember at the last Change Management meeting we had brought a new Type 4 CR in. It was C , and the intent of that Type 4 request was to migrate the existing reports that are supported on the FTP platform over onto a web portal. As part of that process, we are looking at all of the different reports that we support, and looking at any that have had no activity to just verify is there a need to transfer them over to the new platform. This is one that is currently under investigation, and what the OQS or Open Query System report did was provide a date of dump would appear on data. It appears not to be in use, and we feel that it is antiquated and has been surpassed by other functionality that's currently supported via Trouble Admin, either in the web or through electronic bonding. The OQS report provided different maintenance status information, so at this point it's our position unless we have some negative feedback from the CLEC community, we would like to disable and no longer support this report. This is mostly for facility-based, correct? It provided a data that I mean I have some examples of what it was and we provide this stuff on through Trouble Admin now. I had one report that provided the CCNA, the completion date, the disposition codes of a circuit, so I know right now through a lot of the changes that were made to Trouble Admin, you can go in there and get a complete list of all of your open tickets, what status they're in, so we did like a comparison of what the data was on this report, and it's included within Trouble Admin on the different enhanced reports.

22 In addition to being in Trouble Admin on the web, is this information also available via electronic bonding for repair? I would have to do a comparison. I know that there is some functionality on the web that may not be available on electronic bonding. You'd like to know like for a transaction-by-transaction comparison? If it's not too, too difficult. This is Elliott, so I'm sorry. I should have introduced myself. Yeah, I know the thing is for electronic bonding, I don't know if it's specific to the CLECs. I mean I can look and do some further analysis there. I mean, you know, generically the OQS is one of the those reports I personally have been trying to log into for over three years and never succeeded, so but I do know some of the other CLECs use it though, and I know that now that we're moving into bonding, whichever you know, if it's available in bonding, then I really have no issues, but or? Okay. When you say bonding, Elliott, you mean XML repair The XML, yeah. Okay, well see I guess there is a difference between XML repair and electronic bonding repair. Well, I was going to check It shouldn't be according to the specs. Right. I'm going to check both because on the sly impression that we still do support other electronic bonding other than XML, so I would want to check all of it. Yes, you do. There's two kinds of bonding, Sue, but supposedly the spec is the same at least that's what your systems people told us. The only difference is the CMOS versus XML interface the built interface versus CMOS interface. Okay. But the transactions

23 the same. But the eight basic transactions are supposed to be Okay. I will review to make sure that the different enhance transactions that are covered that were covered with OQS are the types of data are also covered with some type of electronic bonding, and I will provide a read out to that at the next CMP meeting. Yeah, that would be great because then we could make an informed decision. Right. That it is. Can I ask a question? As far as we could tell, no one is using the OQS reports. Did you ever try to log into that from outside? As a matter of fact, I thought some of the people from AT&T had mentioned that they were using it? Are they using it, Joyce? I'm not sure if our maintenance team uses it or not. I have to check with them and get back to you. I know they used to. I don't know if they still do because in past meetings I've heard them refer to it. Yeah, it's just when we were, you know, checking some of the IDs, for some old, old IDs, there were a little bit more global, so we didn't see like recent activity, but there is a potential that someone could have had an old ID and has access to it, so somebody jokingly said, "Let's turn it off." (inaudible) but yeah, Joyce, if you could check and let us know. Tracy, are you there? Peggy, did you join the call? Okay, if you're a CORBA user, we sent out a notice about 45 days ago, at least, where we asked you to upgrade your software to the 128-bit encryption, and I think it's at AT&T's request we even extended the CT environment into production to allow you to test that. Thank you very much. And I just wanted to make sure that any and all CORBA users were that was called to their attention and they were given the opportunity to complete that testing.

24 Okay. Next up on the agenda is Nick Amroni, who's going to give us a he ll have a - take this as a continuation of the Change Request we have pending to upgrade the application bulletin, and Right, yeah. Yeah, we've been tracking this issue for some time. There was a request probably December time frame for the application bulletin to be enhanced. Nick has provided a soft copy that Beth McReynolds has sent out to the distribution list. So, I assume those on the conference call have that information. Nick, it's all yours. Right. Thanks. This is Nick. As Tom indicated, this is related to the Type 5 request, notification. The attachment that's been distributed has a few slides. What I'd like to do is address the items for the East today and then if there are questions on the West, we can go through those also. The primary request was to add certain pieces of information to the existing notification, so for the LS (sp?) notification, the initial notifications that are supposed to add the total minutes for the outage, total minutes for degradation, the collective action to clear the incident and the initial assessment of the root cause. And for the final notification the request was to add an addition to the items over here of the final assessment of root cause in detail and then the action taken to clear the root cause. What I'd like to do is go through the slides and sort of address the straw man that's put together, then open it up for discussion. With that, slides two and three or rather slides three and four are the ones that we'll discuss today. Slide three is an example of an initial notification that was sent out some time ago. On the left you have the original and on the right is the comment. (background noise) Please use star six to mute the phone. Thank you. Nick, are you going to eliminate the severity level? That's a question. I can leave it in there and it doesn't make much of a difference to us. This is a this fits into a pattern of notification if severity is a subset of the type.

25 Right. Type 1, step 3, which Trying to get this as a flag, where it is. Right. Are we ever really out in trouble so we can receive, inform our centers, because, you know, it is another Yeah, we've set up procedures when these things come in what to do with them by the type and the severity. Sure. Not a problem. I'll leave that in. One of the items that I want to bring up for discussion was the total outage time. Initial notification. The time for degradation or the outage time itself can vary from CLEC to CLEC. It's very difficult for me to put that division down on the notification itself. I will be two halves for the date and time of the bulletin and date and time of the issues identified. That itself gives some indication of how long the outage was. Alright, but how are you defining identified? Are you identifying it as the time that MCI sent you the notice or the time you verified it that the problem existed? Verification, but if more than one large CLEC calls us, we get on the special case. I mean regardless, we get on the bridge with the ITT, which are a team of responders. Because I've noticed that watching these things in the past, frequently the time that you confirm them or identify them is within minutes of your resolution, whereas the CLECs could have experienced an outage because of the way you set the base line. Now, that may not affect this discussion, which is a content format discussion, but it's an open issue. Yeah. That can be addressed multiple ways. The issue could either outside the firewalls, you know, within the internet, and CLEC location could be within the OSS and it's an OSS issue, then technically we should be experiencing the same problems. Our reps would have the same problem. But to your point We use different paths.

26 What we can do is probably take a couple of examples I can think up with you later, and then It's not a new problem. It's been identified before, there's plenty of examples out there, but frequently what happens is and with all due respect, not to chop sentences, I keep hearing oh the Internet, it could do this and do that. Every single time it's been raised as an issue and we've investigated, it had to do. Sometimes. But certainly there should be some recognition of when the first CLEC called in that problem because the real issue is how long does it take from that first call to resolution? I don't care for the purposes of these notification how long it takes to resolve it. That's not. We all know it takes time to resolve problems. Nobody's fighting and saying that it should be done within 12 seconds. We all live with systems problems and they range from solvable in two minutes to two months. The important thing to us is as quickly as can be to that first notification, the problem should be defined and a notice sent out not to win not within 20 minutes of resolution, because that's a metric that's never been failed, but the point is we go hours without knowing there's a problem. I call it in. You call it in. Joyce calls it in. Eric calls it in. Peggy Rubino calls it in, and in the meantime, it's out, but the notice comes out. "Hey, we've identified a cyber proxy. We sent you the notice at 5:20." Confirmation is not identification. Notification is. That's when the problem has been identified to you. Now that may not be the purpose of this discussion, but I just want to make sure it's a residual issue that has to be discussed. No, that's fine. I think that's a good. I mean, it is a good tool and everyone's trying to streamline and Right. and you don't want to tie up your line when there's actually other clients trying to call in and report different troubles, so if it isn't OSM s problem, it's going to impact the LSI or EDI, so it may not always be the internet, you know. bonded. No, you're right Particularly since most of us in this room are direct

27 Right, and that's fine. I'll definitely look into that. A couple of points here. We do have systems that automatically send transactions internally, but not only the CLECs calling in, but if that interface starts failing, then you will see these kinds of notices going out. So that translates, but having said that, let me go back, take a look at what's been happening and if things can be improved, you know, we can definitely do you know. Right. Because to your point, Mary, I mean it's to my benefit, Well it is problem straight lining and we're using it as a tool and that's why we're complaining because I have to send it out. I get all the calls too and I don't know and I have to explain to difference censors, and then this piggybacks to if you do find that there's a problem, it may not be an outage with a particular GUI. It could be that something breaks because we know we all have systems that break. Right. And, you know, it may send out an erroneous error, a reflex error, and it could be on a specific type of order, and I'd like to see that kind of notification go out too, like, when we invest something, it could be a feature that's broken or something got, you know, someone put a comment in the code and they shouldn't have done it, so I would like to see that too because we open up lots of trouble tickets, and I go, believe I work days and it's not fun for me either. If I get instead a notification, then I know, or with the work around would be in the interim of a fix because everyone knows you just And not only that, if I notice I have a problem and you send let's say a Type 1, scenario 3, and it's the same system that Lissa's folks are using and they don't have a problem, it would probably very valuable to you to know that you, you get an after conversing, we're fine, because then you've pinpointed it back to me and you can blame me, and have a good day. That's one side of the point. On the other side though, every time I call the centers, "Hey, it might be an issue of this sort." I don t know what caused the issue, but again, having said that, I'm finding Hey, I mean I can make this business decision do we hold these orders until they get that fix in or do I hold have the business systems just change the code to work you know, on the work around because then they'd be applications that we may have to change, you know, so if I know a little of that kind of information, that's the kind of business decisions we're deciding.

28 You don't need the pile of rejects coming from us or the problems coming from us if there's a broken channel (sp?). You know, and virtually, once we've sent it to you and it's a problem, we have to resubmit as part of these peoples work. We'd be better off holding it and sending it, you know, the next night. Speakers: Right. Get in there. The second point because Hang on a second. Could folks on the bridge please mute? We hear a lot of noise in the background here. Thank you. You know, if you look at the straw man, on the right side, slide 3, towards the bottom, it doesn't indicate so much that CLECs wanting, waiting for action submitting PONS. No, that's it. Actually, I wanted to tell you guys that like instances before I left beginning of April, there was a new publication that came out and detailed exactly what was wrong. We discussed it and we thought that that was great and that was a good improvement. And yet, it is important. I mean I don't want to work around for three years and then, yeah, it's going to create problems, but you know no, but Tom Brisco told me that has long terms, so that they're all pottytrained as well. So, you know, but it's that type of I think Mary and I used to see it. The WCCC we used to see it and we used to hold those orders because it was a quick fix, even if it was like next week, we would make that business decision, you know, or we'd make a different business decision to add codes to accommodate that work around, but Carol Yozzo: That s true and sometimes it s the inbound procedure -type order procedure causing those problems I m sure. And if you get that detail in a new work form, and it was something to do with an escalation And therefore we freeze up your line, especially when you get complaints that toll times wrong and getting into a rap. I think that is a it's communication. That's all it The only caveat I put in there is we may not always know all the things that are impacted, right? I mean there are so many

29 But when you do But when you get that Yeah, then we just When you get that first CLEC complaint, the quicker you can get it out to us even if you don't have all the information, it alerts us to go looking and maybe grab some stuff back. Dok Matthews: Nick, this is Dok at PennTelecom. Yeah. Dok Matthews: I'm looking at slide 3, the right hand version, your demo. From what I'm hearing and what I've I somewhat agree with Elliott is it would be nice if a third line would be added in date and time and date and time of first report, so like in this case it said the date and time of the first report was at 4:30 in the afternoon, and then the identification is at 5, you know, when you've got two or three more CLECs coming in with the same response, that would be a thing of value to us from what I can see. Okay. Again, my reservation primarily is that a very large number of tickets that we get in are outside the firewall. You know, when I look at the analysis month by month, all the calls that have come in, so I just want to make sure that we don't add more confusion. might work. No. Right, so, but let me take that back and see how that And what I'd like to challenge you is when you know there is a work around on a trouble ticket because things do break and I understand that, I just want to know what is the work around? They don't send you those orders to big time on re-zesting whatever it is? I mean it could be that something doesn't work as it should and you know, then I need to fund it a different way. Dok Matthews: Right. Lissa, I second that motion.

30 Besides, I tell you, it pulls my hair. I mean I have to go back and look at the testing, and I'm like looking at test. Did they fail or whatever? I'm really looking at why did we not know this, so, yeah. The question I have, Nick, is I always see this on the notes is that a checking code bridge has been established. Established for who, please? Because we never see a number. establish a withdrawal. No, it's an internal bridge we use. We are going to So, internal to Verizon? Right, right, to get the issue resolved it is you know, for example, if I use a date, you don't take that word for it. There's a lot of verification that goes on. Yes, because sometimes you'll call Joan and we said JoAnne. We can't get on this bridge to find out what's going on. Is it resolved? What is the situation? We don't know if we're supposed to be on that bridge because it says a technical bridge is established. When we see that, we are assuming is it's a bridge that we can get on to find out what is happening. there to say that it's Female Speaker: get that information? Okay. Well, maybe a change in the verbiage over An internal. an internal type of verification. Would that help? Right. Yes. Unless you'd want to put a number we can dial into to I don't think that we want to do that. I was just saying we'd dial in. I don't want to be on the bridge. No, I didn't think a discussion bridge. I meant like a bridge with a message on it that said for Type, you know, Type 1, Set 3, , the issue is da da da da da da da. The status is da da da da da da da. And the