At this time Mr. Rodgers has joined. Thanks Kim. Good morning everyone. This is the Verizon Change Management Call for

Transcription

1 Citizens Conferencing Verizon Conference Call # May 18, 2004 Operator: Excuse me everyone, we will now begin the conference. At this time Mr. Rodgers has joined. This call will be interactive so to avoid background music please press star, 6. If you need to speak you can press star, 6 again and that will open your line. At this time Mr. Rodgers has joined. Verizon West for May. Thanks Kim. Good morning everyone. This is the Verizon Change Management Call for For those that don t recognize my voice my name is Tom Rodgers, Manager, CLEC Communications. Joining me is Beth McReynolds. We are alone here in the room at Hidden Ranch so as far as introductions for those on the bridge, AT&T, why don t we start with you. Mike Salazar: Bob Urisay: Bob Urisay: Lissa Provenzo: Lissa Provenzo: Benny Olmis: Benny Olmis: Dexter Lilly: Teresa Castro: John Boshier: Milton: Milton: Stacy Mathon: Good morning Tom and Beth, it s Cheryl Peterson, AT&T. Morning Tom, this is Mike Salazar. Hey Mike. Hey Tom, its Paul Figglestaller (sp?), MCI. Hey Paul. Morning. Bob Urisay, Allegiance. Hi Bob. Hi. Lissa Provenzo with MCI. Boy that s a new face on the West call! Good morning. I know. Good morning. Benny Olmis with NewStar. Hi Benny. Morning. Hey Tom, this is Dexter at Vartec. Hi Dex. And this is Teresa with VarTec. Hey. Hi Tom, John Boshier with Covad. Milton with Expedius. Hi Milton. How you doing Tom? Good. Stacy Mathon, Birch Telecom. I m sorry, we didn t catch your first name. 1

2 Stacy Mathon: Stacy Mathon: Matt Connelly: Tammy Swensen: Tammy Swensen: Ken Melly: Ken Melly: Peggy Rubino: Peggy Rubino: Crystal Callsey: John Olson: John Olson: Amy Kwak: Amy Kwak: Steven Cuttle: Steven Cuttle: Kim Isaacs: Stacy. Hi Stacy. Hi. Matt Connelly from Birch is here. Tammy Swensen from Accenture. Tammy, good morning. Morning. Ken Melly with NII Communications. Hi Ken, I owe you a phone call. Hey, thanks Tom. Hi Tom, Peggy Rubino, Z-Tel. Hi Peg. Morning. Hi Tom, Doug Tomlinson with Verizon. Doug, good morning. Morning. Beth, I know you re out there. Hi Tom, Beth Cohen from Verizon. Vencat? Hi Tom, Crystal Callsey and Sandra Boyd with HTC. Good morning HTC. Morning. Hi Tom, John Olson. Hey John. How are you? Good. Amy Kwak, CTSI. Amy, good morning. Good morning. Hey Tom, this is Nick Amrani, Verizon. Hey Nick. Hey Tom, its Steven Cuttle from Verizon. Steven, good morning. Morning. Morning Tom, this is Kim Isaacs from Echelon. 2

3 Kim Isaacs: Jan Tanzer: Jan Tanzer: Vencat: Vencat: Julie Lever: Jamie Rawls: Jamie Rawls: Jamie Rawls: Susan Bateman: Susan Bateman: Carol Yozzo: Carol Yozzo: Hi Kim. I can just barely hear you, but I heard you. Okay, great. Thank you. Hey Tom, Jan Tanzer from Verizon. Hey Jan. good morning. Morning. This is Vencat from Verizon West. Hey, good morning Vencat, long time. Good morning Tom. Hi Tom, its Julie Lever from Verizon. Julie, good morning. Morning Tom, Jamie Rawls, Verizon. Hey Jamie, you just can t stay away can you buddy? Not at all. Is Cindy going to be joining us? She should be, I can double check. Good morning. It s Susan Bateman with Time Warner Telecom. Hi Susan. Good morning. Hey Tom, Carol Yozzo from Verizon. Hey Carol. There you go, there s all my presenters. I thought you were going to say prisoners! Yes. No that s me and Beth. Okay, Suzanne Green are you out there? She may be joining us later. As you guys may know we lost a couple of people to retirement last November and we were able to add Joan Costello and Suzanne Green to my staff to assist and I want to welcome them to the calls and when you see an from them, they are part of my team so be kind and be nice to them and we will try to do the same to you all. As far as special projects, old business side, it looks like we have Vencat up first to talk about a notification that went out about EDI interactive agent and CORBA preorder CSI. Vencat, you re up. Vencat: Really the announcement is very simple and straightforward, but mostly I was prepared to answer any questions or, you know, conduct any discussion that may be prompted by the CLECs. We had intended to go to a new certificate with our June release. Unfortunately, as it turned out, we were unable to do so for technical reasons and so we withdrew that upgrade. We are going to retain the current certificates that are currently in production and intend to renew them with the same type of certificate in August when they expire. So that s really the content of the announcement and if there are any questions I would be happy to try to answer those questions. Vencat: Vencat: Good morning Vencat, this is Cheryl. Good morning Cheryl. Long time since I heard your voice. Indeed, yes. 3

4 Great to hear you. I did see all the notifications and we are aware of that. I just wanted to double check that there s not any IOR strings changing or any IP address changes. Vencat: Vencat: Vencat: No, no such changes are part of the announcement and there will be no changes. Okay, thanks Vencat. They still have you down there in Tampa? Yes. Good. Okay, that seemed to be pretty simple and straightforward. Nicely done. Vencat: I ll stay on mute for another ten or fifteen minutes in case another question comes up. Otherwise I ll just be in listen mode. Okay, and if anyone has a question about the announcement they can certainly us and we will forward it on to Vencat and his team. Tom I do have one thing with our placeholder. Would the certificate have been a good spot in our placeholder for connectivity to maybe drop that in there? Because I would see that because that alerts me to notify the appropriate people on our side for connectivity. agenda instead. Mike Salazar: Vencat: Mike Salazar: Vencat: Mike Salazar: Vencat: Mike Salazar: Vencat: Mike Salazar: Vencat: Mike Salazar: Sure. We should have thought of it, to put it there. We saw the notice and put him on the It worked out fine, I was just thinking for the future. Thanks. Hey Vencat, this is Mike Salazar. Long time, it s great to hear from you. Hello Mike, how are you doing? Okay, like a bad penny, you can t get rid of me. Oh no, you re not a bad penny at all. You re actually just delaying the, I guess the certificates will be done in two months, right? That s correct, yes. Essentially that is correct. And then the, when we renew it in August the renewal will go to 2005 is what I read? That is correct, yes. Of August? That s correct, yes. Okay, thanks. Thanks Vencat. Cindy, are you out there, Cindy Towne? Okay, we will roll forward then and Nick Amrani has a, started talking to us probably about two months ago about changes to the WCCC bulletin, and he has revised the straw man that is included in the online material that he would like to review. Nick, good morning. Good morning Tom, thanks. Tom, the distribution was sent out, right, with the straw man? Yes, it s in the meeting material that s online. Okay, wonderful. So I m going to refer to slides 5 and 6 on the straw man. They are specific to the West. Slides 3 and 4 were shared in the East forum last week. The primary changes here as compared to last time were, number 1, we have reintroduced the severity which did not make the straw man last time and the feedback was that has to get in there, so that s there. And then the verbiage regarding a bridge will be changed. It s going to be an internal technical bridge as against just a technical bridge. 4

5 The other part to this for the West is if you look at the original and the straw man on slide 5, the look and feel of the straw man is different from what goes out today and this is consistent with what goes out in the East. The amount of detail will not change. I believe on the West the CLECs were happy with the kind of details they got so we will make sure that remains as is. And those were the key points. Any comments? Susan Bateman: This is Susan at Time Warner Telecom. I m looking at the slides and I don t know if I m looking at the wrong thing or not but there s no data associated with this straw man side of the slide. Where you see other details is where you would include the information that s on the left side, so we did not put it on here but the details will not change. So what you see on the West s example to the left where it says CLEC (inaudible) etc. all of that will be figured on that other detail section within parentheses. And the reason we left it that way was the West wasn t as concerned about the content. The feedback we got was the content was There were more details coming out on the West than on the East, but yes you ll not miss the details that you see today. Nick this is Cheryl Peterson with AT&T, hi. Hi Cheryl. Can you review what you just said about we weren t as concerned about the content because we have actually had the change request out there from AT&T about content on root cause. Are you speaking about root cause or something else? Yes, there are a couple of points to that. You know, if you look at the East bulletins and the West bulletins there is a slight difference in what comes out and there are a number of reasons for it. But primarily in this case AT&T had asked for specific details related to root cause, etc. which have been added here, we talked about that last time. But the part I just wanted to make clear was for example where it says that, you know, some orders submitted to Verizon West which has been established, etc. the errors are regarding the LSRs, SRs, etc. This may not be a good example. If we go to the next slide you will see some more detail. missed. You re on 6 now? Yes. So I just wanted to make sure that the group understood that that detail would not be Good. So it would be there and yes, you had asked for additional information on root cause. Correct. Which will be there. Thank you Nick. Matt Connelly: This is Matt with Birch. I have a number of questions about this. I ve sent them in, I don t know if you saw them or not but I think you might have addressed one of them so I m going to just kind of review the others. system outages, right? Matt Connelly: time. What s the intention of the field documentation impacted when its this is for This is for system outages, yes. So I guess tell me what, how a documentation impacted field plays a role in here. Okay, why don t you go through all your questions and then we will take them one at a Matt Connelly: Okay, that was the first one. And then I had a question about the technical bridge but I think you said that that was going to be changed to where just referencing an internal technical bridge, is that right? Yes, the question that was asked was any other questions Matt? Matt Connelly: Yes. When these go out do we get an initial and then a final and is that it? Are there any notifications that go out after a certain time period where there is still no resolution? I guess are we looking to see any intermediate notifications? 5

6 And then the other thought I had was that I ve seen this in other notifications and other ILECs before but perhaps putting some sort of tag line in here stating recipients shouldn t reply to this and perhaps direct them to the WCCC and have a phone number to do that so people just don t automatically reply looking for additional info. That s it, believe it or not. Let s take the one regarding the technical bridge first. The technical bridge is typically an internal bridge. The question that came up on these for (and I can t recall if it came up in the West) but the question that came up was, is this a bridge that is open to all? And the answer there is no. You know, it s internal, it s for resolution of the outage. Verizon s focus during these outages is to get things resolved as quickly as possible so people can send in the orders, so whatever has been impacted at that point in time. As regards the initial and final bulletin that is typically how it is done. If there is resolution that s not available for quite some time you might see additional bulletins come out but the final typically would be the one that would start to address, you know, what happened in the case. Regarding a number to be listed to call the WCCC, it is the standard number. I m not sure about listing it, that might be let me ask the whole group. I mean is this something you all would want to see, or is it good enough to know that there is a WCCC number that can be called if additional status is required? Matt Connelly: Well maybe I can follow up that question as, do you ever, I don t know if I were to reply to it does this get bounced back? Do you have, are you able to see if people are going to reply to this? Matt Connelly: Yes, we can actually see it if it comes back as a reply. It comes to our main box. Okay, and do you get people replying to this? No, we don t actually. What would happen is someone might pick up the phone and call the WCCC for additional status. Sometimes people will call Jamie or they might call me. So more often than not we don t get calls. Matt Connelly: Or replies? Right. Matt Connelly: Well Okay then, I guess if you, the issue doesn t exist there s probably no reason to put it in there unless other people desperately want it. Right. And then let s talk about the question on documentation. If as a result of the outage, say for example we have determined that there was a change to the business rules or the EDI specs, anything of that sort. Then you would see some detail listed there under documentation impacted. It s a process change. There is some communication or some documentation that s not related to this outage straw man, or rather if the outage notification were to change then you would see that listed. Matt Connelly: Matt Connelly: Okay, so I would only see that in the resolution, correct? Yes. Any other questions Matt? Nick this is Cheryl again. That brought up a thought that I m not sure I m clear on, about Verizon's position about. Lets say there was a situation where you had a repair that was going to becoming up, like an estimated time to maybe put in some new software as, a hypothetical, in that case are we going to be seeing that on these alert notifications? Does that make sense? outage. Well the alert notification will essentially address the outage and will try to correct the Correct. As a result of the outage if the technical department determines that we needed to go to a different version for the vendor, something that s not no that would not show up on this. That would be a long term strategic direction that we might make which may not be required for a situation of this outage. Okay, I think that s something that s probably going to becoming back your way then, because expectation for AT&T would be also in that resolution that if there were something that needed to be done such as software or a MUX (sp?) card or a new server or something, we would want to know that just, you know, I think that helps not only calls to your center but also us to know exactly when we can expect that to improve. 6

7 Cheryl, the example you just gave about the equipment and the MUX, the M-card, that was involved with the transport facility into the interface. I realize that was a separate This bulletin was not intended to cover that situation. Now if Verizon had a hardware problem that took a server down we would certainly include that in a description of it. But if the transport into the interface goes down you re not going to see it in a bulletin. Tom, I do realize the difference. I m using this as a hypothetical example of understanding as a CLEC exactly when we are going to get resolution and if it is a hardware situation or a software situation we are going to work together by understanding what the fix state is. I think that would in turn resolve on many, many calls coming in with the WCCC But Cheryl there are a couple of differences here and I normally do not discuss hypotheticals, so you know, it becomes difficult. But what, you know usually if there is an outage typically it s going to get fixed. Right? Well hopefully yes Nick. Right, so as to what is done longer term within Verizon, knowing that is of no benefit to you. I mean as long as you are able to place your orders, you re not getting your slow response, you re fine. I mean what benefit would you have with information that we are going to revalue X, Y, Z on such incidents at this point in time? Well let me use a different example Nick. Many, many times in the past, and it s not lately, but there has been situations where the only information we got was server rebooted, server rebooted. Chronic, constant alert notifications to find out that in the long run it was necessary for Verizon to actually install a new server and get some applications off of the server that they were on because of, you know, just too much on that specific server. Knowing that that chronic situation has an end resolution is key to us rather than continuing to see, you know, alert notifications where reboot, because that doesn t tell us anything that Verizon is actually working to resolve that, what s causing the reboot. That s kind of where I m going. Okay, and I understand. But as you pointed out that s not happening lately, and the expectation is that these bulletins, you have more information. I mean typically if its (and again this is a hypothetical case so can t quite discuss it) but you know, what I would suggest is give this a try. You know, see how this works out, and then if more discussion is needed later, I m certainly open to it. But for example I get a lot of calls for example from Joyce Perry or Mary or others from AT&T, they are in a similar situation. So we do work these things, right, and internally I mean we are committed to fixing what is wrong if there is something wrong. So you know let me just leave it at that but Okay, so what I m hearing is that if we see examples that are unclear we can bring them back and discuss them with you Nick. You can yes, you certainly can. Nick, I d just like to say that, you know, sometimes when we say that the system needed to be rebooted, sometimes that is all that that is the reason. I mean we don t know if there is something else that caused it to happen but it got fixed by a reboot and that was the solution. Well Beth I think you weren t around during the examples I was relating to because the reboots were many times a day for several months. So different scenario, but thank you. you and your teams work. Any other comments? Nick thank you very much for your work on these. They have improved and we appreciate I guess building on Cheryl s comment Nick, in my look at the bulletins that I see coming through from your group, it looks like you ve implemented some of this already. Well yes, we have tried to give you know, some more information which might be helpful to the CLECs and my perspective on this was if there is something that would help the CLECs either figure out what process change to make internally or get a better understanding of what s happening and how we are trying to get around it or fix it, as sometimes we used to see, some of it you will see in the bulletins and I think that s where the improvement is being, it s being referred to as the improvement. 7

8 bulletin process. Thanks Cheryl, as you know we do have that change request out there to improve the Correct. Is there anything specific from that enhancement that you re not seeing on the revised bulletin or should we have that conversation later in the afternoon? The bulletin for the specifics I think we are The only outstanding item there was like a summary log that we had discussed with your team a couple of months ago for what we were looking for as well as with Jamie, so You mean a summary of all? Like a monthly log to be put out on the web and Mike and I had met with Jamie and Bobbie and Rhet, I believe it was. So we can discuss that later if you like Tom. Yes Cheryl, on the summary log I don t think we can get that for a couple of reasons. I think as these notifications come out you have the information you need, right. The summary log wouldn t be anything in addition; it would be the same information. If you are in agreement you might request that we not work the summary log. Nick we might need to talk with you on that one because this is coming from a division level and a different organization in our company that s requesting this. You know, if there s some way we can maybe come to some kind of, something that would work for them certainly I am open to conversation on that at least. We are sort of caught in the middle between them and you guys. What about this Cheryl? If, I mean essentially its going to be a list of notifications so is there someone within your group that could collect these as they come in and just provide the summary? I mean, you know it may not take that much time. It s probably a ten, fifteen minute effort monthly, but for us to create the log is a more involved effort. I guess I m a little bit confused with that Nick. If it s taking us ten to fifteen minutes I m not sure why it wouldn t take Verizon ten or fifteen minutes then. For us it means creating a database, and besides you are already getting these, so if some other division requires (and we can take this offline) but if a different division requires this all you have to do is as these notifications come out monthly, collect them and send an to that division, you know, once a month. Let me check that with that division group and see you know, if there is some kind of a win/win that we can work towards and go from there. You recognize we receive these right, it s like I said caught in the middle for what their needs are so I ll notifications, right? Or you could just forward these to them and they could do what they need to with the You know what, you just reminded me, there has been a problem with subscribing to them because, you know, from our reflection here was we would actually just have a, the group subscribe to them but haven t been able to get the subscription done on the web. I mean I receive them and some of our other folks receive them but not everybody who and it s very, very difficult to continue to forward s when its more efficient just to be able to subscribe, so could we have someone look at that? Are you saying you need more people added to the distribution list, is that? Yes, that would be able to just subscribe to the alert notifications only and that seemed, I had taken that to Cert a few months ago and its gone round and round and round and it just has just sort of fallen through the cracks to be honest, but that seems to be a broken thing on the web, the subscription piece. Kim Isaacs: This is Kim Isaacs. I would have to agree with that. I been tempted many times to get notification subscriptions done on the web and they haven t worked. Kim Isaacs: Kim Isaacs: I m sorry, Kim? Yes. Which CLEC are you with Kim? Echelon. And what s your last name Kim? 8

9 Kim Isaacs: Jamie Rawls: trying to subscribe to? Jamie Rawls: Kim Isaacs: Isaacs. Okay, thanks. Kim and Cheryl, can I ask if this is the alert list or the change management list that you are It s the alert list. This is Jamie. I and Kim is that the same case for you as well? Actually it s been both lists for us. Jamie Rawls: I receive notifications, if not daily every few days for new subscribers so I m seeing those requests come in. If there is a particular list or maybe if you could send me along the type of trouble you are having and which list it is I d be happy to look at that. And we can try it again Jamie, because to be honest I haven t tried just like within the last few weeks because it went over to Cert and we just never got a response back that it was fixed. So maybe you did fix it. Thanks. Jamie Rawls: Yes, if you just let me know the link that you are trying to access or subscribe to, which list, and maybe the URL of where you are attempting to subscribe that would be great. Thank you. Okay, sure Jamie thanks. Thanks Jamie. Okay Cheryl so does that help? That helps Nick, thank you. Any other questions? Teresa Castro: This is Teresa from VarTec. I actually had a question for Jamie regarding the subscription list. Is there any way to see which list you re actually subscribed to, because I realize that some of you realize you may not receive as many notifications from, but it s hard to tell if the subscription went through because once you subscribe you don t get anything back. You just, you don t know if it s actually working or not. Jamie Rawls: (inaudible) to that effect? Teresa Castro: things like that. Your request Teresa is to see which list you may be subscribed to, like to review that list Right. I think there s people in my group who may have been deleted from certain lists or Jamie Rawls: Oh boy, now that will cost you! (No, just teasing.) Teresa I could, I believe I have the view capabilities for that entire list. Why don t you send me the names you are enquiring about and I can see what I can find as to which list they would actually be subscribed to. Teresa Castro: Jamie Rawls: employees. Teresa Castro: Jamie Rawls: Teresa Castro: Okay, that will be great; we ll get that to you. And this is, you know, on a reasonable amount. This isn t a whole division, just a few No, just a couple of people. Yes, that would be fine. Great, thank you. Right, so if there aren t any other questions Tom and Beth where do we go with this next? Well, thanks Nick. We will just proceed with the agenda. Next up is Steven Cuttle to give us an update on the website enhancements. I guess we should welcome Steven back from vacation. Steven Cuttle: Thank you Tom. Good morning everyone. I don t have lots to report on this month but I ll just start off with web based training. I did want to bring to your attention there will be a wireless local number portability 9

10 workshop held this month on May 25 th. This is for both East and West and it will be held from 1 to 3 pm Eastern Time. It is a workshop that does require registration and that can be done, it is on the events calendar or you can register via the CLEC education on training pages. I did want to let you know that this is not, as I think probably many of you know, we have, Cathy Hems (sp?) team has held a wireless LNP workshop on a few occasions. This is not a brand new workshop, this OP will actually be a repeat of a previous workshop but its geared for new users who as of May 24 th the wireless LNP capability will be opened up to all customers. So this is really geared for folks who haven t yet attended the workshop or of course if people want a refresher. Just a reminder that last month a new East and West directory listing web based training module was launched on the web site and Cathy Hems team is currently in the process of converting their web based training content over to LSOG 6. That s on ongoing project so they will be able to report better next month as to when they see the conclusion of that project and when the content will be updated on the web. For other web documentation I reported last month that my team is currently working on adding some West error code documentation to the local ordering guide. That is still in progress, we hope to have the content launched to the local ordering guide by the end of this month or by the first week in June. And we are currently working on updating all content for order and preorder samples as well as the local ordering guide for the coming June LSOG 6 release and planning to have that updated also by the end of June. And as far as new web development, on April 28 th a new 2004 industry letter bridge page was launched to the wholesale website and actually its found if you go to the main page of the wholesale website, click onto the resource library on industry letters. That will take you to the 2004 industry letter bridge page where you can see all the letters for the year. And that s basically all I have to report on this month. Are there any questions? Steven Cuttle: morning Carol. Thanks Steven. Okay, thank you all. Carol Yozzo joins us to continue a discussion about CA OSS uniformity project. Good Carol Yozzo: Good morning Tom and good morning everyone. I m pleased to report that the first phase of the CAA OSS uniformity conversion for former GTE accounts for former Bell Atlantic systems took place last weekend, and any CLECs that were involved in the process should be aware of that by now. We are actually in the process of distributing the files from the conversion that list each converted account for each CLEC and if you have already received it fine, if not you will be receiving it. They are in the process of being sent out now. We are also in the process of rekeying any of the remaining pending orders that had been submitted to the former GTE guide as of May 10 th. I m not sure exactly when that is going to be done, I m sure it s based on the volume, but that is in process. So just a reminder effective yesterday any CLECs that are doing business in the Erie ladder should be doing that processing through Verizon East systems. They are no longer, LSRs are no longer accepted in the former GTE actually that was effective last week, not submit any except for subs to cancel any remaining orders. Any questions? Carol, I m sorry this is Cheryl Peterson. Just checking, I had forwarded an that Gloria has been checking out for mapping of ISOC to USOC. She still had clarification on that. I wondered if you had seen that ? Carol Yozzo: Let me check. I know there were a couple of s that we were responding to. Gloria - there was another question that was really more related to the July phase of this conversion. We will follow up on any s that come in. Was this sent to anyone specific or do you know if it was sent to CA conversion mailbox? you have copied me on. Carol Yozzo: yesterday about them. Julie Lever: Just to you and Julie because I know there s been tons of those texts going back and forth Well I know Julie is following up on the s with Gloria and I did speak with Gloria This is Julie Cheryl, I have the info on the ISOC Hi Julie. Julie Lever: How you doing Cheryl? I ve answered all the ISOC to USOC questions. The only one pending now is the message waiting indicator question. I should have the answer that today. 10

11 Julie Lever: Carol Yozzo: Right, that s the Okay, good. Thank you Julie. Okay, no problem. Thanks Carol. Oh, you re welcome Cheryl. Any other questions? Okay, the only other point I wanted to make then is that the next phase of the conversion, as you probably already know, is scheduled for July and that will convert the remaining ladders in the former GTE in Pennsylvania. And that s it Tom. John Boshier: else talking or am I echoing? Thanks Carol. John, did you have a question about circuits, circuit IDs? Yes, actually we brought that up at the East forum as well. It turned into is somebody You re probably echoing. John Boshier: Probably echoing, sorry about that. My concern with the conversion is just that we take care to validate circuiting, circuit IDs after the conversion that show up whole. We have a number of circuits where we actually, the circuit information was lost in the Verizon records so when we go to open up repair tickets we get into a real bind. And I won t bore everybody with the details, but. So I m hoping that there s something built into the process to validate the circuit information after its been converted. Yes, no maybe? Julie Lever: John Boshier: I m doing fine. This is Julie, John, how are you doing? Julie Lever: I, we were aware of that problem that you guys had with the Virginia conversion and we did take the necessary steps to make sure that that same thing does not happen in the PA conversion. So we are still working on the Virginia issues though. We will let you know if anything comes out. John Boshier: That s great. So did you find what the root cause was that caused it to happen or Julie Lever: I wasn t involved with the Virginia conversion but I am involved with the process now. We are still looking into those circuits. We actually have a call about it tomorrow so I will probably have more information for you shortly. John Boshier: Okay, if somebody could get back to me because we re kind of list of circuits trying to figure out what circuits we have but I m curious about what steps were taken in PA to prevent it from happening again or if there is anything really an after the fact check is what I would like for reassurance that nothing did happen. Julie Lever: I can take that back to the team. I think Dave Russell is going to be getting back in touch with you after tomorrow s call. John Boshier: Julie Lever: Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks Carol and Julie. Bobbi is enjoying herself in Las Vegas this week so please don t feel sorry for her for missing the call this morning. Doug Tomlinson is joining in her place to give us an update on the business rule engine enhancements. Good morning Doug. Morning Tom, thanks. Basically all the changes that we discussed have already been communicated at one of the previous CMP calls. We don t have anything new to report as far as enhancements that are coming out that are, that have not already been communicated and we are still a go target for July on those enhancements. Where there any questions on that? This is Lissa with MCI. Hi. Hi. As part of your July enhancement, does that include the June release as well? No, that would be separate. We are looking yes, those are enhancements for, from a user base. The June release we are looking at our updates we are doing to the business rules. 11

12 specifications? Okay, and are you part of Bobbi s team as far as the business rules and EDI In terms of the business rules the EDI specifications would be Vencat Rahl (sp?). Okay, because I don t know if this is an appropriate place to park this issue and just let me know Tom or yourself if this should be brought up at another section, but MCI has some major concerns on the USPS, United States Postal Service format and the EDI document not being very clear on how to map these particular values. It s not clear or concise. The test team doesn t seem to be able to answer it. We ve had a few questions back but we really need to have I think a little more detailed conversation so that our system doesn t bomb in the June release. I think Paul and Beth have been working to establish a call for those issues for tomorrow. And I really need the EDI person so I don t know if Beth is because, you know Vencat is, and he was on the call earlier this morning and might still be, but that s who we are attempting to set the call up with. Okay, great. And then Thanks for the feedback last night too Beth, I know I got it to you late. In addition, how do we clear up and clean up the documentation so we don t have this guessing work when our EDI mappers and business specs, business analysts can see it very clearly which it s not. In our eyes it s not documented, you know, could be clearer, could be very concise. No one else in the industry is using the United States Postal Service format so we are very, very concerned, and not only about the questions, also just trying to figure out if these are just new added values. You know, is it going to change the ordering edit because they, in our eyes feel that we, you know preorder and order do synch up. So it s very unclear. I understand the US Postal Standards will pass. That is something MC would not get an edit on the actual value coming in. So are, the US Postal Service format, you wouldn t get an edit on that? No, not for an invalid format. That s a separate location. Okay, that s good to know. So it will basically edit as is today, the service order address? Right. So would Beth be the right person to give this clearer documentation so that the spec indicates that clearly in case, in the event someone else has to pick up the spec and so they truly understand how to code? Well we are setting up a call to discuss that. I know, that s one thing for clarification but If there is an opportunity to clarify the document we certainly will do so. Yes, it needs to be. I mean I appreciate the clarification. That s your opinion and I think that s why we are having the call to determine that for sure. Well its more than my opinion, you can t pick up the spec and determine how to code those fields and I don t know if there is any other EDI person out there but it s, we re trying to file the blueprint and it s not clear. So I have some concerns of how can we better the documentation so it is very clear so you don t have to have a special call with me in the future. So Beth will you let us know then when you can get something set up with, I guess Vencat? Yes, I will let you know. And its may possibly be Vencat or maybe not, it We need someone who knows EDI. 12

13 will get something set up. It will be, but that may not be Vencat, it may be someone else on that team. But yes, we And I guess the other question is, I know I was going to bring it up when Cindy jumped on, but maybe she is not going to. It s we had originally directed some of these questions over to CTE folks and they ended up forwarding over to CMP and I guess I just didn t, don t quite understand you know, who I need to direct some of these questions to. And as it turned out you know, it took over a week for Steven even got a response back so I was a little concerned about that. If you direct them to us we will always get them into the right panel and then you will see the answer back from us. But if you just send them to us we will certainly get them where they need to go. Is that for coding purposes when we are trying to code? How can we get a quicker turn around answer on some of these issues since the documentation is not clear, especially for like you know the preorder EDI spec? (Inaudible) thing you know and if it s something that s really, really urgent then I would suggest you follow up your with a phone call to either myself or to Tom or one of the other members and let us know that there is something really urgent out there. Right. Because if we need to do a change control or whatever we need to do, we just need to get this whole section just much clearer, better documented. Clearer documented I guess so the coders don t have all these questions. that too, the documentation. I will get back with you either later today or early tomorrow and talk about the call. And then will we also discuss on the call too that we just to clean up Okay, we ll discuss Sure, we can discuss that on the call. Thank you. We re normally at, we are a little early for our break. I assume we should go ahead and take a break now and come back about Central. We will leave the bridge open and come back to the call then, in ten minutes. Thanks. Paul. Yes? Do you want to give me a call? Sure thing. BREAK So Tom, you traveled back home again huh? Hi Cheryl. Yes, I made the trip. Of course it was a ten hour flight because of a rain delay in Philadelphia, so it wasn t a real easy trip to do. I know, we just flew back from DC and it was delays there just because of, I guess the storms across the country, I don t know. In ten hours, couldn t you have driven! No, and I have made that trip twice in a car so, it s about two days. Really. You can get to Tennessee, Louisiana in that timeframe. I think people forget how far away Dallas is. Yes. It s just some country. There you go Beth. 13

14 I didn t know they actually had a Pledge of Allegiance protected. I was with a bunch of school teachers, not my choice but I was with this bunch of school teachers Saturday evening and they were talking about they had their own Pledge of Allegiance here. taped up on their boards. are like that, so it scares you. A Texas Pledge of Allegiance? A Texas Pledge of Allegiance. You know that doesn t surprise me Beth, not at all. Tell us what it is. I don t know what it is; I mean they didn t even know what it was. They have to keep it So it s a Lone Star Pledge of Allegiance, like you know, we have our own country. But it does like refer to Texas being, you know, its own country I think. How funny. I m surprised you re hanging out with teachers Beth. It wasn t my choice. I knew you were going to say that! It scares me now because, you know, I have a sixteen year old and I m thinking all teachers Well, let s see. Morning break is always good; I trust everybody has had time to come back. Doug, you re the most important one at this moment. We will start the items by release. Okay, thanks Tom. We re going to go ahead and go through what has changed since our last meeting on the items by release. So what we will be starting on is on page 5 for fiber to the end user for wholesale. Doug, this is Cheryl, and we d prefer to go through each one like we always do. Then looking at the document, I m going to go ahead since April has already been completed. We re going to start with page 3 then, for the June 14 th items. Thanks. The first one listed there would be the line loss provider notification to indicate wire line for wireless losses. That one basically is just adding a new NT, notification type value of W to indicate wireless LMP and that would indicate a line loss for that. Were there any questions on that initiative? Next one we have is also in June, is the T fiber change directory listings on disconnect orders. This allows the CLEC to disconnect a loop order and retain the listing on the single LSR provided the listing remains as is. To disconnect that you would submit the LSR with the rec type of AB for the loop, ACT equals B. And in this case you would populate the ERL value for LSOG 5 with Y or the ELT value for LSOG 6 with A indicating retained listing as is. New edits that will be put in place are valid entry edit, when you have an ACT equals B, we are only looking for one value to come back and that would be the retained listing as is. Any requested change to the listing with that disconnect would still require two LSRs. Were there any questions on that one? And the next one we have for June would be flow through auto reject space 5. Again what we are looking at are our generic errors and looking for a more appropriate place to place those. We did list out the edits that would be impacted with the June release for this space of that one. Were there any questions with that initiative? Doug, this is Cheryl. On this one with the errors knowing those are manual errors, does that mean we will no longer get any 999? Well there will still be some. What we are doing is looking at the volume that s being sent back and we re looking at the top hitters right there to say Okay, should this be a manual error or is it something that we can put up front and edit engine? So what we are looking at is to try and eliminate that generic error message. You ll still receive some for items we haven t actually got to yet. Eventually it would be nice to say we would eliminate all of those. However I believe we will still need to have that for any new issues that should come up. So what I m hearing and the reason that these are even hitting manual is because they are not in the edit engine, they are flow through? 14

15 Correct. They are flow through or they come into the NMC and in some cases the 999 rejects come back because we are not sure until we actually start the service order. That s part of the reason why we have those there, the auto reject. And so what we do is monthly we review what 999 errors have been invoked for the month and take a look at the top hitters and then explore how can we move this to more appropriately fit the system moving into edit engine if necessary, or through the CLEC specialist, would it be an education issue? And along with that then (thanks for that explanation Doug) but along with that exactly which orders can we expect a flow through and where s that list? As far as what orders flow through is currently coded to handle? Yes. That I don t have with me Cheryl, but I can get that information back to you. That would be wonderful. When could I expect that? Can we say by close of business tomorrow, Wednesday? Great, thanks Doug. Can that information go out to the whole group? Yes. What I ll do is forward the information through the CMP team on that. And you re looking basically for rec type X values that flow through as coded to handle? Steven Cuttle: Steven Cuttle: Steven Cuttle: Correct. Steven, are you out there, Cuttle? Yes I am Tom. Isn t that on the website already? As far as what flows through? Yes. There is, there are some ordering actually let me just go to the exact place. Sorry, I cut you off. Steven Cuttle: I was that I just want to double check because of all the changes, I want to make sure it s still in place. But there are definitions of flow through of eligible products and services on the web. Okay, now when you say flow through eligible, versus actually what s occurring functionality wise, the expectation is that none of those that are eligible are dropping out to manual. Is that correct? That is certainly the expectation but obviously there are, we never say it won t ever happen and we don t say it will always happen because perfection doesn t exist. So yes, I mean it s, that the answer is, the expectation is, absolutely that it would flow through but there are situations where it won t. Well it would be very helpful to us, Doug, if you can provide us with the list that, you know, where we know what s supposed to be flowing through; or Steve, if you can give us the, even if you can provide the URL that would be helpful to the CLEC community. I know it was out there at one time but I can t find it anymore. Steven Cuttle: I will check on it. There are, if you go to the order samples page there is a link to what are called generic flow through ordering scenarios. Now those are specific to the East so I will look to see if there is equivalent content for West. thanks Steven. Steven Cuttle: That would be great because there seems to be a lot missing for the West out there, so Sure. And one note on that. Will we stay eligible Cheryl, like we know flow through does the resale? It can handle a resale or rec type EB Active B. What are the conditions though that would cause that to fall to manual is if lets say you RPON them together. We haven t coded flow through to handle a whole group of RPONs mainly because of due dating and the way the orders are written. And I remember the RPON, yes. 15

16 Right or if it s a case where you may have pre-negotiated a project with the center specialists where you populate a project field, that would cause that not to flow even though the order may be eligible. clarifying that Doug. And that s what is helpful for us to understand, which ones would drop down, so thanks for Were there any other questions on the flow through auto reject? Okay, then the next one we have is the T5 end user data migration. This would apply to the line share out when you re migrating the data side and what this would do is provide the fictitious number for the line share or the data side back to the ordering CLEC. Were there any questions with that one? And the next one we have would be fiber to the end user for wholesale. The update we have from the last meeting on here is we provided further clarification for grain peel (sp?) versus overlay. We also discussed this modification that we were doing at the 45 day notification and if you look under the description that last paragraph does give the more detailed description on that one. Did we have any questions with this initiative? Okay, then the next one we have is change number of allowable characters for LD1, LD2, LD3. This is the initiative where we are expanding the LD fields from four to ten characters. That s also to match the preorder piece, and I know there are several questions on this one that MCI had raised regarding the technical specifications. I believe that s what the call tomorrow is to go ahead and address those specific questions on the technical spec piece. Did we have any other questions on that one? Yes Doug this is Paul, MCI, again. Hi. And Beth maybe you can answer this better. On our call tomorrow would it be possible for us to also have somebody from the order side to make sure that what we are talking about and everybody is kind of in agreement with the thing, with the issues that we talk about as far as ordering goes? join that call. Doug. Yes I can be on that call. Do you know what time that would be Beth? No we haven t set the time but I can get with you. Okay great, I could be Are you the project leader on this? Yes I am so I will be on that call as well. In fact I was going to ask you offline later if I could Okay, great. Yes, that would be good. And Beth I will just give you a call after the CMP call, a little bit later tonight. Maybe we can figure out what s going on. If you are at your PC, I m not but if you just want to send me an too with any specifics Paul, I ll get that over lunch. Thanks, All right. Okay, do we have any other questions on that particular initiative? Moving along the next one we have is the T5, provider notification in WISE for all products. This enhancement will return a provider notification for all NP values via the WISE interface. Today EDI in fact if you return that would just modify the WISE to return the same as well. Any questions with that one? No question, but thank you. You betchya! Okay, next one we have would be WISE repair conversion to LSI trouble admin. The update we have here is we ve updated the tentative conversion schedule with the latest information that we have in terms of when we plan for those regions to cut. Did we have any questions with that one? I don t have a question (this is Beth) but I wanted to, you know, let everyone know that there was an that went out on training classes scheduled for this. 16

17 John Olson: Yes this is John Olson; I just wanted to address that for a few minutes. Okay, that s great because I know I hadn t had, there were several s from people who were having trouble registering for this. John Olson: I believe we have corrected that and in the the correct web address is there and will have the profile information. But there are training classes set up from the end of May through the end of August and it will probably continue beyond that for training on to LSI trouble administration. What I would like to reinforce here is for those CLECs that don t do business in the East today that you should go and get your East digital certificate. On that application process for the East digital certificate you need to have the ECC or the Exchange Carrier Code. That Exchange Carrier Code has to be updated in your CLEC profile database. That way LSITA will be able to recognize you as a working CLEC and we can process trouble tickets electronically. Are there any questions with that? John Olson: Thanks John, this is Beth again. Yes? Does the URL that was put on the first that went out, that is corrected so they can register from this to your office that went out with the notice? John Olson: Okay, great. Yes. John Olson: And also that is on the calendar, at least through the end of June and then somewhere in mid June it will be updated for July and August. John Olson: Okay, thank you. Thanks Beth. Teresa Castro: This is Teresa from VarTec. I just want to confirm that if you currently have, if you currently have users working in both the East and the West there is nothing that we need to do for those users passwords or certificates so they will have access to if they currently have the East that they will now have the West access that they will need? John Olson: Yes, because the AB, AECN or EC speed code is the same, I believe both East and West. If you can confirm that, that would be great. If there is a difference then I think you have to update your CLEC profile with the AECN information. Okay, any more questions on the WISE repair conversion to LSI trouble editing? Then the next one we have for June would be the STC triennial batch hot cut for the rest, West (excuse me). This phase is going to address the flow through requirements for the batch hot cut process so we can automate those orders. Where there any questions with that one? Okay, the next one we have would be the T5 shared UNI loop product for the West. We did have a couple of modifications on this since the last time we discussed this. First of all if you are looking at the items by release you can see that we went ahead and removed almost as stated the NC and service code modifiers for pending approval. We did receive those and this update does reflect those. And we did strike through any notes on there that stated that we were pending approval on those. A couple of late developments that we have had on this is we are looking at tabling concerns to get the NCNCI combination and the ISOC tabled for this. I know previously we had communicated that if you had submitted your LSR for testing for June and the only error you received back was 1483 product not available, that all the fields were considered good. Since then we ve learned that since we were unable to get those NCCI codes or ISOCs tabled in time for testing in June, you will also see two new errors coming back. One of them would be 1103 on the NCNCI combination. That one states NCNCI combination is not valid, and the other one would be edit number 3052 the rated position 2 of LSR TOSS equals FR or P and STAN as populated and STAN must be valid for CLEC contractor tear out. We are currently working to try to get those tabled as soon as possible. At this time though, I don t have an actual date that we will have those particular NCI codes for ISOCs tables. Did we have any questions on this one? I think we may have one Doug but I will have to get back with you on it for clarification. 17