Get documents about "May Transcript
Document Sample
Verizon Service Group
May 13, 2003
Confirmation #5392494
Tom Rodgers: Hello, this is Tom.
Operator: Excuse me everyone, at this time Mr. Tom Rodgers
has now joined.
Tom Rodgers: Good morning.
Speaker: Good morning.
Speaker: Good morning, Tom.
Tom Rodgers: Hi guys.
Speaker: Morning, Tom.
Tom Rodgers: Welcome to the call. This is the Verizon Change
Management call for TuesdayMay14th. My name is Tom Rodgers. We should
probably start with the introduction to those on the conference bridge and then do
the folks here in the room and ask my Verizon participants to identify themselves
at the end of the CLEC introductions please. Start with AT&T.
Rich Brauchley: Rich Brauchley.
Tom Rodgers: Hey Rich.
Rich Brauchley: How you doing, Tom?
Tom Rodgers: Good.
Janice Ziegele: Janice Ziegele of Broadview Network.
Tom Rodgers: Hi Janice.
Janice Ziegele: How you doing, Tom?
Tom Rodgers: Good.
Tammy Swenson: Tammy Swenson, Accenture.
Pam Long: Pam Long from Accenture.
Tom Rodgers: Hi Pam.
Pam Long: Hi.
Heather Barns: Heather Barns from D&E.
Daniel Salvagno: Daniel Salvagno from Talk America.
Tom Rodgers: Hello, Daniel.
Rebecca Baldwin: Rebecca Baldwin with Tel Cove.
Tom Rodgers: Is it Del Cove?
Rebecca Baldwin: Tel Cove. That’s t as in Tom, e, l, c, o, v as in victory
e.
Tom Rodgers: Is this your first call?
Rebecca Baldwin: No, it’s formerly Adelphia Business Solutions.
Tom Rodgers: Oh, okay. All right. Okay.
Doug Mathews: Doug Mathews of Penn Telecom.
Tom Rodgers: Hello, Doug. Good morning.
Steve Taff: Steve Taff with Allegiance.
Tom Rodgers: Hey, Steve.
Steve Taff: Morning.
Lissa Provenzo: Lissa Provenzo with MCI.
Tom Rodgers: Good morning, Lissa.
Dexter Lilly: Dexter Lilly, Vartec Telecom.
Tom Rodgers: Hi, Dex.
Dexter Lilly: Morning, Tom.
Joyce Atwell: Joyce Atwell, AT&T.
Tom Rodgers: Hi, Joyce.
Teresa Castro: Teresa Castro with Vartec. This is my first call.
Tom Rodgers: Oh hi, Teresa.
Gloria Velez: Gloria Velez from AT&T.
Tom Rodgers: Morning. Anyone else out there?
John Coleman: Uh, this is John Coleman from the New York Public
Service Commission.
Tom Rodgers: Hi, John.
John Coleman: Morning.
Larry Blair: Larry Blair, Remi Communications.
Kathleen Morales: Kathleen Morales, NOS Communications.
Darleen Maurer: Darleen Maurer, American Management Systems.
Annmarie Sturtz: Annmarie Sturtz, Choice One Communications
Tom Rodgers: Hi, Annmarie.
Annmarie Sturtz: Good morning.
Amy Kwak: Amy Kwak with CTSI.
Tom Rodgers: Hi, Jane.
Amy Kwak: Amy.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. Um, here in the room I guess Don, start with
you.
Don Beausure (sp?): Don Beausure(sp?), Kovac Communications.
Nicole Gordon: Nicole Gordon, Verizon Change Management.
(Inaudible):
Steven Mann (sp?): Steven Mann (sp?) from Verizon.
Joyce Pare: Joyce Pare.
Laurie Ann Vershon: Laurie Ann with Allegiance.
Elliott Goldberg: Elliott Goldberg, Metel.
Tom Rodgers: Um, yeah, the button’s in front of you. All green.
There you go. That’ll help with voice communication after. Um, Sid or Hitakio
(sp?) are you with us this morning?
Pat Pungitore: Tom, this is Pat Pungitore at Verizon.
Linda Senne: It’s Linda Senne, I’m also with Verizon.
Tom Rodgers: Hi guys. Good morning.
Alcina Marques: Alcina Marques, Verizon.
Tom Rodgers: Oh, Alcina.
Alcina Marques: Hey.
Tom Rodgers: Good morning.
Alcina Marques: Good morning.
Mary Ellen Stanley: Good morning, Tom, this is Mary Ellen Stanley from
pre order.
Tom Rodgers: Hi Mary Ellen.
Mary Ellen Stanley: How are you?
Tom Rodgers: Good.
Cheryl Bains: Cheryl Baines, Verizon.
Tom Rodgers: Hey, Cheryl. Good morning.
Cheryl Bains: Hi.
(inaudible) Schultz (sp?): Tom, (inaudible) Schultz (sp?), Verizon Wholesale.
Tom Rodgers: Okay, great. Anyone else?
Jill Demuth: Tom, Jill Demuth.
Tom Rodgers: Hi, Jill.
Jill Demuth: Hi there.
Alice Allen: This is Alice Allen from Jones
Communication/Comcast in Virginia.
Tom Rodgers: Oh, okay. Good morning.
Alice Allen: Good morning.
Deb Christopher: Morning this is Deb Christopher from Telcordia.
Tom Rodgers: Hi, Deb.
Deb Christopher: Hey, Tom.
Donna Quinn: Tom, this is Donna Quinn.
Tom Rodgers: Hi, Donna.
Donna Quinn: Hi.
Tom Rodgers: Okay, I appreciate everyone’s promise this morning. I
think we’re going to have a full agenda. Um, I assume everyone has received
the meeting material that was sent out last week. If not I guess now would be the
time to speak up and we can send it to you. Okay. Um, as far as the agenda
this morning we’ll try to follow the agenda as close as possible. Looking at it I
have some changes to make as far as ruminating the Pennsylvania (inaudible)
discussion. There is nothing new to report this month. Provider notification we
also had nothing new to present. And um, there’s no billing issues this morning.
So that leaves the majority of the morning for a discussion on uh, (inaudible) on
the web site. Jill, do you have anything from the research perspective?
Jill Demuth: No I don’t at this point.
Tom Rodgers: Okay.
Jill Demuth: Anything that I would have Linda would be covering.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. Yes Elliott?
Elliott Goldberg: The (inaudible) wondering has slipped so I would
have thought that having an panel was especially appropriate (inaudible) May 17
should say per offering for that period. Is there any forecast (inaudible) defense
of any marketplace (inaudible). Actually in (inaudible) level.
Tom Rodgers: My understanding is there are no plans, no new date
that we’re targeting for, for the…
Elliott Goldberg: It’s the same for the merger.
Tom Rodgers: Yes it is.
Elliott Goldberg: When (inaudible).
Tom Rodgers: Well that date was associated with a number of
access lines that were reconverted and we’ve satisfied that.
Elliott Goldberg: I thought (inaudible) pricing system.
Speaker: Elliott can you pick up a little….
Speaker: I’m hearing.
Tom Rodgers: Is there a volume on that button, Arthur?
Elliott Goldberg: Uh, my understanding was when I read the original
merger agreement that was draft that they, that both Virginia and Pennsylvania
had to be merged.
Tom Rodgers: That’s correct.
Elliott Goldberg: You know I could go back and look up that draft that
day but,
Tom Rodgers: Um, (inaudible) to see if there’s any additional
information that you can…
Speaker: We’ve been doing development work and therefore
there’s some cost and to put it off indefinate we did it based on a Verizon
(inaudible) so it would have to be….
Speaker: Listen, Tom…
Elliott Goldberg: Actually I had another, a newer issue to bring up on
the (inaudible) conversion to (inaudible).
Speaker: Okay.
Speaker: Okay, um actually the Virginia which is supposed to
be complete at this point is only semi complete. We’re starting to see orders
rejected over (inaudible) exchanges for IBSL and we’re told that we have to take
these back to the manual, um, due to the conversion is what the explanation is.
And our understanding is that when the conversion occurs that the order is
supposed to be treated (inaudible) for both the GTE, former GTE former
(inaudible) exchange. We’re looking for an explanation of why that’s there.
Speaker: We also have Contel who was the prior order prior to
GTE so we have a conflicted (inaudible) for Virginia.
Speaker: Understand. But we’re reporting the conversion is
complete I would say that’s (inaudible).
Speaker: So we better recheck your orders and you take it that
Verizons their safety?
Speaker: Conversion and that’s been taking those exchanges
because they were former GTE…
Speaker: Right.
Speaker: …(inaudible) that they need to be submitted manually.
Speaker: So it’s (inaudible) and what happens when you submit
it manually?
Speaker: (inaudible) did the conversion so our partners are
submitting to us on a claim (inaudible).
Speaker: You know I’d have to see if we were being billed for
manual service overcharges for sure but the cost to us has impacted customers
that (inaudible) installation.
Tom Rodgers: For those on the conference bridge I’m trying to get
either Kim or Ed Amotto to join the call this morning. Um, lets come back to the
issue um, and go ahead and work the other issues on the table (inaudible) and
then if Kim and Ed can join the call and provide that clarification. Linda?
Linda Senne: Yes?
Tom Rodgers: Good morning. Let’s…
Linda Senne: Morning.
Tom Rodgers: Start us off with an update on the web site, please.
Linda Senne: Okay. Good morning everybody. This is Linda
Senne with Verizon Wholesale Services (inaudible) support and I’ve been talking
to you all for the last couple of months about new information for the wholesale
web site and I’m very happy to announce this morning that we have done two
things that are going to, I think, be of interest to the community…
I’m sorry?
Tom Rodgers: Can you all hear it okay?
Linda Senne: Do I need to speak up?
Tom Rodgers: That’s fine.
Linda Senne: Okay. Um, we ha ve a new and enhanced ordering
local services web site. It is located right now on the online library under ordering
local services. It replaces the local services ordering guide that was out there
previously. It has been enhanced to include more information on the process
about what type of activities and request of service types can be ordered and
then there are some specific pages that have to do with each of the various rest
types. Um, and we’re also going to be addressing in the future, although we
have only one out there now, about different types of features. So there’s
specific pages based on rest types or features that can be viewed. And it’ll give
you ordering tips about things that, um, should happen prior to giving your order
and when you are submitting your order in order to ensure that your orders are
successful when they, you know, reach Verizon. We also have information out
there about the pre-order samples and the order samples.
Pre-order transactions, you know, if you have a
question on how to perform a transaction. If you have questions about forms or
different types of responses we are in the process (inaudible) up the next couple
of months to add continued new content to this. But the main part is that we will
actually be holding a workshop for the west it is 5/22 and for the east it is 5/, or I
think I got that backwards, for the east, okay, hold on, I gotta read my notes.
Sorry. For the west it is 5/22 and for the east it is 5/28. Both of those will be 1:30
to 3:00 Eastern Time. The workshops you can sign up for them via the normal,
you know, way to sign up for a workshop on the training and education page
through the online registration. The workshops will highlight any new order or
order samples um, give information on what is out there in the order samples.
Also it will talk about the new content and give a tour of the new local order guide
and the various pieces of content and information that can be found there. So I
would definitely suggest if you have people in your organization that you think
would benefit from this tour that you share that with them. And again they can go
to the training site on the LFP home page and register for these workshops.
More communication will also be shared via change
control notices in the next coming weeks. We’re going to be doing a actual video
taped web tour that will sit out on the web site and will also be distributed through
change control so that you can see what’s in the new local order guide at your
own convenience during whatever time you want to just by clicking on it. And
you can also share that information internally within your organizations for those
people that would benefit from that.
Um, the other new item is that we’ve been talking
about a new information architecture. Sometimes referred to as the AIA or the IA
for the wholesale web site. The new redesigned front door is supposed to launch
at the end of the month on 5/29 with, as long as there’s no unexpected, you
know, labor events that occur between now and then. So again communication
of the new front door, that new look will be coming out through various means.
But the bottom line with the new front door is that information and data will be
organized in a topic/function mode so if you’re going into the new AIA you’ll be
able to find information based on the topic or the function. An example would be
all the billing content would be in one place and you’d be able to find it under
billing. Um, it should make things easier to find. It is a continuous work in
progress, um, for the rollout there will ways to still access the information on the
old site map. But, again tours and further communication will be coming out
shortly um, so that you can really get a good idea and actually visually see what
these things are going to be all about. Again for the local order guide I definitely
would suggest that if you have people than can attend the 5/22 and 5/28
workshops that that would be a good idea.
That’s all I have this morning for web documentation.
Any questions?
Lissa Provenzo: This is Lissa with MCI. Um, I notice there was an
application about a new search engine, is that the same part of it. You didn’t talk
anything about it.
Linda Senne: Yeah. The new search engine, and that is actually
part of some of the enhancements that is happening with the web site, um, I think
it’s, I don’t know if it actually labeled it in the communications or not but there is a
new search engine capability and the new search engine will provide better
search results than you probably are used to seeing in the past. It also organizes
search results based on what you might be looking for. Um, so if you were to put
in like AD9 it would actually be able to bring back as one of the results, it would
say are you interested, I don’t know the exact words, but are you interested in
seeing a sample order. And then it would actually bring back the order sample
for AD9. So if you haven’t checked out the new search on the web site please go
ahead and do that as well. It really is a much improved and we’re also continuing
to work on that as we are building the new web site to actually be able to sort of
customize those searches so that we really can bring back specific information
based on what we know customers are asking for. Anything else?
Tom Rodgers: Just to tag on a little bit, Linda, the change
management site will be consolidated from the east and the west sites to a single
one page?
Linda Senne: Oh yes, I forgot to mention that. Do you know when
the rollout for that is?
Tom Rodgers: Well we set out to do sign off of it. It could go the end
of the month.
Linda Senne: Okay. Yeah, so I would definitely just tell people to be
on the lookout between now and the end of the month for things to really be
changing on the web site and to really be providing a much easier way to find
things.
Lissa Provenzo: And is this the same IP address today?
Linda Senne: Oh yeah. That won’t change.
Lissa Provenzo: And then can you explain what you mean by
consolidate to one page? I mean right now you click the east or the west so what
do you mean by consolidate it?
Tom Rodgers: From the wholesale page, Verizon Wholesale, you’ll
have an opportunity to select change management and then from change
management you’ll see both east and west documents we use, etcetera from a
single page. So the screen will be split east and west. So you’ll be able to look
at the reading material, the archive replacing release information or the October
release you’ll be able to go to a section that says October releases and you’ll see
all of the notifications of business rule changes, (inaudible), anything associated
with that October release will be mapped to either the east or the west section of
the web site. So, um, hopefully we’ll have it into production the end of the month.
If not it’ll be first of June or so. That should be an improvement as well as to
having to go to two different sites and having to navigating (inaudible). Okay,
anything else you want to know?
Lissa Provenzo: No that’s it.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. Um, going back to the um, uniformity question
earlier the information that was given me is to send your questions to the
PAVA.CLEC.Communication.com. www.pava.clec.communications, or
communication no s, .com and they will respond back with your, with an answer.
Speaker: (inaudible)
Tom Rodgers: Okay.
Speaker: (inaudible)
Tom Rodgers: (inaudible) did you get an example of that or is it just
Eric’s statement that ISDN is functioning differently?
Speaker: Just that it was functioning different. No we can send
you, I mean we’ve been sending orders (inaudible)
Speaker: (Inaudible)
Tom Rodgers: Have they referred it to (inaudible)
Speaker: Uh, (inaudible)
Elliott Goldberg: Are there any other collects that I (inaudible)
Annmarie Sturtz: Elliott it’s Annmarie. I’m having a hard time hearing
you. I know I’m interested in when the PA conversion is going to take place but I
don’t know if that’s the conversation.
Elliott Goldberg: Congratulations, Annmarie, you’re one of the few
people in my life who’ve told me they couldn’t hear me.
Annmarie Sturtz: I know it’s rare.
Elliott Goldberg: Complained about it, as Peggy says. The question
was are there any other collects besides Covad and MetTel who are having an
issue with PAVA uniformity so that perhaps we might all get together and send
one consolidated list of questions because a) there’s probably some duplication
and b) it will be easier for Verizon to control the answers if it’s all in one
document.
Annmarie Sturtz: Elliott what do you mean by Virginia um,
Elliott Goldberg: Well Covad is having problems and I don’t want to
steal John’s thunder that certain processes and orders have not been finished
merging while the project is being reported as completed.
Annmarie Sturtz: Okay then I think we should have Verizon hold a
meeting there because that’s pretty serious.
Tom Rodgers: Um, Okay.
Annmarie Sturtz: However you want to hold it I think we should
definitely have it as a topic. Especially if there is uncompletedness of the
uniformity in Virginia.
Tom Rodgers: Well then I guess I’m stuck with an issue I haven’t
seen and one that the accountants, up till now the account manager has been
working. So before I’m going to agree to a meeting I’m going to need to make
sure I see the example and realize exactly what was committed and what the
problem was, or currently is. So as per the Virginia issue um, send me some
examples and we’ll investigate it and add it to the agenda for next, for the next
meeting.
Speaker: I’ve been working with the WCCC from here on a our
concern in the FGT area and we are doing fine so far with those.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. I guess I’ll just ask John to forward me some
examples so that I can investigate it and we’ll add it to the agenda for the June
meeting as see what comes of it.
Rebecca Baldwin: Tom?
Tom Rodgers: Yes, Ma’am.
Rebecca Baldwin: Hi this is Rebecca Baldwin with Tel Cove. Um, I was
just, uh, maybe there was some information that came out but, um, I haven’t
received anything that provides me with the reason behind the postponement of
Pennsylvania conversion. Can you shed any light on that?
Tom Rodgers: Uh, no.
Rebecca Baldwin: No. Okay. Is that a question for the, for the PAVA
CLEC communications address?
Tom Rodgers: Yes it is.
Speaker: That was exactly my question also.
Rebecca Baldwin: The reason I ask is because there was a lot of work
on both sides, the CLEC community as well as Verizon and then all of a sudden
it was just, you know, we were set to go then I was very surprised that we
received the postponement notification and so I was just very curious to find out,
you know, what was going on that precipitated such a decision.
Tom Rodgers: Uh huh.
Annmarie Sturtz: Rebecca, it’s Annmarie as Choice One and we agree
wholeheartedly. It was pushed out twice now with no indication of when it might
happen and we’ve been ready twice.
Speaker: Right.
Annmarie Sturtz: And if you send it to the e-mail then I’m afraid that
everyone else won’t get the answer that we’re all looking for too.
Speaker: Okay, okay.
Speaker: So how, all right so do we want to have a collect call?
Speaker: With Verizon?
Speaker: Um, either way? If you want to prepare one list of
questions send it to the PAVA CLEC communications web site or do we want to
deal with Verizon over the phone? What’s the consensus? I mean I think that
we should give Verizon the information so that they have a chance to properly
respond. And um, my only question is do we, I’m hearing some people,
(inaudible) vote. Do we want a collect call, put everything together in one basket
and then send it to Don so he can kind of send it to PAVA with a copy to Tom so
that everybody knows where we’re going, give them a chance to respond or
what? Or do we want to do it individually?
Rebecca Baldwin: This is Rebecca. You know, I would prefer
collectively cause that way we could put our heads all together and come up with
the questions that we need to have. Right now I know that Tel Cove formerly
Adelphia Business Solutions is, that I’m aware of, is not experiencing any
ordering problems in Virginia. But, um, part (inaudible) was we made such
arrangements for the Pennsylvania conversion and with expectations of future
business as to how we’re going to conduct ourselves is pretty important for us.
So, you know, I’d be more than happy to be involved in a collective effort.
Speaker: I agree.
Speaker: So we’re targeting Pennsylvania at this time, am I
right?
Speaker: Well if we’re going to do the call let’s do the call.
Speaker: Right.
Speaker: Okay.
Speaker: Does anybody want to volunteer a bridge?
Speaker: I can set it up.
Speaker: All right you’ll set it up?
Elliott Goldberg: All right details. In case you couldn’t hear Peggy.
Speaker: I can hardly hear Peggy.
Speaker: (inaudible) the lines.
Speaker: Has volunteered a bridge. Um, if you have
everyone’s e-mail Peggy or should we send them to you?
Peggy: Um, why don’t you send me an e-mail if you want to
be on the call. It’s prubino@c-tel.com and then I’ll set up the bridge for next
week.
Rebecca Baldwin: So, I’m sorry, this is Rebecca, I didn’t catch that, what
your e-mail address.
Peggy: It’s prubino, p, r, u, b, i, n, o @c-tel. Com.
Rebecca Baldwin: Thank you.
Speaker: And just so that we have a chart to follow the goal will
be to prepare out a list of items (inaudible).
Tom Rodgers: (inaudible)
Speaker: Probably fair to give you guys a chance (inaudible)
respond.
Speaker: (inaudible)
Tom Rodgers: Is there anyone here from the WCCC? Pat are you
out there?
Pat Pungitore: This is Pat Pungitore.
Tom Rodgers: Good morning.
Pat Pungitore: Good morning. How are you this morning?
Tom Rodgers: I’m doing well.
Pat Pungitore: Good. Good.
Tom Rodgers: You’re up on the agenda, Pat.
Pat Pungitore: Oh, good. Good. I was just waiting for all the PAVA
stuff to….
Speaker: Stuff to finish.
Pat Pungitore: …to finish. I’m not sure it’s really finished though.
Tom Rodgers: No, it’s not finished. We’ll just continue.
Pat Pungitore: Anyway, uh, this is Pat Pungitore from the WCCC.
Does anybody have any questions for me or anything they want to bring to the
table?
Alice Allen: For us here in Virginia, which we are (inaudible) in
some areas likes Gainesville and Cameron Station I been working with Donna
Hakimian (sp?) out there in Boston for (inaudible)
Pat Pungitore: Okay. Who’s this talking?
Alice Allen: This is Alice Allen calling from Comcast
Communications.
Pat Pungitore: Okay.
Alice Allen: And we’ve been working through (inaudible) having
us turn around so it’s been very successful for us.
Pat Pungitore: Uh, great. I’ll feed that back to Donna. I appreciate
that. Any other concerns or comments or? Well, I thank everybody for their time.
Gloria Velez: This is Gloria Velez.
Pat Pungitore: Okay. Gloria, Gloria, how you doing?
Gloria Velez: I’m fine, thank you. How are you?
Pat Pungitore: Not bad.
Gloria Velez: This is just like a, you know, comment or an
observation, um, it seems as though when we have some CORBA issues and we
go through the process of the WCCC in opening up the trouble tickets the
responses sometimes are um, delayed. And I’m working one issue right now
where I’m told that um, they found the problem, they’re going to fix it, um, and
that I would be hearing shortly on when the fix would be implemented. And it
seems as though I don’t hear back. I’m the one that has to call and initiate and
find out what the status is.
Pat Pungitore: Well, Gloria do you have a specific ticket that you’re
speaking of?
Gloria Velez: Yes I do.
Pat Pungitore: What is it?
Gloria Velez: I can find it for you.
Pat Pungitore: Okay and give me a call back as well.
Gloria Velez: Okay. It’s 973-360-1834 and I’ll find you the ticket in a
second. It’s ticket number 615869.
Pat Pungitore: All right I’ll look at that and give you a call back after
this.
Gloria Velez: Okay, thank you.
Pat Pungitore: No problem. Okay are there any other concerns or
issues at this time? Well again thank you everyone for your time.
Tom Rodgers: Thanks, Pat.
Pat Pungitore: Okay.
Tom Rodgers: Um, I guess I’d like to continue a discussion now on
the LSOG 7 um, I think most of those, most of you on the phone today
participated on the call we had in April to discuss Verizon’s plans to not
implement LSOG 7 in February of 2004. And we provided (inaudible) and her
team walked through the rational for not doing that. Are there any questions or
feedback with the, from the CLEC’s at large as to Verizon’s plans to not
implement LSOG 7 in February 2004. I guess I would like, I would ask for I
guess a show of support or at least let your silence be counted as concurrence.
Speaker: Um, is today the drop dead due date to give you a
response on it?
Tom Rodgers: Oh, not necessarily, but then….
Speaker: Right.
Tom Rodgers: …but if there are issues with it we really need to know
soon because we have all but stopped development work on it.
Speaker: Okay, so let you know very soon.
Lissa Provenzo: Right. And say I’d like to provide a written notification
and not consider our silence as a concurrence.
Tom Rodgers: We would appreciate that, too, Lissa.
Lissa Provenzo: All right. I do have a question for you. When you
implement LSOG 8 in the future will you be incorporating everything from LSOG
7 into 8?
Tom Rodgers: Well the only thing that might be new would be the
ISVN form that’s not already implemented.
Lissa Provenzo: Right. I understand also there is a CLEC to CLEC
migration. I’m not sure if that’s LSOG 8 or if that’s…
Tom Rodgers: I think that’s 8.
Lissa Provenzo: That’s 8? Okay.
Speaker: That would effect our, um, that would effect our…
Tom Rodgers: I’m sorry, what?
Speaker: CLEC migration is inset (inaudible) wait for 8 for it?
Tom Rodgers: Uh, Sue?
Sue: Tom, Tom, what we would do, can you hear me now?
Tom Rodgers: Yes I can.
Sue: I probably had it on mute, I’m sorry. Basically what
we would do when we receive the 8 is like what we do with 7. We do a stare and
compare of any functionality that we currently don’t support and go through the
process to see what we would want to integrate into the existing rules so,
whereas 7 was a comparison of 7 up against our LSOG 6 business rules. When
we would get 8 we would compare that up against our LSOG 6 business rules.
So things like changes like, you know, the ISVN form, and changes that were
new, um, for LSOG 7 or 8 will be con, um, included in the analysis for
implementation for 8.
Lissa Provenzo: Okay.
Sue: And I just really need to stress that Tom had said
there wasn’t a drop-dead date. I know, you know, we really need to know this
week because as Tom stressed we’ve stopped development, so um,
Lissa Provenzo: Right. If Sue, do you know for sure if the CLEC to
CLEC migration enhances are in LSOG 7 or they directed at 8? I know it’s a big
issues for the OBF meeting next week.
Sue: Okay, when it comes to CLEC to CLEC migrations
we’re doing that kind of stuff where it’s under the auspices of different like um,
PUC and PFC things that are going back and forth and Bob Citrol (sp?) your old
friend is still very much involved with that. We do have the loop to loop
migrations, which are committed for the June release, and we’re starting to look
at for the October release the loop to resale and platform migration.
Lissa Provenzo: Right.
Sue: So that’s something that’s just moving along that um,
we maybe ahead of OBF but we’re kind of working with OBF. We’re working with
different CLEC collaboratives to move that along. So it’s not contingent upon
implementation of 7 or 8.
Lissa Provenzo: Okay, thank you.
Gloria Velez: And Sue, this is Gloria. I have a follow up question.
When you went through and reviewed out of the industry what Verizon is going to
support, at that time there were several fields that were flagged as still under
investigation. And I had asked how we should interpret that and at that time you
had indicated we should view that still under investigation, as Verizon would not
support it.
Sue: Correct.
Gloria Velez: Um is that still the case.
Sue: Right. And I guess the thing is to point out um,
normally when we do an LSOG and we’re finalizing our requirements there is a
lot of internal meetings that go back and forth so what we have said is if we put
down still under investigation it meant that we had, at that point in time did not
have a plan to implement it. But we were kind of looking to see if there was
anything that we could do. At this point in time we’ve stopped that investigation
because the plan was not to implement LSOG 7. So, um, I mean, really we
wouldn’t go forward with any initiatives unless there was a, you know, stipulation
from the CLEC’s that you did want us to implement 7.
Gloria Velez: Okay. So when you would move forward, let’s
assume that you skip and you are, 8 is a combination of what you support in 7
would it be at that time when you’re evaluating 8 that you would go back to some
of these items that were flagged as still under investigation and those may
change.
Sue: Oh, yeah. Of course. I mean there’s a major
analysis, you know, there’s gap sometimes with different things we do so we do
look to see if, you know, if all (inaudible) thought of something that maybe we
haven’t thought of, but as you can imagine it’s a lot of analysis that goes on. So
yeah, when we go ahead with 8 that would set up again and we were working,
we wanted to get into a lot of detail with stuff. So again if we’re not doing 7 than
we’re going to stop, but, yeah we would do it with 8.
Gloria Velez: Also, Sue, I know I’ve had discussions with Mike
Toothman on this. If there anything, say we all decide and agree that we’re
going to skip LSOG 7 and then there may be a need to have something out of
LSOG 7 and we, so that it ends up a change request will Verizon plan on
implementing that in LSOG 6?
Sue: Yeah. The plan would be, I know that that was one of
the things we looked at. Um, if you came in and you say well I’d like to see this,
yeah we would do that in 6 only. Yeah.
Gloria Velez: Okay, and not LSOG 5, it would be 6 only.
Sue: Well again if you come to us with a, you know, type 5
change request you would have a proposal, we’d look at it and we would vote on
it. I would say our preference would be just to do it in 6 but just like anything else
what the concurrence and what does the industry want to see and what is the
benefit of doing it. You know there’s a lot of stuff that we’ve done that has been
so important, stuff like (inaudible) where we’ve looked at stuff. I think a lot of that
needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. I can’t really rule anything out
like that.
Gloria Velez: Okay, thank you. That’s good enough, thanks.
Sue: Okay Tom, you can, if you’re all done with, you’re
biting your donut or coffee, whatever you’re doing…
Tom Rodgers: I was just allowing quiet time for the rest of the
CLEC’s to express an opinion.
Sue: Right.
Lissa Provenzo: I would like to know, this is Lissa of MCI, I know that
MCI is looking at skipping LSOG 7 and I just want to put it in formal writing um,
with a caveat that if there is something we want in LSOG 7 to have those, have
Verizon endorse that we feels enhancing if they can. And I’m just wondering
what the other CLEC’s are thinking about?
Elliott Goldberg: Lissa it’s Elliott. I think that’s pretty rational.
Speaker: AT&T is not (inaudible)
Speaker: (Inaudible)
Speaker: Some telephones are the same lines.
Speaker: Vartek.
Speaker: But I need that (inaudible) from when my group. And
(inaudible)
Speaker: One of them….
Speaker: I mean we’re getting close to one LSOG (inaudible)
Speaker: Lissa.
Lissa Provenzo: Yeah.
Sue: One of the things I think was really good, we hadn’t
done it for 5 and 6 but, you know, I thought it was a good idea, was provide like a
high level overview like we did in April for what our plans were for 7. So I think
what would probably be a good idea when we did go ahead with 8 is again to
come back to you and say, you know, this high level where, you know, we’re
going with it. And it would give the CLEC community an opportunity to look at it
and say well wait a minute how come you’re not supporting this, but maybe this
would be a good idea. So to have that kind of discussion a little bit earlier in the
time line, you know,
Lissa Provenzo: I think, yeah, I think it’s very valuable. I mean
obviously not every (inaudible) implements everything out of the LSOG guideline
and that gives us some type of view what you’re thinking about.
Sue: Right. I can tell you from a time line perspective um, I
believe that the LSOG’s are pretty much getting zoned so I would assume some
time in late summer we’ll be getting LSOG 8, the final product. And we usually
start looking at it at the end of the year so that, you know, usually January,
February and March is where we’re doing our high level investigation. So I think
it would be appropriate sometime in April of next year to be able to come back to
you guys and say here is our high level plan of LSOG 8. What do you think?
And then kind of go from there. I’m game.
Speaker: Sounds good.
Lissa Provenzo: Yeah I think that’s perfect in alignment of our
discussion about just giving us a, you know, visual, you know, just what you’re
looking at for future releases and, you know, just looking at it I think that’s perfect
for this new LSOG version.
Sue: Elliott, and I’m sorry, so are you still reviewing if you
want to skip or you thinking the same thing as, you know, this…
Elliott Goldberg: I think pretty much, we personally, you know,
speaking only from MetTel we’re pretty much on board with where you are.
Lissa Provenzo: Right. Because I will, I mean I just got my heads up
to formally, approval from my marketing department so we will be going, we will
be advising or formally advising Verizon that we support Verizon’s proposal to
skip LSOG 7.
Elliott Goldberg: I don’t think cost has anything to do with it with all due
respect. I could be wrong.
Lissa Provenzo: And thank you Sue for letting me know that you are
working ahead of LSOG to OBF guidelines about the CLEC to CLEC migration.
And that will be a separate project when you introduce it to each release correct?
Sue: Yeah, and I’m gonna talk, I remember at one point,
there’s been so much going on, I remember there were a few collaborative
sessions that were help on some of the CLEC to CLEC stuff. I don’t know if
there’s been any lately so, let’s just follow up on that.
Speaker: New York is technically in phase three of the
(inaudible)
Sue: Right.
Speaker: But not a lot has been happening. The staffer who
was doing it is, has retired.
Sue: Ahh.
Speaker: And I know there’s been some thought with various
people about reactivating it, but, um, we had, what, one or two meetings and
there was no major process changes as such at those meetings. They were just
some CLEC to CLEC documentation. But phase two guidelines are basically the
latest output and they have four scenarios in fifteen groups. They describe every
kind of CLEC to CLEC migration. Verizon did participate in those so there should
be pretty complete documentation.
Sue: Well I can tell you about (inaudible) making sure we
follow that stuff to the letter.
Speaker: Good, cause otherwise I’ll find (inaudible) mother.
Sue: I know you will.
Tom Rodgers: Okay, um, I guess, to try and wrap up the LSOG 7
discussion I’ve heard no CLEC objection to Verizon’s decision to not implement
LSOG 7. We’re going to proceed with that decision in mind and ask that the
CLEC’s if, at their option, send me an e-mail supporting that decision, just for the
files in case it should ever come up. There is also the understanding that if there
if something in the LSOG 7 field or form that becomes of interest later we will,
um, do everything possible to evaluate it for implementation in either 5 or 6.
Okay.
That said I guess we’re going to a status of the
opening issues.
Speaker: Um, Tom?
Tom Rodgers: Yes.
Lissa Provenzo: This is Lissa. I know that there’s been some changes
and updates over the caller ID embargo but I had asked Mike that perhaps this
would be the good place to just get an update, um, of that last release where
they updated the feature availability transactions indicative of caller ID embargo
status would reflect the status. So I was just um, do you have any, do you feel
comfortable to give an update or do we need to…
Tom Rodgers: No, when I spoke to Mike this morning I almost was
left with the impression that you and him were satisfied with the status that he
had given you.
Lissa Provenzo Yeah, I still have to look. It’s only the update was, but
I’ve asked him to give an update so everybody could know what Verizon did to
correct the problem. And that’s certain, I don’t, Becky, I don’t know if you’ve had
an update or not.
Becky: No I haven’t heard any.
Lissa Provenzo: Yeah, so that’s what I asked. To share that
information and it was only addressed for the north and so I know that we have
some problems in the south so, I still wanted to have that topic here since it was
impacting other too, other than MCI.
Sue: Lissa, this is Sue. Um, and I didn’t really know that
you wanted a status on this otherwise I would have been prepared.
Lissa Provenzo: Okay.
Sue: I know that there is somebody that was working on
really getting the find on what’s happening and what trouble ticket was out there
and what got fixed and I can try to IM her and see if she can get a response to
me in the next few minutes. I know that we are looking at the south. We’re
looking at exactly what’s coming back and how it affects your order so as of right
this minute I don’t have anything. Maybe we can get something before the call is
over or we can follow it up somehow.
Lissa Provenzo: Yeah, I don’t mind following up and having just like a
mini conference call. I mean speak up and (inaudible) if you would like some, it
handled differently. But, um, just so everyone knows and we’re on the same
page. That’s all I’m asking. I guess I just want to make sure that we all
understand that, you know, what the visibility is, will we be able to see that
customer embargo status on the pre-order transaction.
Sue: Okay. One of the things that I’ve got here is that I
know there was one ticket that was closed that I think if it wasn’t last week than it
was two weekends ago. But we found that it didn’t include all the USOG’s (sp?)
and I just did get an IM back that there’s a fix that’s scheduled for the 17th. That
will include all the USOG’s (sp?). That way if your customer has it and you do a
migration on any of the caller ID products you won’t get a reject back to say you
can’t have it again.
Lissa Provenzo: Okay so they’ll process it then?
Sue: They’ll process it again.
Lissa Provenzo: They’ll, they’ll um, do the grandfather.
Sue: Right.
Lissa Provenzo: Okay, great.
Sue: And what you’re looking at is, um, just looking at
deficiencies with the documentation and also looking at the south process only
so now I do have someone on my staff looking at it. We haven’t finalized our
investigation and I know that Mike gave me a list of three (inaudible) and I
remember that you were one of them that once we were finished with our
investigation I was supposed to call all of you. So I would say, you know, there
was a lot of things we were looking at. I would say within the next few days to a
week we should have a final readout.
Lissa Provenzo: Yeah, that…
Sue: As to what’s going on with that.
Lissa Provenzo: That is great, just because we’re so busy and even if
you told me something a few weeks ago it…. However I think it would be helpful
if we all…
Sue: Okay.
Lissa Provenzo: …you know, have a clear understanding. But we
appreciate it’s a smart way to fix the processes.
Tom Rodgers: For the benefit of those on the conference bridge.
What Lissa’s been talking about is topic number 84. The caller ID (inaudible)
which she raised in the March meeting and I guess since the March P&P meeting
she had also been working the issue with Mike Toothman and probably Tom
Thirskin (sp?) of the WCCC and others and, Sue, did I capture it right? It’s on
page 30 of the documentation here. Did I capture it right that we expect to have
a solution in June?
Sue: No, the solution for the fix for the north where we’ve,
that’s the only place we’ve seen the problem is coming on the 17th . What they
did was, what’s happening is if a customer has a caller ID product and it’s no
longer offered out of that switch due to capacity issues if you do a migration
which kind of shows up like as an out and in, we’re rejecting the request to say
well you can’t have it any more that product has been grandfathered. And of
course the rational is if your end user had it they should be able to maintain it.
What we did with the trouble ticket was the trouble tickets that went in a few
weeks ago um, the scope was a little bit narrow and not all the appropriate
USOG’s were identified so it was kind of like an internal error so there was a
preliminary fix that went in, I think it was two weekends ago. We were working
with I believe it was MCI and a few other CLEC’s, you know, were still getting
rejects and we looked and we’re like no not all of the USOG’s got addressed. So
I was just advised that it’s May 17th that they’re supposed to go in and capture all
of these USOG’s so that if your end user had it they should be able to keep it
with the migration. And that’s for the north only. We’ve only had trouble tickets
for the north. What we’ve been asked to do is say okay we knew we were
broken in the north let’s just raise our comfort level and look at this whole
process….
Lissa Provenzo: Right.
Sue: …and see if there’s any other gaps and let’s look and
see what’s happening in the south.
Lissa Provenzo: Pennsylvania is where we experienced it also.
Sue: Okay. You know what I’m not sure if we got
(inaudible) for Pennsylvania?
Lissa Provenzo: I can forward it to you.
Sue: Okay.
Lissa Provenzo: Um, okay.
Sue: So again there’s a few action items that we’re looking
at and of course I will not find my caller ID (inaudible) because I want it but I
knew that there were three CLEC that Mike had said user, you know, the ones
that had come, so I’ll kind of respond to all of you and, you know, if you want to
call me whatnot I’ll leave you my number and I’ll also give the information on ,
you know, if this was something that was big enough that he feels wants to go up
to change control, whatever, I just want to make sure that I get all the answers
and I’ll come back with (inaudible).
Lissa Provenzo: Okay, great. So basically the order will go through, it
will not reject if the customers falls into that embargo umbrella it’ll be
grandfathered and will we have visibility to the product service availability
transaction? Or will it just be (inaudible)?
Sue: That’s um, that’s where I see some gap because as it
is right now, um, I don’t feel that the service availability is adequately showing
you the status. I would like to see restricted in something. It’s not showing what
we thought it would show.
Lissa Provenzo: All right.
Sue: And that’s one of the things were looking at with
product managers.
Lissa Provenzo: Okay. Thank you. I’m sorry to…. And Tom are you
going to update your section with all those days of um, (inaudible) schedule
release and all that, right, on page 30?
Tom Rodgers: Yes.
Lissa Provenzo: That would be great. Super. Thank you.
Tom Rodgers: Yes, and that’s kind of why I drew everybody’s
attention to it because up till now we had been letting you work the issue with
Mike and so now at your request, I needed to status it for everybody. Okay.
Lissa Provenzo: Thank you.
Tom Rodgers: You bet. Um, I guess I’d like to take you back to page
one of the open issues, the, um, one of my objectives for the, I guess it’s always
an objective of mine is to try to reduce the number of pages of information that
we disseminate every month. Um, topic number 51 is a good example where I’d
like to ask you guys to review the February of 2000 through February of 2002
and see if there’s any action items of anything of importance that you guys need
to keep and if there is none allow me to delete, remove from the record these
February pages that are status notes.
Speaker: And then just keep the numbers on the current year
maybe?
Tom Rodgers: Just try to keep it maybe to a 12 or 14 month history
because, you know, we’re looking at a 30 page document that in many sections
it’s comprised of information back from the beginning of time so to speak. And…
Speaker: (inaudible) December 31st, so, I think everything
(inaudible).
Tom Rodgers: So December of 2002 would be a logical stop?
Speaker: Unless anybody, anybody have open items that
predate that?
Speaker: And where were you at? Sorry.
Tom Rodgers: (inaudible)
Speaker: You’d have to read through everything.
Speaker: Do any of you have any open items on issue number
51 that predate December 31, 2002?
Tom Rodgers: Yeah. I really this, these are just status reports where
people have given a call and provided us status of (inaudible) meeting or
something. I can’t pick out anything that’s worth keeping.
Speaker: Nope, we like the help desk in we’re set for Silver
Springs so….
Tom Rodgers: Yeah exactly.
Speaker: That’s why we brought it, because Mike had to help
us fix the help desk.
Tom Rodgers: Exactly.
Speaker: The last notes say, or almost last notes say there
were no objections to closing it and removing the whole thing, so I’m just curious
why we’re taking any of it here.
Tom Rodgers: I guess because between October and, we have it in
change management and they had it prior to that and then when I picked it up,
picked up a document that was old and we of course had the discussion of the
WCCC as part of the ongoing agenda items so it seems a little redundant to keep
all of this history. So…..
Speaker: Right. I think we’re over this. We brought it to
change management because it wasn’t working and that was the best place to
park this topic.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. All right so we will um, do you want to see it
again next month or can I just delete it? What I normally do is shade something
to indicate that I plan to remove it. In this case you’ve seen it enough you’ve got
plenty of copies. It’s gone from the June release.
Speaker: And if anybody has an issue on it send you an e-mail.
Tom Rodgers: Yeah. All the history you ever want.
Speaker: (inaudible)
Tom Rodgers: Yeah, yeah. Um, we had a little bit of a discussion
this morning about CLEC to CLEC migration which is topic 67 on page nine and
the action from the March meeting was for us to recap and list all of the
enhancements associated with CLEC to CLEC conversion. I’m not sure I have
any other action in this section, other than keep this list current.
Elliott Goldberg: I guess my only other question would be what else
hasn’t done to conform with the New York guidelines, which are really the
baseline for everybody else. The ones that you guys are recommending out of
state. Basically I would guess we could talk about closing it when we achieve
those guidelines. Is that a reasonable (inaudible)?
Tom Rodgers: Yeah, I guess so. I guess it is.
Elliott Goldberg: At this point it doesn’t handle your problems
(inaudible), they don’t address DSL. If we tried to do that, maybe you could push
for phase three to do that. But short of that, it covers every possible voice
migration that anybody in the larger community could come up with. If it
achieved the level of the (inaudible) guidelines, we could probably close it –
especially since you guys have endorsement of other states. That’s what it does
to (inaudible).
Tom Rodgers: We’re going to jump to 70, on page 11. Not even
going to go there. You quit running into that. After a while you say, “stop it, I’m
not going to do it”. Issue 70, the line loss report for provider notification. It also
has three years worth of history that I would like to remain. I think this is
probably the third or fourth CMP meeting where there’s been no provider
notification issues brought to the meeting.
Elliott Goldberg: The line loss report is not (inaudible).
Joyce Harry: I think Mary has been bringing issues on it (inaudible).
Elliott Goldberg: (inaudible) discuss this in carrier working groups. It’s
something from (inaudible). It’s an ongoing issue.
Tom Rodgers: Okay, but it’s not (inaudible).
Elliott Goldberg: It might well be. And I’ll explain why one more time.
Maybe it’s an issue that can find a home. The problem – as we see it, our
problem with the line loss report – is the fact that the line loss report’s production
controls the directory to which usage has accumulated. And therefore what
happens, because there are built in delays in the generation of the line loss
report, we frequently or continually receive usage for customers who have left us
for a period of days. I just had two of them hit my desk this week, where usage
issue.
And we do not receive usage for customers who have
migrated to us for several days. It never catches up, so what happens is on the
loss of the customer we continue to receive an expense that we have trouble
recouping because the customer is not ours. And when you put in a claim for it,
it takes forever if it gets resolved at all. And when we gain the customer we lose
income because we’re not getting usage from it.
Now, I have it on my desk right now – and I wasn’t
going to bring it up here, but as long as the subject came up – two customers
have complained to me. They’re customers that we recently won. In both cases
they sent me copies of a Verizon bill with usage on it billed to them for a period
after they left Verizon, when they were no longer Verizon customers.
Speaker: Elliott, weren’t they delayed tolls still?
Elliott Goldberg: I’m sorry?
Speaker: Were they not delayed tolls, after the fact?
Elliott Goldberg: This was usage that was incurred when they were no
longer a Verizon customer, and yet I have a Verizon retail bill sitting on my desk
for that usage.
Tom Rodgers: It was toll – without working the issue, it wasn’t
delayed usage on our part, or (inaudible).
Elliott Goldberg: It was usage that was incurred after the fact.
Doc Matthews: Elliott, this is Doc at Pen Telecom. If I’m reading you
right, and I’m having a little trouble hearing some of what you’re saying…
Elliott Goldberg: I must be slipping.
Doc Matthews: It’s a new one there, Elliott. It’s a new one that I’m not
able to hear you. If I’m hearing you right, what you’re saying is you’re getting
DUF files for customers that, you’re not getting the DUF files respective to dates
the customer was brought on to you, and you’re still getting DUF files for days
after the customer’s left you.
Elliott Goldberg: Basically, yes. And it’s due - years we’ve been able
to tell, and over a year now of talking with people on this issue – it’s due to the
intrinsic delays in the LOL production process. And because we believe it’s due
to intrinsic delays in the process, then perhaps this is the place to address it.
Doc Matthews: I think you’re right. I would agree with you on that.
Elliott Goldberg: Because it’s a double whammy to collect profitability.
Any one customer is probably not a significant chunk of change, but when you
multiply it by the entire churn rate, gain and loss, and you say the average is give
or take 3-5 days, it’s a large chunk of change.
Doc Matthews: I want to add on top of that, Elliott, from my
perspective, the man hour cost in filing claims and correcting it is possibly greater
than what the actual activity is between the two, but we got to have the records
right. I’m going to say there’s an extra – to use your term – whammy added into
that one. Does anybody disagree?
Loriann Ercan: Is it that billing orders aren’t going…?
Elliott Goldberg: No, no, no. The effective date on the LOL is the
actual effective date of the migration. It is the completion date of the migration. I
cross reference PCN to the LOL effective date. That’s not the problem. The
problem is because of the nature of the LOL production process, there are some
built in holes. Because Verizon seems to have a problem with associating on,
when you’re moving a customer. It’s a disconnect and a DN and an N order.
And they hold the LOL to the N order. And they hold the LOL in case there’s an
N order, because there’s no flag on it that says there’s an associated cost or an
associated service order.
Sue Pistacchio: Elliott, this is Sue Pistacchio. I just want to ask you
one thing, because I know I’ve been working quite closely – and I don’t know if
Mary Ellen Langstein or Nancy Puskar are on. But I know that they’ve been
working very closely with the CLEC’s on numerous issues.
Elliott Goldberg: Right. And this has been discussed with them, Sue,
several times under the auspices of the carrier working group. But it really wasn’t
a carrier working group issue was the bottom line, because it involved a Verizon
process.
Sue Pistacchio: All right. And I guess the thing is, and you don’t feel
that the issue that you’re bringing to the table already has an initiative associated
with it that we’re working?
Elliott Goldberg: Not that I know of. It could happen and I might not
have picked it up to understand that, but not that I know of.
Sue Pistacchio: Have you been working with Mary Ellen or Nancy?
Because I know…
Elliott Goldberg: I have discussed this with Mary Ellen, Nancy… I
know with Mary Ellen, Marian – all sorts of people over the last year, year and a
half at Verizon. And near as I can come down after refining the larger problem, is
it’s specifically, the whole problem comes down to the built in… It’s actually a 3-5
day delay plus associated production times. And then you get things that miss
various cycles, so it gets a little longer. But I have, for a good deal of time now,
been looking at this delay issue.
Sue Pistacchio: Mm hmm. And Tom, just so that you kind of know
where you might want to go with this – I don’t know specifically if one of the
initiatives that – there’s quite a number of them that we’re working on for line
loss. I’m not sure if one of these is dealing with it, but Mary Ellen and Nancy
would be the ones that could let us know where we are with this one, if we’re
doing anything with it.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. What I would like to do would be to, with CLEC
concurrence, remove the prior history associated with line loss and provider
notification and then start over with a new issue.
Joyce Harry: Is there an issue anyway, Elliott?
Elliott Goldberg: I don’t think so. But if it is, it’s buried in a couple of
other things because the way I’ve defined the issue, Joyce, has evolved as I’ve
had discussions with Verizon. As I’ve sliced away at pieces that it wasn’t to get
down to this real core. And it’s only after I’ve had extensive phone calls with
Mary Ellen and other Verizon people that I’ve been able to associate the fact that
it’s not the loss of line that’s the problem, because the loss of line is accurate
within it’s parameters. It’s the fact that there’s an additional step that’s tied to the
production of the loss of line report. And that’s what causes the problem, the fact
that that additional step is delayed.
I don’t know if you’d call that a truly loss of line
problem, but it’s the fact that the loss of line report triggers the change in the
directory that addresses where usage is set. Now, maybe that’s really another
problem that I’m calling by the wrong name. But maybe that directory should be
triggered by the BCN. Maybe it should be triggered by the PCN.
Lissa Provenzo: Elliott, do you have these particular accounts
investigated?
Elliott Goldberg: You mean the two that just hit my desk? They hit my
desk yesterday.
Lissa Provenzo: Right, so they’re accounts that you believe are yours,
that you’re not receiving usage…
Elliott Goldberg: Oh, I know they’re mine. I have a PCN and a BCN.
Lissa Provenzo: Right. And then you just don’t receive usage, correct?
Elliott Goldberg: No, the customer got usage on a Verizon retail bill,
and I didn’t. That’s all I’ve gotten so far.
Janice Ziegele: This is Janice Ziegele from Broadview. We have
known problems that we’ve filed with Mary Ellen and company, and they’re not
being fixed until the October release. So to say the loss of line report is accurate
is really a misrepresentation.
Lissa Provenzo: Can you share with us what they’re going to be fixing
in that?
Janice Ziegele: One of the things that they’re going to be fixing is
when you partially migrate accounts, today when you do a partial migration, the
lines that are not being migrated, they’re left on a resale platform, or they’re left
on a UNI P platform, are showing up on the report as win backs going back to
Verizon.
Lissa Provenzo: Are you sure that’s supposed to be a fix, or is that
really a processing error of the order?
Janice Ziegele: It’s a broke. It’s actually broke.
Sue Pistacchio: We’re doing these… And just to clarify, we are doing
these as trouble tickets. And I can give you the CR numbers we have associated
with it. That one, they are trying to get in sooner than October because we know
that’s it’s really high profile for you. It’s just there was a lot of analysis that went
in to all the different migration types. So I think that they’re trying to get it in
August, but it’s not committed yet.
Lissa Provenzo: Right. So what you’re saying is a partial migrate on a
platform?
Janice Ziegele: It doesn’t matter if it’s platform or resale. It’s when
you partially migrate. You leave those lines behind on the platform that they
originally are on, they will actually show up on the report as win backs going back
to Verizon.
Elliott Goldberg: Right. Is that is you’re migrating them from your own,
from you to you?
Janice Ziegele: Yup.
Elliott Goldberg: You mean if you’re converting it from resale to UNI or
UNI to resale, or either one to loop?
Janice Ziegele: Correct, that is correct.
Elliott Goldberg: I didn’t know about that one.
Sue Pistacchio: Let me give you the CR numbers. And again, I was
just shooting some IM’s with Tom. We do have some information on this, and I
think probably what you’re looking for is what are the known issues and what
CR’s do we have out there that are addressing them, and when are they
scheduled for? So maybe like a little bullet that kind of summarizes these. And I
think maybe there’s some stuff that’s going on that’s resolving it, but I’m not sure
if we know of everything.
What I can give you, the one that Janice is
referencing, I have it. And it’s in our new CR language, but it’s C03-0003. And
this is line loss partial migration. And again, that one we were looking at
October, but they’re trying to get it in sooner.
I have another one that’s dealing with multi order win
backs and migrations. This one is dealing with segmented orders. And I have
C03-0005. I have another one that’s dealing with deficiencies on the DID trunk,
and circuit information. And that’s C03-0004. And there’s another one that’s
dealing with deficiencies on ISDN and RCF remote lines. And that’s C03-0002.
So 0002 through 0005, I have four initiatives that are
existing right now that are dealing with trouble tickets on line loss reports. And I
can tell you that they are extremely high profile, and Mary is pushing them.
So again, I can work with Tom and go back to Mary
Ellen and Nancy and maybe provide you a little bit better documentation to
summarize what’s going on with this. The reason you’re not seeing on the items
by release report is because it hasn’t found a home yet in the release. They’re
still trying to position it.
Tom Rodgers: I’ll take the action item to get Mary Ellen or Nancy to
stick on the phone, because I think that would really by the forum where those
issues would be discussed. And they could be bringing the status of the CR’s up
to the group as part of that discussion.
Elliott Goldberg: To get back to my first question, Tom, how do I
create, or what do I do on the fact that it’s not the LOL report, it’s the derivative
action that Verizon takes with the, at the same time, or is triggered by the LOL or
whatever? But that’s really a black box to me, how you do that. But I know that
that’s the triggering event. And to change that triggering event would solve a fair,
a real CLEC cost incurring problem.
Tom Rodgers: Every service order system that I’ve been involved
with where the product has usage associated with it – either local, or (inaudible),
or whatever – always has this built in lag time where after the service is
disconnected, or migrated, or moved, the usage always follows.
Elliott Goldberg: Yeah, but the usage should be effective on the day
that the transfer takes place.
Tom Rodgers: And it should be. And after that date you shouldn’t
receive any more usage that was incurred from that day forward. There
occasions – that’s one issue. The issue where you have third party calls and
other call types that are billed after the fact, get to Verizon for… We’re not
talking about that at all.
Elliott Goldberg: That we can discuss. It’s really calls that are billed to
you. I’m talking about usage, per DUF usage.
Tom Rodgers: I don’t know why the minute it migrates it doesn’t…
Elliott Goldberg: It doesn’t, because the directory that changes where
that usage is spent is a derivative function of the production of the loss of line
report. So, whatever the trigger for that directory change is happens in 3-5 plus
days after the transaction, in some cases, where the LOL… For those
transactions, the LOL doesn’t have the built in delay, it’s closer. For those where
it does, it fans out. What I’m saying is to be consistent, the trigger should
probably be the PCN. Certainly the BCN, but the BCN would then have a 2 day
delay in it. The PCN, on the other hand, is the closest to the actual transaction,
which is why the, as an operations guy, I’d want to see it off the PCN. Now, if I
have to write up a type 5 for that, so be it. But tell me what you guys want me to
do.
Doc Matthews: Elliott, the other thing I’m listening through your point
is if we’re going to recognize that there’s always going to be an inherent 2-3 day
delay, then when the directory change comes, whether you’re using the PCN or
the BCN, wouldn’t we also be asking that automatically the delayed DUF
information be dumped – whether it’s information that we can use for billable for
that customer, for the couple days we missed? Or automatically crediting us
back the DUF information for the couple days that ran over? Isn’t that sort of
what we’re also asking at the same time?
Elliott Goldberg: If the trigger is updated promptly, the problem doesn’t
occur.
Doc Matthews: In that case, if you’re asking for the trigger, especially
like in a case where Verizon is using a 10 digit trigger on the port out, couldn’t
that be used as the trigger to cease or initiate the files? It may be coming from a
different field, or a…
Elliott Goldberg: I’m not presuming to tell Verizon how to build their
system, I’m merely saying that there’s a problem and I’m suggesting an
alternative that something that, I’m saying that the trigger should be based on the
events occurring, not some downstream event. Because the problem that you
get into, with all due respect, is that Verizon is also accountable for timely
deliverance of DUF, and therefore to force them into a situation where they’d
miss a metric is not desirable for the industry either.
Doc Matthews: I’m not asking them to miss the metric, I’m thinking
the next delivery of the DUF might show the credits or the add ons that would be
needed was what I was kind of thinking.
Elliott Goldberg: Yeah, but the add ons would then be late.
Doc Matthews: Yeah, you’re right. I suspect though, Elliott, the
inherent problem for the delay is based that it requires human intervention and
it’s not a sytemized update.
Elliott Goldberg: I don’t know, but I don’t believe – I could be wrong – I
thought it was automatically triggered from my discussions with Verizon. But the
word used was just triggered, thinking back on it. But certainly whatever the
event is, I can’t imagine that Verizon manually changes all these things, all these
accounts.
Doc Matthews: I can. All right, thanks.
Elliott Goldberg: Not with today’s system technology. Even with
Legacy systems.
Tom Rodgers: Before you initiate another change request, Elliott, let
me invite Mary Ellen and team to the call and see if we can get…
Elliott Goldberg: Again, I don’t think it’s Mary Ellen’s problem. With all
due respect to Mary Ellen, I’ve been talking to her for a year now – with all due
respect, I don’t think it’s hers. I think it’s one step, I think it’s a collateral use of
her product, that somebody decided this would be the time to trigger this. And I
think it’s somewhere else, and that’s why I’m saying… I started off thinking it
was the LOL, but it’s something that the LOL triggers that causes this delay.
Because it’s waiting for the trigger, the directory change waits for the trigger.
And I understand that you’ve got a problem with
disconnects and BNN’s where we’re moving a customer, but… And the solution
to the larger problem might be just to tag those transactions. Because obviously
it affects you too, because of those two bills that arrived on my desk yesterday.
Tom Rodgers: h
Let’s see if we can confirm t at first issue first, and
then see if there’s another system enhancement behind it that we can work on.
Elliott Goldberg: All right. And again, if you guys want me to do a type
5, I’ll be… I know how to write them.
Tom Rodgers: Yeah, you’re not shy about that. Okay. Do I have an
issue here on provider, other than to invite Mary Ellen to the call? Is it your
expectation that there’s here…? I just want to clarify that. Issue 73…
Lissa Provenzo: Yeah, you’re going to still keep the line loss on there
then, right?
Tom Rodgers: No, I was going to delete the old history of the line
loss, and then I was going to keep provider notification on the agenda items and
invite Mary Ellen’s participation again, to pick up the issue and status it. And
then from there we’ll see where we need to go with another system
enhancement.
Speaker: It’s still on there as an agenda item.
Tom Rodgers: Yeah, but she got… I just need my (inaudible). Issue
73, I think I captured the action items from the April 17th meeting here. We’ll
review most of those later this afternoon when we look at the change requests.
But Sue and I were talking about selecting a date to
review the October type 5 change requests, which is the last bullet CLEC’s
expect to return to the former process of reviewing requirements associated with
the pending type 5’s. So we were looking at a date next week to hold that
meeting for October.
Elliott Goldberg: With all due respect – and again, I hate to be the critic
– the requirements review was originally very early in the process, because the
requirements were supposed to be a guide to the development. By reviewing
October is nice, it tells us what’s coming. But it’s so close now that even if we
said, “uh, that’s horrible”, it’s too late to make a change.
Sue Pistacchio: Actually, no, Elliott, it isn’t. It’s one of the deficiencies
we understand that, I know that Becky used to do these. We’ve had kind of like a
change and we’re trying to get up to speed. One of the things I told Tom is that I
need to have the meeting next week so that if you do have issues, I still can get a
change in for October.
Elliott Goldberg: Okay, but as a request, what I’d like to do is maybe
we have to do it in stages, but move… Maybe we do October next week and
then in a couple weeks we do some more that are further out so that actually we
start getting these requirements reviews done early enough in the development
process that you don’t have to make changes to accommodate us, but you get
our inputs before you start locking in the flows and the goes.
Sue Pistacchio: I have no problem with scheduling a monthly meeting,
then we have them on the agenda. And then if we have nothing to discuss, it get
cancelled. So I’m fine with a monthly meeting.
Elliott Goldberg: And let’s move that we try to work it as early to the
process as you can. Like if you know you’re going to start working on something,
that’s the time to talk about it, before your analyst is done specifying it.
Tom Rodgers: You want us to have the requirement session first,
and then our solution…?
Elliott Goldberg: Normally when you do systems development, you
start off with a business analyst that does the user requirements, then it goes to a
systems programming analyst who designs the flows, the tables, what have you,
the field definitions and everything else. Then it goes to a developer for coding.
I’d like to get this in the business analyst stage.
Sue Pistacchio: And we can do that, but in some cases we would
need to circle back with you later on. In fact, one of the type 5’s that I need to
talk about is, it has already gone to the IT organization and they’ve come back
with some questions.
Elliott Goldberg: That’s fine, we can have stage reviews too. That’s
appropriate. If we’re going to participate in the systems development process,
then we should be responsible to participate at the stage review levels and the
requirements level.
Sue Pistacchio: Elliott, we’re in 100% agreement here, and that’s…
What did you say, I didn’t hear him?
Tom Rodgers: You don’t want to hear it. I’ll tell you later.
Sue Pistacchio: Was he dissing me?
Tom Rodgers: No. Okay. What we’re talking about is setting up
another scheduled meeting, the week after – Thursday, Friday?
Loriann Ercan: Next Thursday is carrier working group.
Tom Rodgers: Yeah, that was what I was trying to do – try not to
conflict with other Verizon meetings, which is tough. Good luck with that.
Elliott Goldberg: You ought to try and make (inaudible).
Tom Rodgers: Tuesday is out.
Elliott Goldberg: Friday the 23rd has nothing that I know of – yet. Let
me tell you, it’ll be a short meeting with a lot of consensus.
Doc Matthews: Elliott, no one will be there for that. We’ll all be
heading to the shore by that time.
Speaker: Yeah, why don’t you stay away from Fridays, for
certainly going into the summer anyway. People probably have a tendency to
make it a long weekend.
Elliott Goldberg: Yeah, because every other day tends to get booked
up for that reason. Wednesday the 21st surprisingly has nothing.
Tom Rodgers: See? Okay. Would Wednesday be a good day going
forward? Or do we want to set these every month?
Elliott Goldberg: I don’t know. Everybody tries to do everything on
Wednesdays and Thursdays.
Tom Rodgers: Tell you what, let’s just take what we can get.
st
Wednesday the 21 , 9 o’clock Eastern, 10 o’clock Eastern? Pick a time.
Elliott Goldberg: You’ve got some people from Western…
Doc Matthews: 10 o’clock Eastern, Tom.
Tom Rodgers: Three hours?
Sue Pistacchio: And what I can do – I know it’s going to be kind of
short notice – I really haven’t started anything or this meeting, but what I can
work towards is on Friday… Again, we would want to look at stuff that we’re
looking at for October. I can send something out to say, “here’s the initiatives
that we have for October”. And again, I want to look at the type of stuff that
Becky did before to see if we kind of want to go back to that documentation. At
this meeting we can also talk a little bit about expectations and what you’d like to
see. But at least so when you come into this meeting you know what initiatives
we’re going to talk about for the first meeting.
Speaker: What’s the proposed time?
Tom Rodgers: 10 o’clock Eastern – 10 to 1 probably.
Elliott Goldberg: For all the people who aren’t in the Eastern time zone.
Tom Rodgers: And we’ll set the schedule, I guess, at that meeting
rather than here.
Elliott Goldberg: Tom, (inaudible).
Tom Rodgers: You mean today? Yes I will be.
Elliott Goldberg: I’m trying to be nice to you for once.
Tom Rodgers: No, I’m moving to Pennsylvania in August, so we’ll
be…
Joyce Harry: (inaudible) I don’t know, it’d be like punishment.
Doc Matthews: We’re glad to have your tax dollars here in
Pennsylvania, Tom.
Tom Rodgers: There you go. We’ll be signing up for service with
you. Give me a call. Okay, issue 74 – WPTS. My understanding is that digital
loops will be part of the June release. And I assume if you’re a WPTS user, then
that’s good news and we’ll keep…
Loriann Ercan: I think Denise (inaudible) would say the same thing.
Elliott Goldberg: Is there any plans to enable us to use WPTS absent
the manual GUI interface (inaudible), since near as I can tell, there’s only two
fields difference in the WPTS screen from what we already have through EDI?
WPTS also (inaudible) used for migration, and there’s only two fields different
between what we have now in EDI and WPTS. And if it could be resolved, then
we could really come up with a low cost alternative because we could do all of it
automatically.
I’ve seen some of the stuff – and I don’t want to go
into the docket 1425 in New York, but I’ve been looking at the stuff and I did meet
with Denise to find out about WPTS. And near as I can tell, like I said, there’s
two fields different – one is facility code and the other is the tech reps name,
that’s doing the work. And that could be added to a FOC. And then we could
give you the okay via a SUP, and LSR SUP. And it would solve, make
everybody’s life a lot easier. I think, anyway. We think, as a company, we think.
The rest of you have to voice your own opinion. But what it does – you want me
to write it up?
Joyce Harry: Yeah. We don’t know what he’s talking about.
Elliott Goldberg: I’m sorry. Okay. WPTS is used to control migrations.
Right now loop to loop. I looked at it because we do a lot of loop to platform.
And Denise came in - Denise Sexton, who’s the Verizon training person, I don’t
know, systems rep – I don’t know Denise’s exact title – came in and gave us a
briefing on it.
The information that we get back on the WPTS
screen that we would use to manage the migration has two fields that you don’t
already have. Those two fields being the tech rep and the silly code at the switch
– everything else you’ve gotten back. You either know because you gave it to
them on your order, or you’ve gotten it back on your FOC.
The purpose of the WPTS screen is so that you can,
after reviewing the order, either indicate that you have a problem with the order,
or give them a go ahead. But that’s labor intensive and costly. What I’m saying
is we could do that automatically if we didn’t have to be tied to this system,
because we know what we sent on the LSR, we know what Verizon said on the
FOC. The other two fields could be added to the FOC. And we could redo the
go/no go decision with an LSR SUP and do it automatically.
Loriann Ercan: You don’t have to worry about no dial tone.
Elliott Goldberg: No dial tone comes after (inaudible). Okay
(inaudible). My question still becomes then could that be (inaudible) electronic
notifier so you didn’t have to put a body on a screen.
Loriann Ercan: Yeah, we do have a problem (inaudible).
Elliott Goldberg: (inaudible) automatically if you have an EDI type. For
what WPTS does for us, we could do it automatically.
Tom Rodgers: Wouldn’t you need to create new transaction types?
Elliott Goldberg: No, not for all purposed. You’d have to add two fields
for FOC. And you might have to define a new SUP, which is no big deal –
certainly less than the accumulated number of bodies sitting out there in CLEC to
CLEC. Or as far as the two things that you’re taking about, Loriann, I don’t know.
But is suspect that…
Tom Rodgers: Are you going to clarify the CR that you already have
outstanding?
Elliott Goldberg: On WPTS? I don’t have one.
Tom Rodgers: Well, it was one (inaudible).
Elliott Goldberg: Actually I didn’t call it PON tronics. What I called it
was a control system which triggered… In other words, when events did not
happen, then an alarm went off basically and alerted. Because now what
happens is nothing remedial happens until the CLEC sends you a trouble ticket
saying something didn’t happen. And that whole point of that trouble ticket, that
CR without going into the details, was simply to have an alarm system going off
that it would flag it before the event. So for the same reason that I compare
LSR’s to your FOC, so that if there’s any issue on the FOC, I send you a trouble
ticket right away to try to catch the problem before it’s provisioned.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. Let’s see… I would just, to me it sounds like
you’ve refined what you want from the earlier one. But you could certainly see it
as something different.
Elliott Goldberg: The only one that was developed before WPTS, and
WPTS just deals with loop links. It was really… I was looking at it because the
loop swing cost and its downstream impact on us in two years.
Tom Rodgers: Then I guess it’s a new one then.
Speaker: (inaudible).
Elliott Goldberg: Yeah, but I read all the responses to the New York
case, and everybody sort of ignored that option and went to the WPTS. I had an
interesting weekend reading responses. Educational.
Tom Rodgers: Okay, let’s see… I’m going to try and… 74, the
action from the PA uniformity is e-mail to the PAVA team with response to any
issues that the June (inaudible). Topic 76, billing, on page 19. I’d like you guys
to take a look at removing some of this detail from September of ’01 through
December/January of ’03, because it falls into the category of providing a status
every month.
And the same applies to the web enhancement – I’ve
lost the topic number, on page 24. (inaudible) history.
Loriann Ercan: So you think take these off here and just have them
on…?
Tom Rodgers: Yeah, a rolling month, a rolling twelve months.
Doc Matthews: That sounds like a good suggestion, Tom.
Tom Rodgers: Okay, guys. Time to make up some time for lunch
here. 79, access to CSI, NMC access to CSI and NMC access to LSI. This was
the result of a call that we had back in February where the suggestion was that
the NMC could see all the lines of CSI information that a CLEC can be online.
We had several internal calls with the (inaudible). They assure me that they do
have access to the same information, but that it’s not formatted exactly as you
see it. And they’re addressing issues that would be personnel training issues on
how to take field of information appears on this line, and it appears when the
CLEC is talking to the center about it.
Loriann Ercan: So it was always there, but…?
Tom Rodgers: It was always there. It was always felt to be a training
issue where they didn’t look at the right place. The information is taken from the
CSR and displayed through LSI. And it’s reformatted for the display. It looks
different in the core system. They also felt that having access to LSI would help.
And I think there was a question raised about if they even look at the same
account at the same time. Can one customer record be viewed by…
Joyce Harry: … by both Verizon and the CLEC at the same time. I
don’t see any reason why it couldn’t. (inaudible).
Tom Rodgers: Would be formatted differently.
Loriann Ercan: Yup. There would be an ISOC. So you’re saying that
by getting the coaching and training done to 79, 80 is not necessary?
Tom Rodgers: Yes, that’s what I’m hoping to say so that we can
close both of them, or this was a big issue, center responsiveness and looking at
the same screens et cetera. I think it was given a fair evaluation by the staff
people supporting the center. And it was kind of a thank you, but no thank you
approach.
Doc Matthews: Tom, can we hold these two open for one more
month, give our people the opportunity to comment on it?
Tom Rodgers: That’s fine, that’s fine.
Speaker: Tom, my experience with that was that the Y CLEC
support group would refer it back to the local NMC in their area. And given, if
you find it’s accurate, the rep that would handle that situation, I was porting
trucks at that time for a call center – they were able to go into that account, fix it,
and we were able to flow that order through. It was a little complex in the
beginning, but I think the teams are beginning to understand the process.
Tom Rodgers: Good. Glad to hear that it’s improving. And we’ll
keep these two issues open. Issue 81 and 82, we talked about closing last
month. I shaded them this month just to show that they were closed. I’ll shade
79 and 80 and give you guys an opportunity to review it if you want. Jill, are you
still with me?
Jill Demuth: Yes, I am.
Tom Rodgers: Topic 83 was the CIRT escalation list. Any status?
Jill Demuth: There is a process that’s under way, that actually
Kathy Han’s team is taking on to do all of the escalation and all of the context
section for updates. And that is in the process now. It will fall probably along
with the updates to the guide that Linda Senne talked about earlier.
Tom Rodgers: Super. Okay, so prospects are good that end of June
we’ll be able to close 83 as well. And then earlier this morning Sue gave us an
update on the caller ID exhaust issue. I guess I’ll stop and ask for any new CMP
issues at this time. I’ll also ask again in this afternoon’s session.
Joyce Harry: Good, because I think Mary may have one, and she
should be here then.
Tom Rodgers: (inaudible). Sue?
Sue Pistacchio: Yes?
Tom Rodgers: End user level, 2397.
Sue Pistacchio: Okay. On this one I’m just providing a status at each
change control meeting of where we are with this project. And in the items by
release we have this broken out also as in to show the different scheduling. So
where we are with the scheduling – and again, for people that may be new to the
call – what the end user level listing project is is to take the listing only accounts,
the CLEC listing only accounts. In the south you have the DB2 DB5 accounts, in
the north they’re the NWPOR and the MWPOB accounts that have all of the
standalone listings on them, get them off the CLEC bill so there can be
thousands of listings on those bills, and create an end user like structure that’s
similar to like what you’d see on like a retail or resale account for these listings.
What we have done is, and where we are with this is
we had our first data in NDBW with Allegiance with the April release, and they
were converted in April for the Maryland, D.C., Virginia, and West Virginia. It was
successful. I don’t know if there’s anybody from Allegiance that’s on that can
maybe provide their feedback to the CLEC community?
Loriann Ercan: Yeah, Sue, this is Loriann. Alex isn’t on the call
today, and I know he had been working more closely on this. I know we had the
conversion. I think there was some issue with some of these accounts not
getting converted.
Sue Pistacchio: Right. There is the expectation there is some listings
that would not convert because they’re not eligible to go on an end user listing
account. Stuff like 800 numbers, if there were duplicate listings… Basically, did
Alex provide you any information? I got feedback from Alex that he thought the
conversion went well. I didn’t know if you felt comfortable sharing that with the
CLEC community, or…
Loriann Ercan: Okay. I know that all along things have been going
very well with the trial. And we’re looking forward to getting everything converted
all over. Ultimately it will make it a lot easier for us in the long run.
Sue Pistacchio: Now, have you been utilizing the CSR functionality?
And do you like that?
Loriann Ercan: I honestly can’t say.
Sue Pistacchio: Okay. Well, you’re going to have to drag Alex on the
next call, because I know that we’ve talked to him and I know he seems to be
very happy with the project and how it’s gone forward. So we’ve gotten a lot of
positive feedback on that from him.
What our plan is right now with MDBW is originally we
had three data CLEC’s that were scheduled for MDBW. And as people probably
remember, this is a very huge project and our timeline kept getting pushed out.
So over the course of time (inaudible) other candidates.
What we wanted to do is we just wanted to do trial
with several more CLEC’s, just to make sure that we had the process fully ironed
out. And it’s easier when we do this if we can kind of hand hold a handful of
CLEC’s through and deal with any issues on a smaller scale.
So what we have planned right now for the June
release is to beta trial three additional CLEC’s. And the CLEC’s that we’re
working with is AT&T, COX, and Jones Comcast. So right now they’re scheduled
to proceed with an additional conversion for the June for MDBW.
Right now for the full conversion of MDBW, it is
targeted for the October release. Now, one thing that I’d have to keep in mind is
since we are completely converting the embedded base for all the different listing
accounts, the rollout in each jurisdiction is expected to take several months. So
when we start some place in MDBW, the CLEC’s would be notified we’re
converting accounts, and it will take several months to go through each
jurisdiction.
Tom Rodgers: Yeah, the one thing that we wanted to do when, the
action item I had for this was to create a topic number 85 called end user level
listing project so that we can capture the description and the timeline associated
with this project. Because when it first appeared, we had amnesia as to where it
came from and who was involved, and et cetera. So my action item is to create
topic number 85, where we will track the project so that when it appears, when
these change report phases appear, we will have a home for it or an explanation
as to where they came from.
Sue Pistacchio: So the other jurisdictions – just to finish off here – the
north, the beta trial is scheduled for August and the full conversion is expected to
start in the September timeframe. Currently we have three CLEC’s that we had
gone to quite a while ago and asked them if they were interested. Again, we
need to really go back and talk about it with the August timeframe. And then for
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, the beta is scheduled for October with
the full rollout scheduled to start in November.
One of the other things that we were asked to do, and
there is Carol Yozzo, who has been on this call doing other things – she has kind
of joined this project and is responsible for really CLEC communication in the
package. And she put together a nice draft package that we have kind of been
working with, or she’s been working with Allegiance to just kind of iron out and
make sure that we have like a full complete package that kind of captures what’s
going on with the project. And she’s finalizing that package, and the expectation
is that would get distributed to the CLEC community at some point in time, and
then we could schedule like a follow up workshop or something to kind of just
walk through this project in a little more detail.
So that is, at a high level, is kind of where we are with
the project. Are there any questions?
Joyce Harry: Yeah, I’m curious, Sue – the listings that cannot be
converted, how will they be treated? What will happen to them?
Sue Pistacchio: There are different things that we can do. There are
some listings that are not qualified to be converted - different things like an 800
listing. We can’t determine where that 800 listing would go in this end user like
structure, so it’s the type of thing where you could convert it with a service order
like later on. I know that for the beta trial we are working kind of behind the
scenes for like duplicate listings and whatnot. That’s probably the biggest thing.
when we set up these accounts, you’re main listing is actually like your new BAN
number. So if there’s a lot of duplicate listings, we can’t create accounts
because we can’t have like the duplicate accounts there. So when we have been
converting for the beta trial, we do work with the beta CLEC to kind of give them
a printout of here’s what’s been converted and here’s what hasn’t been
converted. So there is kind of like a conversion cleanup process that goes on
afterwards.
Gloria Velez: Sue, this is Gloria. You mentioned about a package
is being put together. Are details about exactly how it’s working…?
Sue Pistacchio: You mean all the edits and whatnot?
Gloria Velez: Yes.
Sue Pistacchio: Yeah, there’s actually several documents. There’s a
package that kind of summarizes the changes and what you’ll see, an example of
a CSR. There’s actually a beta business rule to kind of show the differences to
the business rules once you’ve converted. And then there are like new edits that
are associated with it. And that’s’ the expectation that all o that stuff is going to
be disseminated shortly.
It’s going to the CLEC’s once they’re a part of the
beta trial. But just to kind of socialize it with the CLEC community so they have a
better idea of what’s going on.
Gloria Velez: Okay. And that’s the extent of the material right now?
In other words, there’s nothing out there right now?
Sue Pistacchio: The only people that this has been shared with are
CLEC’s that are part of the beta trial. As part of AT&T, I know that the package
is being put together for you. Does that answer your question?
Gloria Velez: Yeah, I guess so.
Alice Allen: I have a question, Sue. This is Alice from Comcast.
Was the NDBW going across in June or October, along with broadband?
Sue Pistacchio: June for the beta trial.
Alice Allen: Right. And the OTM is going across in June, and
JCB?
Sue Pistacchio: Are those your…?
Alice Allen: Those are ours, right.
Sue Pistacchio: You know, I don’t have them right in front of me,
exactly what CCNA is. But I know you’ve been dealing with Carol probably.
Carol Yozzo: Actually, Sue, I’m on the line. I just joined a little while
ago, so I can probably clarify. Hi, Alice. Yes, Alice, we do have Comcast.
However, broadband, the old CCV, MOTC is not currently scheduled for June.
We have OTN, JN, JCV, and there’s one other OMD.
Alice Allen: That’s a media one. Oh, that’s a huge one.
Carol Yozzo: And we can speak offline about the broadband, the
CCV is you’d like.
Joyce Atwell: This is Joyce Atwell. When do you…? You said CCV
is not scheduled for the August timeframe. Do you have any idea which month
it’s scheduled for?
Carol Yozzo: What jurisdiction are you in?
Joyce Atwell: AT&T broadband. CCB.
Carol Yozzo: Would that be going as part of Comcast, or part of
AT&T? When we spoke, Joyce, we spoke about just AT&T business and
consumer going in June as part of the beta.
Joyce Atwell: It actually is separate, but we still have responsibility
for CCB, which we have a couple of states.
Carol Yozzo: Okay. Again, we can talk about this offline and
schedule (inaudible). Because I know we have some other considerations of
coordinating another project that’s going on with CCV. And we need to
coordinate that with the end user listing conversion.
Joyce Atwell: Okay, thank you.
Tom Rodgers: Sue, is there anything more on this topic?
Sue Pistacchio: Nope.
Carol Yozzo: This is Carol again. I just will clarify – I am in the
process of getting those packages together. I hope to get those out, well, no
later than tomorrow. I may even get them out today, for the beta CLEC’s. As far
as the general CLEC community, we will have a general distribution of the
information and then schedule kind of a workshop type of meeting where, after
you’ve had a chance to review the material, people can ask questions and go
over it again.
Tom Rodgers: Okay, thanks Carol. The only other open issue from
this morning’s call addressed an issue that arose as a result of working change
request number 2500, which was the introduction of error messages in the April
release. And at that time, I guess to summarize, we had produced that
document of the error messages that didn’t contain the error codes. (inaudible).
Sure, go ahead.
Lissa Provenzo: I’m sorry. Can this also be published separated, other
then be included in this document?
Tom Rodgers: I’m sorry. Did you go back to what…?
Lissa Provenzo: Is this page 29 that you’re talking about? I’m sorry.
Was this published prior? This was published prior to this, correct? For our
meeting.
Tom Rodgers: I’m sorry, I’m lost.
Sue Pistacchio: You mean the error codes for this project, Lissa?
Lissa Provenzo: Right.
Sue Pistacchio: Yeah, we already sent them out.
Tom Rodgers: Yeah, the topic I was discussing was associated with
change request 2500, which went in in April. That was where we had to have an
emergency call the week prior to implementation to produce the error codes.
Doc Matthews: That was the late April phone call.
Tom Rodgers: Yeah, that was that last minute phone call.
Lissa Provenzo: Correct. Okay, I’m with you now. Thanks.
Tom Rodgers: That actually was either sent the day before or the
day after the conversion. I had taken an action item, I think at your request, Sue,
to work that issue. And I think I have an understanding with Sue that going
forward the error codes and the error messages would be on the same
document.
Sue Pistacchio: Yes. For that documentation that went out, it did not
include the correct error codes. So we’ve corrected that, so we’ll make sure that
that won’t happen again. We’ve making some change to just how we’re handling
edits in general, which you’ll see when we get to the items by release section.
And then the other thing is, historically we’ve never
done release reviews in non-CLEC impacting releases because you’re not
supposed to have that much impact. But April proved us wrong. So one of the
things that we talked about internally was to really look at the release and see if it
warrants having a specific release review session. April probably would have
warranted a review session to kind of go over everything that was in that release.
Tom Rodgers: And we ended up having one anyway, we just did it
via an emergency call. So I guess the point of having it brought up today was to
admit that we could have done the April release better, and that we will do so
going forward. And with that, I think it’s time for lunch.
Mary Halpin: Sue, this is Mary Halpin. Were you going to talk
about the special characters CR this morning?
Sue Pistacchio: I can do it either one or two ways. We can talk about
special characters – since we have that session that’s scheduled for the 21st, I
can hold it off then, or we could talk about it now. It’s up to you.
Mary Halpin: I think we’d like to talk about the use of, just at a very
high level, how you’re planning on doing this. And the feedback on our
suggestions on how they could be flagged – that would be very helpful to have
now.
Lissa Provenzo: Mary, I would like to include Dave on that, and I don’t
know if I can get his availability. Perhaps we could have it…
Mary Halpin: Or a separate call would be fine, too.
Sue Pistacchio: Well, I guess the thing is we have the requirements
for these sessions scheduled for the 21st.
Mary Halpin: With us?
Sue Pistacchio: No, with the CLEC community. And that’s one of the
ones that I was going to talk about. And that way I could prepare some
documentation so that everybody could look at something.
Lissa Provenzo: Right. But before you get to that point, I know that
one of our requests were kind of denied, but you didn’t really want to do that.
Sue Pistacchio: That’s what I think Mary wanted to talk about.
Lissa Provenzo: Oh, I see Mary.
Alice Allen: Carol is gone, right?
Carol Yozzo: No, I’m still here.
Alice Allen: When we get – I guess we’ll be talking through
conversion, but I also need to get a hold of the employee who was supporting
broadband. I think she had questioned media one in the old broadband. And
we’re a tail of each other, Comcast, so we need to talk offline together, maybe
conference later.
Carol Yozzo: Okay, I can set that up. That was Joyce Atwell.
Joyce Atwell: Joyce Atwell, I’m here.
Alice Allen: Are you there? Yeah, so you understand what our
relay consists of and what your piece of, and I think downstream we are one
company, down the road in this application.
Joyce Atwell: Okay, I’m sorry – I didn’t quite get that.
Alice Allen: We’re Comcast, and we have a lower beta from
Baltimore involved in our conversion, and I know broadband is out there in media
one, which was a combination. And you’ll find us talking later, so maybe it’ll be a
good idea for Carol to conference us in into the next meeting so that we can all
understand what’s on our plate.
Lissa Provenzo: Yeah, but this is… Mary?
Mary Halpin: I think we need to talk about special characters.
Lissa Provenzo: I think we’re kind of off the track here. It’s your call,
Mary. I can always…
Mary Halpin: I would just like maybe for Sue to explain, and then
maybe we can even have a brief call offline from this meeting. But I just, as you
mentioned, don’t want to continue going down a path where we may not be in
agreement, or we need to discuss it more.
Lissa Provenzo: Rich, you’re there, right?
Rich Brauchley: That I am.
Lissa Provenzo: Okay. Well, I feel comfortable if you want to go ahead
and talk about it today.
Sue Pistacchio: Okay, to just bring everybody up to speed, we got a
type 5 that was co-brought to us by AT&T and MCI. It was CR 2731, and what
they were looking for was better documentation on how special characters are
supported for each field. So we had someone look at it. The expectation was
there was no system impact, it was just documentation would, whether it would
accept special characters. And if so, what special characters would be
supported.
So we came with a general approach which we did
feed back to both AT&T and MCI, it was like adding field notes at each field to
designate if special characters were allowed, and which ones. And then with a
general appendix kind of breaking out what special characters were.
One of the proposals that we got, or feedback that we
got from our original proposal was they were looking for a change to the business
rules so that, for the type field – currently for type we support alpha, numeric, or
alphanumeric. And the request was to change the logic in the type field so that
special characters are designated in the type field. So that if it’s alpha but it
supports special characters, it’s AS. If it’s alphanumeric and it supports special
characters, it’s ANS.
My initial feedback on this was, number one, this is
system impacting because currently the repository where we do our business
rules does not have that logic in place. So number one, if we did proceed with
that, again we are coming late, it could remove a lot of contention for October.
The second thing, and my biggest reason for not
wanting to go with this solution, is now we get very, very skewed away from what
OBF has. I mean, right now we try to follow the OBF standard, and OBF
supports alpha, numeric, and alphanumeric. And when we do go against the
OBF standard, it’s usually for some type of functionality or a field, or maybe a
product.
A lot of times we’re in development with OBF, and
we’re implementing stuff. A lot of the stuff we’re doing in CLEC to CLEC is
coming out in LSOG 7. Currently OBF isn’t even looking at this. So it’s kind of
like we’re being asked to do something that’s totally against the OBF standard,
and I didn’t know if that would have repercussions for those CLEC’s that prefer
us to keep closer to the model.
Mary Halpin: You know, Sue, we have to deal with the special
characters. And they’re in the business rules today, and we use them in
ordering, so I think we need to be able to identify them some way, given the fact
that they’re in the ordering, pre-ordering stream now.
Sue Pistacchio: And we were going to identify that by use of field
notes.
Mary Halpin: So it would be documented in the field notes then?
Sue Pistacchio: Yeah, that was the proposal. Basically, if a field did
not support special characters, it would not have a field note. And this is where
we were going to say in like the appendix, this is how we’re documenting special
characters. So in the proposal that we provided, I think it was a PON field, I don’t
remember. It was like the following special characters are allowed, and we
actually listed them out.
It’s something that you would literally, if you’re going
to code for this, you would need to put in those exceptions, so you would really
have to go at a field by field level. And if we’re saying PON only allowed
asterisks, and ampersand, or whatnot, and you’re going to code for that, you
would have to do it at a field by field level. And again, we were listing that as a
field note for each field.
Rich Brauchley: Would it be possible, when you send out the
documentation, Sue, to provide our comments on that?
Sue Pistacchio: What my plan was – and this is where, when Mary
and I were talking about it yesterday – it’s always good to have more of a history
of the discussion. We have the original note with the proposal to say here’s how
we were going to respond to this. We have the feedback coming back. I would
like this captured in a document that’s like requirement review session – this is
what’s going out with it, is everybody fine with where we ended off with it? So
that’s one of the things where, sometimes I’ll have conversations with people on
the phone and we come to agreement – it’s not documented anywhere. So
yeah, I would like to get it on a piece of paper.
Rich Brauchley: What I’m suggesting is prior to the 21st I think you said
you were going to discuss this?
Sue Pistacchio: Yes.
Rich Brauchley: Okay. Prior to the 21st, if you could distribute that to
the other CLEC’s.
Sue Pistacchio: I’m sorry that I’m interrupting you. What my plan was,
and I wanted to look at some of the type 5’s that I think – again, we only have
three hours on Wednesday, so by all means, if there’s any CR’s that you in
particular want to make sure we get to, let me know them. This was one of them.
I have another one from Broadview, which is CR 2860. CR’s that are over 10K –
that’s another one that I wanted to talk about. Those are just two that I’ve had a
lot of discussion going back and forth, and I wanted to kind of circle back with the
CLEC community.
So the plan that I had in place was like around Friday,
I would like to come up with a list – these are the CR’s that I’d like to talk about.
And I can try to have preliminary documentation done. At the very least, I can
have it done Monday, I can do it over the weekend. But just to have a little
summary of where we are now with the initiative. That’s my plan, Rich.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. I need to call the discussion and sort of break
for lunch, because we’re going to run into our afternoon session if we keep going.
So…
Doc Matthews: Tom, may I ask one quick question, please?
Tom Rodgers: Sure, go.
Doc Matthews: Looking at the notes for the minutes, for the event of
today – last month’s notes, we were looking for someone to come and talk to us
a little bit about profile management, and I don’t see it here, unless I’m missing it
in the agenda for today. Was that off the board for today?
Tom Rodgers: I must have missed it. What exactly was the issue?
Doc Matthews: We were talking about having some problems with
getting the profiles updated and information like that. It’s on page 43 of 90 in the
minute notes.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. No, I just forgot.
Doc Matthews: Okay. Maybe next month?
Tom Rodgers: Of course. Thanks for reminding me.
Doc Matthews: Let’s go to lunch.
Elliott Goldberg: What’s the next agenda item?
Tom Rodgers: Elliott had one.
Elliott Goldberg: We were at the April – whatever it was – 17th/18th
meeting, we had talked about extending today’s prioritization meeting to go over
the “deny” status items. I see you did the explanation, but again it doesn’t reflect
the discussion. We still have a problem, for the record, with the use of deny,
which is not a status that’s allowed. And we still have the open item, after all
these steps are done, as per page 16 here, we still have the issue of writing or
rewriting the rules. And again, today was supposed to be the day that we said
we’d start doing that, but there’s no agenda. So I assume that has also slipped,
or is that an erroneous assumption?
Loriann Ercan: We might want to do that on a separate…
Elliott Goldberg: Well, we had discussed on the call, let’s do it today.
But it’s not on the agenda.
Lissa Provenzo: I thought the agreement was for the 1 o’clock call –
correct me if I’m wrong.
Elliott Goldberg: Yes, but it was supposed to be tacked on to the 1
o’clock call, and it’s not on the agenda.(inaudible) agenda item came up, I didn’t
say when we were going through it. But as long as an agenda item came up, I
figured I’d get it out of the way.
Doc Matthews: Right, Elliott, because I blocked away that time as
well on my schedule for that.
Tom Rodgers: We’ll add it to the end of the agenda. Okay, time for
lunch. Be back at 1 o’clock. (lunch break – some background talking)
Welcome back everyone. I’m assuming we have a quorum. Is anybody out
there? Just a yeah, we’re here, we’ll get started.
Elliott Goldberg: Yeah, we’re here.
Lissa Provenzo: MCI’s here.
Tom Rodgers: Okay, that’s all I wanted. We have a request to kind
of change the sequence of events that we face this afternoon in order to
accommodate a couple of folk’s schedules. So what we’d like to do is to look at
the CLEC initiated changes first, and then we’ll come back and look at the items
by release and then the Verizon shared changes. And then I guess item 7 is
going to be the prioritization topic 73.
Elliott Goldberg: Item 8. By the way, there is a second issue to the
prioritization docket. Is there a huge change?
Tom Rodgers: No, we’ve just added a CR. Okay. I think AT&T and
has one or two change requests that they want to talk about.
Sue Pistacchio: Are we doing the items by release?
Tom Rodgers: No, we’ve reversed the schedule. We want to look at
the CLEC initiated enhancements first so that we can get those rated. A couple
of people have to leave the call early.
Sue Pistacchio: I missed that memo, that means I didn’t have to
swallow my sandwich.
Tom Rodgers: I’m sorry, we just made it up.
Elliott Goldberg: The sense of urgency will help your digestion.
Joyce Harry: Tom, you want me to start?
Tom Rodgers: Yeah, go ahead.
Joyce Harry: Okay. It’s C03-0746 is the CR number. It’s ASR bar
code location application. And I’ll let my SMEE explain it to the group. Tony?
Lissa Provenzo: This is Lissa with MCI. Where is the change request?
Is this an addition to the packet?
Tom Rodgers: I think it’s an addition, I’m not sure.
Elliott Goldberg: It’ on the thing, but I think, Lissa, there’s no pages on
it.
Joyce Harry: Lissa, I think this came out last week Thursday or
Friday.
Lissa Provenzo: Uh oh. What was the number again? Sorry, I’ll look
for it.
Tom Rodgers: I think in your transmission it’s not numbered.
Joyce Harry: The CR type is C03-0746.
Lissa Provenzo: Okay, thank you. I’m sorry. Go ahead.
Joyce Harry: Tony?
Tony Mastro: Yeah, sure. I appreciate you taking this item at such
a late date. I was just looking at old ASR fields, and the call location process.
I’m not sure if anyone on the call is familiar with the call location process, but it’s
pretty redundant and it’s not automated at all. And I was just wondering if
someone could help me understand if the fields are basically the same
requirements for ASR’s and the co-location applications? I know the ASR
process is pretty smooth and automated. What would it take to possibly order
co-loc via ASR? And in a nutshell, that was my question. I don’t know what the
hurdles would be to have that accomplished.
Loriann Ercan: So you’re saying that the fields on the two forms are
pretty much the same?
Tony Mastro: Right. And I think the quality, the whole process – the
billing cycles – everything would improve if we could somehow automate it.
Joyce Harry: And Tony, you discussed turnaround time?
Tony Mastro: Specific turnaround time?
Joyce Harry: Yeah, from Verizon in terms of when you fill out that
co-location application manually?
Tony Mastro: Oh, right now. Yeah, it could be months. Sometimes
if we want to do something as simple as reduce power, it won’t reflect on the bill
for months later.
Joyce Harry: And if it was automated, you would get a response
right away.
Tony Mastro: Right, that’s one issue. Also, on an automated ASR,
in the fields, each individual field, if it was improperly submitted on that particular
field, it would automatically kick back. If you put it manually now, we’re not sure
if it’s going to kick back – it might take a couple of weeks for us to get an answer
back and one of the fields were improperly populated.
Doc Matthews: Tony, do you actually get a reduction in power when
you submit? Does it actually show up on your bill? I’ve been kind of watching
one for about two years now, and still haven’t seen it (inaudible).
Tony Mastro: Yeah, it’s random. That’s one of the main reasons.
With this ASR, I think it would not only expedite it, but it’d be a lot clearer.
Doc Matthews: The only thing is I don’t think that the ASR process in
OBF really does address co-location. I understand what you’re saying, because I
do know the process definitely falls under one of three S, L, or O. But I’m not
exactly sure if OBF handles co-location.
Tony Mastro: Will someone be able to find out and let us know?
Elliott Goldberg: Does it have to follow OBF? Verizon doesn’t always
follow OBF. Verizon’s been known to modify (inaudible).
Tony Mastro: Whoever’s speaking, it’s cutting out. All I heard is
someone said that it doesn’t have to follow OBF, and then I didn’t hear anything
after that.
Joyce Harry: He likes to be on every subject here, Tony. He has
the biggest mouth, and so it’s funny that nobody can hear him today.
Sue Pistacchio: This is Sue. I wanted to ask a question so I can better
understand this. This has to do with when you’re having you cages built?
Tony Mastro: Not only when they’re initially built, when they’re
already established. There are changes made in established cages also.
Sue Pistacchio: Okay. And you say that it’s not a utomated, but we did
automate part of it with the co-location validation in pre-order.
Tony Mastro: When you say automated, it’s by e-mail, correct?
Sue Pistacchio: No, it isn’t. It’s a pre-order transaction that’s available
for EDI and CORBA and the web, where you can go in and check the status of
your co-location.
Tony Mastro: Oh, if you want to call that automated. I don’t really,
it’s not a separate system or…
Sue Pistacchio: What do you mean? We go and we check the
records for that assignment, so what do you mean not automated?
Tony Mastro: First of all, is there a requirement for responses back?
Sue Pstacchio: Yeah, we provide responses back. Let me pull up this
transaction, I’ll tell you what we do. I just wasn’t really familiar with what you
asking, so I wasn’t sure.
Tony Mastro: What was your name?
Sue Pistacchio: Sue Pistacchio. This is something that we started to
do in pre-order sometime last year when I came over to the order side, so I’m not
as familiar with it. Okay, for co-location assignment validation, you come in and
you tell us whether you are looking for co-location information for a cage or a
splitter arrangement. You provide us information like the silly code and things
like the cable impair, or the relay rack, or whatnot. And we come back and we
provide you with status. We will tell you is that facility spare, busy assigned, or
busy pending. If it is busy pending, we provide you the order number associated
with it.
Loriann Ercan: That doesn’t really address actual orders for co-
locations, the co-location applications. That’s a good way to check and see
what’s spare and not spare.
Sue Pistacchio: Okay, so we already have an automated process for
cages that are already built. So now you’re saying what you’re looking to
address is I’m building a cage, and right now I guess you go through a co-
location group, and that process isn’t automated.
Loriann Ercan: Or you want to add more capacity in that cage.
Tom Rodgers: My understanding of this whole process was,
especially when you’re creating a cage, there’s an exchange of design, floor
plans, access. It’s not something that’s easily adapted to non-demand ASR.
And then something coordinated by the account team (inaudible) implementation.
Speaker: He’s breaking up.
Tom Rodgers: I don’t know. Do you have a list of transactions you’d
like to see exchanged on the ASR? Or is it everything associated with
(inaudible)?
Tony Mastro: No, I don’t have a specific list right now. I was just
trying to feel out what the possibility of trying to work it through an ASR. If you’re
saying that initial cages could not utilize ASR, then maybe we can use ASR just
for established cages.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. And I think you provided an example where
decreasing the power supply should be something that would appear to fit.
Doc Matthews: Could you explain how you would think that you could
do that on an ASR? I’m must kind of curious. I’m thinking, I know the first page
of the ASR gives you a lot of that information, but then I’m trying to figure out
which form you would go to. For example, a transport page or whatever to put
the notes into, for example, increase or decrease power. What are your thoughts
on that? I’m kind of curious.
Tony Mastro: I looked at, like I said, I had an old manual and I had
all the old fields for ASR’s, and I looked at the actual application fields and they
were very, very similar. Almost exact. So that was the reason I was going, one
of the reasons I thought it wouldn’t be that difficult to do. So if it’s asking for a
piece of equipment on the co-lo application and it has the same type of fields on
the ASR, there’s not much difference there. And maybe someone who’s versed
on ASR can, we can e-mail each other back or we can meet again. I don’t want
to tie everybody up with this issue. We can go through a specific case.
Sue Pistacchio: What fields on the ASR that you’re pointing to again?
Tony Mastro: Just the normal dates, the silly codes – I don’t have it
in front of me, I didn’t…
Sue Pistacchio: I just wondered why you question the ASR as
opposed to the LSR. You’re looking to have us mechanize the co-location
process, and I think you put on the ASR. Was there a reason why you chose the
ASR as opposed to the LSR?
Tony Mastro: I’m not that familiar with the LSR.
Joyce Harry: He said that because the ASR looks exactly field for
field like the application form that he has to fill out for co-location. So did you
want us to have a discussion offline – you, Tony, and myself, and somebody else
at Verizon to go through this?
Sue Pistacchio: I’m just not familiar with the co-location process at all.
I guess like yeah, I could get more information on how you saw it coming in and
I’d have to take it back. I would need to go back to our co-location group, again,
just to… One of the things that people pointed out was that we have historically
take liberties at times with the LSR process if it does not have the functionality
we need. We have a lot more leeway with the LSR process than we have with
the ASR, so if we needed to add a field or something there, usually the ASR we
don’t touch.
Elliott Goldberg: If I could make a suggestion…
Doc Matthews: Well, Sue, the only question I have is what billing
system co-location comes out of? Because the form that you’re using for –
whether it be LSR or ASR – you’re going to need to make sure that you’re going
into the right billing system – CABS versus CRIS, or whatever. And so that may
dictate a little bit more as well (background talking). Yeah, so that would be an
ASR situation.
Elliott Goldberg: If I can make a suggestion, perhaps it would make it
easier if you came up with a make up field level matrix comparing the fields on
the ASR and on the (inaudible).
Joyce Harry: Yeah, they already did that. That’s the reason why
(inaudible).
Elliott Goldberg: I’m saying share it.
Tony Mastro: Sure, I think I have an old e-mail. Joyce, just let me
know who you want me to direct that to and I can e-mail it.
Doc Matthews: What I’d suggest doing is going into CSG, taking the
current ASR in CSG, and try to create dummy draft of what you do for a co-
location, do screen prints or whatever, and distribute that so we can see what
you’re thinking about doing there.
Tony Mastro: I don’t have access to CSG, but I’m sure Joyce can
help me get that.
Doc Matthews: It wouldn’t be that difficult.
Elliott Goldberg: What that may do is it may just illustrate your point.
Doc Matthews: Yeah, because if everybody can see what you’re
talking about – both on Verizon’s side and the CLEC community side, it may
make it easier to…
Joyce Harry: Jim, is that you? Who is the gentlemen talking?
Doc Matthews: It’s Doc from Penn Telecom.
Joyce Harry: Oh, okay.
Doc Matthews: Because I do a lot of ASR work, and I do some of the
co-location work. And I know what he’s talking about. I’m having a little problem
seeing how he would make it work, but it’s an interesting concept.
Sue Pistacchio: Yeah, and I think you know a little bit more about co-
location than I do, so I really support, I think that would really help to understand
this a little bit better. And then we can bring it back to the co-location group on
our side to start looking at feasibility.
Doc Matthews: And Sue, if you want to, feel free to contact me.
Sue Pistacchio: All right, I have it as Doc. What’s the last name?
Doc Matthews: It comes under smatthews@penntele.com. And I’d
be more than willing to work with you on that.
Joyce Harry: Thanks. All right, I’ll work with Tony and get you the
information.
Sue Pistacchio: All right.
Alice Allen: Okay, where are we now? I’m sorry, I just joined in
from lunch.
Tom Rodgers: We’re reviewing one of the two AT&T change
requests.
Joyce Harry: Tony, thanks.
Tony Mastro: All right. Thanks for the time folks.
Tom Rodgers: So we’ll carry this one over with additional clarification
and follow up.
Mary Halpin: The change request that I sent in basically relates to
having on the address validation in pre-order, getting the status information in a
fielded, defined format rather than reading through verbiage. And perhaps today
I think we can get five or more statuses. And I think the most critical is to get the
most current status. And to have the information in that particular field, fielded
with specific data elements so that we would get (inaudible) a defined value for
working versus non-working. And it would be one value that could be
systematically read along with an associated effective date.
Doc Matthews: Is this a CR that’s on our sheet?
Joyce Harry: Yes, it’s right below the one we just discussed.
Elliott Goldberg: It’s C03-0743.
Doc Matthews: Gee, I don’t find that in the printout that I have. Sorry
guys.
Joyce Harry: I think it was sent out to you as prioritization from
Change Management on either Thursday or Friday of last week.
Alice Allen: Okay, what CR number are we discussing now?
Joyce Harry: C03-0743.
Mary Halpin: So the primary part of the change request is to
request that this information be fielded and defined so that it could be read
systematically and not have to be perused by a rep to determine what the status
of the facilities are at this premise or location.
This is critical information that is used to determine if
there’s working service on premise or not, and that eventually for new installs
and for move orders, and primarily for residence customers - I don’t believe that
that applies to business, but primarily for residence – it determines the type of
due date that we’ll get because it also leads to the different smarts clock that are
used for due date inquiry.
And so it’s part of a complex transaction that goes on
between using pre-order information and then how you populate the WSOP
fields, and then which smarts clock you go to to obtain the due date. But where
we see this particular gap in the process is that we would like to request that the
status information and the address validation again be fielded and defined so that
it can be read systematically rather than receiving many statuses on the premise
that have to be manually reviewed and interpreted, and come in different order
and the like. So this would be extremely helpful in defining it.
The other part of this CR, or the second part, really
relates to obtaining, I think, requesting more robust business rules around this
flow of information so that when the WSOP field, which is now required since last
summer for new install and move orders for residence customers, that we can
more easily get to the information and that the complex decisions that are made
to go into determining that field are better documented. So we’re asking for
some, if there could possibly be some additional information provided for how to
determine the WSOP and how it drives to the smarts clock and the due date
inquiry.
And that’s really what we’re looking for. But I think
the primary systems change would be for the status field to be fielded and
defined so it could be read systematically. The subsequent part is for more
robust business rules around WSOP and getting to the right calendar and all that,
based on a number of factors. And WSOP, as you know, is now required for new
installs and for move orders. And it’s a driver to the due date, which is extremely
critical for those types of orders.
Sue Pistacchio: Mary, this is Sue. I just wanted to clarify just what
you’re looking for, because we did go back to see what was s value that could
come back in the stat field for status. And there’s seven values that can come
back – working sub-let suspend, pend suspend, pend in, pend out, unknown, and
non-work. So basically what you’re looking for is for us to label these all like A,
B, C, D, E, F, G? And if working’s coming back, you always want to get A. And
then what also can come back is the date, and you wanted to have that in a
separate field, so it’s like stat A, date whatever.
So I guess the thing that I wanted to point out is the
statuses that come back are fixed, she just wants them broken up into separate
fields.
Mary Halpin: And so that it can be read systematically. And in
addition to that would be getting a more robust business rules so that it’s very
clear how all this information comes together and how the WSOP drives to the
due date. And also so that going forward, if there are any changes in the Verizon
processes or business rules, processes that affect the business rules and how
that’s determined that that can be reviewed at change control and we can make
the appropriate changes. Because again, what this eventually drives to, the net
out is it does affect the due dates that we’re obtaining and the due date inquiry
and which smarts clock we go to – whether it’s the main line or the additional
line.
Sue Pistacchio: And Mary, on the documentation problem, what we
did look at was this would be appropriate for the web. And we consider this like
scenarios, and scenarios are reviewed for each release to see if there’s anything
that needs to be updated. But if I’m doing this type of request and this is
happening, how would I fill out the LSR? Those are covered under scenarios.
So it has been forwarded to the web group to look at how to document it.
Mary Halpin: Except that some of the specific, getting very specific
with the data elements or the…
Sue Pistacchio: They have that in the scenarios.
Mary Halpin: It is the scenarios, but again, some of that should be
detailed at least, because I think that if you take supplemental documentation
and put it on the web, it won’t be referenced anywhere in the business rules.
Which means that if that information changes, it’s embedded in a scenario and
you won’t know until you rejects. So I think if there are changes are made to the
way that WSOP is determined, which drives to the smarts clock and your due
date, that should come through change control. And I think if it’s only in a
scenario that isn’t referenced anywhere in the business rules, as changes are
made, they won’t come through the change management process.
Sue Pistacchio: But if we do make changes to the process, we do
update it and notify you through change management already. If you’re looking
that we notify you of scenarios being updated, then maybe that’s the gap in the
process.
Mary Halpin: I’m not even sure that it should only be in a scenario.
Again, I think that if there was a matrix of some type put together to explain how
the address validation and some additional factors lead to WSOP, which then
determines how that’s populated, and then it leads you to which smarts clock you
use to get a valid due date for the end user…
Sue Pistacchio: Right, so where could you put that type of information
on the web?
Mary Halpin: The matrix would be on the web.
Sue Pistacchio: Well, they’re going to look at how to do it, but it was
pretty much consensus that this is web information. That’s one of the things that
we’re driving to, is to find where there’s gaps on how fields interlay, and how you
use pre-order, and how it relates to ordering. Those are things that they have on
the web with scenarios, or they have different things where you can try things
out. So it was determined that’s where that type of information currently is, and if
this is a gap to it, they would add it there.
Mary Halpin: Okay. And I think that it’s fine that it’s in the scenarios
– I think it should be. But in terms of populating the WSOP, and having a matrix
that kind of shows how it’s populated and what the accepted values are, and
what they mean, because then it determines again the due date – I think that
would be good to have as a matrix in the business rules as well, because there
aren’t that many matrixes in the business rules, but the ones that are there –
from how I recall – they were developed and placed in there because they’re very
critical information for some of the fields like blocking that are complex, you have
to know how to populate them.
Sue Pistacchio: But a lot of those stuff we’re going to be moving off
the business rules to put them in the web.
Mary Halpin: Well, I’m not sure that I really… I think we need to
discuss that a little bit more. In particular the blocking was developed - not to
take the discussion off center, but the matrix is very complex and it was
developed and placed there as a result of negotiations during a collaborative.
And I think if you’re going to move it someplace else, where again, if there are
changes made to that, it won’t come through change management because it’s
website information, and yet it could affect how we have to populate the blocking
fields. I’m not sure that we agree. We probably need to discuss that. Are you
saying you’re going to remove all the matrixes from the business rules?
Sue Pistacchio: I think what’s starting to happen is people have the
expectation that if I need to know anything about doing anything, I will find it in
the business rules, and that’s definitely not the case. There’s a lot of
documentation out there that supports the whole process. The intent of the
business rules is to provide you field level validation and edits to say this field
means this, and if I am doing this type of request, this field is required and this
field is conditional.
When it comes to tying together a package and
saying for this type of scenario, what would I need to do? And for this type of
product, what would I expect? And compatibility issues – those are all things that
they’re trying to drive to, to kind of put together a more robust web package. But
historically, the answer has always been dump it in the business rules. And now
it’s like as more and more requests are coming in, the realization is the business
rules is not a panacea, and you can’t put everything in there. So we’re trying to
refine and fix the focus of the business rules.
If it’s an appendix that’s in there, there would be
discussion before we pull it out. But unless it is strictly a field level business rule,
we do not want to put another appendices in there if we have a different process
that’s already handling that functionality.
Mary Halpin: Okay, well, I think for WSOP there is nothing on the
website that is there specifically defines what the particular data elements
characteristics of that field are, or any type of detailed information that explains
what it’s driving to. Because if you don’t get that right, you’ll get rejects and you’ll
get bad due dates. So I think we probably need to discuss that some more –
where the matrix should be. But I think in general our request is that, at least if
we can agree initially that we need better documentation on how all of that
comes together and all of the factors that go into WSOP, and how it’s extremely
critical in that it drives to (inaudible) the right due date. And if you don’t put
together all the right factors and consider them from pre-order in determining
WSOP and going to the right smarts clock, then you’ll get either rejects back or
the due dates will be changed and sent back in a local response.
So we really feel that we do need the full story in the
business rules on WSOP, and how it relates to due dates. And I think the first
step towards getting us there, just an associated process change, is getting the
status field defined and sent back in a way that it can be systematically read.
And I think we need to continue discussing the
WSOP, because we do feel that the business rules could be better. And my only
concern about moving anything or putting something in a website that fully
defines the data element in the business rule is that if there are changes again, it
may not come through change management processing. And there could be a
refinement or a change in the definition and how it’s driving the due dates, and
we may not be aware of it. So that’s the only concern there.
Tom Rodgers: Do we have enough information to rate this?
Joyce Harry: A 5.
Speaker: 5.
Tom Rodgers: Met Tel?
Elliott Goldberg: 4.
Tom Rodgers: Allegiance?
Loriann Ercan: I’ll pass.
Tom Rodgers: Broadview, are you out there?
Janice Ziegele: Yes, 4.
Tom Rodgers: Thank you. Cavalier?
Cathy Welsh: 4.
Tom Rodgers: (inaudible)?
Speaker: We’re going to pass.
Tom Rodgers: COX?
Gayle Dissendanner: 4.
Tom Rodgers: CTSI?
Amy Kwok: Pass.
Tom Rodgers: Talk America?
Daniel Salvagno: 4.
Tom Rodgers: Vartec?
Dexter Lilly: 5.
Tom Rodgers: MCI?
Lissa Provenzo: I need to come back with my vote, because I use the
original package. I have internal meetings to review everything and our position.
So since this came out on Friday, I missed it.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. Do you want to e-mail me for a ranking?
Lissa Provenzo: Yes.
Tom Rodgers: Okay, that’s fine. We’ll make an exception this time
because the notice was out late. Z-Tel? Adelphia?
Speaker: I’ll pass.
Tom Rodgers: McGraw? McGraw, you out there? Conestoga?
Speaker: 4.
Tom Rodgers: Penn Telecom?
Doc Matthews: We’re going to pass.
Tom Rodgers: New York Telsave? Okay. Any CLEC names I
haven’t mentioned?
Alice Allen: Comcast, I’ll pass.
Kathleen Morales: NOS Communications – 4.
Tom Rodgers: Okay, anyone else? Okay. We might as well get the
rating out of the way, unless you want to… C03-0571. Alan, are you out there
from New York Telsave?
Kisha Dodson: This is Kisha. Alan may have had to drop off. I can
try to get him back if we need him.
Tom Rodgers: We’re about ready to go with his initiative.
Lissa Provenzo: This is Lissa from MCI. I can’t rate anything if it
doesn’t provide me detail. I’m really not sure what he wants to do here. There’s
no details on retest screen enhancement.
Kisha Dodson: Okay, this is Kisha. I’m one of the system managers
for (inaudible), and I’d be more than happy to give you verbal direction. And if
you need something printed, then you can just give me your e-mail and I can
forward it to you.
Lissa Provenzo: I need an explanation of what we’re trying to do here.
Kisha Dodson: And that’s fine. Let me just see can I get Alan back
on the line. Can you guys just bear with me for a second?
Loriann Ercan: But Tom, the copies of the CR’s are in the back of the
package to give us an explanation.
Tom Rodgers: I know.
Elliott Goldberg: Is it the original package or Friday’s package? Lissa,
you didn’t get the whole package?
Lissa Provenzo: I know, but usually it’s all up in the front here.
Elliott Goldberg: It’s in the back now.
Tom Rodgers: We’ll just wait for her to come back.
Elliott Goldberg: Tom changed things around to make sure you read
the whole package.
Lissa Provenzo: Well normally it’s all up front.
Elliott Goldberg: He’s tricky. You can’t trust those Texans.
Tom Rodgers: Oh, yeah.
Kisha Dodson: This is Kisha. Alan is actually still on the call. He is
just on another line. He never dropped off, but he had to take care of something
else.
Arthur Barone: Tom – Arthur Barone, Broadview Networks. I’m on to
discuss the 0723, when you ever want to…
Tom Rodgers: Well, let’s go ahead and do that now, Arthur. Go
ahead.
Arthur Barone: Okay. Save some time here. Just, I have monthly
meetings with your wholesale billing folks – Rita Roberto in particular. And they
suggested that I come to this forum. We’ve seen large increases in repair
charges on our wholesale invoices. We’ve noticed that we’ve seen the same TN
multiple days, same days, always says no trouble found, whether it be dispatch
in, dispatch out. I also noticed that on your special access accounts, you do
provide the trouble ticket number that you return to us when the confirmation.
And you wholesale invoices do not contain that information. So my request is to
– and I put it as PON or trouble ticket number. Looking to see that information
passed to us for verification purposes, to obviously validate the charge.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. I’m surprised it’s not there, Arthur. I thought it
was always there.
Arthur Barone: Yeah, and I’m not obviously going to go into coding
here. The BDT actually has the fields necessary to communicate the
information, so it’s not like it has to go to the trig to have a new value or
whatever. Today in the 103016 record on the special access accounts, you are
floating it in the phrased text. But I offered the opportunity to either put it in the
PON field, in the 103005 – and that could be PON or trouble ticket number. Or if
you want to keep it the same, just as long as the information does get passed to
us.
Elliott Goldberg: Yeah, as long as there’s a CLEC reference. Arthur,
would you say as long as it’s the CLEC reference number, regardless of whether
it’s the PON or the trouble ticket?
Arthur Barone: Exactly. That’s why I didn’t stick so closely with PON.
I figured that as long as it’s something, I can go back to the confirmation, then I’m
pleased.
Elliott Goldberg: Yeah, the CLEC reference number.
Doc Matthews: Arthur, are you finding that there’s something
populated in that PON field often that has no relationship to anything that the
CLEC gave?
Arthur Barone: On the wholesale BDT is the PON field is absolutely
blank.
Doc Matthews: I find it even on my paper bills I will find that there’s
some information populated there, but it’s not the CLEC’s trouble ticket or any
information. And we have trouble validating that as well.
Arthur Barone: I have seen a variety of information, but it never really
conforms to the PON that we supply.
Doc Matthews: It doesn’t even conform to the trouble ticket that
Verizon issues on it.
Elliott Goldberg: Right, that’s if we want the CLEC reference number.
Doc Matthews: Elliott, when you’re saying CLEC reference number,
let me back you up just a little bit here. If you verbally call in a trouble ticket on a
circuit, Verizon asks for internal ticket number, and that is what you’re
referencing, correct?
Elliott Goldberg: Yeah, whatever reference number that transaction
has. I’m trying to be as general as possible. If it’s one the way they give you the
reference number, that’s the common reference number. If the CLEC initiates a
reference number, that’s the one that should follow through. Because if the
CLEC initiates it, that means it’s in our system somewhere and we can do
automated reconcilement.
Doc Matthews: I’m in agreement with you, because you’ll always get
a Verizon trouble ticket number, like a Radio Shack something, six digit number
that they will give you. But it doesn’t cross reference in our internal system.
Loriann Ercan: So you probably want to change this to indicate that it
is the CLEC trouble ticket number.
Elliott Goldberg: The CLEC reference number, whatever source that is.
Doc Matthews: And the terminology that Verizon uses when they ask
you for that trouble ticket is internal trouble ticket number. Okay?
Arthur Barone: Okay, I have no problem with that. One thing I
wanted to add though is if in fact we make this change, and this is what is going
to be done with the wholesale invoice, I would like the special to follow suit. I
don’t want to have to do it two different ways.
Doc Matthews: Oh, definitely.
Loriann Ercan: But the special one was that way.
Elliott Goldberg: Doc, didn’t you just say the special one is already that
way?
Arthur Barone: But it only has trouble ticket number.
Joyce Harry: Verizon trouble ticket number?
Arthur Barone: Correct. I don’t have enough intelligence to know if
that is “the CLEC reference number”.
Doc Matthews: It isn’t.
Arthur Barone: Okay, I was not going to make that assumption.
Doc Matthews: No, it’s not. And I can tell you also that on the
specials, it doesn’t always come through as the exact trouble ticket number
quoted. It sometimes has a different coding to it and you’ve got to do some
calling around and hunting to figure out what it was.
Elliott Goldberg: No, there should be nothing on the bill, in our opinion,
that is not the CLEC reference number. That way we can reconcile. Every
charge should be identified with a CLEC reference number.
Doc Matthews: I’m in agreement, Elliott. Because right now what I
have to do is go to (inaudible) and try to find a trouble ticket number on a circuit
that I know had a ticket called in on.
Elliott Goldberg: Yeah, it’s too complicated. Especially as we move
forward to some combination type products, it’s going to be even more difficult.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. The suggested change then is to insert CLEC
trouble ticker number?
Elliott Goldberg: CLEC reference number. That way it covers a variety
of sins.
Joyce Harry: I’m not (inaudible) issue a trouble ticket, that’s
something you get back.
Elliott Goldberg: Yes, but different CLEC’s go different ways.
Joyce Harry: I don’t deal with trouble tickets.
Elliott Goldberg: Well you guys are bonded, you have EDI. We have a
different way of going (inaudible – background talking). Arthur, is there a reason
that you limited it to those states instead of making it footprint wide?
Arthur Barone: The only reason I did that is because I know that by
the time this gets implemented, from my understanding, the southern states are
going to be processed out of the north. So it should affect those also.
Elliott Golberg: How about we make it footprint?
Arthur Barone: Okay. That was just insider information. I apologize.
Tom Rodgers: Okay, are we ready to rate this? Broadview, I’ll start
with you.
Arthur Barone: 5 is the highest? That’s what I’d like to call it.
Tom Rodgers: AT&T?
Joyce Harry: 5.
Tom Rodgers: COVAD?
Speaker: 5.
Tom Rodgers: Met Tel?
Elliott Goldberg: 5.
Tom Rodgers: (inaudible). Allegiance?
Loriann Ercan: 5.
Tom Rodgers: Cavalier?
Cathy Welsh: 4.
Doc Matthews: Boo.
Tom Rodgers: Choice One?
Annemarie Sturtz: 5.
Tom Rodgers: COX?
Gayle Gissendanner: 5.
Tom Rodgers: CTSI?
Amy Kwok: 5.
Tom Rodgers: Talk America?
Daniel Salvagno: 5.
Tom Rodgers: Vartec?
Dexter Lilly: 5.
Tom Rodgers: MCI?
Lissa Provenzo: 4.
Tom Rodgers: Z-Tel?
Peggy Rubino: 5.
Tom Rodgers: Adelphia?
Speaker: 5.
Tom Rodgers: McGraw? Conestoga?
Speaker: 5.
Tom Rodgers: Penn Telecom?
Doc Matthews: 5.
Tom Rodgers: New York Telsave?
Alan Roth: 5.
Tom Rodgers: Comcast? Star six to unmute.
Alice Allen: 5.
Tom Rodgers: NOS?
Kathleen Morales: 5 for NOS.
Tom Rodgers: Okay (inaudible – background talking). Okay, let’s go
back to the re-task screen enhancement.
Arthur Barone: Just Broadview would like to thank you for giving us
the opportunity.
Elliott Goldberg: Don’t worry, you buy the beer at the next party.
Tom Rodgers: Is Alan with us yet?
Alan Roth: I’m here. Sorry about that before.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. My understanding of the re-task screen
enhancement is you’re making minor changes to the screen in navigation of your
repair system. Can you elaborate a little more on that?
Alan Roth: I was working with Kisha. One of the main issues
with the re-task screen is when you’re going into it, you’re almost entering
information twice. When you’re doing a trouble ticket test - I just got to get to my
notes here, so just give me one second. Okay. One is the appointment of it.
The first issue we have, okay, is on the screen where it says choose circuit
number, telephone number, and then you have to wait for it to reload. It’s almost
like an extra step of having to reload things, is change number one.
There are a couple of other issues that we’re having
issue with regarding re-task. Do we want to handle these one at a time, or do we
want to handle these as a group? This is my first time really getting involved with
this.
Tom Rodgers: Just kind of summarize it for us, please.
Alan Roth: Okay. Basically the appointment button that’s
mandatory that you hit it and select an appointment date to again merge that on
to the trouble ticket screen. And also, regarding putting in troubles such as the
0101 code for no dial tone, to actually put that in a program box that has the
listing of acceptable codes and what their definitions are, so people don’t make a
mistake of what they put in as the type of trouble. Those are the minor changes.
Joyce Harry: So you’re asking them to put a drop down box in a
different code so you can select the code.
Alan Roth: Correct. So instead of someone having to say when
you put in trouble code, 0101 or 0806 for static, and 0809 for hum, it would be a
pull down menu where you can pull down which one you want. It’ll allow, I think,
for less errors when people are putting in trouble tickets, or automatically putting
in 0101, because that’s the one they know.
Lissa Provenzo: This is Lissa with MCI. Can you tell me about the
drop down, where you want to eliminate it from the premise and circuit access
and then replace it with a fill in box? Is that cumbersome? Or I’m just trying to
understand why you would want to eliminate the pull down.
Alan Roth: No, it’s not a pull down, that’s what I’m…
Lissa Provenzo: It says remove the drop down for business and circuit
access.
Kisha Dodson: This is Kisha. Let me just kind of help you out a little
bit, Alan. With the first piece that he referenced, changing the two step selection
process for one step – when you initially log on to re-task and you go to say test
the screen, as Alan said, you have to select or tell us first the type of line prefix
that you’re going to use. Is it going to be POT or a special serial format? Once
you do that, then it reloads and then it takes you to another screen where then
you have to go and type the telephone number or the circuit ID field. So that’s
one. So we’re just trying to make it easier or more user friendly for everyone.
As far as the premise access information, when
you’re going to create a trouble ticket or to modify where you would actually want
to tell us the four hour window of opportunity that we have to resolve the issue,
you actually have to push on a radio button, or a little button that says premise
access information. You would click on that, and then it opens up to something
else, to another screen, and basically you have to tell us what day, then you have
to tell us the start and end time. Okay? So what we’re trying to do is eliminate
additional screens here for that piece.
And to Alan’s point, as far as the trouble type codes –
as it is today, there are so many trouble type codes, and as the business evolves
and customer demands dictate, we’re finding that there are some trouble type
codes that we still continue to use, that we really shouldn’t be using. Or they’re
ones that we don’t readily understand, or don’t know where to find the
information. So if we create a drop down menu that’ll give you like an 0101,
which is a no dial tone, or an 0806, which is a can’t be called, it’s allowing you to
give us a more accurate trouble description, which will also help to eliminate the
amount of trouble tickets that you have to create. And it’s also creating a more
direct sense of the customer being able to talk to Verizon, to the technicians, to
tell us specifically what’s wrong. Because we’re going to give you an explanation
as well.
But it doesn’t impact the business rules at all. And we
were thinking that with the old URL being taken away or decommissioned very
soon, that this is a good time to make these changes. So in a sense we’re going
back to one or two things that used to be on the old URL, and then we’re also
trying to enhance what we currently have. I hope that kind of helps a little.
Doc Matthews: I’m seeing almost 300 trouble codes. In a pull down
box you want to have 300 trouble codes?
Kisha Dodson: No, there are not 300 trouble type codes. There
aren’t. And if you go to the trouble admin website, it lists for you all of what
Verizon recognizes as valid error codes. And there are not 300 error codes.
Doc Matthews: Well, I’m just on six pages of trouble codes, with 42
codes on each page.
Kisha Dodson: Okay, let me just take for instance the first grouping,
the 0100 group – that’s the 0100. Within that group you might find 6-7 of the
same codes that are telling us the same thing. Ultimately it’s an 0101 situation,
which is no dial tone. What we’re trying to do is to help eliminate the pages, or
the fact that you have to reference back and forth between say a training manual
or an online handbook. You would have all of the valid trouble codes right there
before you with an explanation, a hot link, to say what these trouble type codes
mean. That’s pretty much the same thing that you’re getting now, but you don’t
have to toggle back and forth between several screens. And it leaves, or it
allows for less error, if you will.
Loriann Ercan: How many trouble codes will be in that drop down
box?
Kisha Dodson: Roughly, I would have to count, probably take a few
minutes. But it wouldn’t be like 300 codes. Let’s just say 100 or less, if that. If
even 100. I’m saying 100 on the high end.
Loriann Ercan: Because even that would take a long time just to go
down each code to figure out which one you want.
Kisha Dodson: Okay. Well let me…
Joyce Harry: If it’s going to have an explanation beside it, because
how are you going to know what to choose (inaudible)?
Kisha Dodson: Okay. The logic behind this, from my understanding,
is simply as it is today, we tend to use – and I’m being really inclusive – is that we
tend to use trouble type codes that we more frequently recognize like no dial
tone. Everything is not always a no dial tone situation. If it’s a can’t be called or
a can’t call out, then that’s what you need to tell us. Whereas we tend to pick
0101 because, for whatever reason. What we’re trying to do is give our
customers all of the trouble type codes that we recognize the ones that are
actually valid trouble type codes versus the ones that might be outdated, that the
system doesn’t even recognize anymore. Or we don’t even really know the
trouble description. Or that there might be a better trouble type code out there
for you to use versus the ones that you’ve always used that aren’t really accurate
trouble descriptions.
That’s like, with the example that was given to me is
that if it’s a can’t call out situation, why would you tell me no dial tone? Because
that’s the trouble type code that you know. So what we’re trying to do is give you
all the trouble type codes that are valid.
Joyce Harry: Is there a code for no call out?
Kisha Dodson: Yes, there is. There are trouble type codes for no dial
tone, can’t be called, can’t call out. There are feature trouble type codes, there
are circuit dead trouble type codes. They’re there – for pretty much every trouble
description that you can think of, we have a trouble type code that speaks
specifically to that. Which will also help to eliminate the, you’re limited to 132
characters in the additional trouble field information. So instead of you having to
go and be even more specific and take away character space for what it is that
you want to tell us, you’re giving us the best and most accurate trouble
description with your trouble type code.
Loriann Ercan: Wouldn’t it be easier to write in can’t call out?
Kisha Dodson: You can write it in there, but you’re also taking away
your character space. So what we’re trying to do is give you that four digit code
– 0101, 0806, 1200 – whatever you want it to be, 1503 for a feature. And then
that’s also allowing you in your additional trouble information field to be more
specific as far as whatever it is you want us to know. If a customer has varying
access, if there’s a specific number that we’re supposed to call back and test. So
we’re giving you all of that character space in the additional trouble field.
Loriann Ercan: No, I meant just put that into the box instead of having
a pull down box or having a code.
Kisha Dodson: Keep in mind that re-task is a front end system to all
of our back end systems. So the same way when you pick up the phone and you
call the RCNC and the people there take a trouble description, they’re typing a
trouble type code, so all of that is mapped to everything. So we want to keep
everything in accordance with the way it is.
Peggy Rubino: Kisha, would it be possible just to do a drop down
menu for the top 10 or top 15 or something? I just don’t think (inaudible).
Kisha Dodson: I heard my name and I heard the first part, but I lost
you at the very end.
Peggy Rubino: Would it be possible to do a drop down for the top 10
or top 15 choices, and then have an other and use the text field for the others?
Because I just don’t think a 100 choice drop down menu is reasonable.
Nobody’s going to page through all those and select the exact right one. So I
understand what you’re saying about the consistency…
Lissa Provenzo: I agree, Peggy – this is Lissa.
Kisha Dodson: Okay. I appreciate what you’re saying about the time
consuming part about surfing through a whole bunch of trouble type codes. But
at the same time, when I said 100, I was really speaking on the very high end.
There won’t be 100 codes in there. But keep in mind too that what we’re trying to
do is put everything online versus the paper copies. I’ve been to a lot of the
companies out there and we all like to keep our little paper records at our desk,
so it’ll also help to eliminate the amount of time that you have to sit there and surf
through all of that paper to figure out which is the best trouble type code.
Alan Roth: Kisha, I just have a question because obviously I
don’t know the programming behind this when were discussing this. If that box
was a pull down box and someone starts typing, like if they all started with the
four digit code, and someone started typing 08, would it automatically, could it
automatically like skip down? So therefore the person’s in the right group, so
they’d know what it is.
Kisha Dodson: Yes. And you would want to do that, and it’d make it
easier for you. Why not have that? So if we just started typing like 12, then it
would jump us to our 1200 group.
Doc Matthews: Or maybe set your pull down box as in double groups
– like say 12 would give you like 01, 02, 03 and so on with a little descriptor next
to it say the group. And then if you highlight that one, it keys you over to the last
two digits of the four digit code and gives you a file descriptor for that. That might
make it a lot easier, and that would allow you to put 100 codes in and nobody
would even notice it.
Loriann Ercan: Right. Because I think, as Peggy mentioned, a drop
down box with that many – more than 10 or 12 choices – is just going to have
people, it’s going to circumvent what you want to do. They’re just going to check
something rather than really look for the specific reason (inaudible). And that’s
what you want to get away from. But I don’t think that’s going to encourage that.
(inaudible). But like someone had mentioned, doing it be category, like have the
10 categories and then you can get specific within that category.
Tom Rodgers: Is this something that you could come back to us next
month and with a list of those?
Kisha Dodson: Okay, wait. Wait, wait, wait. Before we go any
further, and the reason being is that we’re trying to get this pushed for the June
release, is simply that the old URL is being decommissioned really, really soon.
I’m looking at our trouble type codes right now – all of the ones that we
recognize. If I had to group them all, the groups go from 01, 02, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
And there’s not like 15-20 under each. Just keep in mind that we break them up
according to the numbers. There’s only 15 groups, at max. Underneath each of
the groups, there’s maybe 3 additional trouble type codes. Like I have in the…
Loriann Ercan: It’s still too big. People aren’t going to use it the way
that you want them to. And I think it’s going to defeat the purpose.
Kisha Dodson: Okay, but keep in mind too, as it stands today, people
still aren’t using the appropriate trouble type codes.
Loriann Ercan: Right. So it’s like why make this change if they’re still
going to use the wrong trouble code. You want to make it so that they’re picking
the right code.
Alan Roth: Kisha, why don’t we split it up where if you had two
pull down boxes? One you pick the type of group trouble, and the second one,
then you pull down the specific trouble so when it gets sent to the back end, it’s
seen as a single field?
Kisha Dodson: Okay, that’s an issue that I can take back to the team.
My concern just becomes now, because of the feedback that I’m getting from the
community – and correct me if I’m wrong, if I’m hearing this incorrectly – there’s
already a concern over the amount of trouble type codes that could possibly be
put in one group. So instead of taking away a step, we’re creating an additional
step. So that would be my thought process. Okay, even though we’re trying to
streamline it and make it easier, we’re actually creating an additional step. It’s
definitely a take away. I can definitely take that to the group and see what can
be done about that.
Lissa Provenzo: Because right now the June release is closed out,
right? So any of this particular request will not make it, I don’t think, in the June
release. Would it, Tom?
Alan Roth: Is it possible to put a query box, very similar to how it
is with the re-task help at the beginning, where you an look up new like the re-
task buddy.
Kisha Dodson: Yeah, the re-task tool buddy.
Alan Roth: Right. Is there any way to put a link to that in the…?
Kisha Dodson: We have it. All the error codes are listed. It’s listed
under trouble type.
Alan Roth: Right, but it’s not on that page. You got to flip back.
I’m just saying if you can hit a button real quick on that page and then close it
real quick. Maybe just put a button on it.
Kisha Dodson: Like a passive window – how we used to hot link it on
the old screen, like it would tell you if you got an error code that this is what it
means? Like that?
Alan Roth: Right.
Kisha Dodson: Okay, that’s a take away. That’s something that I can
definitely take back to the group.
Doc Matthews: I think you’re on the right path, I just think we’re
pushing something a little bit too fast, that’s all.
Kisha Dodson: Okay.
Doc Matthews: Because really, we would like to be able to use re-
task a lot more. And I’d like – this is Doc at Penn Telecom. We’d like to use it a
lot more because it doesn’t make any sense to do a call in, which is what we’ve
been running into, is we’ve done more call ins than we’ve done re-task use
pages. And what’s the sense of having somebody type something in and make a
mistake in what we’re saying to them? We’d rather use it. But I think the request
that you’re making is a little bit too fast to turn around an answer on.
Kisha Dodson: Okay. Is that just related to the trouble type codes?
Or is that related to the other two items?
Doc Matthews: More the trouble codes than anything else.
Kisha Dodson: Okay, because there are three possible or suggested
changes for the system.
Doc Matthews: I think number one, there’s no problem with that at all.
And I think number three is perfectly fine as well, because that makes more
sense. Why use the drop down box? Let’s be specific and fill it in. The only
thing I would suggest is right above it, I would put – and this is just from my
experience when I used to write, when I used to make web pages – I put an
example in there so the person could see exactly what you’re looking at, what the
format you’re looking at and time frame and everything.
Kisha Dodson: Okay. Well, see we have a trouble admin site that
gives you examples of the trouble tickets and what to create.
Doc Matthews: And I can tell you that when somebody’s breathing
down your neck, standing in your cube about filling in a trouble ticket, they’re not
going to go to that site. They’re going to look right at the screen. Remember, the
biggest thing that you want to do is make it user friendly, you want to make it so
that they can punch this thing out right then and there, because usually you’ve
got somebody screaming at you.
Kisha Dodson: (inaudible) the feedback.
Doc Matthews: I’m looking in the repair screen right now. I’m trying to
do an example on a circuit that I know I had three trouble tickets in. I can’t even
get the screen to show me that the three trouble tickets are there.
Kisha Dodson: Are you in the old URL or the new one?
Doc Matthews: wholesalegw – ends in istita. Or I guess it’s LSI. I’m
dyslexic, excuse me. It’s that the old site or the new site?
Kisha Dodson: That’s the new one. Anything ending in LSI is the
new site.
Doc Matthews: And I’m trying to put a circuit ID in, and I’m using dots
as the limiters, and it’s telling me nothing. It says work list empty.
Kisha Dodson: I can help you with that, but we’ll work on that after.
Doc Matthews: Okay. Thank you very much, and it sounds like you
guys are working down the right track.
Kisha Dodson: We’re trying.
Tom Rodgers: Back to me (inaudible). Well, I think what she has
here is a collaboration and Verizon.
Kisha Dodson: That’s because we had beta testing, we had two
systems up at the same time.
Joyce Harry: I was just curious.
Doc Matthews: Does this even need rating?
Elliott Goldberg: Any type 4 needs a rating.
Tom Rodgers: Right, and we poked it down and challenged it. Yeah,
we need to proceed with it. I guess I need to really question just how deep the
concerns are with the trouble type codes.
Alan Roth: My actual biggest concerns were the other two
issues, which is the fact that one, you have to make an appointment, it’s
mandatory. You actually have to go to a different screen and let it load and
entire web page for you to choose that. That’s actually my biggest priority out of
these is the two where if you have to be on a slow connection for some reason
trying to load different pages over and over again is just burdensome, and it
really makes no sense why.
Tom Rodgers: We could group the two of them together and rate it
today. And then the third item we could carry over and get clarification or
another CR.
Alan Roth: That’s fine, I have no problem with that.
Tom Rodgers: You guys okay with that?
Doc Matthews: Tom, I’d recommend that the drop down boxes are a
separate CR.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. I think we need to kind of pick up some time
here, if we could go ahead with rating. We’ll note that the drop down user list will
be created as another CR to follow in June or later.
Joyce Harry: And the other thing, Tom, if you can put all the things
(inaudible) look at this later and don’t know what it is, what this is all about.
Lissa Provenzo: Yes, sorry, I carry this – this is a document I always
have on my desk. Thank you. Because that is what I really carry until the next
meeting. I look at all of this stuff. This is what I take with me to meetings, so
(inaudible).
Tom Rodgers: Okay, Alan, you get the honors of rating.
Alan Roth: I get the honors, huh? Well, I guess what’s a high
rating? 5, right? So I give it a 5 in my book.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. NOS? Star six to unmute. Okay. AT&T?
Joyce Harry: Allegiance votes first, but I’ll give it a 4.
Tom Rodgers: COVAD? Met Tel?
Elliott Goldberg: Can we cycle back please?
Tom Rodgers: Allegiance?
Loriann Ercan: 4.
Tom Rodgers: Broadview?
Janice Ziegele: 4.
Tom Rodgers: Cavalier?
Cathy Welsh: Pass.
Tom Rodgers: Choice One?
Annemarie Sturtz: 4.
Tom Rodgers: COX?
Gayle Gissendanner: 4.
Tom Rodgers: (inaudible).
Amy Kwok: Did you say CTSI? 5.
Tom Rodgers: Talk America?
Daniel Salvagno: 4.
Tom Rodgers: Vartec?
Dexter Lilly: We’ll give it a 4.
Tom Rogers: MCI?
Lissa Provenzo: I’m going to pass on this one.
Tom Rodgers: Z-Tel?
Peggy Rubino: 4.
Tom Rodgers: Adelphia?
Speaker: 4.
Tom Rodgers: McGraw, are you out there? Conestoga?
Speaker: Pass.
Tom Rodgers: Penn Telecom?
Doc Matthews: 4.
Tom Rodgers: i
Comcast? NOS? (naudible). Comcast and NOS?
Okay.
Sarah Howson: This is Sarah from Broadview. I do have a question
on this.
Tom Rodgers: Okay, go.
Sarah Howson: Is there a chance that this is going to get into the June
release?
Kisha Dodson: Yes.
Loriann Ercan: Yeah, it’s going in June regardless of how we rated it,
right?
Tom Rodgers: There’s a chance it’s going to go into June if we can
get (inaudible).
Lissa Provenzo: How’s that possible?
Elliott Goldberg: With these changes? You’re going to make all the
changes between now and June? You’ve already done the (inaudible).
Joyce Harry: They probably included this, Elliott.
Kisha Dodson: It’s in the process of being escalated for the June
release because there is no impact to the trouble admin business rules.
Doc Matthews: This is a website. You know you can change those
things in 30 seconds flat. It won’t work in 30 seconds, but you can change it in
30 seconds.
Kisha Dodson: That’s because they’re design changes. They’re not
necessarily impacting to the trouble admin business rules, so we were trying to
get it escalated for the June release.
Lissa Provenzo: And then new documentation will have to be
published, correct?
Kisha Dodson: There will be changes posted to the website.
Lissa Provenzo: We want documentation. And I don’t know if that’s
going to be up that your documentation will be posted to the website, but we
need something preliminary if there’s going to be screen changes.
Tom Rodgers: The user guide.
Elliott Goldberg: Yeah, but I got to train my people, and you’ve just
taken my training window and shot it to hell.
Tom Rodgers: Have you ever had a training window for…?
Lissa Provenzo: You have to follow the guidelines we put forth in the
change management principals and guidelines.
Kisha Dodson: Okay. As far as the training impact, it’s only taking
away an additional screen, so you probably won’t even notice.
Cathy Welsh: I think we will notice. Whoever’s doing this on a daily
basis, so I think we are going to notice.
Loriann Ercan: These re-task enhancements weren’t taking a vote on
before, they just kind of came through. So as a token we got to vote on it, but it’s
still going through next month. It doesn’t really (inaudible) the spirit of what…
Kisha Dodson: I’m sorry, but what happened is there was beta testing
done, there were two URL’s open at the same time – the LSI and the GUI. At the
time that we did beta testing, we had users in the system to tell us what was
yeah or nay about it. And what we could find that we could change most
effectively and more immediately. And these were the three things that we were
able to do without impacting the trouble admin business rules.
As far as documentation, I’m sure that the team will
be more than happy and more than willing to create documentation and get it
published for the community.
Lissa Provenzo: But we need time to train is what I’m saying, Tom.
And that needs to follow our change management guidelines.
Alan Roth: But none of the fields are being changes. The only
difference here is that instead of putting a, pushing an appointment button, those
same fields will just be on the main screen. The actual entry of the field, the
order of the fields, it’s just instead of pushing a radio button to bring up these
fields, it’s going to be on the screen already. So I don’t see, when I’m training my
people here, the fields are the same, the information is the same, the format’s the
same. Even basically the location is going to be the same. It’s just that in place
of a button it’s going to be the four fields that affect the appointment date.
Cathy Welsh: I don’t think that we’re doubting you. I think the idea
is we’d like to see what it looks like though, before the day it goes public.
Tom Rodgers: Do you want to try and schedule a demonstration for
it?
Lissa Provenzo: It sounds like this is already in process and now we’re
voting on it. I just don’t understand what’s going on.
Tom Rodgers: This was a beta involving a CLEC, and they had
these suggestions…
Elliott Goldberg: But with all due respect, one CLEC may not have –
Lissa may have to train hundreds of people.
Tom Rodgers: I guess really the issue, should we just not have beta
CLEC’s at all?
Lissa Provenzo: If you’re going to do that…
Tom Rodgers: All right. Then the only thing I can do then is to stop
this, and this is delivering good stuff into a release. And I…
Elliott Goldberg: And I understand that, and I don’t mean to stop this
release. But this happens time and time again, when things are developed and
then we’re told about it.
Tom Rodgers: Well, it was developed because of a beta with a
CLEC.
Elliott Goldberg: I understand. And it sounds like then you come back
to the larger community.
Tom Rodgers: What are we supposed to do?
Speaker: (inaudible).
Lissa Provenzo: I’m sorry, Tom, I don’t mean to be so hard on you.
I’m just trying to understand – here we are voting on it, and we’re just indicating
that loading, like Peggy stated, all of the error codes is way too many. It’s
another (inaudible).
Tom Rodgers: And we didn’t include that in the CR.
Lissa Provenzo: I can’t tell, because now it’s a beta. So I don’t really
know. And there should have been, was there room to do more enhancements.
I guess I’m a little confused on this beta and then submitting this change request,
and then all of a sudden it’s going to be available for June.
Elliott Goldberg: Just as a generic rule of thumb, Tom, we should vote
before development.
Tom Rodgers: Even in a beta?
Elliott Goldberg: Even in an anything. If a change is made – in other
words, if this is a beta, I run betas. We all run betas in our system development.
And that means that you may or may not make changes. But if you’re going to
make changes, you should tell the community, if nothing else, you guys are
under – 77 days before release you’re supposed to release full documentation.
Kisha Dodson: This is Kisha. As far as the possibility for possible
enhancements with the system – we had two user forums where we were asking
for feedback. And since then we also had follow up asking for anyone to provide
us with any type of suggestions as far as enhancements. And all those that we
heard back from, we tried to do the very best that we could as far as what the
community was telling us that they wanted to see changed first. Because again,
with these, all we did was – and it wasn’t so much as we’re going to do what we
want to do anyway, it was an issue where it was customer initiated and basically
we tried to find the ones that were not impacting the trouble admin business
rules. And from this point here, we were already told that everybody wants us to
go back and try to figure out how to regroup the field for the error codes, so we’re
doing that.
The only two that we’re looking at right now that you
may see, depending on whether or not we get it, is taking away an additional
screen which we were told has become cumbersome for the customer. So we’re
trying to streamline that process.
Speaker: (inaudible).
Tom Rodgers: No, there’s no other enhancement to re-task planned
(inaudible). Exactly, just look and feel. Or it’s a process issue. Now, I have not
ever seen any documentation that went out 73 days in advance train your people
on. You get business rule changes, you get edits. And there is no changes to
business rules and edits associated with this. So, I don’t understand the
objection.
Speaker: (inaudible).
Tom Rodgers: It’s just making life easier. It’s a look and feel, and
navigation issue that was initiated by a CLEC in a beta test to move into
production.
Elliot Goldberg: I don’t think at this point (inaudible) because it’s been
repeated several times.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. And the reason these are brought forward is
really more in the vein of full disclosure. I could have said this thing has no
impact on function, it doesn’t need to be rated. The CLEC community can just go
in without you guys ever seeing it. Is was my decision to bring it in here.
Elliott Goldberg: And I’m not fighting about this particular item so much
as the thought that somebody (inaudible) at the last second that is scheduled for
a release, and then someone pops it on the table to be evaluated. Not just this
particular item – at least from my perspective.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. Then if we can have the understanding that if
this was a change to a business rule, if this was a change to a function, if this
was requesting you to add something, we would certainly follow the letter and the
spirit of the CMP agreement. We’re not trying to circumvent anything, we’re
trying to introduce an improvement to a code, to a system, in a short time. And it
may not make it in. It may not test out. But because it is to re-task and it is a
GUI, there’s a good chance it might make it. Okay, where do we go? Items by
release report.
Elliott Goldberg: You’re not going to do (inaudible) that were held over
and not rated, 2815?
Tom Rodgers: 2889 was considered a type 3, unless you guys
have…
Elliott Goldberg: Right, but on your sheet you’re still carrying it as an
unrated type 5. And you sent out the packages (inaudible).
Tom Rodgers: (inaudible). It’s considered to be a type 3 (inaudible).
Elliott Goldberg: And a type 3 shouldn’t be rated. I’m saying did you
coordinate this with Verizon (inaudible)? If so, (inaudible). I mean properly.
(inaudible).
Loriann Ercan: You’re cutting out.
Alan Roth: Yeah, we’re getting some bad feedback.
Tom Rodgers: I’m sorry. Okay. I just checked with your (inaudible),
and it was unusual. And it was discussed…
Elliott Goldberg: If Verizon’s willing to agree it’s a type 3?
Tom Rodgers: Yeah, (inaudible) pending.
Elliott Goldberg: Well, it’s a type 3 now.
Loriann Ercan: Which one is that?
Tom Rodgers: 2889.
Rebecca Baldwin: Hello, this is Rebecca with Telco, formerly Adelphia
Business Solutions. Concerning 2811, my account management team asked by
their direction to leave this open. I was hoping that you, Tom, and Jim (inaudible)
would communicate. My understanding was that you guys keep leaving phone
messages for each other.
Tom Rodgers: We do. It’s related to C03-0105, so yeah, this one’s
still… Tell him it’s my fault I hadn’t gotten back to him.
Rebecca Baldwin: No, that’s okay. I just know that I wasn’t able to
attend last month, and I saw it again on the agenda so I wanted to make sure we
were on the same on this.
Elliott Goldberg: So you’ll get back to us on this one, Tom? That
leaves 2815.
Tom Rodgers: That one’s still open. You want to go through the
change request status now?
Elliott Goldberg: I have a question. Because I try to reconcile the
items by release with the prioritized CR’s. And Tom and I have had some
correspondence on it. I thought it would be helpful if we understood the rules.
Sometimes the candidate thinks in the list of items by release, and sometimes it
doesn’t. Because when you compare the two this month, you’ll notice that some
did and some didn’t. Just for the record, Tom, could you explain to us at what
point, if it’s listed as a candidate, it’s so much a candidate that it makes it to the
list of items by release as opposed to just staying on the prioritized list?
Tom Rodgers: I’ll answer the question by going back to the request
that came up at the April 17th meeting for a development schedule that goes out
longer. That was one of the expectations. During the development process,
what you’re implying with a change request is the status the initiative as it based
on pending requirements development. You’ll see that status coming at you on
the CR status report where you rate an initiative.
Once the initiative reaches the (inaudible) stage
where all of the requirements, all of the (inaudible) reviews, all of the
documentation is ready and it’s accepted in a release, that’s when it appears on
the items by release report as a candidate and/or committed for a release.
So I think the question that Elliott asked was if you
look at some of the individual change requests, you will find that they’re
candidates for either October or February of ’04 – October ’03, February ’04 – as
candidates on the individual change requests. Whereas on the items by release,
they don’t appear because we haven’t reached a close date for that release yet.
So what you see on the items by release report are
those initiatives that are ready to be candidates for that release.
Elliott Goldberg: But the ones that don’t make it are theoretically
candidates, but they’re not ready yet?
Tom Rodgers: It depends where it is. If the (inaudible).
Elliott Goldberg: On the prioritization list, they’re both candidates. Just
one of them appears on the change control by release, one doesn’t.
Sue Pistacchio: Elliott, this is Sue. Maybe I can shed some light on it.
We have a lot of type 5’s that are candidates for October, but it really requires us
to have preliminary meetings with our IT organization so they can get a better
assessment of what the level of what the level of effort is to do them. So we start
them as candidates, but it needs to go down the path a little bit before IT says
okay we’ve sized everything and now it is a candidate as far as we’re concerned.
So there’s like two levels of candidates. We don’t put it on the items by release
report until it’s more officially an IT candidate and they’ve sized it and said it
looks good.
Tom Rodgers: When the CR is rated – (inaudible) Steven’s team and
others will take the change request and develop requirements for it. Next week
when we have the requirement review session, you’re going to see the status of
the initiatives for mainly October and beyond being discussed.
Now after that timeframe we’ll be publishing I guess
the candidate list for October where everything will be a package preparing to go
through the testing process. And as testing progresses and that’s when it turns
up we can submit it for (inaudible). And that would cause a candidate to be
moved to another release. Even some releases that are coming in at the last
minute may not even be converted to committed because of the insert.
Elliott Goldberg: Is there some way of possibly (inaudible) terminology
so that when we reconcile it becomes (inaudible)? Because I do take the time to
go through these lists every month. And by the time I get… When I hit 20
questions and send out an e-mail, I get bleary eyed.
Tom Rodgers: Sue, we’re going to do the items by release report
now.
Sue Pistacchio: Sounds good to me. Basically we completed the April
release, so this is just showing you what got completed in April. There’s just one
thing that I just wanted to point out before I go forward. One of the things that we
wanted to try and provide some feedback, one of the things that we do like to do
when we do the items by release report is if there are any edit impacts, to include
it so that you get more information as soon as possible on whether your impact’s
going to be and are there coding changes for edit. So instead of cutting and
pasting it with every initiative, we just took a stab to put it in the back and it has a
list of all the edits.
And as it is so far, we didn’t include April because
that’s already completed. All of the June edits are there. So far for the stuff that
is a real candidate for April, there are no edit impacts for August. So the plan
would be to have this rolling list of edit changes. When we get close to the 73 day
mark, the edits are set in stone. But if I were to communicate in August edit with
you, at this point in time it may not have the error number and it would be subject
to change. But it’s giving you a little bit more information right away of what to
expect. So take a look at that and let me know if you like doing it that way.
For the April release, the only thing I wanted to point
was closing out some action items that I had. On page 4, the CR 2550, I was
asked I believe it was by Lissa to provide a little bit more clarity on what the
impact of this project would be to platform. So we did, we kind of talked about it
and I just added that verbiage in there on exactly what would happen for the
platform type of account.
And I think that may have been it for April. The only
other thing that I had that I think we covered previously – there was actually a
few other things. On page 12, CR 2397, I took a stab at better representing what
was going on with this end user listing project. So again, going forward we’ll
cover it as part of the issues. But then you would be able to look at the items by
release and just get a running log of what the timeline is for this project. So
again, we have June committed and the June is for additional data conversions.
And we’d always have this little tab here that will show you the timeline for this
project.
The other thing to cover before we jump into August is
I did have an action item for Elliott. There was something that you had asked
before, Elliott, and I thought I had the answer to it, but I wanted to take it back.
And this was related to page 12, with CR 2498. We’ve had some discussion on
line share and line split – page 13, CR 2498.
We had talked about line share versus line splitting
and I think you have made the comment if this was line share only, shouldn’t this
say resale? And if it’s line share only, you expect it to say resale, but if it was line
splitting you expected to see UNI P. And I thought we considered both line share
and line splitting UNI because it involves a DLEC.
And I took it back and I asked how we consider this.
And since it was a DLEC and it involved a loop coming in, we did consider it UNI.
So we didn’t make any change here. And I just wanted to point that out so that
we’re all on the same page.
Elliott Goldberg: Yeah, it’s just that line share, Verizon restricts line
share to voice on your line. And line split is restricted to voice on a UNI line.
Sue Pistacchio: But the service that comes in from a wholesale
perspective for line share is like a UNI loop coming in, so that’s why we consider
it UNI. I just wanted to make sure that you were comfortable with our
categorizing this as UNI, because we look at it as just a UNI loop. Are people
thinking on that one?
Elliott Goldberg: Differently in different areas is my problem. And
there’s no consistency. You use the term line share differently in different places.
In may places Verizon has specifically defined line share as voice on a Verizon
line and line split as voice on a UNI line.
Now, if you want to say line share is generic, then I’ll
be happy to do it because all the other places that I said it was only working if it
was “line sharing” and was looking for also line splitting, I’ll be happy to take line
sharing as a generic term for splitting of the line between data and voice,
regardless of the provider. But what I’m saying is we have to have some
consistency in the use of the terminology. It can’t mean one thing on one change
and a different thing on another.
Sue Pistacchio: I guess the way that we’ve always looked at is for the
things that we’ve been, on all the items by release things, we always look at it as
a loop coming in. So in the items by release I looked where we have it
designated as UNI.
Doc Matthews: That doesn’t sound right, though. And the other thing
is, I think the point Elliott’s making is we’re talking about a different billing system.
Sue Pistacchio: What do you mean different billing system? The way
that I look at this is you’re coming and ordering a loop. That’s the way we look at
it.
Elliott Goldberg: But if I own the loop as a UNI provider, you’re telling
me when I talk to a data provider it’s line splitting. Let’s say I go to John and say
I got this line, I want to put data on it.
Sue Pistacchio: I consider line splitting UNI too.
Elliott Goldberg: We’ve been trying to have it all defined as line sharing
for year. John and I will accept that if you’ll take it. (inaudible) Verizon is the
one that (inaudible) the new terminology. The CLEC’s wanted, as I recall, one
term – line sharing. And we wanted everything to be same/same. And Verizon
wanted a distinction. There are some changes where it was very clear and
expressed, and this one was not.
Doc Matthews: Elliott, aren’t they also treated differently in your inter
connection agreement and your amendments and everything of that nature? I
think they are.
Sue Pistacchio: And maybe we need to have a different classification.
That’s what we said. Basically we don’t consider this resale because it’s not like
the orders and the way that the LSR comes in is not resale, they come in as loop.
So…
Elliott Goldberg: No, no, no. The loop order comes in different. For
line sharing there is no loop order, you’re adding on to an existing loop. That’s a
dedicated loop for data, but it’s not share.
John Boshear: Elliott, can you provide Sue with a couple examples
so she can see from the CLEC end into Verizon in that case?
Sue Pistacchio: I’ve seen examples and everybody said we wouldn’t
ever consider this resale.
Elliott Goldberg: But line sharing is only done on Verizon retail lines
i
and Verizon resale lines. (naudible) and that means that every other one of
these things here that you told I couldn’t do because I was a voice provide, that
identifies as line sharing, now I can do because you’re going to extend it. You’ve
got to be consistent. I’ll take that term – I tell you right now, I’ll take that term.
Doc Matthews: Again, Elliott, I think that all comes back to your inter
connection agreement.
Tom Rodgers: Let me try to boil this down. Sue, are there any
distinctions between house and riser if it’s for line share or resale, or a line split,
or a UNI? Are there any edits that would check for any, that prevent you from
ordering house and riser regardless of resale, UNI, line share, line split?
Sue Pistacchio: This actually fits in with a new product that they’re
offering which is to provide house and riser capability with ADSL. This is like
new. So yeah, there’s a separate distinction. I think the issue is we’re not doing it
for line splitting yet.
Elliott Goldberg: Once you use UNI, I want it on line splitting because
you said so.
Sue Pistacchio: One of the things they look at is the volumes on it and
whether it would come in as a modified request or whether the volumes would
support doing it as part of a regular process.
Elliott Goldberg: John, you want to do it with me?
John Boshear: Yeah, I just (inaudible) distinction, now they’re saying
there is.
Sue Pistacchio: I never said there wasn’t a distinction. I’m saying this
is a loop that’s coming in, so it’s a loop that goes against resale but we don’t
consider it resale. It doesn’t look anything like a resold account. You don’t come
in with a req type ED to do these.
Tom Rodgers: I don’t know how we resolve this issue. It’s definitely
one that has a legal and a regulatory issue. We’re talking about it from an
ordering perspective, and it’s really not an ordering issue.
Elliott Goldberg: I’ll take it any way you want to do it. But I’ll tell you up
front what I’ll do next, and I think my friend in the red jacket over there will
probably sign on the dotted line right next to me.
Tom Rodgers: What else on the development schedule?
Sue Pistacchio: On the items by release, the next thing we have is
going down to page 23, and this is CR 2695. This is line sharing opening up for
different services. We’ve covered this one before. This is just to notify it had
gotten extended in April to being a candidate in July. Other than that, this is
mostly new stuff going in to August.
Elliott Goldberg: On this line sharing, does this mean that it’s also on
UNI lines?
Sue Pistacchio: This is a loop coming in that would only go with retail
or resale. But it is a loop order.
Elliott Goldberg: Why is this line sharing different from that line
sharing?
Sue Pistacchio: I’m sorry. This one didn’t get corrected, but it will be
corrected to say UNI. I missed this one. It should say UNI, it’s a loop order.
Elliott Goldberg: If it’s UNI, that means, John, you can do it with me.
That’s what you’re saying. I don’t think that’s what you mean. I think we can
now do it between COVAD and Met Tel, right?
Sue Pistcchio: Who are you asking that question to?
Elliott Goldberg: It’s rhetorical. But my friend Mr. Rodgers over here is
busy making notes.
Doc Matthews: Sue, did you say these were codes for coin services?
Sue Pistacchio: Yeah, it’s opening up line sharing to additional
classes of services, and the ones listed are coin.
Doc Matthews: They’re all coin, so I don’t think Elliott’s going to do
coin line sharing.
Elliott Goldberg: Why not? I do coin. Maybe the candy store that I do
it to wants to have a computer on the line.
Sue Pistacchio: May I move into August? And while I move into
August, I want to introduce someone on the phone who is – the people in New
York, they probably have met him. But Steve Mayon (sp?), he is my cohort in
crime, and he actually works a lot of the initiatives with me. He has responsibility
– and Elliott, please don’t attack him yet – he has responsibility for the flow
through initiatives. So we thought you might want to have him come in. So to
get more of his perspective, he can help explain some of them and take back
some of the issues. So we’re going to tag team on things go forward. I told him
I’d cover through July since it was stuff that I’d already done. But in August if it’s
flow through, he’s going to be your target.
Elliott Goldberg: It’s okay, Sue. One bald headed guy who in a
moustache and glasses respects another one.
Sue Pistacchio: Okay, so to jump into August, the first one – and I’m
very happy to announce that we have a type 5 scheduled for August. It’s an
Allegiance type 5, it’s for incomplete FOC’s. This is something that we worked
pretty closely with Alex from Allegiance where he had identified that a lot of the
FOC’s when they have to be manually, particularly after a jeopardy, they were
inconsistent, they didn’t include a lot of the data they were supposed to. So this
initiative is trying to either dramatically either eradicate or reduce when someone
in the NMC has to touch a FOC. So the end result will be accurate and
consistent FOC’s. And that is a candidate for the August release.
The next one, CR 2638, is changing the intervals for
New England and New York hot cuts to match the south. They want to have
consistent intervals for both New England and New York with the south process.
This is only affecting two wire analogue loop hot cuts. And I did designate what
the hot cut intervals would be changed to.
Elliott Goldberg: Is this shortening the interval?
Sue Pistacchio: You would have thought that I would have anticipated
that question, Elliott. When Steven’s reading one of his, I’ll see what it is now.
Steven Manyon: You want me to start reading.
Sue Pistacchio: You go on to your next one. If that’s the only question
on this one, I want to see if I can get the answer real quick.
Steven Manyon: This one we’re going to edit for bill (inaudible) when
EATN is required on AB requests. Today if we don’t have the form, the edit will,
we’ll bypass the edit and end up with an error compete (inaudible). So now we’re
going to edit for it up front, based on the AT request.
Lissa Provenzo: Do you know what kind of error code we’ll get back
then? Is there going to be a new error code for this CR?
Steven Mayon: The error code shouldn’t change.
Elliott Goldberg: (inaudible) What’s the increase in flow through? And
I‘ll tell you why, and I’ll make it a generic statement because it’s your first time
here. Sue’s heard it before. There is no standard for OR 501 in New York,
which means I don’t believe there’s a standard for any of the thirteen states that
follow the New York metric. OR 503 is being passed consistently in New York –
and if you want the numbers, I have it with me. Therefore to justify flow through
at the expense of some other change when it cannot be quantified as a
meaningful increase for a metric that you’re already passing, I believe it not
proper.
Steven Mayon: I don’t know the percentage.
Elliott Goldberg: OR 501 has no standard in thirteen states that I
believe, certainly not in New York. OR 503 is passed by a huge margin in New
York, therefore to say that a type 2 which is a regulatory requirement. A
regulatory requirement just says you have to pass the metric. It doesn’t say you
have to exceed it by 5%. So at the point that you’re casting the metrics, I believe
the regulatory requirement is met. Therefore there is no justification for further
work based on regulatory requirement. And believe these should properly be
type 4’s (inaudible).
Sue Pistacchio: Elliott, one of the things I think we talked about on
these calls, and I think maybe I talked about with you, Steven, one of the things
Steven does is his team looks at flow through but also what’s broken with flow
through. And I think they all group them as flow through initiatives. I think this
would probably have been more appropriate as a type 1 because it is an existing
process. It’s supposed to work a certain way. But the finding is the edit is not
working the way it’s supposed to work.
Elliott Goldberg: To be very honest with you, I don’t care if it’s a type 1
or a type 4. I know it’s not a type 2 because it doesn’t meet a specifically defined
requirement (inaudible).
Joyce Harry: Since Elliott beat up Sue on it, and I agree with him,
it’s only here because you moved it from 6/21 to 8/16. That’s why we’re
discussing it today.
Tom Rodgers: We had this discussion before. This is what we do.
Elliott Goldberg: Seriously, it comes up on every type 2 that’s just
justified on flow through. And I have shared with Verizon, based on your own
numbers, what the situation is. And no one in Verizon has ever come back on
OR 503 and said we’re failing it anyway. And OR 501 you can’t fail because it’s
got no standard. However, if you want one, we can address it in the carrier
working group. Which Mr. Clancy already has.
Sue Pistacchio: Listen, I have an answer for you on this interval thing.
It was very inconsistent even between New York and New England, but I’m
looking right now. Some of them are based on the smarts clock. And 1-5 days
here I have as 6 days, so it is a reduction. What I can do for the next version is
provide a little more information on what the reduction is.
Elliott Goldberg: My real question, Sue, without going crazy was is it a
reduction. And the answer is yes. Okay.
Sue Pistacchio: Okay. So after giving Steven the business. I told him
about it, and he didn’t believe me. Okay. Moving to page 26. Again, on these
two, CR 2552.2 and also 2735, just to advise, they were moved from candidates
for the June release and now they are candidates for October. The only reason
they’re here for October is because they’ve already been looked at by our
internal organization. Normally we don’t have a fluid list yet for October at this
point, so the only things you see for October are things that got moved from other
releases.
Tom Rodgers: And into December as well.
Sue Pistacchio: Right. The next one also – actually this is yours,
Steven. You do it.
Steven Manyon: Yes, and I practiced here real quick. The only reason
I’m bringing this one up is because it’s moving from June to October.
Elliott Goldberg: Is that 2775, Steve, or 2823?
Steven Manyon: It’s what ever number you want to fill in. (inaudible).
The next one is getting moved from June to December.
Elliott Goldberg: And again the same comment about type 2 being
justified by 501 and 503.
Sue Pistacchio: Next is yours.
Steven Manyon: Okay, the next one is mine. And it was withdrawn.
Sue Pistacchio: Actually we’re removing a lot of type 2’s so we can do
a lot of type 5’s for October. We actually have a lot of stuff coming in October for
you guys. And 2876 was a PAVA one that got removed based on that
moratorium. And the same thing for 2769 – those were both PAVA initiatives.
Elliott Goldberg: Just wait a second, hold on. 2876 – (inaudible).
Sue Pistacchio: That one was a PAVA initiative.
Elliott Goldberg: Right. And here you say it was a merger commitment
that you had to have it by June 2003. And now the comments say move from
candidate June 21st to withdrawn, and then you have it listed on October 18th ,
2003 for release.
Sue Pistacchio: This one I don’t believe was withdrawn. I believe it
got moved to not scheduled.
Elliott Goldberg: But here you have it scheduled for October.
Sue Pistacchio: We can verify the scheduling status on it.
Elliott Goldberg: In any case, there was a merger commitment to
reside on our common OSS platform by June 2003. So that’s a merger
commitment that really is a type 2.
Sue Pistacchio: And that’s part of the PAVA discussion you want to
have with the PAVA folks. I have it as not scheduled, not withdrawn.
Elliott Goldberg: We at least need clarity. We may fight, but we at
least have to know what we’re fighting about. And I’m sure somebody’s lawyer is
going to want to know why you missed your merger commitment. Peggy is
serving notice.
Sue Pistacchio: And then following this is we provided the error codes
to the items by release report. And again, this is very similar to what we do for
the change log for the edits. So the expectation would be if things, for the next
items by release, as things get added for August and October, we would provide
whatever information we had on edit changes, in this type of format. If this is
something that you like, and it will provide the CR number, the title, whether it’s
new, the edit number.
Again, just to level set a little bit, right now have a few
things that may get into August that have edit changes. But if I put it on the
report next month, I may that it’s going in, but I might not have the error code
number. That comes a little bit later. But I would be able to tell you I have a new
edit coming, here’s what it’s going to do. But I’d just like some feedback if you
think this is a nice way to capture edit changes.
Joyce Harry: I think it’s pretty good (inaudible).
Sue Pistacchio: And then Elliott can compare it with that change log
when we do the document and see what we screwed up.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. Is this a good time to take a break? We can
come back (inaudible). We still need to go over the status of all the CR’s and we
need to do some topic 8, the status of the deny.
Lissa Provenzo: Tom, for the next change management meeting, do
we have your list a little bit knocked down as far as going over old agendas so
we don’t spend that much time? Or just addressing issues that we discuss or
that are open. Have we cleaned that up a little bit for you? This is…
Tom Rodgers: I think so. I don’t think we spent all that much time on
cleaning up that old stuff. But I do appreciate the willingness to do that. We did
commit to go longer today to discuss the status of each of the CR’s. And we did
i
provide an updated explanation for those that are in deny status. (naudible).
Okay.
Elliott Goldberg: Then we have the longstanding issue of what to do if
you don’t agree, which is why I wanted to reopen the rules.
Tom Rodgers: Exactly. So what do you all want to do? Take a
break? 15 minutes. Be back at 3:30. (break) Okay, we’re back here in the
room. For the benefit of those on the conference bridge, I guess I’ll start by
asking what would y’all like to review next? The status of all of the change
requests, or…?
Joyce Harry: If all we’re going to do is look at it and tell us it’s on
hold and not even giving us a reason or something…
Tom Rodgers: Okay. And for some of them we did give you an
updated status like item 6, page (inaudible). And I think the reason has to do
with low order volumes or lack of order activity. So for issue 6, if you have
forecasts or anything that you’d like to share with us, that would be beneficial in
helping to move this up the development schedule.
Speaker: (inaudible).
Tom Rodgers: I guess I’m not as familiar with that as I should be.
Speaker: So we could probably estimate as the future of this
line of business. Is there a process for submitting forecasts to the forum? Is
there any sort of liability to those, to either company, on a forecast submitted
through here?
Tom Rodgers: I would treat it as proprietary information. And as you
designate it, I could release a team on ours.
Speaker: I’m going to make up numbers here, but say you have
a million lines a year (inaudible), and it turns out to be 100,000 or it turns out to
be 2 million, what happens then? Nothing?
Tom Rodgers: I just have information I can take to executives to say
this is a forecast I received from COVAD. It’s a forecast, and… I don’t know how
they’ll respond.
Speaker: (inaudible) is there some sort of non-disclosure
required? We appreciate you treating as proprietary, but is there anything that is
established that says it’s proprietary going forward?
Tom Rodgers: There’s definitely something in the contract that say
you can mark something proprietary and I have to treat it as such. And that’s
how I would treat it, unless you told me differently.
Elliott Goldberg: And you’ll schedule this for October if I give…?
Tom Rodgers: Yes, Elliott, I will.
Speaker: Okay, I’ll see what I can get marketing to cough up for
us.
Tom Rodgers: And what I’m trying to do with this is to communicate
what’s stopping it from proceeding. And if one objection, one…
Speaker: This makes a lot more sense. If I can give you… It
makes certainly more sense for us to try and forecast something for you than to
wait for the volume to hit us and say oh my God, we’ve got a problem. It’d be
nice to have an automated response for this.
Tom Rodgers: And when you work your account teams, I would
include that – when you start talking about 2004, 2005, you need to include that
in your requirement packages so that I get the support for it when I take,
advocate the change request internally. Having the account team pull in the
same direction is always a benefit.
Joyce Harry: (inaudible) it’s just behind the one you just discussed.
Peggy Rubino: (inaudible).
Tom Rodgers: Yeah, that one’s being worked. I have another
change request number
Joyce Harry: And this is the thing about this – from July or
sometime last year it was put on hold, and we went through all of this in January.
So…
Tom Rodgers: Sue, are you back with me?
Sue Pistacchio: I am, what’s the question?
Tom Rodgers: It’s the standalone digital UNI loop outside move.
And it’s related to the CR2712.
Sue Pistacchio: I’m not doing anything on that one.
Peggy Rubino: (inaudible).
Speaker: It was on hold for a year, so…
Tom Rodgers: We’re starting to get a little punchy here (inaudible).
Joyce Harry: I think you guys need to go back to Verizon and say
when are you taking this…
Sue Pistacchio: Tom, what are you reading off of?
Tom Rodgers: I’m looking at the rated change requests.(inaudible).
No, it’s actually being worked as part of another initiative. That’s the CR2712
number.
Joyce Harry: Normally you would make a note (inaudible). Yeah,
number one, 2601 change request.
Sue Pistacchio: Oh, 2601 we’re doing as part of – that’s why I needed
to look at something. Wait a minute, this is outside moves. I’m sorry, no we’re
not doing anything on that.
Joyce Harry: For a single order process.
Sue Pistacchio: Yeah, what we’re doing – and I was confusing this
with migrations. An outside move to the single LSR process, no, we don’t have
anything in the works for this. I thought this was with project management to look
at feasibility. I’m trying to remember what they came back with.
Joyce Harry: I thought 2601 and 2611 were the same thing.
Speaker: For line sharing and for…
Joyce Harry: Right. And my question to COVAD is when Mike
went through this with in January and February, did you guys go back to them
and ask them?
John Boshear: We went back and it was in front of (inaudible), and
the were evaluating it. There’s actually in the west a similar one from VADI that
was brought on too. But I think the bigger issue is when things go on hold, the
status needs to be applied to them. To Elliott’s point, it would probably be helpful
to have a deny category and what you do when you disagree with the denial –
just so we can push these along to the next stage. (inaudible) Yeah, or what
does on hold mean? Does it mean you’re going to work on it soon? Or when?
And what’s the status?
So come back once a month at the beginning to say
it’s still on hold, what the status is, the status we’re waiting for the project team.
Not the project team, what are they called again? The process team to come
back to us and we had a whole thing about getting somebody from the process
team to attend change management meetings on a regular basis, which didn’t
really go anywhere either. I’ve got to cover for Elliott while he’s out of the room.
Tom Rodgers: Well done. The point’s taken. We will status these
two. (inaudible) The same day pair change, 2711. It’s old, and this is an issue
that has been working with operations. This is an operations issue where they’ll
accept a verbal on the day of the migration. It’s also a difference between east
and west region. West region will accept a same day pair change on the day.
East will not. East says go to WPTS, do the ANI test due date minus two, check
dial tone, provide your pairs, and send us a supplemental order if there’s any
CFA pair changes or anything else.
So if I had to put a status on this one right now, it
would be to deny it. Because I cannot get operations to budge on this one.
Sue Pistacchio: Tom, this is Sue. On this one I thought we had
movement on this. You haven’t? Okay.
Loriann Ercan: What we were looking for, right now if we get to the
due date, we have good dial tone, but there’s a tie pair issue that can’t get
resolved. If we run around and call the NMC and send a SUP in – and we don’t
mind sending the SUP, we’re not looking to do it on a verbal – but we have to try
to either get a rep or get a manager to pull that, work it right away…
Tom Rodgers: Wait a minute, let me back up. I thought you were
wanting this done on a verbal.
Loriann Ercan: No. Actually the reason it came to change
management, Tom Delaney had been working on it for a year. Prior to that, Tom
McGuire and John Griffin were trying to work it out among themselves. The
reason it came to change management is the last time I spoke to John Griffin, he
still had the NMC. He said what you really want is you want it flow through, so
bring it to change management. So that I wouldn’t have to have 24 hour
(inaudible), and make sure it all flowed through the system. Which meant a lot of
phone calls, a lot of begging and pleading kind of thing.
And generally if the centers can accommodate those
kinds of requests, they will. But it’s not a fool proof process. And it just seems
like it’s a lot of work on everybody’s part. So that’s what John Griffin had
suggested. He said you want that SUP, you want that to flow through.
Sue Pistacchio: And Steven, this is your cue. You’re doing that for
June, right?
Steven Manyon: Right (inaudible).
Joyce Harry: Okay, I know you wanted the SUP to flow through.
Loriann Ercan: Instead of people pull that stuff and work it and then
pass it on. So we’re really just looking for a flow through process. I can
understand that because everyone’s yeah, I’ll send you the SUP, and then it’s
directed wrong and it goes down (inaudible).
Joyce Harry: You could get it done for June. Let me put this down
–status, committed for June.
Joyce Harry: Steven, all she want is her SUP to flow through. It’s
2711 – item number 3. Same day repair changes.
Sue Pistacchio: I think she’s looking at 2624, to flow through the SUP
4’s. Isn’t that the facility change? I would suggest looking at CR 2627, the write
up that we have there. The business rules have already gone out to see if that’s
satisfying your request. Now I’m jealous – Steven’s solving type 5’s today. He’s
getting Brownie points. I don’t know about this.
Steven Manyon: Will this do what you want, Loriann?
Tom Rodgers: If it’s not the verbal change, which is what I’m getting
the push back on, but the supplemental change… Right, right.
Elliott Goldberg: No, but is this a type 4 or a type 5 sup?
Loriann Ercan: Mine was a type 5, but this was a type 2. Never mind.
Elliott Goldberg: Okay, b ut this will cover that?
Joyce Harry: That’s what you’re looking for, new facility for your…
Loriann Ercan: Would it still have…? Is the business rule changing
that it’s a 5 day?
Speaker: (inaudible)
Loriann Ercan: Because we were really looking for something better
than a 5 day.
Elliott Goldberg: Is it going to flow through with a 5 day?
Joyce Harry: But in this system you can’t dictate what due date you
want?
Elliott Goldberg: Yeah, but it can get rejected as not standard due
date.
Tom Rodgers: Do you need to create another type of change for
migration pending where it would be a type 6 where it could flow through with the
same date? (inaudible) That could be the heart of the 2711 (inaudible). Okay,
but if you created a sub type 6 (inaudible).
Speaker: I think 4 is the right SUP type. If you do need to get
the process to improve it to go through in a day.
Speaker: We would need to get the process started to change
the due date interval. It has nothing to do with flowing it through or anything.
The interval would still need to be changed whether it was manually done or
whether it was automated.
Speaker: Right. So what I’m saying is this will flow it through,
but to get the other piece that you’re talking about, you still have to go with 2711.
Right.
Loriann Ercan: Does that need to be rewritten though? Well, no.
Elliott Goldberg: You’re really not talking the flow through on the SUP
in here, you’re talking the provisioning interval.
Joyce Harry: But why can’t we have a change to make the due
date flexible? If we have a situation where you have an order that’s in the works
and you need to SUP the order for a facility, why does it have to be 5 business
days out? Why can’t we request 2 business days or 3 business days?
Elliott Goldberg: The standard interval is 5 days.
Speaker: So the answer is, can you change it? Yes, but
(inaudible).
Joyce Harry: I thought this was a flow through rather than doing it
manually (inaudible).
Loriann Ercan: The flow through will help. Because right now if you
send it through and it’s a level 2, it’s 24 hours to even look at it (inaudible).
Elliott Golberg: Nowhere here does it say the SUP has to flow
through. It just says she wants a short interval (inaudible).
Loriann Ercan: Tom, now that that’s going to take place, and we’re
not looking for it to be a verbal, can we leverage off that change to make this one
happen?
Tom Rodgers: Now we got something to take action on, to take a
requirement section. What I heard was there is a need for same day (inaudible)
change provisioning interval of day zero. Which is out of date and due date are
the same (inaudible). Where I was going with the making it a different type of
SUP, like a SUP 6 was to focus it only on CFA change the day of the cut, as
opposed to a facility change other. I assume there’s other changes. We could
add a level of detail and make it a SUP type 6 – CFA pair change, day of cut.
Loriann Ercan: Hey, if that works.
Tom Rodgers: With a due date of zero as opposed to making all
SUP types 4 being…
Speaker: We definitely need to investigate it. The only thing I
would day is I would be careful not to tie it to a SUP type, because I don’t think
that’s the issue. I think what we need to do is tackle the interval.
Tom Rodgers: There may be some facility changes that don’t have to
be done the same day.
Loriann Ercan: Yeah, if we get a walking (inaudible) query, of course
we’ll change it then. Then you deal with the interval at that point.
Tom Rodgers: ou
So making SUP type 4, which is generic, y don’t
want to link it automatically to zero due date.
Loriann Ercan: Yeah, because the goal was really, everybody started
working on this, now we ran into a problem. Why stop the whole thing and have
to have everybody go through this all over again?
Elliott Goldberg: It could be a SUP type 4 with a value built in to make
it this type also.
Tom Rodgers: Or it could be a SUP type of 6, which would be even
more specific.
Elliott Goldberg: That’s true. Somebody’s going to figure out the
easiest way to program it. Whether you want to create a whole new SUP type or
whether there’s a field in the SUP that you can simply put a designated value in
that means run this up now.
Tom Rodgers: I had been working the issue for a verbal change.
Loriann Ercan: (inaudible) that means whatever work has been done
has to stop. We have to make sure the D order doesn’t flow through to knock the
customer out of service. And then we’d have to do the same work over again.
So just touch it once and be done with it. Right.
Doc Matthews: Tom, two cents please? Generally this order is
generated, or this request is generated in a situation where you’re in the middle
of cutting and you determine that a pair is bad. And the technician is sitting there
and says we can make this thing work simply by going from this pair to another
pair. So what you’ve got is a situation where everybody concerned actively
working this order wants to make it work, wants to make everything flow through.
And it’s just a bookkeeping situation on the backend. And the conversation I’m
listening to everybody talk about – SUP 6 or whatever – I think what we’re kind
of, we’re concentrating on an end of it and kind of missing the whole concept of
this as the reason for this type of request is everybody involved – Verizon and
the CLEC’s – all are sitting there saying we’ve got a problem. We can make this
thing work if only we get this record keeping change made. And as long as we
keep that thought in mind as we’re working through on this specific one, I think
we can make this thing work somehow. Thank you for your time.
Tom Rodgers: Now, we have some (inaudible). 2738 should be
coming up on the requirement discussion. One hasn’t been scheduled yet, but
we should expect that soon. Sue, can we postpone talking about the special
characters until next week?
Sue Pistacchio: Yeah, I think we talked a lot about it. I think we’ll
cover it at the requirements review session.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. And we talked about 2805. If you have a
forecast, I can take that back to see if I can get the deny status changed. 2139,
the ALI code. We believe this is resolved with the other change request, 2397 in
June. I don’t know if the status in this case hold means.
Joyce Harry: Yeah, I don’t think hold is a good status there. I have
the same thing on one on mine and it’s supposed to work with 2397. I would put
see CR 2397 rather than hold.
Tom Rodgers: Okay, we can make that change. 2454 is scheduled
for June. 2785 is a candidate for October, and that’s a non-candidate candidate.
That’s where I need another word other than candidate. The requirements are
being…
Elliott Goldberg: Being considered for October. How about
considered.
Tom Rodgers: That’s a pre candidate or something. 2304, jeopardy
for facility notification. (inaudible)
John Boshear: … they won’t create the work order and they won’t tell
you when the build out is scheduled for either.
Joyce Harry: The same thing with access?
Elliott Goldberg: That’s not UNI, which is why many people (inaudible).
You’re recommending deny that and you’re hoping COVAD will consider
(inaudible). What kind of beer were you going to buy tonight?
Tom Rodgers: 2068, number 11, scheduled for June. 2266 we’ll
change from hold to say see 2397.
Elliott Goldberg: Is this going to merge into 2397, or 2397 merge into
this one? I think this is the older one.
Loriann Ercan: I guess there’s no need for this.
Sue Pistacchio: It would resolve it because once you get to the end
user bills, you won’t need to have an ALI code that big.
Joyce Harry: But we don’t want it taken off here until…
Tom Rodgers: Now, the status of 2537, didn’t we schedule that for
August?
Joyce Harry: That’s what I thought when we did items by release.
Elliott Goldberg: (inaudible) that’s what lead me to confusion before,
because once I found this one, which other ones?
Tom Rodgers: 27(inaudible) is a deny.
Elliott Goldberg: You’re saying you’d recommend withdrawing it
because you don’t want to do it. You don’t have deny. You’re still not going to do
these even though Clancy’s gone? They’ve done you the favor of moving Clancy
out. We realize you did all this because you didn’t like Clancy.
John Boshear: You’ll need some official we’re not going to do this
response. That’s what we’re looking for.
Joyce Harry: Tom, what was the reason they couldn’t support it?
Tom Rodgers: Risk of a metric penalty, of missing the due date.
Joyce Harry: There has to be another reason. In the east you have
so many more customers that you can’t handle the work load or something?
Elliott Goldberg: Because you do it in the west.
John Boshear: The due date interval for Verizon in this case is the
worst in the industry. Those conversations are also being…
Tom Rodgers: I know. And this falls… It isn’t a syste m change, it’s
changing a (inaudible).
Elliott Goldberg: But this is where these things are set.
John Boshear: And also needs an official response from this forum
that you won’t do it. And we’ll move it off this table onto a different one.
Elliott Golberg: I don’t think you want to take it off the table, you just
want to exploit it. Let’s not lose the aging analysis.
John Boshear: What we lack is an ability to respond to not, or
something of that line that says we’re not going to work on this.
Elliott Goldberg: There is no deny in our rules.
Loriann Ercan: There can be an official request to withdraw.
Tom Rodgers: This is as close as I can make it. (inaudible).
Elliott Goldberg: The next step is now that Tom Rodgers said not going
to do it, is you go talk to Mike Toothman. And then you’re going to say you
should talk to Marianne George.
John Boshear: As long as this paper doesn’t say deny, (inaudible)
and keep your records clean with something that’s in line with the rules. We’re
not going to say deny, we’re going to say request for withdrawal.
Elliott Goldberg: With all due respect, there is no status that allows
Verizon to say that, which is why we’ve said several times that we should reopen
the collaborative that defined the rules.
John Boshear: Once it gets flagged at 4.6 by the collaborative, that
should be on the list of things for you to work. The fact is you’re not going to
work this one, so we need some way to, okay here’s the bucket of worms that
were ranked important by the CLEC’s that Verizon’s not going to do anyway.
And we can do other arguments in other places about, and then either gets put
back into the active status, or it (inaudible).
Tom Rodgers: When I took over these, I had to make an evaluation –
are we working on it or not? And based upon that, if we were not working on it,
then the deny term is what I came up with to communicate things that were not
working.
Elliott Goldberg: Right. But you have to also remember, Tom, the
deny term comes from Mike Toothman who said in the meeting if you guys want
a metric that says I have to implement in 58 weeks, then I want a deny status like
Bell South has. That’s a quote – you can check your minutes. So this being
said, two things have to happen. One, we have to open up the rules so you can
have your recommend to withdraw or deny, or anything else. And two, we have
to push the metric in the carrier working group next week that we come up with a
58 week standard because now it’s a quid pro quo.
Joyce Harry: Can we use that for all of John’s CR’s, because there
must be about 10 of them here with that. And then I’m not going to get home
tonight.
John Boshear: That’s the point. They’re not going to be removed
from the list, but (inaudible). I’m okay with that.
Joyce Harry: Okay, thank you.
Tom Rodgers: Same with 2691, 2773 (inaudible).
Joyce Harry: Is this a candidate, candidate, or a pre-candidate
candidate?
Tom Rodgers: Pre. 2772 – I wish you guys would lay that all down.
It’s a type 4, what do you care?
Joyce Harry: We don’t care, you’re right.
Elliott Goldberg: I just want to know because it says it’s a candidate –
as of 3/16 it was a candidate for October and it’s still pending scheduling. So I
was wondering if it’s a pre-candidate?
Sue Pistacchio: Which one are we on? 2773?
Tom Rodgers: 2772.
Sue Pistacchio: 2772 I thought was pending confirmation to deny or
whatever we said?
Tom Rodgers: This is one that COVAD needs to withdraw.
John Boshear: It’s on the list, we’re working on it.
Joyce Harry: On 1891, can you please not make this pre, and
make it like committed?
Tom Rodgers: Can I get back to you in June on that one?
Joyce Harry: Sure. This is another COVAD.
Tom Rodgers: October should come up…
Sue Pistacchio: Are we on 1891? 1891 we’re looking to come out so
that we can parse out all CR’s to that release.
Elliott Goldberg: Sue, I’ll even stand up for that one when I clap.
Joyce Harry: Is this on hold similar to deny – this next John one?
Tom Rodgers: 2460? I’m not a line station expert, but I did send it
over to someone that is. And she was surprised that we were actually charging
for line station transfers.
John Boshear: So were we.
Elliott Goldberg: John, would you except them closing it out if they stop
charging you?
John Boshear: If they stop charging me it wouldn’t be an issue.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. Do you have some recent examples?
John Boshear: You’re kidding, right? Just stop charging and it
doesn’t matter.
Tom Rodgers: I went to the person that is in operation (inaudible)
with this issue. And their response was, “what do you mean we’re charging?”.
John Boshear: Just a written statement that we can send to your
billing group when we have to contest the charges that says you shouldn’t be
charging for this, then we can withdraw this. When we put claims in, they say
based on what.
Elliott Goldberg: John, why don’t you just send him a copy of your
claim?
Sue Pistacchio: Tom, can I give status on this one? On 2460, and I
know this is one that I know at one point we were working on. but this was like a
really big one, and I remember that – again, even though it’s number 20 on the
list and I don’t know if it’s gone up or down, there were too many other things in
front of it that were kind of superceding it. I remember at one point we have a
service description and everything fleshed out with product management. So
that’s one of the things we had talked about size and stuff, and it seems like just
about everything we do gets rated high. So in that case there has to be some
expectation like of all your highs, which ones do you want us to look at first?
Elliott Goldberg: That’s because before the ones we rated low never
got done. And the point was it was merely a relative priority. So now, if you’re
not going to do them anyway, we’ll rate them all higher.
Sue Pistacchio: This one is kind of like, I have that it’s 20 on the list
but there’s other things that we were looking at because this one is so big. We
haven’t gotten to it yet.
John Boshear: I don’t know, because it was targeted and then it was
actually a candidate.
Sue Pistacchio: Because other things came in with a higher priority on
the type 5 list that bumped it.
Elliott Goldberg: Don’t worry about it. From now on everything will be
a 5.
Sue Pistacchio: It can be a 5 and the n we’ll ask you to prioritize the
5’s.
Elliott Goldberg: Okay. We’ll give it a supplemental 5.
Tom Rodgers: Sue, do you have requirement written for this?
Sue Pistacchio: We were in that stage and then it went a little bit
lower. I remember when this first came in. At one point it was relatively high. I
want to say like end of last year it was probably around 3-4. It was actively being
worked, and now you can see it’s down to like 20 something. It was big, and a
lot of things came along that were deemed more important. So we work our way
down the list. This is number 21 right now, or whatever.
Elliott Goldberg: But I think once you start on something you should
finish it.
Sue Pistacchio: Product management actually did come up with
something, but it didn’t go any further than that. We didn’t start our requirements.
There’s only so many things I can work on, and we go off the priority list.
Tom Rodgers: Then the correct status is pending requirements.
Okay.
Sue Pistacchio: We have a lot of stuff that we expect to get in to
October and everything. So if we don’t get a whole bunch of other type 5’s and
this one moves up on the list, then it would get worked.
Elliott Goldberg: If you’re going to do that, then Sue, what you need is
also priority times age.
Tom Rodgers: Exactly.
John Boshear: Not to belabor the point – who did you talk to that was
surprised we were even getting charged? Do we even know that you’re
supposed to be charging us?
Elliott Goldberg: Take the tariff, it may not even by there.
Tom Rodgers: That should be on your claim too. (inaudible) I was
working the issue at the line station transfer was an operational issue. and I think
Sue has it as a requirement, from a system requirement, to display the ability to
either accept the charge or deny the charge. That’s going to be…
John Boshear: Right. And that requires work and more consumed
resources. But it sounded to me for a moment there that we weren’t certain that
there was a charge for this that should be applied, which would…
Tom Rodgers: The response was they were surprised that you were
being billed for it.
John Boshear: It would be a contractual issue (inaudible).
Elliott Goldberg: It should be in the UNI tariff if they’re charging you for
it. Every charge you’re getting should be in the tariff somewhere. You could
make Ed Morton’s whole day if you told him that all these charges were illegal,
because they’re not authorized.
John Boshear: We’d have a claim going back all the way to 2002.
Elliott Goldberg: Interesting. And in New York, the legal rate is 7%, I
think.
Tom Rodgers: 2522.
Joyce Harry: I want to discuss that with Mary and Mike to see what
they want to do with it. If they still want to beat you guys up, or we’ll keep it
there, or what they want to do.
Tom Rodgers: This is the point when y’all were supposed to go, “oh,
they don’t want that anyway”.
Elliott Goldberg: Actually, I think we may be able to have (inaudible)
because I think a lot of this stuff could be (inaudible). We may have common
ground here.
Tom Rodgers: 2771. It’s (inaudible) loop qual information.
Sue Pistacchio: I have 2771 pending request for withdrawal.
Tom Rodgers: Yeah, that’s it. 2860 we’re going to talk about next
week at the…
Elliott Goldberg: Out of curiosity, why would that be CTNI? The
reason you can’t do it is because it’s CTNI.
Tom Rodgers: That’s the interpretation that the…
Elliott Goldberg: I’m sorry, maybe I’m dense, but I don’t understand
why it’s CTNI rules in or out currently? It depends. I’m not being facetious – they
were in, they were suspended, they were something. I don’t know where they
are. They might not be CTNI because there may not be any CTNI rules.
Tom Rodgers: Tell you what, I’ll double check the status again.
Sue Pistacchio: Oh, you’re talking about CTNI. I’m like who’s SIPNEY
(sp?)? I got lost here for a minute. Okay.
Elliott Goldberg: No CTNI equals no reason. I say contact Tony
Petrillo, but he’s not there anymore. I don’t know who he’s replacement is.
Joyce Harry: Did we skip 2715?
Tom Rodgers: It’s a type 4. What do you care, it’s a type 4? It’s a
date for October, pre-candidate for October.
Sue Pistacchio: Actually, that was going to be satisfied with CR 2785,
which was up above.
Tom Rodgers: (inaudible) 2860 we’ll discuss next week at the pre
release. (inaudible) it’s initiated by VADI.
Elliott Goldberg: I think that’s one we said we should be a 4, but Tom
didn’t want to get the White Out out.
Joyce Harry: So 28 is another VADI on hold. We don’t care about
that. So we go to number…
Speaker: We do care about that. Just because VADI submitted
it (inaudible).
John Boshear: (inaudible) and query against the active record in a
pending POTS service as well.
Elliott Goldberg: It really makes sense, because it is a problem
because we have to first migrate the customer, then we have to do the data
service, and by the way, if the guy had data service, he now doesn’t have it for a
week for two before all this is done.
John Boshear: Plus we don’t suddenly discover a Verizo n DSL
customer was able to move the data service along with their (inaudible) another
issue, but it would probably make sense that…
Tom Rodgers: 2551, we’re never getting out of here.
Joyce Harry: Okay, so let’s move on.
Tom Rodgers: 2579, directory listing USOC summary bill.
Joyce Harry: I thought Joyce withdrew this, but I will double check
with her. I thought we went through this, but I’ll just double check with her.
Tom Rodgers: 1455 (inaudible) talk about that. This is (inaudible).
Elliott Goldberg: You can tell Mr. Toothman that I don’t have my ice
skates out.
Tom Rodgers: Okay, 2166. And I think we need to (inaudible) 2397
is going to cover this one. Yeah. 1102. This is that XML interface for repair.
(inaudible). I think it changed (inaudible).
Joyce Harry: So you’re doing part of it in June?
Loriann Ercan: Further down it says targeted for October.
Tom Rodgers: Yeah, we just didn’t keep up the stands. And I did
request the XML specs for you.
Elliott Goldberg: I thought that 1102 had phase three scheduled for
three and phased six through nine for October.
Joyce Harry: That’s what it says. It says phase nine, which is fully
functional or transaction with business rules. 2735 is targeted for October.
Phase three is committed for (inaudible).
Tom Rodgers: Page 26 of 33. Yeah, it’s October.
Elliot Goldberg: This is one of the ones I’m confused on. this is 2735
in the items by release in June, but in October it’s 1102? Or is it 2735 in October
also?
Tom Rodgers: If you look at the comments of the 2735, it references
the 1102. So it’s…
Joyce Harry: Gee, this has been sitting here for a long time. When
only 5 CLEC’s were part of this?
Tom Rodgers: 2085, I guess John, is one of those (inaudible). We’d
like you to withdraw it. We’d rather not, even if you wanted to order it on the
outside.
Joyce Harry: 2900 – work to be done on this, Tom?
Tom Rodgers: Yeah. And 2900 I have a status. This had to do with
the change of cable pair assignments as part of a migration to a CLEC. The
response was, and I’ll just go ahead and read it. Ordinarily if we’re changing the
cable make up during conversion of like service, it’s because the end user had
been served by integrated slick, or IDLC. We cannot provision services to a
CLEC from an IDLC since the facilities are electronic in the CL in certain multiple
customers.
Verizon takes the end user off the IDLC and switches
them to copper facilities. So the only time we would make the change would be if
the end user is served by an integrated slick and we’re changing them to metallic
or copper facilities.
Joyce Harry: And basically they’re saying that’s the only time you
would be changing cable pairs. And they’re asking for notification of it
accordingly. When you do that on an LSR CR something…
Loriann Ercan: It shows up in WPTS that it’s going from IDLC to
copper, or universal.
Speaker: Does WPTS have the ability for them to include a
notification, which I assume you need some additional (inaudible) on a cable
for…
John Boshear: I think that’s exactly the issue that’s involved.
Elliott Goldberg: And my question is does WPTS have that capability
to provide that information? If that’s the means you have to use, then you got
to…
Loriann Ercan: But that’s the outside facility, so we don’t know what
that information is anyway on the outside facility. Do we?
Tom Rodgers: You could look at, are you performing a loop qual?
It’s the facility assignment part of the CSR. I guess this really gets into
(inaudible) and looking at the service. This could become a new class of notifier
or a new class of jeopardy. I’m not sure it’s a jeopardy because you’d want us to
proceed with the conversion.
Joyce Harry: Yeah, but it’s important for the CLEC to know what
that new facility is. So I guess what they’re looking for here is notification of what
it is.
Elliott Goldberg: There are generic standard messages that do generic
notification. Verizon just doesn’t use any – standard EI format. AmeriTech uses
it for loss of line. What are the standard messages? It’s a simple notification
message, it’s a generic notification message. I forget the number – (inaudible).
All I’m saying it’s a standard numbered format. I have it back at the office if it
ever comes up.
Tom Rodgers: I’ll go back to Larry and figure out, just keep working.
John Boshear: Tom, I don’t remember if Larry was saying that part of
the problem is that the change is occurring at both the end user site as well as
back in a CO, or if it’s just in a CO alone. I think what we’re looking for here, my
interpretation of what we’re looking for is just if there’s a change and we’ve got to
pick it up somewhere differently, whether at EU or back at the CO, we need to
know that during the port time.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. (inaudible).
Joyce Harry: Tom, I guess we have to check with Matt and John
before we stick this deny for VADI. And you may say…
Tom Rodgers: 2485, I think will satisfy by the port loop extract itself.
(inaudible). I’ll go back to VADI and see if I can get them to close it. 03-0501 is
new. 2120 is (inaudible). 2858 is a pre-candidate for October. 2189, ILEC
service ID, that’s also (inaudible).
Elliott Goldberg: If CPNI to know that it’s an EP line or an ISDN, or that
there’s XDSL on the line? Why?
Tom Rodgers: Elliott, I don’t know. That seems to affect (inaudible).
Elliott Goldberg: I guess I’d like to know just why it’s…(inaudible).
Right, the XDSL is important because when we migrate a customer, we don’t
know that that line is split with DSL and it causes rejected transactions. And it
causes operational problems.
Loriann Ercan: And that information is provided on the CSR, so why
can’t it be provided on the loop qual?
Tom Rodgers: I don’t know. Legal has rejected it. But they’re
blocking me from taking any further action on it. Okay guys, what else?
Joyce Harry: What else, Elliott?
Elliott Goldberg: You were the one who said you wanted to go home.
You want to go into a review of type 2’s, as to why they’re flow through or not?
Why they’re type 2’s?
Joyce Harry: How long is that discussion going to take?
Elliott Goldberg: I’d give it about three hours. What do you give it?
Joyce Harry: Then not today.
Tom Rodgers: Is there anyone on the conference bridge still?
Lissa Provenzo: Yup.
Tom Rodgers: Okay. Before we get completely silly here in the
room, we scheduled a call for Wednesday the 21st at 10 a.m. Eastern time to
review the change requests. We’ll send out a notice of that within the next day or
so. Anything else?
Elliott Goldberg: At some point, Steve, when you’ve got one meeting
under your belt, the issue of whether all these type 2’s are really type 2’s. I just
figured since he’s identified as the new type 2 guru, then it an ongoing issue, it
has been an ongoing issue for three years now – maybe four. All kidding aside,
if it’s genuinely a regulatory mandate, I don’t think there’s anybody in this room
that would question it. We just don’t feel that all the ones labeled as type 2 are
legitimate regulatory. And just because of the metric that you’re meeting, I for
one – and I don’t know, everybody else has to… I’ve said it before, if you’re
pleading the metric, the requirement from the commission is not that you exceed
the metric, it’s that you meet the metric. Therefore you’ve met the legal
requirement at the point you’ve met the metric. So type 2 is only for specific legal
requirements when the rules were written. They were so that Verizon did not
incur penalties because you couldn’t get things done quickly enough, not for any
other reason.
And by the way, many of these things that go through
as type 2, if you’d submitted as type 4’s and prioritized, I would have looked at
them and said yeah, give that a 5 because I could use it too.
Tom Rodgers: We haven’t seen that, but that’s what he says
hypothetically (inaudible). For those on the call, we’re signing off now. The next
meeting is… See you in a couple months.
