Ms. Jean Derrig, you may begin.

Transcription

1 Verizon Internal June 21, 2005 Confirmation # Operator: Excuse me everyone, we will now begin the conference. All lines will be open during the broadcast. If you should need assistance during the call please pick up your handset and press star and the number zero and an operator will be standing by to assist you. Also if everyone could please press star and the number six to mute your lines to eliminate any background noise that may be played into the call. Ms. Jean Derrig, you may begin. Thank you. Good morning everyone and welcome to the West June change management meeting. I would like to start by finding out which CLECs are out on the line at the moment. Terry Manser: Lori Fredrickson: Karen Johnson: Peggy Rubino: James McCluskey: Amy Brown: Renee Stroeder: Terry Manser and Barry Queen for SBC. Lori Fredrickson, Integra Telecom. Karen Johnson with Integra too. Peggy Rubino from Trinsic. James McCluskey with Accenture. Amy Brown with Time Warner. Renee Stroeder (sp?), Wisor Telecom. Mary Halpin, AT & T. Gloria Velez, AT & T. Carol Frike: Crystal Causey: Kim Isaacs: Paul Figlestahler: Rebecca Baldwin: Christy Allen: everyone hear me OK? Speakers: Carol Frike, Sprint. Crystal Causey and Sandra Boyd with HTC. Kim Isaacs, Eschelon. Paul Figlestahler, MCI. Rebecca Baldwin, Telcove. Mike Clancy, Covad Communications. Someone was speaking when Mike was. Who was that? Elliott Goldberg, Met-Tel. Hi Elliott. Hi. Any other CLECs out there? Christy Allen with Blue Casa. Any other CLECs out there? OK, I m going to start with the agenda can OK. The first agenda item is CMP documentation changes. We did have an update at the East meeting and I m going to give basically the same update. At the May meeting there was a discussion, mainly at the East and recapped to the West, where the CLECs had sent in a new proposal on the three open items, and the three open items, just to remind everybody, are the Type 2 definition, language around beta testing, and then the third one is the notification timelines around Type 2s. At the May meeting Verizon agreed to look at the language, go back internally to see what we can do for a new proposal, although we felt we were kind of almost at a stalemate. So what Beth and I did Page 1 of 25

2 was we did make an attempt to make some proposed changes and we have them still being filtered within Verizon. I know this is the same sentence I gave last meeting, and believe me I ve been bugging the internal people to give us an answer but we have yet to get that out. The CLECs have asked us to get that done as soon as possible for a CLEC only meeting that they were holding and Peggy do you have a date for that yet? Peggy Rubino: Sorry, I m muted. Thursday afternoon. Thursday, OK. We are still trying to get that out to you but right now we still don t have a go ahead from internally to be able to give that to you. Like I said we are pushing as far as we can to get that approval to send it out to you in that proposed timeframe. So that s kind of all we can, I can say right now. We understand your wanting it before Thursday morning and we are attempting to do that but we can t guarantee it at this moment, but as soon as we get the approval from internal to release it to you, we will. Peggy Rubino: really say today about it. there somewhere. Carol Yozzo: OK, thank you. Any other questions, comments, around that status? So that s all I m going to OK, moving on to the next agenda item; I m assuming Carol and Bobbie are out Carol is here. Bobbie is here. OK. I think we re going to start with Carol with an LSOG 5 sunset update. Carol Yozzo: OK, good morning everyone. I have a couple of things to mention. The due date edit was implemented with the June release so that would have been the weekend of June 11, and that edit is that any LSOG 5 LSR, whether it s a new or a Sup, with a desired due date later than October 8, 2005 will be rejected. I am interested to know if there is anyone out there who has actually run into the edit yet. Is anyone aware of it from experience? OK. It s probably, it s still kind of early because the due date is what, three, four months away so certainly as we get closer to that October date it s going to be more likely that anyone who is still using LSOG 5 will run into it, and along those lines then I continue to encourage everybody to make the transition over to LSOG 5, particularly the CLECs who are using WISE. I realize that any CLECs who are using EDI have a process to go through in terms of system updates and taking it through CTE if they chose, but certainly there s no hindrance to switching to - the WISE order process over to LSOG 6, so I would like to see that improved. And in the next couple of weeks I m going to start running pipeline reports just to see what volume of orders we have out there that would have been entered before June 11 th that have a post October 8 th due date, just to see if any action needs to be taken on them and then I will contact CLECs accordingly, depending on what the outcome of those reports are. So again if you are still using LSOG 5 you should at least have a plan in place to stop using LSOG 5 completely in advance of the sunset date and we are continuing to monitor that, and if you have any questions you can send them to our mailbox, which is customer.transition.planning@ verizon.com. Any questions? Great Bobbie: Thank you Carol. My update on the LSOG 9 is to let you know that we did, per your request, load the change log out there on the LSOG transition process page, as well as anybody that s been out on the local business rules can see that there was a new link that was there was a new link that was put out on the business rules. It s on the left hand side and you can click right over to the LSOG transition process page and get straight over to there. Also the 73 day notification will be posted for LSOG 9 for the October release on July the 29 th for the West. Are there any questions? Yes Bobbie, this is Gloria Velez. Yes Gloria. My question is relative to the change log. I know it s that Excel spreadsheet and I know in the East they had told me last week that the change log that is out there on the web site included the changes that you made for June, so is that the same for the West? incorporated at the 73 day notification. No it is not; it does not have any June changes in there. Those changes will be So how if I m working on things right now, how would I be able to determine the changes that you made in June, what changes would have affected LSOG 9? Page 2 of 25

3 The changes that were implemented in June will be all incorporated at the 73 day notice and all of those will be implemented into LSOG 9, so if you looked at the change log for LSOG 6 those changes that were implemented in LSOG 6 will be the same changes you will see with LSOG 9. Oh, OK, everything. In other words if I look at the change log for LSOG 6 that you put out there for June, those changes on LSOG 6 June change log are also for 6 and 9. feedback on the line? Speakers: Yes ma am. OK, so that s how I can tell. OK, thank you. You re welcome. Are there any other questions? OK, Jean. All right, thanks Bobbie. Moving on to the next topic is everybody hearing Yes, I did, when Bobbie was talking, ask the operator to monitor it. I don t know if the operator is still out there because I thought it was me and then Bobbie was doing it, so if the operator mutes you and you feel like you re on mute and you didn t put yourself on mute, it may be because you re causing the feedback, so just want to put that out there. And if that s the case you can hit star, zero, to get the operator and deal with her directly on what s going on with your line, just to give background on how the conference bridge is working. Let me continue on. Like I said I ve asked her to monitor. I m hearing feedback whether I m on my headset or my handset so I m just going to go with it. The next topic is FTP report migration. I believe the last communication we had to this forum was an that we sent out through change management on 5/19 I don t know if that was before or after the meeting, it was right after our meeting basically saying there has been a delay in the scheduling of the migration from FTP to the web portal for the LVR report. And in the West the LVR report is the only report involved in this project, and we will send out a new timeline for LVR but I want to give you a tentative timeline that we have set up right now. It is currently targeted for the August timeframe. By the middle of August to late August the registration letters will be sent. That will be followed by a 30 day registration period which would go into the middle to end of September. At that time a parallel operational period will start, which would be end of September to the end of October timeframe, and this is flexible depending on how the registration goes, because we really want to give most of the people a 30 day parallel process. Around the middle of October we will send out a note telling when the final day is for the retirement of FTP reports and then that time period would also be implemented along with the parallel processing, targeting the end of October if everything goes as scheduled. But like I said we will send out a notification with the official timeline once we have that set in place and we will continue to communicate the progress of this project in the monthly change management meeting. Anyone have any questions? OK. The next topic is connectivity. We asked Sri to be on the line mainly because in the June East release, which was just this past weekend, there was a change in the need for digital certificates and I know we ve been communicating this through those s, through change management, as well as I believe we discussed it last month, and Sri is really here to just find out if anyone has any questions about the need for East certificates, how they relate to West certificates and that whole scenario. Sri I don t know if you want to give a high level and then open it for questions, or do you just want to open it for questions? Sathyanarayan Srinivasan: Sure, this is Sri. Good morning everyone. As Jean mentioned effective with the last week in June 19 th release Verizon implemented the systems changes that will require Verizon West WISE users to download an East digital certificate in order to authenticate access to the WISE applications. Again as we noted in the 45 day notification there is a transition period between June 20 th and September 20 th, 2005 for current holders of WISE digital certificates to download the East digital certificate. In addition we also implemented a popup message box that comes whenever users log into WISE informing them of the need to make that change. This popup box will continue to be there until September 20 th. If anybody has already downloaded the East digital certificate then you can ignore the popup message and continue with the process to get the access to WISE, so if anybody has any questions. Sandra Boyd: I have a question. This is Sandra Boyd with HTC. Yesterday I followed step 1 to download my digital certificate and I didn t know whether I was supposed to get an giving me a confirmation number or not, but I went to step 2 to download the certificate and it wouldn t allow me to download it because I didn t have the proper (inaudible). Sathyanarayan Srinivasan: OK. Well step 1 is to complete the online form requesting replacement. Page 3 of 25

4 Sandra Boyd: I did that and that showed fine. Sathyanarayan Srinivasan: Yes, and following that you will not get an notification. Step 2 is to obtain the instructions for completing the download process and step 3 is to wait for two business days before you can download the East digital certificate. Sandra Boyd: Speaker: OK, thank you. I m sorry, say what step 1 was again. Sathyanarayan Srinivasan: Step 1, you need to complete an online form requesting replacement. The URL was identified in the notification that was sent to you. Speaker: Barry Queen: also? OK, thank you. This is Barry at SBC. Will super users be a thing that will be in the East region Sathyanarayan Srinivasan: Can you repeat that question again. Barry Queen: Yes, will you have super users in the East region also? Sathyanarayan Srinivasan: We do have super users in the East. Barry Queen: OK, because we centralized our process here in ordering the digital certificates. Is there not an online or a webex training session by Verizon this week in reference to this? Sathyanarayan Srinivasan: There is also a session on June 23 rd which will give you further information and education on this. Barry Queen: OK, thank you very much. This is Gloria Velez from AT & T. If you are currently an LSI user and therefore you currently have an East digital certificate working fine on your local PC. Sathyanarayan Srinivasan: What steps have to be taken, if any, for the West? Sathyanarayan Srinivasan: For the West if you for the West users who already have an LSI ID and an LSI East digital certificate, they need to follow two steps. One is that they need to access the WISE application using the URL that we gave out in the 45 day notification. They then need to enter their existing LSI ID and password at the first login screen, and then at the WISE login screen the user will be prompted to enter their WISE ID and password. Again, for users who already have an East digital certificate, they do not need to download a new East digital certificate. OK but I guess before you can do this process one has to have a WISE ID. Sathyanarayan Srinivasan: Yes, this is for existing WISE users who have a WISE ID. OK. Sathyanarayan Srinivasan: Who also have an LSI ID with an LSI East digital certificate. OK but if you don t have a WISE ID and you re in the process of trying to get a WISE ID, I first have to get the WISE ID. Sathyanarayan Srinivasan: That s correct. OK, thank you. Lori Fredrickson: This is Lori with Integra. If you are currently a super user in WISE, you will be a super user when you access WISE through LSI as well? Sathyanarayan Srinivasan: That s correct. Is Niki Parchment on the line? Niki Parchment: Sathyanarayan Srinivasan: Hi Niki, can you clarify or confirm that? Niki Parchment: Can you repeat your question. Page 4 of 25

5 Lori Fredrickson: If you are currently a super user in WISE, you ll also, your accesses will stay the same once you start accessing WISE through LSI. Is that correct? Niki Parchment: The application is the same, we are only asking you to change your digital certificate, so what you do today won t change once you obtain an East digital certificate. Lori Fredrickson: Niki Parchment: OK, thank you. You re welcome. Sathyanarayan Srinivasan: Does anybody else have any other questions? Covad) who do we go to? Sathyanarayan Srinivasan: If there are problems in downloading this digital certificate (this is Mike Clancy of Please send an to connectivity. management.team@ verizon.com. OK thank you. OK, any other questions? All right, thanks Sri. Sathyanarayan Srinivasan: Thank you Jean. Moving on to the next department discussion item, is the website enhancements/training. Stephen Cuttle are you out there? Stephen Cuttle: Yes, I am Jean. Good morning everyone. Just wanted to start out by letting folks know that the first website enhancement change management notification did go out in the beginning of June, on June 6 th, and that will continue on a monthly basis detailing the significant updates to the Verizon wholesale website. Just to start off there are some workshops scheduled this month for the remainder of the month. On June 21 st there will be an LSI trouble administration workshop; on June 22 nd there will be CLEC self service tool training workshop from 1.30 to 3.30 Eastern. As Sri mentioned, on the 23 rd there is a June release overview workshop and one of the agenda items is the East digital certificate process, and then at the end of the month on June 29 th there is a CIRT self service workshop scheduled. This is the second in a series of workshops that we scheduled and it will highlight the new CIRT Helpdesk page, which was launched earlier in June, and you can find the link in the Ordering Local Services section of the website, under Local Ordering Responses. The link is entitled CIRT Helpdesk. And this page was launched - it contains information that we hope is going to help resolve many of your teams questions when they do need to call CIRT. The information that s been housed on this page is based - hopefully will help answer the questions as based on CIRT call data that is being analyzed and includes links to order samples, error code information, USOC information, ISOC information, business rules blocking and so forth. So I encourage you to have your teams attend this workshop and to get familiar with this page. We did launch a few new resale West order samples this month. The samples are: one which is establishing a new PRI ISDN service; and sample R31, which is establishing a network interface device. These can be found in the order sample section of the website and they are detailed in the notification as well. In addition, as I ve already mentioned to the community last month, we did launch the USOC/ISOC page. One of the action items from last month was for us to develop a USOC change log and we are in the process of doing so and plan to have that change log launched by the end of the month. And finally I wanted to just let the community know that the WISE support pages were successfully migrated from CLEC Support West section of the web to the Systems and Systems Support page, and again these are the WISE support pages that did not impact the WISE application and if you go to there is a text box with a link on the CLEC Support West page which actually, if your teams go to that page looking for the WISE support pages, that they can click on the text box and it will take them to the new home for WISE support content, which is the Systems and Systems Support page. Any questions? Stephen Cuttle: Jamey Rawls: OK thank you, Stephen. Sure, thank you. All right. The next topic is WCCC and CTE update. Is Jamey on the line? Yes, hi Jean. Hi, Jamey. Page 5 of 25

6 Jamey Rawls: Thank you Jean, good morning everyone. I ll mention briefly the WCCC and CTE. As you are aware the weekend of June 11/12 Verizon West implemented the June release. As part of that release there was an enhancement done for the CLECs giving them the ability to enter their own online trouble tickets. When I say trouble tickets, I m not referring to the LSI TA or repair functionality, but a WCCC trouble ticket. That functionality has been included into the WISE tool. You will notice in the top right hand corner of WISE there is an option now for trouble ticket entry and you can still call the 800 number to have a trouble ticket entered and sent to the WCCC. If there s hold times or you would like to enter that trouble ticket on your own we would prefer that, and you can use the online trouble ticket tool via WISE. We have had success - we have a workshop that is scheduled for tomorrow. I believe it is at 1.30 Eastern Time, or a webex training session. We would encourage you to participate there. If you have any questions they should be addressed there and we will give you a tutorial and a walkthrough on how to use the trouble ticket system. It s very user friendly we believe, and have found that it s been a positive experience when CLECs enter their own trouble tickets as opposed to having to dial in to the 800 number and, you know, at times wait for a representative to take their call, so we would encourage your participation and use of that tool. Has anyone had the opportunity to use the tool, and if so, are there any questions or comments, feedback on the tool? OK. Well the next change management meeting hopefully we will have all positives and it will be a good thing. Jamey Rawls: Hello, I m sorry, I was having trouble with the star, six. Hey Gloria. Hi, this is Gloria Velez. I haven t had an opportunity to use it on the West but I have used it on the East so my question is, is there any difference? Jamey Rawls: Good question, Gloria. No, there aren t any differences at all. There were some additional states and fields added to dropdowns to support the West states and the West users, but the actual application when you log into WISE and go to the trouble ticket entry has the same look and it s the same application. OK so if you re, if you ve used it previously then you probably would not gain much benefit by going to the webex next session. Jamey Rawls: I would agree with that statement, yes. OK, and then the other question that I have, I haven t done this in a while. Once you ve entered in the ticket I know you can go in there and find out who your ticket has been assigned to. Can you also recapture the data that you keyed in? Can you see that data once you ve entered the ticket? I know in the East you can t. Jamey Rawls: When you enter the ticket and you re talking about coming after subsequent entry and query the status or look at - during the status of your ticket, it would just tell you who your ticket is assigned to and contact information for that person. previously entered in? Jamey Rawls: Jamey Rawls: OK, so there s no there s currently no way to retrieve the data that you Retrieve or amend, no. OK, thank you. You re welcome. Are there plans to enhance that or to allow that? Jamey Rawls: Well it s something that we can certainly take back. From the enhancements that I ve seen I ve not heard of that functionality being introduced. I can take that back if you would like to have the ability post submission to pull up and change, or enhance or add data to the ticket. Yes, because one of the things that I stumbled across, and I ve stumbled across it twice now - and again it s been in the East, is that when you re later talking to the person that the ticket has been assigned to, there were discrepancies. In other words the person was telling me things that I didn t think that I wrote in my ticket, and I had no way of confirming that because I never captured my screen print. Jamey Rawls: bit, more faster OK. So it just would have been a little bit helpful to steer the conversation up a little Page 6 of 25

7 Jamey Rawls: OK, I will take that back to our development team. You re welcome. OK, any questions about either the new self service tool or trouble tickets, or WCCC? OK, great. Moving then quickly over to the CLEC test environment for CTE side, we did complete 100% of our CLEC testing for the June release. We ve now moved into the LSOG transition period and have multiple CLECs that are in the environment now that are in the process of migrating from LSOG 5 to LSOG 6, so in support of that initiative we are encouraging any CLEC that is trading electronically with Verizon who has not yet made that move, we are in that window now and look forward to working with you to move on to LSOG 6 transactions. Any questions on CTE? OK, thank you Jean. Thanks Jamey. Moving on to our next agenda item, which items by release, the I m assuming everyone can pull it up from the website. Just to let you know we included the June on here. They were completed I guess a week and a half ago. We put them on for the next meeting just to show what was completed in June. They will be removed from next month s meeting, and I m going to hand it over to Bobbie Dodson and John Olsen to talk about the candidates that we have listed here for the October release. Thank you Jean. We will star - this is on page 4. We will start with the candidates for October. The first one we have is the sunset of LSOG 5 and I think Carol has been covering this for several months now, and basically this is going to be the code that will actually shut down any processing of the LSOG 5 LSRs coming in the door. Are there any questions? The next one is the LSOG 9. This one is C This one is for the LSR end user, the hunt form, the RS form and the PS form. This is for the implementation of those forms coming in on the ordering side and as was stated you ve already gotten the business rules and the change logs for those. NP form. DL form. The next one is CO for LSOG 9, and this is for the LS, the LSNP and the The next is CO4-1493, another LSOG 9 and this is for the directory, which is the The next one on the list is another LSOG 9 initiative, CO This is for the complex forms. The complex forms consist of the CRS for Centrex, the RPL for private line, the RFR for frame relay, and the DDPS for the DID/DOD/PBX, and this one is also the one that s going to incorporate the new form, which is the IF which is to incorporate for ordering ISDN services. Are there any questions with this? The next one is CO for LSOG 9, which is our return feeds for the West. This will incorporate CLR, the CN for the completion notice and RPN, we also call it our SARv4. Are there any questions? The next one for October is CO4-1501, which is another LSOG and this one is for our new transaction which is for a service order inquiry process. This is a new transaction that currently is available in the East but not in the West and this is a process that will be, allow you to go there and access the service order information during provisioning. It will be an electronic way for you to get statuses on pending orders. The next is CO4-1502, another LSOG 9 and this is for our preorder transaction, which includes everything except for loop qual and CSI. The next initiative is CO4-1503, which is LSOG 9 for loop qual. The next is CO which is LSOG 9 for CSI for customer service inquiries transactions. Those are all of the LSOG 9 initiatives for the October release. Are there any questions on any of those? Yes, this is Gloria Velez. I just wanted to double check that the details behind all of these LSOG 9 October initiatives will be part of the 73 day? Yes they will. We will do individual write-ups for each one of them as well as the 73 day. Any changes that were made from the initial draft BRD business rules we put out there will be incorporated and at that time the change log will be able to be posted out there on the normal change log so you will see any changes with LSOG 9 change logs at that time. OK, then I have another question because I m working more with the East data right now than the West data. All of these that you just went through, do you have any of the high level data behind these incorporated into your overview that s already out there? Well we put out on the transition page that we had out there, we did give you the detail level on the LSOG transition page where you could see the differences between LSOG 6 and LSOG 9 and it is done on a form or transaction level down to the field level, so you would be able to see if we were adding a new field, if we removed a new field, if we went out there and we were adding valid values, removing valid values, if we were going to be incorporating any edit changes and so forth. It may not it won t have like we re changing this edit number because at the time that we were doing that we weren t quite sure on all of the edits but we were pretty sure that we would have edit Page 7 of 25

8 changes that were being incorporated on certain fields. But so we did have that level that is out there and you can see that on the LSOG transition page. OK, I guess these CRs that you just went through. OK, thanks. Yes, and again that is done at the formal transaction level down to the field level. OK, thank you. You re welcome; any other questions? The next initiative for, candidate for the October release is CO which is the migration of West and the PAVA bulk loop qualification extract, and this is to move these over to the new web platform which goes along with the initiative that will be moving over for the LVR report. And again this will be where we will be able to migrate over the bulk loop extract so that you will be able to pull these up off of the web platform as well. And again when we do this, if you re not going to have if you don t haven t obtained new certificates for the LVR report you will need to get new certificates to be able to pull these up for the bulk loop extracts. Are there any questions? The next initiative is CO and this is the Type 5 to enhance the loop qualification response to include the host CLLI information. This initiative will implement a new field and this new field is the HOST local service termination field, and what we will do is when you do a loop qualification we will be able to return both the LST CLLI for at the HOST local service termination CLLI and this will enable you to be able to determine if you are collocated at the HOST CLLI or at the LST CLLI location to determine whether or not you need to process an LSR for a design or a non design loop. Are there any questions? This is Mike Clancy. The HOST is where the dial tone originates, and what will be the identity for the remote to check something that s already there? Yes, right now today yes, what we are doing is we re returning on the LST, we return the CLLI and if you, if you re located at the remote terminal we are returning the HOST CLLI there, and then you are not aware that you re actually at the remote. And what is happening is then you re turning around and providing us back a thinking that you re at the HOST you re giving us a non-designed and in fact you need to be giving us like a designed loop, so then we are rejecting your LSRs back to you. OK, but how will the remote be identified? We re going to be returning both of them back to you so you re going to get - the remotes will be returned back and, like the LST, and then the HOST will be returned back or the main location will be returned back out as the HOST. So you re going to get pulled back. All right so there will be an LSC and a HOST LSC. Yes you re going to get both back. Oh, OK. So we will return both CLLIs back to you. Great, thank you. You re welcome; any other questions? This is Gloria Velez. I m just curious. You re adding a new field here and it s targeted for the LSOG 6 version. For the LSOG 9 is this new field incorporated into some of those LSOG 9 initiatives? version is LSOG 6 and greater. next one? Yes, this will be incorporated in LSOG 9 as well. The indicator under LSOG I missed the greater sign. All right, thank you. That s OK. Are there any other questions? OK, John do you want to cover the John Olsen: Sure will. Initiative CO T5 enhancement of RETAS; the description is enhance RETAS to include more current status information. Currently RETAS only reflects trouble resolution when the ticket has closed. This is going to be accomplished by updates to the modify/enhance status inquiry screen, and you can Page 8 of 25

9 drill down from there into the trouble report detail screen. There s going to be a link added on to the that will display date and time and status for the life of the ticket, so that you will be able to see different statuses change during that ticket lifetime. Are there any questions? OK Bobbie. OK, and the last one we have for the October release is CO and this is to modify our APPT, our appointment field, for all of our REQ types, and we are actually going to be modifying this so that we will provide the ability for you to schedule an AM or a PM appointment time. Speaker: Speaker: Bobbie, can you give me that number again? CO Thank you. You re welcome. Are there any questions? OK, Jean: Right, thank you Bobbie and John. Moving on to our PWG section of the agenda, several of the West CLECs did participate in last week s East meeting where we addressed CR that we did discuss in May, and that was submitted by Covad and it s to maintain the DSL capability on a shared loop when the TN is ported. After the May meeting Covad wanted to readdress this and so we did discuss this last week; we did some rerating on this last week. I do want Mike to at least give a little update; I will give an update of where we stood last week and ask for any CLECs that weren t on last week s call if they would like to rate it this week, re-rate it this week, as well as there are a few CLECs that need to still provide me a rating from last week. So Mike, if you just want to go through your reasoning of readdressing this again. I will give a status of what we voted on last week and then we will ask for new ratings for the people who didn t participate. OK, this is Mike Clancy from Covad and the reason I wanted to have this re-rated was I adulterated the original request during the May meeting to accommodate some feedback at the May meeting by some of the CLECs, and then even that at the CUF became an issue. The CUF was the day after that change management meeting in May. So I wanted to leave the CRs, and this is one of two CRs, I wanted to leave the CRs as they were originally proposed, and this one is to have an LOA when a number is porting out of the ILEC network, or off of the ILEC network, where the loop is not going to be reused so there is no need for any ILEC provided UNE, and the original condition is a shared loop, whether that s line sharing or line splitting, or it could be loop sharing, but there is a loop sharing yes. The idea would be that if a cable MSO or a wireless provider, or an alternative network provider that s using Y-Max or VOIP or something else comes along they would be able to port the number off of the ILEC network, off the ILEC switch, into their own switching network and use their own facilities to provide the end user service. Meanwhile the underlying data provider is kind of left in the lurch in terms of they don t know if the customer for example if they are porting out to a wireless network provider and it s a wireless O & T, they may just want to have their telephone service on wireless and not necessarily have their data service on wireless, at least at the current time. So this gives the data provider the opportunity to elect, and the election would have to be by agreement with Verizon, to elect to allow Verizon to automatically convert that loop to a standalone UNE loop and the data provider would pay for the full loop rather than the shared loop part of the service and then they could do I would call it account management, to get back to their ISP partner and say hey, this activity happened, what do you want me to do? Do you want me to disconnect this, do you want me to leave it as a standalone dedicated ADSL loop and the ISP would probably have to pay more for that, or and if the ISP does want to keep it as a standalone loop the data LEC may want to change the CFA to get test capability on the loop or something like that. But this would pretty much leave the facility intact and that facility is already known to be digitally qualified. Now there is a second CR that I put in for when a Mike, can we do this one first and then move on to the next one? The issue here Jean is that when people hear this and they don t know any other part of the story, that s what ends up with all the pushback we got at the CUF. All right, go ahead. So the second CR is when a network provider is using the underlying UNE, or wants to use the underlying UNE and wants to have that digitally qualified loop, and they are doing a port out, they have a double LOA which tells Verizon hey, I m taking the loop too. So that s the second CR I put in, so I just want to clarify that so if you re voting on this CR, what you re voting on is to permit a network provider that has its own facilities to provide the service, and they re not using any UNEs provided by an ILEC to port the number off the ILEC network and, by agreement, giving Verizon the ability to convert the shared loop to a standalone UNE and the DLEC would accede to pay for the standalone UNE. And if they didn t have an agreement it would automatically be disconnected. Page 9 of 25

10 that with Verizon. It automatically gets disconnected if the DLEC doesn t have an agreement to do Right. Loriann Ercan: Mike, this is Loriann. Can I just clarify something? It doesn t matter whether the end user has already disconnected the DSL right? They ve called you up and said OK, we don t want the data service any more but you might still want that loop. Yes and there is some lag. Like right now we re getting notification, Loriann, from Verizon by , and I see the majority of those customers have not processed disconnects with us. Then there are some of those customers who have processed disconnects with us and the order is in a disconnecting status, meaning I m sending the disconnect to Verizon already. So those would be handled this gives us the ability to develop electronic means of handling that so that when I get the notification from Verizon, hey this customer - and this goes to the agreement that you worked out with Verizon this customer is now a standalone UNE. I can automatically set up my OSS to match that up and if I ve got disconnect pending I automatically send them a disconnect. So this would just give us the ability to clear our accounts because what has happened is the and I noticed this also in this information, there were some shared loops that we sent, we provisioned with Verizon and evidently they never were and our records show we processed the disconnects with Verizon. Now, as we all know from other CRs that have been presented, if you process a disconnect to Verizon and there s pending activity on that loop, you re probably going to get a reject on yours, right. So although we process the disconnect, the disconnect either got rejected or it hit a PCD condition and Sup on that account and we didn t follow up on it. So we ve been paying Verizon for a year and a half for some shared loops that we didn t use, so we probably didn t get any money from the end user and, or the ISP because in our books it was disconnected and meanwhile in Verizon s books it wasn t. We have our finance group looking at that kind of stuff now in all ILECs to see what we re getting billed versus what we think we disconnected, via those books. So clearly this has already been a problem, at least to Covad. I don t know about other CLECs that do shared loop. So this gives us the ability and the incentive to make sure that our accounts clear. Loriann Ercan: the customer? Can I just ask one more question? Would this add any time to the interval to port Well that s Verizon s issue. I mean this is, we used to have the right of first refusal, right, which was the problem, and this addresses that. Now in Verizon s view when there s a shared loop it s considered a complex port and they have indicated they need more time to do complex ports. Yes, this will not address the interval at all. The interval would stay the same as previously announced, which I believe is seven days, business days. OK, any other questions? Loriann Ercan: And seven business days is better than never, right. Oh, definitely. Which it sort of was. OK, so what we are going to do here is we re actually going to rate, or give the ability for people who weren t on last week s call, to rate two different CRs. The one that we actually have in our materials which is excuse me, someone is not on mute. Hello. (Inaudible) Beth Cohen: Integra, one of the representatives I believe that s you Integra. Whoever I believe that was Integra who was having an offline conversation with somebody in their company, we could hear you. Karen Johnson: Beth Cohen: Karen Johnson: Beth, it s Karen right now. It wasn t me. It wasn t Lori either. Sorry, I thought I recognized the voice. I apologize. No problem. Anyway, where I was going we are going to rate the one that Mike two different initiatives. The one we have in our materials, which is basically a simple port out of the telephone number, no facilities are getting moved at the same time, for the voice provider. They just want the number. If the DLEC has an agreement with Verizon it will get changed over to a standalone loop; if not it will get disconnected. That s the first thing we are going to rate. The second one is the situation where Mike described, they re porting out the number and taking the loop, so this would be a UNE-L with number portability, which would be I guess a REQ Type BB, and with the same scenario. If they have with a dual LOA, meaning if they have a dual LOA that says take the voice Page 10 of 25

11 and disconnect the data, that s what we will do. If you only get the LOA to say take the voice, then the voice will be taken and I guess the dual I m getting myself confused here. The DLEC has the option - under the port out of voice to an alternative network, the DLEC has the option of giving Verizon permission to change the class of service on the loop to standalone UNE at a higher rate. On the double LOA where the provider has indicated I m porting the voice off and I want the underlying UNE loop, then the DLEC gets an automatic disconnect, they don t have any They don t have any other rights to the loop. So that would be a dual LOA situation and then the appropriate notifiers would be sent to both the losing voice provider as well as to the DLEC about the data disconnect. So for the first one, which is a simple port out, my records show that for the people that I know are on the line, I don t know if others joined since, I need a rating from SBC. Barry Queen: I m sorry Jean, say that again please. For the first one, which is a simple port out and if they re not taking the facilities the DLEC, if they have an agreement they will get a standalone loop. If not, the data will get disconnected and appropriate notifiers would be sent. SBC: to me on a rating. Integra: Time Warner: today, AT & T? AT & T: HTC: Kim Isaacs: OK, we pass on that one. OK. Integra I know you were there last week but you said you would get back Four. Four. Time Warner? AT & T you also said you would get back to me on a rating. Do you have a rating Can you hear me? I can hear you now. All right, this is Mary; I will vote a five. A five, OK. HTC? We pass. Pass, OK. Eschelon? And this is the second one with the dual LOAs? No this is the first one, with the single LOA. The data will go to the data provider if they have an agreement, if not it gets disconnected. This is the number port only; no facilities are getting moved with the voice. Eschelon: Paul Figlestahler: she gets some information today. up with you. Paul Figlestahler: Paul Figlestahler: Paul Figlestahler: I pass. OK, MCI you owed me a rating from last week. I will have to defer to Lisa s research on that and I will contact her to make sure OK, I will follow up these guys, or actually I will have someone on my team follow Yes, actually her vote was going to be for both East and West. Right, OK. I just didn t know if you came in with that information. No it did not. OK, that s fine. Thanks. Page 11 of 25

12 Blue Casa: Blue Casa? OK, is there any CLEC that I just don t realize who are on the phone that has the ability to vote and didn t vote last week on this? OK, so the additional ratings we got was SBC pass; Integra gave it a four; Time Warner passed; AT & T gave it a five; HTC gave it a pass; Eschelon pass; Blue Casa pass; and MCI we still need to get back to you. OK, the second scenario that Mike discussed is where the voice carrier comes in, they want to port the number and the facility. Once again this is a UNE-loop with number portability. This is not a platform or anything line that, it s just a loop with number portability. In this case you would be representing a dual LOA saying take the voice and disconnect the data, and appropriate notifiers would go out to the losing voice and the DLEC about the disconnect. I m going to ask, I believe, the same people for ratings. SBC? SBC: Integra: Time Warner: Five. Integra? Four. Time Warner? AT & T? AT & T: HTC: Eschelon: MCI: Blue Casa: Jean that s a five vote. OK, thank you. HTC? Eschelon? Five. MCI I m assuming we ll get back to you. Correct. And Blue Casa? OK, any questions on those two before we move forward? And it looks like, just to clarify, other than SBC all the ratings were the same and SBC passed on this one. All right, moving on to I ve lost my agenda. Moving on to the next part of the PWG, which is new this month, and Mike you re back on the hot seat. This is CO which is develop phrase codes. At the East we deferred this because I gave you some further information. I haven t heard back from you I m assuming you re deferring this on for the West right now. OK, and I m going to hand over to Beth McReynolds to handle the rest. Thanks Jean. Our next Type 5 that we re going to look at today is CO the ability to submit bulk or batched PIC change orders. Kim Isaacs, are you on the line? Kim Isaacs: Yes, I am. Kim will present this one. Kim Isaacs: Eschelon is requesting that Verizon allow the CLECs to submit bulk PIC changes on the resold and UNE-P I have on my change request, or whatever the commercial replacement product is going to be, via a system and process similar to that which the IXC uses to submit PIC changes. What Eschelon is experiencing, our Page 12 of 25

13 business need is if we have resolds or a platform customer or a group of customers that need PIC changes, we have to submit an LSR for every PIC change. IXCs through a CARE process are able to submit PIC changes on TN levels without providing the additional information and what we are requesting is the ability for the CLEC to have a similar process, either by submitting a bulk CSR request that has multiple TNs from multiple accounts and change the PICs there, or the other access to an IXC system. Are there any questions? this one. If there aren t any questions for Kim then we re going to move forward with rating This is Gloria Velez. I m sorry I m having trouble with the star, six here again. I just wanted to check with you; you re not suggesting a replacement to the current process? Kim Isaacs: No, I m suggesting an alternative. OK. So that you would envision that Verizon if a CLEC did happen to have a number of customers taking their PIC all at one time, that you re not suggesting that Verizon, you know, handle it one way versus the other, you re suggesting that Verizon be open to accepting it the existing process, which would be individual LSRs, or to your bulk suggestion? Kim Isaacs: Eschelon: OK. Thank you. Any other questions? OK, Eschelon? Five. AT & T? AT & T: Blue Casa: Covad: HTC: Integra: MCI: Met-Tel: SBC: Sprint: Telcove: Time Warner: Five. Blue Casa? Five. Covad? Five. HTC? Integra? Four. MCI? Four. Met-Tel? SBC? Four. Sprint? Telcove? Four. Time Warner? Page 13 of 25

14 Trinsic: we made announcements? XO: Trinsic? Three. Wisor? Is Wisor still on the line? Did I miss anyone that may have come on after This is Loriann at XO. We will give it a five. Thank you Loriann. Anyone else? What I have is AT & T five; Blue Casa five; Covad five; Eschelon five; HTC pass; Integra four; MCI four; Met-Tel pass; SBC four; Sprint pass; Telcove four; Time Warner pass; Trinsic three; XO five. our new Type 4s to be rated. That takes care of our new Type 5s for this month, and we re going to move on to This is Mary Halpin. AT & T had sent in CO a week ago. Right. And we had escalated that it could possibly be reviewed at today s meeting. Right Mary, this is Jean. I left you a voice message last night I don t know if you picked that up or not. I m guessing that s a no. The we received that late last Tuesday, past our publication of the documents, and we did pull that in and look at it. We need time internally to look at that request prior to us being able to even discuss it here at this meeting. That s kind of why we have a deadline for submitting new CRs, and I ve been exchanging messages earlier today with some of the parties that would be looking at this request and they need to talk to you a little more about the specifics of it before Verizon is comfortable discussing and rating it at a meeting. So they will be reaching out to you, hopefully soon, to do that and we will rate it at the next meeting. OK. Well that s disappointing because I think that you know we did indicate that we wanted it and there is precedent that at times both Verizon and the CLECs have submitted CRs past the deadline but when it s important enough to the CLEC that it is kind of at least looked at and discussed a little bit and then put on the next agenda. When are we going to hear from someone, because we are very eager to begin working on that? I m trying to find out now when we might hear something, but usually and I can t recall the situation under my tenure. I m not going to say it never happened but usually when we bring something in in less, or beyond the time we publish the documents and have other CLECs the ability to have the information to understand it as well, is because we have already had previous discussions in either the change management forum or a CUF forum, or some other CLEC forum, where it s now coming over as a new request, like the one we just did, the second one we just did from Mike last week. It was discussed in previous conversations; kind of everybody was on board. We were already internally looking at it within Verizon. We had the experts on the phone to be able to talk about it at the time. This one is a little bit different situation. Hopefully we do have someone reach out to you this week to get some clarification on what you re looking at. I know there is some history because there were some trouble tickets involved, so hopefully we will have a better story and we can just come in and rate it with all our understanding in the July meeting. OK. It s also I mean my history with CMP is that some of the CRs that were walked in did not necessarily originate in CUF or have been discussed previously, but at this point that s neither here nor there. So we will look forward to hearing from you soon because we do want to get to work on this as soon as possible. Right. It will not be me, it will probably be someone from the business rules and requirements team that will reach out to you in the next week to discuss this, just to give you an expectation of who might be calling you. OK? Also I would just like to share - this is Gloria - that I ve had discussions internally with some of the folks at Verizon, specifically the people in the CTE environment. Right, and that s what I said Gloria. When I looked at this after the examples were sent in and there was some trouble ticket information, so yes, I know there was, at least in the WCCC and the CTE groups have been involved in this. We need to now get the requirements teams involved in this to understand it, because they are the ones that are going to be working this going forward, and we just haven t had the time to do that from the time you submitted it until today to be able to discuss it. OK. It s disappointing, like Mary said. OK, moving on to the new Type 4s. Page 14 of 25

15 OK, the first one that we re going to be looking at is CO change retention period of LVR from 90 days to 45 days, and I m going to turn this over to Bobbie Dodson. Thanks Beth. This initiative is basically going to be doing a modification change to how long we access the LVR report. Currently today we allow you to access we provide the LVR report 30 days prior to the book closing. That is going to remain the same. What is going to change is that we will only have them up and available for a total of 45 days so basically what will happen is that the LVR reports will be provided 30 days prior to the book closing and then once the book closes they will be available for approximately an additional 15 days so that they are available for a grand total of 45 days instead of the old at 90 days that they were available before. Basically once the book closes the LVR reports are really historical data only, that you cannot make any changes to them because the book has closed on that, so we are just going to be shutting down the availability of that particular book closing LVR report and making it only available for 45 days. Are there any questions? And why is this being done? This is being done because it s only historical data. There isn t anything that you can really do to change that, so we re only giving the 45 days for you to actually go out there and pull your LVR listing report and this will give us more server space availability out there, because there are so many book closings to have the space for us to have the reports that are needed out there. one. AT & T? AT & T: Blue Casa: Covad: Eschelon: HTC: Integra: MCI: Met-Tel: SBC: Sprint: Telcove: Time Warner: OK, if there aren t any other questions for Bobbie on this we are going to rate this One. Blue Casa? Covad? Eschelon? One. HTC? Integra? One. MCI? One. Met-Tel? One. SBC? One. Sprint? One. Telcove? One. Time Warner? One. Trinsic? Page 15 of 25

16 Trinsic: XO: Peggy Rubino: should go through the CUF? One. OK, with the exceptions of the passes we have all ones there. This is XO and we will give it a one as well. Sorry XO. Jean - this is Peggy - could you explain why this is not a process change that I ll try. This is, because it is considered an interface and the fact that the LVR is a report that you guys use for your business, and basically what we re saying is we just want to reduce the time it s sitting out there for you to grab it. We see this as almost like an interface change because the availability of that report is less, we re requesting it to be less than it is currently there today. I mean do you see it as a CUF issue versus a change management issue? Peggy Rubino: the air from the CLEC community. It seems like a process change to me and I m not sensing a lot of love for this on Really! I think it s a Peggy, this is Mike. To me it seems like a policy change. I mean something was available for X period of time and now that same product is not going to be available for the same amount of time. It s kind of like a policy. Yes but shouldn t policy changes go to the CUF Mike? I thought that the purpose of change management is to deal with systems changes. appropriate forum, in my view. Elliott, all I m saying is I believe it s a policy change, so you know. I m not looking to fight with you, I m just trying to understand. If that s where policy changes get dealt with then yes, that would be the I mean we could talk about it a little more. I guess Verizon s feeling is what s driving this is our systems and the storage space within our systems because we are retaining all these reports that don t change for 90 days and it s just sitting there wasting space. So we actually see it from out standpoint and probably why it s here is we see that as a systems change in our view. Obviously it s also a policy. I think in the East we only retain these for 45 days. I m trying to get confirmation on that. Now Jean, just from what you re saying again this is Mike. From what you re saying right, that s an operational consideration in that I have a resource issue based on the amount of time this stuff is saved on my server, and that s an operations consideration for Verizon. I have a resource issue and I see that I can improve the operation by limiting the amount of time that I have this on there so I can get processing time to do new reports, etc. That would all go to the process. OK. We also discussed this in the East, I believe it was in April I m trying to find my April notes on this - where we rated it rather high. OK, yes, the East is also currently 90 days, we were asking in the East to move this down to 45 days and it probably rated, I don t have the number in front of me, but it was in the high 4s if I can just take a stab real quick at the number. Mid 4 was the overall rating. We must have been drunk! Well was I consistent? Did I pass both times? Who is that? Covad. No you gave a five. I did! Yes you did. On an LVR? Page 16 of 25

17 the East. I think timing. On an LVR. You were saving the trees. You were also eliminating the paper in Maybe I was look for the ecological thing. Can we just take the ratings from the East? We ve got to revote it in the East! I think so, I think that s a good proposal. Maybe we were so enthralled with the killing of the paper we didn t pick up on the It was both discussed. Did I pass? I can t imagine voting. No you, Elliott you gave it a five as well. Why did I do that? Because it s a good idea. You must have got into my ecological (inaudible). Well anyway I guess I think I went with you Clancy and that s what I get for doing it. The question is why is there a concern now? We are reducing the timeframe of a static report. Once it s there it sits there and stays the same for currently, today, 90 days and we are just trying to decrease this to 45 days, so you would have 45 days to go and retrieve that report which is used for book closing the directory listings, so usually there s a time sensitivity of it anyway. Peggy Rubino: remember voting a week ago. And I actually wasn t arguing the substance, I just think that since none of us No it was in April, in the April meeting. Peggy Rubino: OK, I feel a little better. It seems like we should have some discussion and there may be people that aren t on this call that need to be made aware of this. Kim Isaacs: This is Kim Isaacs with Eschelon. I don t have - with the substance of the change I just don t think CMP resources should be used; there s other things that are much more important. with it on this discussion, so Well to be blunt we ve already rated it and we ve used CMP resources to deal Kim Isaacs: I mean the implementation of it though, would the implementation of this take away resources from other highly ranked CLEC CRs? Because there s plenty of outstanding CLEC CRs that are out there that are more important to me personally than this one. Sue Pistacchio: Jean. Let me try Sue for a second. This project is related to the FTP migration to the wholesale portal project, so with all that, which is a current project underway, and there s reports all going to this portal, for both the efficiency of the new platform we were just looking at storage constraints and trying to do it. So those are the resources that will most likely be working on this project. Correct me if I m wrong, they re typically different resources within Verizon that are going to be working on business rule order edit changes, and it s a matter of us changing, dump the report after 45 days versus dump the report after 90 days. I don t know the LOE on this; I can t imagine it s huge. Sue Pistacchio: Jean, it really isn t and I know that when we were doing the FTP project it was one of the suggestions that they had, something that they could do quite easily and we said no, we need to bring it to the CLECs also, but I just want to point out that there is an awful lot of interest on just growth on the CWP reports and one of the things that we look at as part of the project is we, using the storage in the most efficient manner and there just didn t seem to be a reason why those reports needed to sit there for 90 days. We feel that the 45 days is more than enough time for a CLEC to get them and retrieve them. It s going to free up a lot of storage so that we can expand on that platform for other things that you might want to use. Page 17 of 25

18 That may have been something that was brought up at the last, in the April meeting, but I just - this is Mike again. I was just chiming in on Peggy s comment like about how we were trying to be disciplined about what gets handled in change management and what gets handled in the CUF, and maybe that s a conversation we should have at the CUF, should get some clarity and bright lines around it. I know we have a CUF meeting in July so let s take that back and look at it internally and then, depending on how that goes, we may readdress this next month, so the CUF meeting will be before the West meeting. As of right now we have your ratings. If we feel this has to get bumped back out to a policy we will do that after we look at it internally as to where we think this really should have fallen. Because I think Mike was right Jean, and I understand where you re going and I vaguely remember why we voted for this and in retrospect I think that we ought to draw the line in the sand and say what goes where. I m sorry it s Elliott. I was just sort of stream of consciousness. Sue Pistacchio: OK. But Elliott, draw the line after this one goes through. This is Sue. I understand that Sue. It s you know, maybe I was stupid a month ago and there s no you know. And I realize being stupid is no defense before the law. It is a good point and it, you know, a couple of years ago we did try to draw charters up for the groups. We did say that change management was for system related changes and CUF was for everything else, and a retention period, while it may be driven by a system change and a storage consideration, is a policy change and I realize this one, you know: (a) what you said was the level of change is small, level of effort is small and (b) I have the full expectation it s done already, so Well no, it s not done. I mean, but No the FTP project is ongoing so, it s caught up in that alley but I think, you know, just as an example to get to Peggy s point that we should use it as an example and not necessarily sideline what s going on. And I think you re right. That may be the right way to do this. All right, so we ve heard your concerns, we will take it back internally and hopefully and internally will decide where that appropriate conversation should be. Is it in change management or is it in CUF, to draw the lines between the two organizations. I think we need to have it in one place first and then read it out in the other forums. Let us take it back internally and work it and hopefully we can discuss it in the July forum. moment. Jean, what s the implementation date for this? I m not sure if we have a target implementation date. It s in here for rating at the Well it s tied to the FTP migration right? It s part of that overall project. We also just rated or we just put something in that was essentially going in October that also was related to the portal project. This is Gloria Velez. Could you share why you decided to go from 90 to 45 versus 90 to maybe 60? Sue Pistacchio: The reports are sent to the portal 30 days in advance of closing, so that allows you to have it 30 days in advance of closing and 15 days after. Within a 45 day window, you know, you have 45 days to go in and download it. The file doesn t change. So in other words if someone had it this is all associated with like the book, you know, the book closing and doing verification, right. Sue Pistacchio: Correct. So after the book is closed and there s discrepancies one would only be able to rely on the version that they pulled down. for 45 days. unless you ask for an updated version. Right, it should be the same version and we should have one still sitting out there It s not 45 days after closing. No, 45 days after we put it there. It s still the same report. We don t change it Page 18 of 25

19 I realize that. I m just trying to understand that once you ve already gone into closure and now the book is in print and there s problems, a person has to go back and only rely on a copy that they pulled down. Gloria, this is Bobbie. Once the book is closed then that is what s out there, so if you re going to make any changes to that you re going to do this on LSR to make changes to that and it won t appear again until the following year when the book closes. No I understand that. I m just talking about working discrepancies, and I guess one would have to have really a solid understanding within their company how those reports are used pre closing and post closing. So I mean you ve answered my question, I wanted to understand why you went from 90 to 45 and that was answered. OK, let s move on. We will take the policy versus and where policy of this type should fall between the forums and we will discuss that in July. West. Bobbie: OK our next one, Type 4, C DS-1 UNE Loop conditioning for Verizon OK, let s try the next one. The next one is a DS-1 for UNE loop conditioning and we re going to actually be changing the way that we order DS-1 UNE loop services for ordering conditioning, and there s going to be an additional field, going to open up the SPEC code field and the SPEC field. You ll be entering a new SPEC code into that field when you order DS-1 UNE loop service and you re wanting to add conditioning on to those product services. Bobbie, this is Mike Clancy. When would I order conditioning on a T-1 UNE loop? When would you be ordering conditioning? Well if you ve got certain - like bridged taps and load coils and items like that where you re going to want to either remove, or there s items like, things like that where you d want to be taking or adding those types of items off of that and conditioning applies on to that. Isn t that routine network modification? No this is, if it deals with routine network modifications then this would not apply to that. This is outside of a routine network mod. right. facility. But when I order a T-1 I m ordering, automatically ordering a designed service, OK. So a designed service, the designer would check the facility that I don t pick the Lori Fredrickson: This is Lori with Integra. Don t the NC/NCI codes specify that that loop has to be DS-1 capable, which means it would not have load coils and bridged taps, so why would we need to order something in addition to that? Well we re adding this on with the applicable NC/NCI codes but you re right Lori, those do designate that. This is being added on with that to make sure that we have, that they are incorrectly done on this. And the items that would be associated with this would be for the unbundled DS-1 loop conditioning for like removal of a load coil, the removal of the bridged taps, the removal of the load coils and the bridged taps together, both when you re over and under your 12K of feed. And they are associated back with those equal NC/NCI codes that would be on those same type products. Lori Fredrickson: But if we were ordering a T-1 wouldn t we have to do those things, order the right T-1 service, or does this indicate that we are paying additional fees? John Olsen: That s exactly what it indicates, that s what Bobbie just said. So Bobbie again this is Mike. What s the retail analog? What s the retail analog? Page 19 of 25

20 Verizon? They order a T-1 right? NC/NCI code? You don t do that. with. codes that are being provided to us. The retail customer, you know, what s the retail customer s interaction with OK, yes. You go back and say oh, you need conditioning on your loop so give me another And Bobbie, what field specifically is being added or opened up? It s going to be the SPEC field, the S-P-E-C field. And what will you be looking for in that field? We will be providing specific SPEC codes that you would be populating that field But what do the SPEC codes mean? The SPEC codes are an indicator that there is conditioning on these loops. OK, the conditioning I get but can you share any other specifics? These codes are coming from Telcordia, so they are specific Telcordia SPEC Yes Bobbie, this is what I m going to need. This is Mike Clancy from Covad. I m going to need to have a conversation with an engineer who processes these orders that can tell me how it s different in a retail and a wholesale environment, than in wholesale I ve got to tell you what your underlying facility (inaudible). OK. Because this is not the same and if it s not the same it s discriminatory, and if it s discriminatory that's a problem, which that s not a change management conversation either so you know, this is I really need to understand why it s required. And the reason that we were requiring this is to make sure that when you ask for conditioning on there that we were able to make sure that the bill was correct for the conditioning. Right, but on a T-1 it s inherently conditioned. The underlying service is conditioned, always, and that should be covered in the T-1 UNE pricing, so this is, from an engineering perspective it doesn t make any logical sense. Lori Fredrickson: I mean if it s not conditioned it s not a T-1. Right. OK let s leave this and we can move on. Let us take this back and get more information and we will bring it back next month. This is Gloria Velez. Can I just ask a question? It s more of like an ordering perspective, but are you able to share what activities values, you would be talking about? LSR activity would this apply to? from Telcordia? Are you talking about the SPEC codes? Yes, this particular change and now adding new SPEC codes, so what type of Well the are you wanting the SPEC codes that Telcordia, that we re looking at No, I don t want the values, I want to know what type of order this applies to. Obviously it s a T-1 order but in the LSR you have the ACT field. OK, if you were putting, if you were doing like a migration over to this product, if you were doing a new product coming in, if you were doing a move. OK, so it does incorporate migration orders? Page 20 of 25