Verizon Change Management Type 5 Review Session Moderator: Susan Pistacchio October 24, 2007 11:00 AM ET
Coordinator: Thank you all for standing by for today’s conference. All lines will be open and interactive for today’s conference. Please utilize the mute feature on your phone. If your phone does not have a mute feature, you may press star 6 to mute, star 6 again to unmute. Today’s conference is being recorded. If you have any objections, you may disconnect at this time. And I’d like to turn it over to Susan Pistacchio. Ma’am, you may proceed.
Susan Pistacchio: Thank you. Good morning, everybody. This is the Verizon Change Management Second Review Session of the Type 5. How is everybody doing? Good.
Before we get started, I’m going to take a brief roll call. What I will ask people to do is to, if you’re not speaking, make sure that you are mute. I have asked the operator to make sure all lines are open.
And then the other thing that I will ask as a last housekeeping is, when you say anything, if you can please identify yourself, at least first name or last name or first name and company. We do have the transcripts and I think we’re doing a better job of identifying the speakers with the transcripts, so
Page 1 of 69
particularly if you say anything important, make sure they can capture who’s doing the speaking.
With that being said, I’m going to start off with the roll call. Can the customers please identify themselves?
Terri Manser: Terri Manser, AT&T Texas.
Susan Pistacchio: Hey, Terri.
Mary Halpin: Mary Halpin, AT&T.
Susan Pistacchio: Hi, Mary.
(Janice Sagelle): (Janice Sagelle), Broadview.
Susan Pistacchio: Hi, (Janice).
(Lori Ann Burke): (Lori Ann Burke), XO.
Susan Pistacchio: Hi, (Lori Ann).
(Eddie Pimentel): (Eddie Pimentel), Granite Communications.
Susan Pistacchio: Hi, Eddie.
Kerri Burke: Kerri Burke, Comcast.
Susan Pistacchio: Hi, Kerri.
Page 2 of 69
Kim Isaacs: Kim Isaacs, Integra.
Madison Berry: Madison Berry, Frontier.
Susan Pistacchio: Hold on. You know, I’m actually making sure I have everybody’s last names. I have Kim Isaacs, and what was the last one?
Madison Berry: Madison Berry from Frontier.
Susan Pistacchio: Hi, Madison, how are you?
Madison Berry: Good, how are you?
Susan Pistacchio: Good.
Leo Demetriotis: Hi, this Leo Demetriotis, AT&T Services.
Susan Pistacchio: Hey, Leo. How are you?
Leo Demetriotis: Pretty good, thanks.
Paola Bullock: Paola Bullock, MetTel.
Susan Pistacchio: Okay, can you give me that name again?
Paola Bulloch: Paola Bullock. P-A-O-L-A. Last name is B-U-L-L-O-C-H.
Susan Pistacchio: Thank you for joining. Anybody else?
Lori Fredrickson: Lori Fredrickson with Integra Telecom.
Page 3 of 69
Susan Pistacchio: Hi, Lori.
Peggy Rubido: Peggy Rubido.
Susan Pistacchio: Hi, Peggy.
Doc Mathews: Sue, it’s Doc at Penn Telecom.
Susan Pistacchio: Hi, Doc.
Doc Mathews: M-A-T-H-E-W-S.
Susan Pistacchio: Okay. Anybody else?
Mike Clancy: Good morning, Sue. It’s Mike Clancy from Covad Communication.
Susan Pistacchio: Hi, Mike.
Susan Pistacchio: Anybody else?
Steven Hayes: Steven Hayes, Optimum Global.
Susan Pistacchio: Hi, Steven. How are you?
Steven Hayes: Good morning.
Susan Pistacchio: Okay, so we have Terri from AT&T, California and Texas. We have Mary Halpin, AT&T local, (Janice Ziegele), Broadview, we have Lori from XO, we
Page 4 of 69
have Eddie from Granite, Kerri from Comcast, Kim Isaacs. You know, Kim, I can’t even read the company name. I’m sorry.
Kim Isaacs: Integra.
Susan Pistacchio: Integra. I’m sorry. Madison Berry, Frontier, Leo Demetriotis from AT&T. I’m going to get this name wrong. Paolo, did I say that right?
Paulo Bulloch: Like San Paolo, Brazil.
Susan Pistacchio: Paolo, okay, from MetTel, Lori from Integra, Peggy from Paetec, Doc from Penn Telecom, Mike from Covad, and Steven from Optimum Global. Did I forget anybody?
And I am going to let the internal folks, the Verizon internal folks, introduce themselves, so that when they’re speaking, you are familiar with who they are. Of course you know me. Can the other folks that are helping on the Type 5 project introduce themselves?
(Julie Leva): (Julie Leva).
(Christina Chillemi): (Christina Chillemi).
Wanda Cox: Good morning, this is Wanda Cox.
Suzanne Green: Suzanne Green.
(Beth Abesamis): (Beth Abesamis).
Page 5 of 69
Susan Pistacchio: And I think that’s it for our internal folks. And (Christina) and (Julie), some of you folks may be familiar with them. They’re going to help provide us support when we get to the provider notification initiative.
The first thing I wanted to do was just take a few minutes to review what was covered at the last meeting. This document was not sent out as part of the meeting invitation but it was posted on the change management site, and we did provide a link to it.
So the first thing that I wanted to do was just review at a very high level the session 1 readout. Does everybody have that document?
Basically, as we’ve going through this, we’ve been noting the change request as feasible or not feasible. There are some that are noted as withdrawn. In any of that, we didn’t get to. We had to put deferred or it was pending review.
So just at a very high level, and if anybody has any questions, comments, issues, with any of the documentation please advise.
For item, and I’m going by rank when I list out the numbers. For number 1 which was the standalone digital loop outside move, that was designated as feasible. We did note on that one that an official level of estimate has never been done, which may cause a reassessment on feasibility, but at this point, we are designating that as feasible.
We did also make a revision to that change request so now it shows east-west. Any questions on that one?
On rank number 2, this one is allow the coordinated conversion for peer changes (unintelligible) provisioning. On this one, it was also deemed
Page 6 of 69
feasible. We did confirm that this is specific to east only as they have the coordinated conversion process in the west.
We did update the title to more closely reflect the work that’s being requested, and we made some minor changes to the initiator company so that it is up-to- date with Lori Ann’s last name and current company name. Any questions on that one?
On rank number 3, the Type 5 alert notifications. This was also deemed as feasible. We did make a revision to the region so it now reflects east and west. We did come to an agreement that there is, we believe, no code involved with this.
We decided to continue to track it as a Type 5 as we currently have no other process to track this west, and we came to agreement on what the remaining items are with this request. And this is a meeting that still needs to be finalized with the PSCC.
We have here that we’re just looking for some modifications with how the outages are captured, or the time first identified, and the duration. We also made a revision to who is now considered the - if the initiator was Cheryl but we are noting that now, more like the owner of this is (Gloria Velez). Any questions on that one?
On item number 6, and 4 and 5, we have passed over. Those were migration scenarios, we’ll be covering those today. Item number 6 was withdrawn, and we noted that. We also made a minor change to show that this was Kerri, me and (Sierra) who are showing as the owner of this now. That was withdrawn with customer on consent.
Page 7 of 69
On item number 7 which isn’t here, that was withdrawn prior to the start of this. People are like, what happened to 7? That has also been withdrawn.
Rank number 8 to allow the 411 blocking. This was designated as not feasible. This one was grouped with request 47037 which is next on the list. We did document our position that we are not pursuing this as we will not implement a new block for local 411 due to our interpretation of various state business rules.
And based on customer request, we did make a change to the status reflected for the 31307. We had changed it to read that national 411 block was implemented in February ’07. We also added a new customer contact of (Steven Hayes) who has been representing this initiative. Are there any questions with that one?
Number 41, allow 411 block. This one we also had reviewed and at the last meeting had designated this as not feasible. The verbiage is the same as was captured on the previous one. Subsequent to that, this was discussed with (Janice) who was not at the last meeting, and (Janice) my understanding is that you worked with (Joan Costello) to get the end. You’ve agreed to get this one withdrawn, correct?
(Janice Ziegele): This is correct.
Susan Pistacchio: Okay. So that one, and that’s something that happened this week. The next document will show that one as withdrawn. And item number 9, this was designated as not feasible.
Page 8 of 69
There was this agreement that this was not truly a Type 5 change request. It was customer-specific, involved only one circuit, and had no coding impact. This is something that’s being worked in the background with engineering.
The customer does not want to withdraw this, but it is something that we are following. The hope is that at some point this year, this work will actually get done and the customer will then agree to withdraw this request.
Item number 10 was deferred. We’re going to be talking about this one today, that’s the provider notification.
Item number 11, or rank number 11, the corporate awards. We had reviewed this at the last meeting and we had deemed this feasible. We did say that there was no customer present to speak to the importance.
We did go back to the customer who advised they no longer needed this, so this has been withdrawn by the initiator. Is there any questions on that one?
On item number 12, at the last meeting we had deemed this feasible. We were pursuing processing this work as a trouble ticket. Subsequent to this, and it is on the agenda for this week, so we’ll cover it there. We do have some changes to that status, so we will cover the new statuses of this as part of the new agenda business, so there’ll be more on this to follow. Are there any questions on that one?
Last but not least, for rank number 13, this was deemed as feasible. We did say that we would investigate. This was designated as west-only and there was a question of does this issue also exist from an east perspective?
Page 9 of 69
We did review an east summary list in LSI and it also, Lori, does not show the cancelled on the summary screen. So when you see the PON list, it has I believe and I actually have it in my notes somewhere, the date created the PON, it shows that a local service confirmation was sent out but it doesn’t tell you that it was cancelled.
You need to actually go into the request to determine that it was cancelled. So it seems to work the same for east and west. So with that being said, do we want to change this one to show east and west?
Steven, I had also put down that you were going to look to check upon. Do we feel this one - this was to allow quicker identification of cancelled orders, and I know, Lori, you were only concerned about the west, but do we want to keep it west-only or do we want to change it to east-west? The process is currently the same now.
Lori Fredrickson: It’s fine with me if we add east to it. Like I said, I’m not familiar with the way the east processes, but if we want to have it for both, that’s fine with me. This is Lori.
Susan Pistacchio: Okay. So we will change to east-west. Because if we look at west only and then someone will say, well how come you did this in the west? We’ll change that to the east-west. Are there any questions with old business?
Very good. We’re going to get into the new agenda items and this was the document that was distributed as part of the meeting invitations. We’re going to start with those change requests that we were unable to get to the last meeting, and then we will start to go into the migration change request.
Page 10 of 69
The first one that’s up on the agenda is item number 10, this is to replace the provider notification. And at the last meeting, the customers asked if we could defer it to this session so that they could gather more information.
I know what I basically had shared at the last meeting was that the intent of this was to make a complete change to the processing of the provider notification. Currently right now, you receive a report and you have several means to retrieve the report.
This was requesting that the actual provider notification process be included in as more of a notifier, similar to the (FOC) notice or the PCN/BCN that you currently receive.
One of the things that I did share was that this was very complex code, and I know that when this originally came in, there was still a lot of churn. I think we were retiring one way to get it. There were some scenarios that were left open so there was more churn with the provider notification, so that may have pressed the desire for new processes.
But based on our investigation with our (SMEs) we’re on, on the provider notification, seemed to be somewhat stable at this point in time and there was a question that due to the complexity of code, is there really a need or desire to change the process?
So let me turn it over to the customers and basically ask, do we still have this requirement for provider notification?
Peggy Rubido: Sue, this is Peggy. Can I ask you a question?
Susan Pistacchio: Sure.
Page 11 of 69
Peggy Rubido: Would this replace the existing process?
Susan Pistacchio: Yes, that was the plan.
Peggy Rubido: Okay. Then I vote no.
(Janice Ziegele): This is (Janice) from Broadview. I believe that most of the issues that we had with provider notification on the reports have been cleaned up at this point, and the reports are working fairly well, so I’m kind of voting that we keep the provider notification as is.
Susan Pistacchio: So you don’t see a need for this?
(Janice Ziegele): No, I think that this is really generated originally because we were having, and I can’t speak for (Elliott) but I know that we in Broadview were having so many issues with the parent report that we had thought that the EEI notifiers would actually help us, but I don’t believe that’s the case any longer.
(Beth Abesamis): This is (Beth Abesamis) and if there’s, as you sound a requirement to maybe make changes to the existing process or things like that, I think (Christina) if I’m not talking out of place, it will be something that we, you know, could probably be brought up for discussion at the call for individually, if they came to you and then we, you know, you could work that way.
(Christina Chillemi): Absolutely.
(Beth Abesamis): (Rachel) wouldn’t have to go through a whole prioritization process, you know, unless there was some major interface work, but it’s something that could probably be worked on as a process enhancement.
Page 12 of 69
Susan Pistacchio: Anybody else?
Mike Clancy: This is Mike Clancy from Covad. I don’t understand how it would work in terms of what the notifier might contain, because the other notifiers, there’s transactional activity between the (CLEC) and Verizon. So I’m either, you know, I’ve placed an order and I’m looking for a response from Verizon.
There should be certain flows and certain timeframes. I should get a PCN in a certain timeframe and then a BCN in a certain timeframe after the clock dates that’s on the order. So, I have an expectation that I can build into my logic model for my system, you know, have an expectation that gets this.
My question is, what would be provided by Verizon? Would it be a TN, or a circuit ID, or?
Susan Pistacchio: I don’t know. (Christina) you’re the one that looked at this originally. Can you talk about what was envisioned or what direction you were going in?
(Christina Chillemi): Sure. The PN itself as a notifier would contain similar information to what the current report contains, but Mike, you’re absolutely right. There is a challenge there about how we send a response to a company who’s not expecting anything from us. You know, you don’t have the corresponding LSR in time and your suspends for the notifier that we’d be sending you.
And that was one of the reasons we thought the technical challenges is of this, the changes to our side and the changes to all of the receiving companies probably was too great considering the benefit that you would receive from this.
Page 13 of 69
Mike Clancy: So, I guess the question I had then is the sponsoring (CLEC). Does the sponsoring (CLEC) still have a requirement?
Susan Pistacchio: This is one thing we do have someone from (MetTel) and (Powerlight). I know I’m saying this name wrong and I apologize. Paola, I know that you’re new to change management and we did take some time to try to get somebody on from MetTel. I don’t know how familiar you are with this request that (Elliott) put in?
Paola Bulloch: Not at all. Noone here. We had a meeting this morning to go over what it is that (Elliott) had (unintelligible) four items, and honestly, we …
Susan Pistacchio: And we’re not going to put you on the spot, and it’s one of those things that we’re very appreciative that you’re able to come to the call, particularly I know that there’s some others that (Elliott) put in, so we don’t have any problem with letting you take it back, and you know hearing what some of the other customers are saying, and if you have any other questions.
And then, you know, what we can do is we can swing back with you in a week and say, well, now that you’ve had a chance to look at it, are you amenable to withdraw this? So …
Paola Bulloch: Yeah, I would appreciate that. I think that that’s - that would be very helpful.
Susan Pistacchio: All right. So we’ve heard from Peggy from Paetec, (Janice) from Broadview. We’ve heard from Mike Clancy and we’re going to let MetTel take this back and chew on it a bit. Are there any other customers that want to voice in on this one?
Page 14 of 69
Okay. So, basically what we’re going to do, we’ve gotten recommendations from four customers that, let me count here. Whoops, I’m sorry, three cards, that they no longer see a benefit and they’re leaning towards suggesting that this be withdrawn.
Paola, am I saying that better now? Paola?
Paola Bulloch: Yes. That’s fine, it’s okay.
Susan Pistacchio: We’ll swing back with you in a week now. I know that someone on my team was trying to get a contact. I don’t know if we have a phone number for you. Would you mind giving me your number?
Paola Bulloch: Sure. 212-607-6341.
Susan Pistacchio: 6341. All right, thank you very much. All right. So, is everyone okay with this? We’re going to follow-up with Paola. Is it just Paola or am I trying to say it Italian?
Paola Bulloch: It’s Italian, but it’s pronounced Paola.
Susan Pistacchio: You know, I should know how to say that. My husband will be very disappointed. Born and bred in Italy, I’m going to say to him I’m having a problem pronouncing …
Paola Bulloch: It’s a very popular name in Italy. It’s like Debbie.
Susan Pistacchio: Well you know what? I’m going to have him train me so the next time I talk to you, I will have it perfect.
Page 15 of 69
Paola Bulloch: Very good. Thank you.
Susan Pistacchio: All right. So this one we’ll hold off and we should have a status at the next meeting on where we are with that. Does anybody have any other questions on that one? Very good. We already talked about rank number 11, the corporate awards, and we advised that that one had been withdrawn.
And one of the things we did want to provide is even though the originating company name is on it, in all cases we will bring them to the agenda so that people understand the withdrawal and if anybody has any comments, they can have an opportunity to bring it to the table.
Any questions on this withdrawal of rank 11? Item number 12, again, at the last meeting, this is the return of the CAT-11 records on a daily basis. At the last meeting, we had designated this as feasible and we’re trying to pursue this as a trouble ticket.
What we had found subsequent to that and we have been keeping Kerri in the loop, is the fact that there is coding changes that are involved here. What was determined is that in the New England region, for the facility-based (CLECs), hard-coded to be returned, and I don’t know.
I don’t think it’s on a weekly basis. It has a specific cycle to it, so this definitely needs to stay as a Type 5 and we had said that we would look at all the ones that are designated feasible and re-rank them accordingly, but this is definitely going to need to stay as a Type 5.
Kerri, I know that you’re kind of in the loop with this. Did you have any other comments?
Page 16 of 69
Kerri Burke: No, not at this time.
Susan Pistacchio: Okay. And the other thing I wanted to throw out, with this coding change, right now everyone is receiving their CAT-11 records on a specific, I think it’s like a 10-day cycle, in the Massachusetts and New Hampshire areas.
So, the thing that would happen is if we change this, my understanding is everyone would begin to get their CAT-11 records on a daily basis. I just wanted to throw that out and make sure that there’s that understanding.
Steven Hayes: Sue?
Susan Pistacchio: Yes?
Steven Hayes: This is Steven Hayes at Optimum. Are you only speaking about facility base and not non-facility?
Susan Pistacchio: This is specific to facility base, yes.
Steven Hayes: Okay. Since I get mine every weekday.
Susan Pistacchio: Yes, it’s interesting because for whatever reason, facility base was hard- coded, and that’s where there was a little bit of a disconnect and maybe I was asking the question wrong, but it seems like in most cases there is the ability to choose if you want to receive it weekly or daily, so they would need to make the change to the facility base as well.
And again, we haven’t started to talk specific requirements with them, but to have it so they could get it maybe daily or weekly and have that option, so the profiles is what we would probably look to do. Any other questions?
Page 17 of 69
Kerri Burke: Sue, this is Kerri from Comcast. It sounds like (Tracy Kelly O’Neal) who is on this CR as well, that can speak more to this, is muted. She’s trying to talk to this about Vermont. It’s on a five-day cycle.
Susan Pistacchio: Oh, no one should be muted. Is the operator on?
Man: Star 6.
Susan Pistacchio: Star 6. I was turning around looking, hold on one second.
Coordinator: Excuse me, ma’am?
Susan Pistacchio: Yes?
Coordinator: (Tracy Kelly O’Neal)’s line is open.
Susan Pistacchio: Okay.
(Tracy Kelly O’Neal): Sue?
Susan Pistacchio: Yes?
(Tracy Kelly O’Neal): Okay.
Susan Pistacchio: Is this (Tracy)?
(Tracy Kelly O’Neal): Yes it is. Basically, on just to give you a little more information. New Hampshire and Massachusetts are on a 7 to 10 production cycle, and so sometimes you get three in a month, sometimes you get four. Vermont we get
Page 18 of 69
every five days. We get four MT files and then one day a week we get a full file.
Susan Pistacchio: And you were saying, you wouldn’t even mind going more to the Vermont model?
(Tracy Kelly O’Neal): It’s the size. Boston is one of our larger markets. It’s the size of the file, it gets too unmanageable, the process, so even if we can cut it back so we get at least one feed a week, that would help us in our production problem.
Susan Pistacchio: All right. Anybody else?
Mike Clancy: Would the optimum solution be to get a daily file?
Woman: That would be our preference.
Susan Pistacchio: Yes.
Mike Clancy: So I would think - this is Mike Clancy. I didn’t identify well. I think, to the industry, considering that most of the facilities based players are at this point pretty big operators. And, there’s further consolidation going on in the industry, I think the target should be to get them on a daily basis.
Susan Pistacchio: Right. I think that there’s an option for some of the others to get either daily or weekly. So I think one of things we were looking at is, well, why don’t we allow that option, and let them select it through their profiles.
Again, we just found out how it works now only by identifying its code changing to have the dialogue on what’s the optimal way to move forward and what are some of the other suggestions is always good because we don’t know
Page 19 of 69
what issues we may be presented with when we do decide to move forward on this one.
But I do have that daily would be the preference or at least to be able to select daily or weekly. Are there any other comments on this one? All right.
We’re going to move on to rank number 14. This one we didn’t get to at the last meeting. This is the enhanced, the (wise) interface to pull-in the pre-order into the LSR. And on this one, Kim, you’re on. If you want to maybe talk to yours a little bit?
Kim Isaacs: Certainly. I submitted this change request when I was receiving our monthly error and jeopardy report and noticed a great deal of LSRs were being erred for address, state, zip, reserve (TNS) not being right, (RESID), I’m sorry, being incorrect. Those things that are populated on the pre-order function, but you have to retype into your LSR.
And in thinking about how to address the errors aside from providing training for folks and things like that, I was wondering about an electronic or an automated option to pull that pre-order data into the LSR after you’ve, you know, you’ve done the pre-order function.
You get the pre-order response back from Verizon. What I’d like to see is when you open an LSR that the address is available to put into your LSR. The information is automatically populated like if you had reserve TNs, that that list of TNs is there to put into your LSR. I believe it would cut down on the amount of errors.
Page 20 of 69
Other (ILEC) vendors offer this capability. Some of them even allow you to recap your listings and your CSI into the LSR as well, so I was hoping we could gain some efficiency by not having to populate that information.
Susan Pistacchio: Kim, I have a question for you, because that functionality already exists in the west. So I know that if you do do a pre-order, I believe you have to type-in the RES ID. When you create the LSR, the information is already pulled over.
Kim Isaacs: We went through that exercise. We actually - you called me and said, yes, it does this already, and we went through the exercise and it didn’t work.
Susan Pistacchio: And what we think is, is that because you are using the templates, because I think if you use a template, you can’t pull over the pre-order as part of the template.
Kim Isaacs: Right. Are these customized templates that you customize from Integra, or are they - because the standard template that we have, you can do that, right, Sue?
Susan Pistacchio: Well, it’s not so much a standard template. The things that you’re supposed to do first is go over and to pre-order, and you do your pre-order transactions and there’s a RES ID that’s created. And I know (Bobbie)’s not on, but she kind of talked us through this and maybe Suzanne knows more than I do.
When you come over to create your LSR, okay (Bob). (Bobbie) knows this better than I do. So (Bobbie), do you want to kind of talk through the process?
(Bobbie): Yes, thank you, Sue. Yes, when you’re over in pre order in the west, you have the ability and in the WISE application to reserve a due date and to reserve your telephone numbers.
Page 21 of 69
And after you’ve done that, then there’s like a button or something that you click and it will take you over into the ordering application of WISE and it will take that information that you have and then you put in like your CCNA and your basic information, your CCNA’s date, combination, and it will then take over and you put in your reservation number and it will pull over that basic information that you have reserved along with the address information that you have also done, because you have to do the address validation.
And it will create a basic shell order for you to then proceed forward with, so you don’t have to populate that information. We do not have it set-up for you to do that same thing with all of your templates that you have personally created out there.
So you will then have to populate all of the other information that you probably have created within your own shell orders.
Susan Pistacchio: Right. And that’s where we were in February. And I was saying, what is the level of effort to expand that functionality into using the LSR template?
Kim Isaacs: Typically, instead of - like right now, the process that works now, you use the pre-order and that shell is brought over for your LSR. So basically, you’re asking to integrate two shells, orders.
Susan Pistacchio: Right.
Kim Isaacs: And we’ve been told it’s feasible, but the level of effort is extremely high. Basically due to the number of templates that are supported.
Page 22 of 69
Lori Fredrickson: This is Lori with Integra. If I’m understanding this right, I mean, we’re kind of swapping, I mean, so if we can do this and bring the address and stuff over from the pre-quals, that’s going to prevent typos and stuff on the address.
But if we can’t use a template, then we’re just risking making more errors by having to type-in everything manually, so by using this, it doesn’t sound like we’re saving anything as far as people making errors. Is that - am I grasping this right?
Susan Pistacchio: No, I think what it is, is it’s basically two types of shells. You start with pre- order and bring your pre-order stuff over to your LSR. And the pre-order stuff, (Bobbie) was saying like the type of things you can bring over, the address information, your telephone numbers, your due date.
If you do it that way, then you need to type-in the other types of information. The other option that we have is the custom templates, which you can do your custom templates, and I think those that give more to things that you put in, your feature detail or what not, and you can use those custom templates to generate an LSR, but if you do that, it’s not coordinated with the pre-order stuff, so then you need to go in and type your address, your TNs and your due dates.
(Bobbie): So either way, we end-up typing, you know, what we’re trying to eliminate here is the human error, typo scenarios, because I’m with Kim on this one. I mean, we got those same reports. We had a lot of errors, you know, human error, typo-type things, where with the other (CLEC) that we deal with, that information is brought across automatically so we don’t risk that many errors or typos and stuff.
Page 23 of 69
But in this case, we can bring some information over, but then if we lose the ability to use the template, then we’re going to go back to the human error on typing everything in that would be normally on the template, so I don’t necessarily think that by using this, we’re going to gain anything as far as lowering our error rates for both us and you.
Susan Pistacchio: Right.
(Eddie Pimentel): This is (Eddie) from Granite. Is this strictly in WISE, like, all these templates that you’re talking about? Are these strictly just in WISE or is this pulling stuff from Verizon back into EDI?
Susan Pistacchio: This is in WISE.
(Eddie Pimentel): This is strictly in WISE. Okay, because we encounter a lot of the same errors and what we’ll find is that the records don’t match as far as when we do a pre- order through EDI and it comes out the CSR, or the CSI, as opposed to what the address shows or, and the address validation, and that’s where we get a lot of our errors.
So I was trying to figure out, you guys encounter the same errors there, but you guys are speaking strictly about WISE. Sorry about that.
(Bobbie): No, that’s okay.
Susan Pistacchio: Any other comments?
(Beth Abesamis): I just have one question. This is (Beth Abesamis). I guess the west is not as easy for me to understand with this but just for Integra and, well, for you guys
Page 24 of 69
that use these templates. Do you do some type of checking for your error rate on your side?
I’m just trying to think, if you’re going to use the templates, what process do you use? Maybe there’s something that you could work on at least in the interim on your process, too, to verify to make sure the information is accurate.
Susan Pistacchio: That is what we have been doing, with the error reports we receive. We’re receiving …
(Beth Abesamis): After the fact is what you’re saying.
Susan Pistacchio: Right. Verizon would send, and we created the templates to take care of the most common mistakes that were made. We created templates for user to use for the most common mistakes made, but then they kept pulling the pre-order information so while the errors were those common mistakes that we took care of with the templates went down, the errors went up for the address.
So that’s why I’m saying, if we could combine the two, you know, the templating ability with the ability to pull the pre-order in, we would take care of both problems.
(Beth Abesamis): Do you use one template, or you have a number of templates that you use?
Susan Pistacchio: Depending on the order typed, we’ll have an unbundled (move) template, you know, depending on the product and the activity, we create standardized templates for folks to use that address the most common errors for (toss) or NCI codes or things like that.
Page 25 of 69
And ask them to use the templates, but once we started doing that, we got errors on pre-orders issue, you know, typing errors for address, validation issues, and things like that.
(Beth Abesamis): Right, and that’s common, right, I understand?
Susan Pistacchio: Yeah.
(Beth Abesamis): Thank you. I was just trying to think it through, so it’s not like there’s a single template and that every company probably could have their own templates that they use as well, correct?
Susan Pistacchio: Right.
(Beth Abesamis): I’m just thinking of the work effort that there would be, how we would think that through.
Susan Pistacchio: And I’m just trying to understand why the templating doesn’t work, why the pre-order shell-building or whatever, why that piece wouldn’t work on a template. What needs to be pulled out of the system to allow you to pull up an existing template and get that pre-order information in there?
Kim Isaacs: It’s not that it wouldn’t work. It’s just something that we haven’t pursued. It’s something that is feasible to do. We haven’t, this is something where we haven’t put an official request in, so it’s not like we can come back with a definitive level of estimate, but we have been given a preliminary understanding from our IT organization that this would have a high level of effort.
Page 26 of 69
And the reason why it is is because of the number of templates. If there were a handful of templates and to integrate on both the shell that comes back from pre-order and the shell with the template, it probably wouldn’t be that much.
(Bobbie) I don’t know if we knew how many templates there were? For some reason, I thought it was like 500 and something?
(Bobbie): I don’t know. I didn’t ask how many were out there today, but as templates change, they remove some, add some new ones in, or new customers come in, and create new templates, then of course those would have to be addressed as well.
Susan Pistacchio: And why are we addressing it on a per-template basis? Why not a global allow that pre-order shell function with existing templating? I guess I don’t understand why it has to be on …
Kim Isaacs: I don’t know how. Technically, they would have to make that happen to hit all the different templates. I don’t know, because I’m not a technical IT person, so I don’t know how they pull that over to hit against all the different templates to make that work. So that would have to be part of their design.
I know that when we took this back over to them, my first question is, is this feasibly possible? Their answer was yes, and I said, would this be a simple effort because we already have this ability created, and they said that this would be a task that they could perform but that the level of effort on their part would be quite large.
Lori Fredrickson: This is Lori again with Integra. Could we maybe try to look at this in a little different way, I know again, with other (CLEC), if we hit the submit button,
Page 27 of 69
and the address is wrong or other minor little things are wrong, the order will be stopped up front and we don’t have to submit a version two.
You get an error pop-back and tells you what your error is. You go in and correct it and then you submit it. Is there any way we could kind of maybe look at doing that initial edit up-front before the order is actually submitted, so we’re not on version 5, 6, 7 to correct some little typos?
Susan Pistacchio: You’re wanting the type of edits that we have within the WISE application, you’re wanting that built into the WISE application that we have in the other application.
Woman: In the service address for us, to identify if it’s correct or not, we actually have to go into the database, you know, when we’re creating the service order, so I don’t know if that address could ever be an up-front edit.
Kim Isaacs: This is Kim. How about we validate address from the LSR?
(Bobbie): You’re wanting - because obviously we have the pre-order address validation. You’re wanting to have the order do that address validation within the WISE application from an ordering perspective?
Kim Isaacs: And this is just some options to address the errors we’re seeing.
Woman: But (Bobbie), if I’m not mistaken, when you submit your LSR, the address is validated. But it’s not considered a front-end edit.
(Bobbie): It’s not. It’s done once the order clears those up-front at the back end.
Page 28 of 69
Woman: And that’s where you run into problems is that’s further down the path than it need be, and that causes a delay down there. For a typo, because I type, I miss keys or miss strokes, it would be nice to know that right up front instead of waiting until the end, that would mitigate some of the issues with this, if that effort is less than this.
Woman: So, what I’m getting here is, the primary concern is the address information.
Woman: Yes, correct.
Woman: So you would like to have some way that the address could be checked based on what you’ve done for pre-order?
Woman: Right.
Woman: And I don’t know about - I mean, the templates right now, they don’t include the RES ID field, correct?
Woman: No. Because that changes from order to order.
Woman: But it’s something like when you submit a template, are the things that you put in that do vary, like is RES ID, and I don’t know a lot about the templates. Is that something that you could put in?
Woman: Yes. I mean, you pull up a template and depending on the individual address, the TNs involved, all of that has to change, so yeah, you change that and then submit it.
Woman: I mean, it’s something that (Bobbie) and I - as she said, it’s something that can be done, and one of the things that I would caution is, you know, we have a lot
Page 29 of 69
of Type 5 requests, so when we’re approaching our technical folks, we’re not asking them to really drill down and come up with an alternative solution.
It’s more at a very high level, is this something we could do or not do, and you know, they spend a certain amount of time and say it’s feasible, so whatever option, you know, that they thought of that could possibly do this would not necessarily be the way that they go.
And one of the things our technical folks would look at is, you know, what is the best and easiest way to accommodate this request? So, you know, our high level understanding is, yeah, we can do it, but it’s not going to be easy to do, but that doesn’t mean that they, you know, when we decide to move forward on this that they can’t say, oh, you know, we thought of this, and this is going to make it a lot easier.
Woman: It sounds to me that this is something that’s still necessary to stay on the list for the WISE interface as an option to review. And then when we get down to it and we go back, to get a little more information, it’s good to have what Sue has just been asking you because if we go back, we might be able to fine-tune a little more in with the IT folks.
Susan Pistacchio: And one of the things I’m going to put here, kind of to differentiate, there are some Type 5s that we have that we’ve gotten more of an official level of an answer, and on those we can really, yeah, no, they’ve looked at it, you know, in some cases, we may have actually started requirements and submitted them.
On this one, it’s more what we consider a very rough level of estimate, so we can see at this point, the preliminary very rough level of estimate is deemed high but to kind of differentiate from those cases when we had like more of a solid one.
Page 30 of 69
So I can make sure that that’s capture in the history. All right, but this is definitely noted as feasible. Does anybody have any other questions on this one?
Kim Isaacs: This is Kim Isaacs, again. I’m wondering, I was not able to make the first call, and on the agenda was item 15, the ranks expand, the pre-order view of cable availability, and I don’t see it on this week’s agenda and I did not see it in the notes, either.
Susan Pistacchio: It’s going to be on next week’s. I put it in error. One of the things we wanted to do, we have about three or four initiatives that are covering like CSA-type stuff. It’s actually going to be on the next agenda, which is going to be the 7th.
Kim Isaacs: Okay.
Susan Pistacchio: And we just thought it would be good to talk about them all together.
Kim Isaacs: excellent plan. Thank you for filling me in.
Susan Pistacchio: No problem. All right, is there anything else on this one? All right, I’m going to jump to rank number 16. This is the green field addresses to be included on the (loop qual) and I know that (Beth) has been having some discussions with the customer on this, and there is some additional - my understanding is there is some additional investigation that we want to pursue on both sides before we continue the discussion with this.
So, it’s being requested by both Verizon and the customer if we could defer this until the November 7th meeting. Is that okay with everyone? And Terri, that’s my understanding, right?
Page 31 of 69
Terri Manser: Yes.
Susan Pistacchio: Okay. Okay, with, so we will show that as deferred. We will put it on the agenda for next week’s, or the November 7th meeting. Okay, now we’re going to get into the migration Type 5s, and the first one up is number 4.
As you’ll see when you get into these, in most cases we had an east and west version, and if I could get them on the same page so that we could talk about them a little bit easier, I did do that.
So, we have the first one, again, same thing. This isn’t migrating from (UNE- P) or we could say wholesale advantage now to an XDSL-capable loop. And I just wanted to share the information that we, Verizon, found on this initiative, or this change request, because on this one, we show that this work has been fully completed.
We looked at this and there have been various initiatives that have gone in, but we thought agreement that regardless if you’re doing this as a REC-type AB, and a REC-type ID would be disconnecting the (TN) when you migrate to the loop, or if you do it as a BB request, and that would be porting it when you migrate to the loop, that both of those scenarios have been covered.
So my question is, does anybody consider this one outstanding? And if they do, can they advise why?
Mike Clancy: Sue, this is Mike Clancy. This is the rank 4, and this is single L, this ought to move from (UNE-P) to XDSL?
Susan Pistacchio: Correct.
Page 32 of 69
Mike Clancy: Hang on a second, please.
Susan Pistacchio: Sure. I’m just going to hold on a second, because we do want a (unintelligible) on this.
Mike Clancy: Sorry about that.
Susan Pistacchio: That’s quite all right, Mike.
Mike Clancy: Okay. Now, you said that this is covered or ready with two separate initiatives?
Susan Pistacchio: Well actually it depends if you’re talking east or west. I know that when it comes to the disconnecting the (TN) or doing the EB request, this is something that has been covered for awhile, so the BB request or doing the port-out with the migration to the loop, we have that this was covered with the do LOA initiatives that went in, I believe it’s in the October timeframe.
But I do have scenarios on this, Mike. You would either submit an AB request if you wanted to disconnect the TN. The TN that would be disconnected would go on the loop form, and you’d give your meet point information to process the migration, so it’d be an AD active V.
So that’s if you wanted to disconnect the TN and migrate the facilities to the standalone loop. If you wanted to do the BB request, that is more the newer functionality, that’s if you want to port-out the telephone number while it’s being migrated to the loop.
Page 33 of 69
And we did look at the types of loops that are covered and it’s all of the ADSL-C, the ADSL-R, the HDSL loops, 2-wire 18 to 30 nonconforming loops, so all of the XDSL-capable loops are covered.
Mike Clancy: Okay, now, is there someone on your team who I could speak with directly to get various …
Susan Pistacchio: Scenarios?
Mike Clancy: Scenarios, so I can throw those over to our folks to review. This is covered, it’s just (unintelligible).
Susan Pistacchio: Okay. What we’ll do is, we definitely have someone that you can work with. I might - (Bobbie) I can coordinate that with you, right?
(Bobbie): Maybe.
Susan Pistacchio: (Bobbie) are you still there?
(Bobbie): I’m here.
Woman: Mike, just what you’re saying, we have been through these scenarios, too, and it’s required us to sit down and almost like board it and say, okay, what is it that we do? What is it that we didn’t do? How does this work? So, it would probably be good to go through those scenarios.
Susan Pistacchio: What I’ll do, Mike, first, is I’ll look to see if possibly they’re covered in the Web scenarios. I know with the Web, they covered a high level, kind of the Reader’s Digest version of the scenarios. If not, we’ll see what we can do, but we can definitely walk this through with you.
Page 34 of 69
Mike Clancy: Great. That way, I can get the operations folks up to speed on how it works.
Susan Pistacchio: Okay.
(Janice Ziegele): Sue, this is (Janice) from Broadview. Is it possible that we could get some LSR samples on these?
Susan Pistacchio: You’re talking like a scenario, just to show how it looks?
(Janice Ziegele): Yes.
Susan Pistacchio: Yes, we can do that.
(Janice Ziegele): I think there’s one that may already be on an order sample, but I just, I think that would be helpful to the group. They could understand when you’re doing, when you’re porting, these are the, here is the LSR you would use.
Susan Pistacchio: Okay. What we can do is a follow-up and what I’ll do is, I will do it for the participants on this call.
Mike Clancy: Okay, I’ll be right - I'm going to be right back.
Susan Pistacchio: Okay. First we’ll look to see if there are scenarios that are on the Web and if so, we can refer to them. If not, we can have a sample scenario drafted-up and distribute it to this group.
In addition to that, we will follow-up with Mike and just see if he has any other questions. Does anybody have anything else on this one?
Page 35 of 69
Okay. So we’re going to do some follow-up with this and work with Mike, but we see this one kind of in the pending withdrawal state, and we will follow-up one way or another. It may be at the November 7th meeting on what the status is of this.
Does anybody have any other questions for rank number 4? Okay, we’re going to move on to number 5. This one is migrating from line-splitting to XDSL-capable loop, and just so we’re all up to speed with what we consider line-splitting, that is the (UNE-P) with the DSL on it.
And what we found on this one is we do partials on this, and I need to go each jurisdiction separately. From a west perspective, we do allow a port-out from line-splitting to an XDSL-capable loop, so we allow a REC-type BB, and that’s a port-out with a migration to the standalone loop.
We do not allow currently an AB request. That’s disconnecting the TN and migrating to a standalone loop. That’s from an east - sorry - from a west perspective, and I should say from an east perspective as well.
We do allow the port-out to a standalone loop. We do not allow a disconnect TN to a standalone loop, and that’s a migration from line-splitting to XDSL- capable loops.
I should ask the question, because this is Mike’s as well, did Mike come back? Well, let me ask the rest of the industry, the fact that we allow the port-out but not the disconnect for this scenario, is the disconnect required?
Doc Mathews: Sue, this is Doc. If I’m understanding this right, and I can be totally off-base, but imagine that you don’t need the TN because you need to loop to provide a customer, to provide them with a broadband product, an Internet product.
Page 36 of 69
And on that same loop, we can be providing that customer VOIP, but we don’t need the old customer’s TN.
Susan Pistacchio: So you want to be able to disconnect?
Doc Mathews: Yes. I could see that scenario happening, not as frequently because, of course, generally, when a customer goes to VOIP they want their TN. But I could see it as a possibility.
Mike Clancy: Sue, I’m back. I’m sorry for the interruption.
Susan Pistacchio: That’s okay. We were on the next one, Mike, the line-splitting to XDSL- capable loop, and on this one what we were sharing with is we do this partially. We allow the port-out of line-splitting to a standalone loop, but currently we do not allow the migration to a standalone with a disconnect of the TN.
So we allow the BB request, direct-type BB, which would be with the port- out, but we do not allow it with the REC-type AB, which would be migrate the loop but disconnect the TN.
And what Doc says is he does see validity in the AB scenario. So, is this another one, Mike, where you would probably - I’m thinking, I’d have to look, I think this scenario is the same.
Mike Clancy: I could see like, you know, that the previous one without a dual LOA being feasible, but with the dual LOA in existence, I don’t see why these two won’t work.
Page 37 of 69
Susan Pistacchio: You mean these two, you mean the disconnect of the TN?
Mike Clancy: Well, one’s to the east, one’s to the west. You know, 0282 is west and …
Susan Pistacchio: Oh, Okay.
Mike Clancy: So, single LSR ought to migrate from line-splitting to XDSL-capable loop. If a provider basically says I have a dual LOS, right, and comes in on a line-split loop today. Let’s say it’s an off-Net provider. Let’s say it’s Cablevision, Comcast, even a Vonage, I guess.
Well Vonage they do this, but then they end-up getting hurt because when the line-splitting gets disconnected, so does the loop. But let’s say it’s an off-Net provider. They come in and they say, here’s the dual LOA.
So we’re signifying that the customer knows we’re messing with their voice, their existing voice, and existing data service. And the dual LOA say, LNP only, right?
Susan Pistacchio: Uh hmm.
Mike Clancy: That takes the number is quoted off the network and some provider notification is issued to I think the data provider and the voice provider. It should be only the voice provider.
Susan Pistacchio: No, I think in those cases we would do both.
Mike Clancy: This was disconnect.
Susan Pistacchio: Right.
Page 38 of 69
Mike Clancy: So, in my view with a dual LOA, a (CLEC) should be able to come in and say, here’s the dual LOA, and the customer knows that voice service is being messed with, and their data service is being messed with.
Susan Pistacchio: Right.
Mike Clancy: And we wanted to go to a standalone digitally-qualified (unintelligible).
Susan Pistacchio: Right. And you want to have the - you already have the capability to port the number, but you don’t have the capability to disconnect the number.
Mike Clancy: Right.
Susan Pistacchio: So we see this is as valid and again, what I think we’re going to do here is, again, we can look at the scenarios and see if they’re different from the one we talked previously. We can do the same thing, you know, send it out to this group and show you the scenarios.
What I’d like to do on this one is to add some verbiage to show that the REC- type BB is supported and we can put the initiatives and the timeframe when it began to be supported and put what’s remaining on this to allow the AB or the disconnect of the TN.
Mike Clancy: Because there may be an instance where a customer comes in and says, hey, I’m porting my number to this service, but I want to keep your data service, and they’ll execute something like that.
Page 39 of 69
Susan Pistacchio: Okay. This is definitely one that is deemed feasible. We do not have a level of estimate available either detailed or high-level for this one, but we’ve marked this one as feasible.
Mike Clancy: Why don’t we start with the scenarios for the port-out, right, and the move to an XDSL and I’ll share that internally with the (unintelligible) and operations people to see does that meet their needs. If it does, I’ll just come back and (unintelligible) but if they also want the other option, I’ll let you know that.
Susan Pistacchio: Okay. And I was just looking. I know on these, they’re really looking for exactly the same thing. You might look to consolidate. These above shown as rank 5. Do people have any problem if we try to consolidate some of these that are east-west split-up? I didn’t know we’d have to …
Mike Clancy: No, I think we should just make them universal, all of Verizon.
Susan Pistacchio: Okay. I just want to make sure. I know these both came in from (John). We can change it so it shows you now, Mike, and I just want to make sure that we have all of the history so we might have to show something as east history or west history, but in cases where we can consolidate ones that are ranked the same like this one, we will do that.
All right. Any other questions on that one? Okay, the next one we’re going to go to is item number 21, or rank number 21. This is the single LSR to migrate voice and data. Humor me for a second, I’m working off of a master one that I have and need to scan down a little bit to get to my notes.
All right, on this one, we have again, this is an east and west one, both looking for the same thing. From a - let me get to the west first. This one, the east one comes first. From an east perspective, we allow, we do allow the migration
Page 40 of 69
from the line share to line split, but what is covered at this point is we do the voice migrations, we do not do the data migrations.
So we actually have a lot of history on this. We feel that the only piece that’s left over is the data migration. Are people in agreement with that?
Mike Clancy: This is Mike, Sue. So you’re saying that you do the voice migration but you don’t do (vaults) today, you won’t do a voice and data migration.
Susan Pistacchio: That’s - we’re not doing it right now. You will do a voice migration, we do not do the data migration.
Mike Clancy: Okay, so let’s …
Susan Pistacchio: And you know what, Mike, before I say this wrong and I apologize, this is where I have stuff on different pages. I just want to check west, because sometimes west is a little bit different. On this one I do show that we don’t do the data migration for either east or west.
Mike Clancy: Okay. So, from line-sharing to line-splitting, VZ voice, I’m looking at the west one functions. VZ voice, VZ would be let’s say dual-range then collect (UNE-P) with or without changing the data provider. Are you saying, collect (UNE-P) with no change in the data provider is simply a voice migration, you do that today?
Susan Pistacchio: Yes. With the data, yes.
Mike Clancy: Okay. So, I think we’re only talking about retail resale and wholesale advantage.
Page 41 of 69
Susan Pistacchio: Yeah, this is definitely, because we have resales Type 5s later on, so when we look at this with line-share, we’re looking at like retail with DSL going to (UNE-P) or wholesale advantage with DSL.
Mike Clancy: Okay.
Susan Pistacchio: And we will do that retail to (UNE-P) migration and keep the DSL.
Mike Clancy: Okay. Now, let me ask a question. When this went in, Verizon didn’t do line- splitting. Verizon does line-splitting today. Verizon will provide data on a wholesale advantage, wholesale partner, right? What if the pre-existing condition was line-sharing?
Susan Pistacchio: Now, that’s what I’m interpreting this. Line-sharing retail with DSL, right?
Mike Clancy: Right, but does Verizon do that today?
Susan Pistacchio: Yes. You will do retail with DSL, going to (UNE-P) or wholesale advantage with DSL.
Mike Clancy: Right, but that’s just changing the CS.
Susan Pistacchio: That’s just changing the voice.
Mike Clancy: Right. Let’s say it’s a line-sharing arrangement, where retail voice Covad data. Wholesale advantage, customer ports the number, right? Will you then add line-splitting? Let’s say they’re not a Covad partner.
Susan Pistacchio: Oh, if they’re not, the line-splitting arrangements are still in place, so if it is a retail line with Covad data, and they want to migrate it over to line-splitting,
Page 42 of 69
as long as Covad has that line-splitting arrangement with the voice provider, the order would proceed. If it did not, then there would be an error on it.
Mike Clancy: Okay, but what if they want to - what’s the telephone number and they’re not a Covad partner?
Susan Pistacchio: If they want to what? Migrate the telephone number and they’re not, then we would reject it. If we’re going to line …
Mike Clancy: What if they gave you dual LOA?
Susan Pistacchio: No, because based on the rules that we currently have for line-splitting, there has to be an agreement between the voice and the data provider, so it’s not based on dual LOA, it’s just the partnership has to exist.
Mike Clancy: Okay. So let’s say they have a partnership with Verizon. They give you a dual LOA and they order wholesale advantage and line-splitting. Will you do that?
Susan Pistacchio: If they - you’ve got me lost on that one, Mike.
Mike Clancy: All right. So, today, you don’t do it, okay. It edits out on the no relationship with Covad.
Susan Pistacchio: Right. If there is no relationship. If there is, we would.
Mike Clancy: Right. Now, so I just want to walk-through why we have dual LOA, okay? We have dual LOA because Comcast complained to the FTC that Verizon wasn’t doing ports on lines that contained DSLs, whether it was Verizon DSLs, Covad DSLs, Broadview - it didn’t matter whose DSL.
Page 43 of 69
So, the dual LOA was the creation that we, the creation we made to support that itinerary.
Susan Pistacchio: Right. For port-outs, yes.
Mike Clancy: Off-Net ports.
Susan Pistacchio: See, that’s where we have a little bit difference with the line-splitting, because now you’re talking just how the billing structure is for line-splitting. We have more of a relationship with the voice provider and all of the billing that’s associated with it is on - goes to the voice provider.
And the voice provider needs to have that arrangement with the data provider so that they’re transferring any billing or what not, so there has to be for line- splitting currently right now, there has to be that relationship between the voice and data provider.
That’s just the way things is, should it have been built that way? I don’t know, but that’s what has to exist. So, if the voice and data provider for line-splitting do not have an arrangement, then there’s no way that, you know, we would basically be billing the voice provider for data services and they don’t have any arrangements with that company.
They probably don’t have ways that they can transfer the billings. That’s why we have those line-splitting arrangement agreement tables.
Mike Clancy: Yeah, so I understand why they exist, but - so the dual LOA was created to respond to a complaint, okay? From an off-Net provider. So here’s an example where that same restriction that created that original complaint still exists.
Page 44 of 69
Susan Pistacchio: Well, not really, Mike, because the thing is, does the voice provider have the opportunity to disconnect the data? Yes they do. So, in that situation, the voice provider, if they want to switch over to line-splitting, their option is, either I’d need to have an arrangement with that data provider or I can disconnect the data.
Mike Clancy: Without a dual LOA?
Susan Pistacchio: With a dual LOA.
Mike Clancy: Right. So that exists today. They can tell you to disconnect.
Susan Pistacchio: Yes.
Mike Clancy: But they can’t tell you disconnect the data and connect it to this other provider, who I do have a relationship with?
Susan Pistacchio: No. They can migrate the data as long as it’s the same as on the retail line as long as you have the arrangement.
Mike Clancy: I get that.
Susan Pistacchio: Okay.
Mike Clancy: What can happen …
Susan Pistacchio: Is a new data provider.
Page 45 of 69
Mike Clancy: Is a new data provider, where they give you a dual LOA and - now the story we’ve gotten in the past, the response, just so you know, there’s a lot of people on the Verizon side are new, the story we got is that it’s just too complex.
Susan Pistacchio: To do the data migrations?
Mike Clancy: To do both. It’s just too complex. We’re asking - it wasn’t a system issue. It was when the central office technician is asked to do two things at the same time, they can’t do it. Now my response to that is that Verizon is paying the central office technician way too much, because they’re all morons and they can’t do two things on the same order.
Susan Pistacchio: I may have to take you off mute. I work in a CO building, there’s always techs walking by. I don’t want someone coming in here - don’t get me in trouble, Mike.
Mike Clancy: I’ve said things like this on the record.
Susan Pistacchio: I know.
Mike Clancy: You could look it up. I said that people did things to the network that they shouldn’t do, when Verizon wanted to lock all the CLEC down. So, I’m not afraid of a union representative for getting mad at me. The issue in my mind is that if we just take this scenario, retail with data, right? So let’s retail voice, Covad data.
And a wholesale advantage customer comes in and says I want that customer. Then they’ve agreed to maybe even keep the same ISP they have, but I want to use Verizon’s data platform because I think it’s better or I get a better deal
Page 46 of 69
from Verizon, or I don’t have a deal with Covad, and I don’t want to make one.
So they come in and they say, it’s a dual all the way. It’s the new CSA, right? Run the data to this new CSA, well actually, run your voice to the new CSA and run your cable (unintelligible).
Which is the same thing as establishing a new line-sharing (unintelligible). So, that’s the two things at once that can’t be done, which is done every time I place a line-splitting or line-sharing order.
So, there’s two things that can’t be done that are done all the time is the reason this thing has been languishing all this time.
Susan Pistacchio: What I can note here is, again, to bring what’s being done now versus what isn’t being done so I can capture that, but it’s the (DLEC) migration that aren’t being captured, and I do have noted, Mike, you think that that should have been covered with the dual LOA process?
Mike Clancy: Yes.
Mary Halpin: Sue, this is Mary Halpin. These are ATT related (unintelligible) and they’re four years old now and I know that there have been some strides made in migrating customers that do have DSL. I understand there has to be a relationship between the voice provider and the selected data provider for Verizon to work with the order.
But I’m not sure, in the four years since these were put in and they were both rated very high at the time, there’s a lot of activity at the time around CRs related to migration in general. What really has been implemented since then
Page 47 of 69
that we can do, and I think this is what you were alluding to, and I just want to make sure I understand the path forward.
You’re going to take a look at these and outline what we can do today, or what’s still remaining to be done?
Susan Pistacchio: Right. I can document that. And one of the reasons why I didn’t do it prior to sending out the documentation is, you know, we look at our records, we look at our scenarios, we look at the initiatives that were implemented, but in a lot of case, sometimes things aren’t working the way we think we do, so our understanding is, these are the scenarios that work.
We’ve done some preliminary checking on them, but I can document for this particular CR what is working currently now and what isn’t. The other thing is, and just to throw out, Mary, about some of the other activity that’s been taking on this, this was actually an initiative that got pretty far down the pike in the 2004 timeframe.
So, we have LOEs based on that timeframe, and this one was definitely something that came back with an extremely high LOE and that appears to be one of the mitigating factors on why it kind of got pulled back during that timeframe.
Mary Halpin: There was a whole grouping though of migrations, change requests, and some of those were implemented.
Susan Pistacchio: Some of them - it could have been, I know, during the 2004 timeframe, there were a number of scenarios that got implemented and it could have been like after a certain point, people were like, oh my God, you know, but definitely we did get a price tag on this one and it was extremely high and that was one
Page 48 of 69
of the factors that made us re-look at it and kind of pulled it back from getting implemented.
Mary Halpin: What might be helpful is, given the basic scenarios that are described and the two CRs, just to get a very high level overview of basically what can happen today, you know, four years later, and what as you said what can’t be done.
Susan Pistacchio: Right. And we’re definitely going to document that so if I look at this on Type 5 right now, I see that the open piece is to allow a (DLEC) change, when migrating from retail with DSL to line-split with DSL.
We would still need to have that line-splitting arrangement there, and we can document that on here. The other thing that we would look for is, again, we thought it was a great exercise when the industry got together and re-rated these.
We do want it, once everybody has the ones that are deemed feasible, and we have a full understanding of what’s open, we would relate these. One of these things is, and again, we affectionately call it the Clancy list because we don’t have anything else we can call it, but we do have that this one was documented or ranked as 28th.
And, I know that on the documentation that I sent out to you folks, and you might not even know what it meant, but on the table in the front, the second column has something that’s called CL, and that’s our Clancy list.
And that actually gives what the rating was when it was re-ranked by the industry. So this is definitely one we see as feasible. We know that it, there are definite benefits.
Page 49 of 69
What we are doing with this exercise is to try to come agreement with where are we with the change requests and we will document it to show this is where we are, and I would say when I send out the documentation and the minutes, you can send it to the change management mailbox or whatever.
If you don’t like the way I’ve captured something or you think it needs a little bit more granularity added, but we just want to walk away and everybody knows where we are.
And then once we’ve done that exercise, we really want to get the re-rankings so that from this point go forward, we understand what your priorities are because particular with Type 5s that have been around for a long time.
Maybe it was hot before, and maybe it’s not hot now. Or maybe it wasn’t hot before, but it is hot now. You would like that refreshed view of where your priorities are.
Mary Halpin: Also, there were a whole separate list. There was a separate list of migration CRs, and at one point, they were prioritized on their own.
Susan Pistacchio: I actually have a lot of that old (unintelligible).
Mike Clancy: Mary, it’s right in the document. It’s those migration scenario rankings. Even the seconds go around, right, so the original migration, the original Clancy list was December of ’03. That was just migrations.
This was the number 1 request, and the re-rank for all of the CRs. This still ended-up being number 1 on the migrations, because the migrations got sorted into the rest of them, and it ended-up still being the number 1 migration request that the industry had.
Page 50 of 69
Now since that time, Verizon offers line-splitting, so it should be attractive for Verizon now, too, so you know, I mean, the things that, when it was originally requested, there were a lot of things that were not in place that are in place today, that would kind of erode the course factor because they’ve already been built.
Like the dual LOA issue. That’s been built. Verizon does line-splitting now, so Verizon can play in this product, too, and compete in this product, so why not? There should be no doubt, and if anyone has an operational allergy to this, I’d like to hear what it is.
Because, the first story was bogus, completely bogus, but it kept getting told. You know, we can’t do two things at once. So you know, okay, next time you have a fire in the CO, let me know that. I mean, you know, really, it’s kind of an insult to everybody’s intelligence, but that was the story.
Susan Pistacchio: I don’t know if it was ever we can’t do it, it’s just a challenge to …
Mike Clancy: Look at your transcripts. It’s got to be there. That was the story. We can’t do two things at once. You’re asking for us to do - you’re asking for trouble if you ask our techs to do two things at once. I never wrote an e-mail to TWA and said look at this transcript.
Susan Pistacchio: I have to say, Mike, back in that day, I had (Bobbie Dotson)’s job and she was doing a lot of the west stuff, I was doing the east stuff, and I know we were moving forward with this, so I was never under the impression that we had said we can’t do it, because our techs can’t figure it out.
Page 51 of 69
Mike Clancy: I think it was already a candidate. I think this one actually, you know, after the migration list was put together, it got to be a candidate …
Susan Pistacchio: It definitely was. It was that we had requirements, IT was looking at it. It basically went all the way to LOE and …
Mike Clancy: And then all of a sudden, it got yanked.
Susan Pistacchio: Maybe they didn’t want to, you know …
Mike Clancy: And the story at that time was, you know, can’t do two things at once, you know, come on.
Susan Pistacchio: Right.
(Janice Ziegele): Mike, this is (Janice). What I remember is that it had to do with coordination, that they couldn’t - it was two different types of text and they couldn’t coordinate the timeframe. Remember that?
Mike Clancy: The only thing that Verizon should possible be operationally allergic to is the CPE might need to be changed. Now, does Verizon do anything with CPE?
Susan Pistacchio: I think it depends.
Mike Clancy: Yeah, if it’s your service. So, if it’s my service, please don’t be concerned about me being able to deliver CP to my customers.
Susan Pistacchio: And you know, the other thing is, Mike, there are things that maybe were more of a challenge before and less now because I do know that for some of
Page 52 of 69
the other scenarios, in some regions, we do do data migrations. So, I think that obstacle has been overcome.
I think more than anything it’s there are a lot of migration scenarios. The migration scenarios I will say right, wrong and indifferent are definitely more on the high-level of effort, so can they be done? Yeah. It’s probably going to be one of those things where it really needs to be identified which are still the higher scenarios, or the higher-priority scenarios, because there is definitely a lot of work that needs to get done to get them in place.
Mary Halpin: Sue, this is Mary. If you look at the detail description, as much detail as there is in the two CRs from 2003, they’re pretty comprehensive. They’re asking to be able to do all different kinds of changes around voice change and data change and keeping the same provider and changing the provider and changing the VoIP and all different variations thereof.
There have been many changes since 2003. The environment is different, so it would be good to understand as we discussed before what can be done today and what still can’t be done, and I think that would help us to drill-down, if what’s not available, is it still a priority? What’s needed, and that would help to move it along because there have been other changes since then.
Susan Pistacchio: Right. Agreed.
Mike Clancy: Well, I’ll tell you, just to enhance Mary’s comment and this might be something that wasn’t in the original cost benefit analysis, but one of the things that changed in the environment is a customer can exercise their choice and change their voice and data provider today.
Page 53 of 69
That happens all the time today, and it goes off the Verizon network. So what you are what not allowing is the consumer who chooses to change their voice and data provider to stay on your network, that’s what you’re not permitting.
Man: Which is a loss of revenue to Verizon.
Mike Clancy: Just so, you know, when you’re looking at that LOE and looking at it in the light of 2003 versus the 2007 light, I think that might be a consideration.
Susan Pistacchio: Right. Now we definitely will mark this one down as feasible. We will capture in the history what we do do, what we don’t do. These are both AT&T.
What I’d also like to do because they are asking for the same thing, they’re going to try to consolidate these into one. We will not take out any of the history because there are a lot of good things in here. The west kind of captured-out better the breakout of the scenarios, but the east does have that migration scenario ranking, which is very good information.
So this will be designated as feasible with a lot of updates to the history. Anything else on that one?
Mike Clancy: Then the migration scenario ranking was for both of them at the time it was ranked? They were both number 1?
Susan Pistacchio: Right.
Mike Clancy: So at the time, we couldn’t - we had to address things east and west.
Susan Pistacchio: Right. Doc, did you have something you needed to say?
Page 54 of 69
Doc Mathews: Yes, this is Doc. As Mike was saying about the problem that these run into where they say they can’t do two things at one time, I’ve seen some other similar scenarios where, in this situation I believe what you would actually - the technician would physically be doing - is disconnecting the cable pair, one splitter and bringing it into another CFA.
We’ve seen some scenarios where we’ve had - and they’re related orders - we’ve seen some scenarios, not as recently, but where we didn’t even change the CFA but there was an out and an in order on the exact same facility and the customer went out of service, the response, when we actually got through to the technician that did the work, they said well, you know, I do all my disconnects in the morning, but I do my installs on these types of facilities when we get around to them.
And, you know, you say the orders are related and it’s like, oh, well we didn’t catch that, but we still would have done the install later on. So maybe that’s the we can’t do two things at one time, you know, we can’t disconnect here because it’s a disconnect in the morning, and then we’d go around and do our work later on in the day and don’t recognize that the related PON would have them literally at the same moment moving that cable pair to a second location.
Susan Pistacchio: Right.
Mike Clancy: Well, Doc, this is Mike. In the scenario that you described, there were two factors, right? If you notice, these say single LSR which would generate a single order.
Doc Mathews: It should, Mike, I would agree with you.
Page 55 of 69
Mike Clancy: So the idea is that this is a single work order that the technician gets, so they know they are doing an out and an in.
Doc Mathews: From your history with Verizon, though, does an out and an in have, can you have a single work order for an out and an in?
Mike Clancy: I never worked for Verizon, Doc.
Doc Mathews: Okay. I didn’t say working. I said your history with Verizon.
Mike Clancy: Oh, all right.
Susan Pistacchio: I think it depends on the service and, we’re talking specifically retail to NEP. I think that there’d be two service orders for that.
Doc Mathews: I would think that to be the problem.
Susan Pistacchio: I would hate to say because there’s so many migration scenarios and it is, you know, difference, so I would hate to say one way or another, Doc.
Doc Mathews: I mean, just simply look at a conversion, a (NEO) conversion or a spooning. I mean, you’re not even moving anything. All you’re doing is changing billing. And yet, there have been times in which an out and an in document has been generated to a CO technician and bingo, in the morning out goes the circuit because your specialist is removal, and it’s gone and, you know, begin as it’s unbundled as the in, it gets worked whenever. That would be a dangerous scenario, when you’re talking a retail to a wholesale, in this scenario. That’s all.
Susan Pistacchio: All right.
Page 56 of 69
Mike Clancy: Thanks for supporting the argument that two things can’t be one at one time.
Doc Mathews: Oh, I believe it can be done. I’m just saying that the internal processing is working against us, Mike.
Mike Clancy: At times people make work mistakes. I mean, I make lots of mistakes, usually on these calls I make mistakes.
Susan Pistacchio: Now, we’re getting spaceships out to Pluto. I’m sure it’s something that could be done if enough effort was put into it.
(Beth Abesamis): Can I just ask a questions? I know I’m simple, and I’m sorry, because you guys are very complex in this discussion because you’ve been involved in it for a long time, but is it fair to say with the number of these migration requests, that really all you want is, regardless of where part of the service goes, if you have DSL connected, you want it to stay connected?
Susan Pistacchio: That’s dual LOA. He wants to be able to designate what to do with it.
Mike Clancy: Yeah, in this case, (Beth), in this particular case, the real request is, if I have DSL, provided by a particular provider, and I’m a voice provider who has to deal with a different data provider …
Susan Pistacchio: And not the provider of the service that exists.
Mike Clancy: Right. And I want to provide the service, I gave the customer a better deal …
Susan Pistacchio: To provide both pieces of the service.
Page 57 of 69
Mike Clancy: Right. And I’m changing the voice provider and the data provider at the same time.
Susan Pistacchio: I see. So okay, that’s the missing piece. I got you.
Mike Clancy: As Sue pointed out, the missing piece is, Verizon doesn’t let anyone change the data provider when they’re changing the voice provider.
Susan Pistacchio: Right.
Doc Mathews: And (Beth) this is Doc. What the biggest point to it is, is the actual cable pair at the customer’s, at the end user’s site, nothing there changes. In these scenarios, what changes is right in the CO. And that’s the only thing that changes. And we’ve discussed this even with same-day cable pair changes.
I mean, that’s nothing more than is happening in the CO, but that’s where a lot of the issues revolve around is, we’re asking for work to be done in a CO or a remote in some applications, just to have a cable pair end go from point A to point B.
And it can be voice-related, it can be data-related, it can be both-related. That’s what we’re really asking to do.
(Beth Abesamis): Thank you.
Susan Pistacchio: Okay. I’m going to jump onto the next one, and this is something I forgot to mention at the beginning of the call. This call is scheduled to go to 1:00 but my plan was to do a hot stop at five minutes to one. A bulletin call has been scheduled for today at 1:00 and I know some of the customers would like to
Page 58 of 69
go to that, so this will allow those customers to kind of step away for a few minutes before they have to go to the bulletin call.
I’m going to jump onto number 22, rank 22, loop share to loop share. This is definitely a scenario that we do not support currently and at this point in time, we have investigated this. We have never received a loop share request.
We only have one contract that’s available for loop share, so from a Verizon perspective, we see this as not feasible because there isn’t any market for it. We’ve had loop share open since 2004 but we’ve never gotten any requests. So from a market feasibility perspective, we see this as not feasible.
Mike Clancy: I thought this was gone a long time ago.
Susan Pistacchio: If you, Mike, if you want to withdraw it, we’d be really happy.
Mike Clancy: Yeah, and the reason I would withdraw it is that we haven’t gotten any partners who wanted to use loop-sharing with Covad.
Susan Pistacchio: Okay.
Mike Clancy: So, you need me to send you an e-mail to withdraw it?
Susan Pistacchio: We would like it is, any other feedback from our customers? Okay, we’ll show this as withdrawn by customer and Mike, we will follow-up because we do like to have an audit trail.
Mike Clancy: Okay, I’ll send you an e-mail.
Page 59 of 69
Susan Pistacchio: Okay, that’s wonderful. On the next one is also a loop share one. This is rank number 23. Our position was the same because we don’t have any loop share. This was a migration to go from loop share to an XDSL-capable loop.
Our position is the same. We don’t feel that there’s any …
Mike Clancy: These are all Covad, right?
Susan Pistacchio: Yeah.
Mike Clancy: I’ll withdraw all of the loop sharing.
Susan Pistacchio: Yea! So that’s number 23.
Doc Mathews: Is that because he’s withdrawing, or because the Red Sox are in the World Series?
Susan Pistacchio: Focus, focus. Let’s go to the next one. Number 29.
Mike Clancy: Who was that speaking? Was that Rudy Giuliani?
Susan Pistacchio: I was just going to say that. Rudy Doc Giuliani. Okay, number 29. This is where east and west is a little bit different. I just wanted to check my notes. Twenty-nine is doing a migration from line share to an XDSL-capable loop.
Now we did the line split. This is line share, so this is retail with DSL going to an XDSL-capable loop. We have a west and we have an east. From a west perspective, we do this. As both an AB request allowing for a disconnect of the TN, and a BB request allowing for a port-out.
Page 60 of 69
So for both of these, if you’re starting with retail with line share, we allow you to come in, migrate to the DSL-capable loop, and either disconnect or port-out the TNs. That’s from a west perspective.
From an east perspective, again, we allow the port-out but we don’t allow the TN to be disconnected. So from a Verizon perspective, we see that the west has been completed, that the only thing that’s open from an east perspective is allowing this type of migration with a disconnect of the TNs.
Mike Clancy: Sue, this is Mike. I’d like to put these with the others and do like, go over lots of transactions or, and then I could put that into a document and get it to the ops team.
Susan Pistacchio: Okay. So what I have here is the same thing with the scenarios, what is captured, what is done, what is not done. This is one where we wouldn’t combine east and west because we’re going to show that the west was done, but that the east is still open and that what we’re not doing is the AB request, because of the disconnect of the TN.
And we would assume, we see that as something that’s feasible and for this we don’t have, there is no LOE at this point. Does anybody have anything else? Okay, so permit follows same process as others.
All right. Item number 36, line-splitting, data migration. And this is one, again, where we have a difference between the east and the west. In the east, we do not do this. We allow line-splitting voice migrations, we do not do data migrations.
Page 61 of 69
From a west perspective, it is allowed. You can do a data migration in the west, but you cannot do it in the east. In the west, you do an AB active V and you can migrate the data.
Woman: Can something similar be put in place for the east, Sue?
Susan Pistacchio: Well, it’s feasible.
Woman: Since it’s already in place in the west, would it, would that decrease the level of effort?
Susan Pistacchio: No, different systems. So, we don’t have an LOE for the east, I don’t believe, let me just jump up. Yeah, this is something that we didn’t look at again. At one point in time, our position was we didn’t do data migrations, that was more, but it was allowed in the east.
Positions have changed, but we’ve never proceeded with even getting an LOE on this one. So we see it as something that’s feasible and again we can do the same thing, which is to capture what is done and what isn’t done.
Mike Clancy: Right. Now, I’d like to put this in the pool with the others, just to review how it’s done in the west. But I think, I know, and again, how frank and candid we are on these calls. I think Verizon had all kinds of smoke going around, why they can’t do data migrations.
But let me be very candid in why I think Verizon didn’t do data migrations, especially on line-splitting. Once upon a time, (UNE-P) was considered a (UNI) and at that time, there was a legal theory that the voice provider “owned the loop” and all the capabilities, yada, yada.
Page 62 of 69
That combination was eliminated in the TRRO. So there is no legal ownership of the loop. To me, a wholesale advantage is exactly like resale, from a legal perspective.
Susan Pistacchio: Mike, I will agree with you that there have been changes that have been made in our understanding on how we view DSL, so this is definitely something where, and I have to say, the other thing that you have to factor in …
Mike Clancy: Ouch. That was Doc. That was Doc, he’s tuning his guitar.
Susan Pistacchio: But his is definitely something when it comes to the data migration for the east, it’s definitely something that we can put on the table as feasible. Again, I can’t say whether it would be high, medium or low because we’ve never really entertained looking at it in the east.
So we can list it as feasible, and we will look at the scenarios for the west and get those out, and we’ll document again in here what is covered and what is not covered.
Mike Clancy: Okay, and then, you know, we can talk about, once we understand how it’s done in the west, whether that is a workable solution for the east. So again, communicating back to the folks at Covad that wanted to do this in the first place.
Susan Pistacchio: Right.
Mike Clancy: Yeah, they may not want to do it anymore.
Susan Pistacchio: All right. I’m going to jump - I’m trying to get as many of these done as we can before we adjourn. The next one was item number 40. This is east and
Page 63 of 69
west and this is disconnect DSL on a shared loop where the voice is being migrated.
And on this one, let me just look. This one we didn’t do. I know that there were two of them. We did a lot of stuff with dual LOA, so this one is still open.
It’s definitely something that’s feasible. We have started, we actually worked on this, there were two projects that were worked with dual LOA. One was done in the October 2006 timeframe. This one actually got pulled and one of the reasons wasn’t that we didn’t want to do it or whatever, it was mostly funding constraints.
So, we do have an uncomplete LOE on this. I would say it wasn’t finalized but it definitely was on medium to high level of effort to accomplish, but it is something that’s feasible. I’m assuming - does any of the customers have any comments?
Mike Clancy: This is Mike. Yeah, the request is just to provide the (unintelligible).
Susan Pistacchio: Let me just think about this one. There’s something here that we consider we’re not doing.
Mike Clancy: And it could be that you don’t migrate voice on shared loops, but I think you do now, right?
Susan Pistacchio: And you know (Bobbie) left. I always get this confused with the other one that we did.
Page 64 of 69
Mike Clancy: As far as I’m concerned, I’m okay with it being feasible. I think it’s like adding something to the provider notification report.
Susan Pistacchio: You know what this is, Mike? This is being - and this is where this was one of the world hunger ones, this is to be able to process any of the flavors of migration.
So if you look at, it’s going from either line share, line splits, or (viste) the loop going to, you know, the resold voice, (UNE-P) or wholesale advantage. So I think what was globbed in here and I think this is another good one, where it would be good to document what is covered versus what is not covered.
I think what this one was looking at, well what are the ones that aren’t covered? And, that was what was included in here, so it’s basically accommodating any type of voice migration and disconnecting the data with that.
Mike Clancy: Right.
Susan Pistacchio: And I believe that there are some gaps there. So again, what I can take here is to capture what those gaps are for the voice migrations.
Mike Clancy: Okay, great.
Susan Pistacchio: Okay. And we do have this as feasible. I am also going to put that we did look at this and it was like a moderate to high level of effort.
Doc Mathews: Sue, this is Doc. I see in this scenario, for example, that you could have a situation where a customer’s coming in and wants to take a loop and the TN
Page 65 of 69
and they’re going to push out their own DSL on this, and therefore, you’re just dropping the alternative DSL provider.
Susan Pistacchio: Correct.
Doc Mathews: And that’s a very active scenario today.
Susan Pistacchio: I remember that, and this was during the period where I had left change management but I was working kind of behind the scenes and I just remember a lot was going on with dual LOA at this timeframe, and it was that two efforts were going on.
One was like dual LOA porting-out or keeping the data, and then this one was disconnecting, and this one just never got done. So there is a lot of history going back on it and it’s definitely something we see as feasible. Again, I think it would be good to capture what are we doing and what aren’t we doing?
Doc Mathews: And it may have been that we had a conversation, you know, there’s this much funding. Which ones of the dual LOA ones do you want to do?
Susan Pistacchio: Right.
Doc Mathews: And we probably made decisions and then, you know, never went back.
Susan Pistacchio: Right. What I’m going to do because it’s five minutes to and there’s actually two that I just wanted to capture quickly, so we can retire them from the agenda. On the next one was item number 26. And this was allowing the port- outs without having to contact the data provider.
Page 66 of 69
And this was definitely one that we thought had been done, and we did get agreement. Kerri is on, we did get agreement, I believe it was today, to withdraw this one from the customer. And the other thing that I did on this was we updated who we have as the owner of this. It’s now Kerri Burke, so Kerri has agreed to withdraw this item number 46.
Does anybody have any issues or questions on that one? And the other one, I’m going to skip over again because there’s some, one of the ones that the migration scenarios that are still on the table, a lot of the resale ones, these are the ones that (Elliott) had brought in from (Ed Towe).
Mike Clancy: Sue, this is Mike Clancy. Just one question on 46.
Susan Pistacchio: Yes?
Mike Clancy: The fundamental request, I think, has been satisfied.
Susan Pistacchio: Yes.
Mike Clancy: But does a loss notifier go to the DSL provider?
Susan Pistacchio: I don’t know if (Christina) is still on. (Christina), (Julie), you still there?
(Christina Chillemi): Yes I am. What was the question? I’m sorry.
Mike Clancy: On when a voice, when there’s a port-out on a shared loop, and the port-out is to an off-Net provider, does a loss notifier go to the pre-existing voice provider and the pre-existing data provider?
Page 67 of 69
(Christina Chillemi): You know, I believe so, but I’m going to have to double-check that question for you.
Susan Pistacchio: I think also in that case, to Mike, that a notification when we get the request to port-out the line when there’s DSL on it, notification actually by means of a report goes to the data provider, as well as when we get the request, and we confirm it, to let them know that if they need to make alternate arrangements, that is their opportunity that the DSL will be disconnected.
And that’s not a notifier as you would know it, but it’s a notification report that goes out.
Mike Clancy: Right. But I’m wondering if it goes on the loop provider, you know, the provider notification report, after the port is …
Susan Pistacchio: Right. That’s the piece I’m not sure of, either. (Christina) will need to check.
(Christina Chillemi): Yeah, I’ll have to take that as a follow-up.
Mike Clancy: Okay, thanks.
Susan Pistacchio: All right. So, 46 we’re showing that as withdrawn, but we do have an action item to find out if this scenario, the (DLEC) piece would be on the PNR. And before we jump, the other one I wanted to be shown as withdraw is item number 59.
This is change the provisioning process for (UNE-P) migrations. That was also withdrawn by the initiator. Any questions on that one?
Page 68 of 69
All right, I actually went right up to one o’clock. I didn’t mean to do that. There are some that we didn’t get to. I believe they’re mostly the resale migrations, but there is another one for (UNE-P) and resale.
They will go on the top of the next agenda. The next meeting will be November 7th and we will start with the remaining migration scenarios and then work down the list.
You will get a list of what those initiatives are. I believe it should go out mid next week. Does anybody have any other questions, comments? Have a good day, and talk to some of you next week.
Mike Clancy: Thank you, Sue
Woman: Thank you, Sue.
END
Page 69 of 69