2007 CLOSED CUF ISSUES

Transcription

1 2007 CLOSED CUF ISSUES Table of Contents: # 85 CNR Process... 2 #91: E911 Updates... 5 # 96 Maintenance Dispatch Out Process Change... 8 #103 Reduce Repeated Truck Rolls #105 Vendor Meet Billing Issue #107 FTTP/Two LSRs #109 Jeopardy for Incorrect NC/NCI Codes No Conditioning Required #110 NC/NCI Codes Required on Line Share to Line Split Orders #111 DSL Port Intervals #112 UNE-L Maintenance Tickets #113 Smart Jack Installations # 114 Porting of DIDs Riding on a PRI 32 OPERATIONAL SUMMIT ISSUES/DISCUSSION TOPICS #1 Reducing the Rate of Failures on Cut-Thru Orders #2 On New Installations, Verizon Does Not Always Connect the Inside Wire to the NID #3 Joint Acceptance Testing Not Always Completed #4 Expand the Process for NODR Billing for Wholesale Advantage Printed: 01/22/08 Page 1

2 # 85 CNR Process CLEC SUBMITTING ISSUE SHOULD COMPLETE ITEMS 1 through 8. (Item 9 is optional): 1. CLEC NAME: Z-Tel Communications, Inc. 2. INTERNAL CONTACT & PHONE NUMBER: Peggy Rubino (813) SUBMISSION DATE: September 15, SELECT PRODUCT(S) THIS ISSUE AFFECTS: (Double-click on box(es) to mark) Collocation Line-Sharing Special Access (FCC Tariff) DSL Line-Splitting UNE-Loop Interconnection/IXC LNP UNE-Platform Interconnection/Switched Access Resale UNE Specials/IOF (Local Tariffs) OTHER (Please Specify): 5. SELECT THE ISSUE CATEGORY: Pre-Order (Record Verification) Ordering (Process) Provisioning (Process) Billing (Process) Maintenance and/or Repair (Process) 6. SELECT STATE(S) WHERE ISSUE OCCURS: Ancillary Services (OS/DA/DL, etc.) Other General Issue Connecticut Maryland New Jersey Rhode Island Washington, DC Delaware Massachusetts New York Vermont West Virginia Maine New Hampshire Pennsylvania Virginia Entire Footprint 7. DESCRIBE THE ISSUE: At the August CMP meetings (East and West), Verizon introduced C to make contact information required rather than optional to minimize repeat dispatches. The CLECs generally supported this request with the caveat that a process be developed to ensure that calls are actually made to the contact number prior to Verizon declaring a no access or customer not ready condition. The process should include some confirmation provided to Verizon by the CLEC that the customer or premises is unavailable, and ideally that confirmation would flow to the wholesale bills to reduce the number of disputes regarding this issue. 8. PROVIDE EXAMPLE(S): 9. IF CLEC HAS PROPOSED RESOLUTION, PLEASE DESCRIBE: Covad and Verizon have an agreement under which Covad will provide a confirmation number when it is unable to reach the customer to arrange access. A similar process could be used for other CLECs. Printed: 01/22/08 Page 2

3 CUF REVIEW DATE: 5/11/ Issue Accepted? Yes / No If No, give reason:. 11. Assigned Issue # 85 and Entitled: CNR Process. 12. Other CLECs Supporting Issue: Mettel. 13. Issue Closed: 5/9/ Agree to Disagree GENERAL MEETING MINUTES 5/9/2007 It was agreed to close this issue. This issue is aligned with Operations Summit Issues #2 and #3, which were closed 5/9/07. See Discussion Topics. 3/14/2007 Covered under Discussion Topics. 12/13/2006 Covered under Discussion Topics. 9/13/2006 Covered under Discussion Topics. 7/12/2006 Covered under Discussion Topics. 5/10/2006 No new updates were reported from the March meeting except that Tom Delaney had received some data from a few CLECs and was working with those companies individually. Verizon is still in need of more examples from the other CLECs but the expectation is there will more data now available to the CLECs with the addition of TT data on the BDT effective April 16, 2006 in the East. 3/15/ Included as part of Discussion Topics. 1/11/2006 Tom Delaney reported that Elliot Goldberg (Mettel) provided him with a copy of the FCC order regarding Carrier-to-Carrier measurements. According to the order the Commission recommended that CLECs and Verizon work together to design a process that will benefit all with regard to CNRs. Mettel feels that the Commission is requesting that Verizon work with the CLEC to determine how Verizon would handle CNRs. 11/9/2005 Tom Delaney advised that he has received samples from Elliot Goldberg (Mettel) and has advised all that he will hold internal discussions and provide feedback at the next CUF session. the process of reviewing them. He will reach out to Elliot to discuss further following his research and review. 9/13/2005 Tom Delaney explained that the issue is a serialization process for POTS lines. Verizon does not do this with POTS. Tom advised that the technician will attempt to call the contact listed on the LSR. He further explained that in the Retail side of the house, the technician will leave a card. CLECs requested that the Verizon technician call them when they are at the premise. Tom advised that our process is for Technicians to attempt to call. Mettel argued that the Verizon Technicians do not call and as a result, Mettel is getting billed for No Access. Verizon asked Mettel for samples of when the Verizon Technician did not follow the process so that appropriate investigation can be performed 7/13/05 Zina Beverly, sitting in for Tom Delaney, reported that Tom is still reviewing the process and does not have additional information to offer at this time. Zina requested that the issue remain open until Tom s return. 5/11/05 - Tom Delaney reported that Verizon will not change existing process. Mettel asked if Verizon would object to having the Vz Technician contact the CLEC and provide the CLEC Service Order or Repair Ticket numbers. Tom informed all that he will research and provide feedback at the next CUF meeting. 3/7/05 VZ s wholesale CNR process is in parity with retail. Mettel expressed concern though about being billed for CNRs that they did not believe were CNRs. VZ agreed to leave issue open awaiting additional review by VZ senior management. 1/12/05 Preliminarily, VZ is not able to implement serial number process (this is part of the process that has been set up for DSL) for voice. Retail voice does not have a CNR process so it may not be appropriate to establish a CNR process for wholesale voice. Tom to ensure VZ senior level agreement on this position. 11/10/04 This issue is being addressed by a VZ internal team. Tom Delaney expects a readout in approximately 4 weeks. Readout will be sent as soon as it is available. 9/15 A CNR process is followed on DSL, but not on POTS, UNE-P, etc. CLECs specified that they would like this process for provisioning and maintenance. Tom Delaney has submitted the CUF s request for this process to Printed: 01/22/08 Page 3

4 be implemented on POTS, UNE-P, etc to a VZ team that is looking a process changes that will reduce unproductive dispatches. Tom will interface between the internal team and the CUF. Printed: 01/22/08 Page 4

5 #91: E911 Updates CLEC SUBMITTING ISSUE SHOULD COMPLETE ITEMS 1 through 8. (Item 9 is optional): 1. CLEC NAME: MCI 2. INTERNAL CONTACT & PHONE NUMBER: Lissa Provenzo SUBMISSION DATE: 3/2/05 4. SELECT PRODUCT(S) THIS ISSUE AFFECTS: (Double-click on box(es) to mark) Collocation Line-Sharing Special Access (FCC Tariff) DSL Line-Splitting UNE-Loop Interconnection/IXC LNP UNE-Platform Interconnection/Switched Access Resale UNE Specials/IOF (Local Tariffs) OTHER (Please Specify): 5. SELECT THE ISSUE CATEGORY: Pre-Order (Record Verification) Ordering (Process) Provisioning (Process) Billing (Process) Maintenance and/or Repair (Process) 6. SELECT STATE(S) WHERE ISSUE OCCURS: Ancillary Services (OS/DA/DL, etc.) Other General Issue Connecticut Maryland New Jersey Rhode Island Washington, DC Delaware Massachusetts New York Vermont West Virginia Maine New Hampshire Pennsylvania Virginia Entire Footprint 7. DESCRIBE THE ISSUE: To improve the current process to update E911 discrepancies or update street address that has been renumbered. Current process is to send a Move order to correct the E911 or renumbered street address discrepancies, which interfere with the customer service. Steven Cuttle and the NMC requested this go to the CUF. The NMC has been requesting this for over a year to the policy procedure SMEs at Verizon. 8. PROVIDE EXAMPLE(S): 9. IF CLEC HAS PROPOSED RESOLUTION, PLEASE DESCRIBE: Create a process that allows updates without sending a Move order to VZ CUF REVIEW DATE: 3/7/05 Printed: 01/22/08 Page 5

6 10. Issue Accepted? Yes / No If No, give reason:. 11. Assigned Issue # 91 and Entitled: E911 Updates. 12. Other CLECs Supporting Issue: AT&T, RNK, Broadview 13. Issue Closed: _7/11/ Agree to Disagree: GENERAL MEETING MINUTES 7/11/07 - The initiative to provide CLECs the ability to submit an LSR for a Records order (ACT = R) requesting an E911 service address update was completed in June, and there are no open issues. Two notifications were sent to the carrier community and the information was also posted on the VPS Web Site. It was agreed to close this issue. 5/9/07- The initiative for this issue is scheduled for the June 2007 release. In addition the manual process for updating addresses in the West will still be available until October /14/07 Margaret Detch reported that the initiative for this issue is still scheduled for the June 2007 release. 12/13/2006 Peter Bahr reported that an initiative is scheduled for the June 2007 release for record orders to be issued by the CLECs for UNE-P and Resale address updates. He also encouraged the CLECs to update the Customer Profile Database with contact names as Verizon will be contacting the CLECs when a 911 call is made and an address discrepancy is found. This issue will remain in the CUF until the initiative is completed. 9/13/2006 Verizon has nothing new to report and continues to work on developing a footprint wide solution. Verizon hopes to have feedback for the long term process by the December CUF meeting. 7/12/2006 Verizon is continuing to work on developing a footprint wide process, however, Verizon has not yet been able to identify an efficient and cost effective automated solution. The current trial that is underway in the South Region is a very manual process and does not have internal buy-in to be deployed footprint wide. 5/10/2006 The original trial is continuing in the Verizon South region, however, a workable process that could be deployed footprint wide has not been identified. The trial model involves a number of manual handoffs, which is not supportable on a larger scale. The internal Verizon team continues to work with impacted groups in VZ to identify a plan that will work across the footprint. The CLEC sub team will be reconvened when VZ has a workable plan to present. 3/15/2006 Rosemary Hernandez advised that the trial is continuing in the South. However, it will not be rolled out in other States unless there is agreement from the operations centers. Meetings are underway with the operations centers in an effort to create a method for E-911 address discrepancy corrections. Another sub committee meeting will be held when more information is known about the trial in the South or further roll out of the process. 1/11/2006 Beth Cohen reported the trial is continuing. The Local Service Provider Form has been updated to include the CLEC s E-911 Contact information. Trinsic requested that a subcommittee meeting be scheduled since one has not taken place for some time. Beth advised that Rosemary Hernández will set one up and notify the Subcommittee team prior to the next CUF session. 11/9/ Rosemary Hernandez advised that the subcommittee meetings continue to take place. Per the last meeting, the trial in the South continues to run smoothly and CLECs have provided feedback to the subcommittee team of their satisfaction with the trial. Rosemary advised that PLM is still in the data gathering phase and will not be opening the trial to other states pending further review. In addition, Rosemary mentioned that the Profile Management team is now looking at modifying the Local Services Profile form to add a field whereby the CLEC may enter E-911 contact information. 9/13/ Rosemary Hernández reported that the trial is ongoing and progressing very well. CLECs that have tried the new process have commented that it is an improvement over the previous process. Kathy Rysak discussed the trial and the form being used in place of the LSR. She also mentioned that the trial is solely for E- 911 address discrepancies. Any other type of address discrepancy would need to follow the normal business rules procedures. The trial has been extended as additional data needs to be gathered to determine if expanding to other Verizon states should take place. Kathy advised that she will report on progress at the next CUF session. 7/13/ Rosemary Hernández reported that there have been on going meetings with a CLEC subgroup and Verizon E-911 PLM to discuss the address discrepancy issue. Peter Bahr and Kathy Rysak provided information regarding a trial that Verizon was willing to partake in with several interested CLECs. The trial consisted of Printed: 01/22/08 Page 6

7 providing E-911 PLM with a form to correct address discrepancies vs. issuing LSRs to accomplish the same. The trial will only target the MidAtlantic states at this time. Kathy advised that part of the trial was to get "good" contact information from the CLECs and provided a list of CLECs which she needs contact information from. The new form to correct address discrepancies will be included with the minutes. Rosemary has reached out to the Profile Management Team to inquire as to whether it would be possible to update the Local Service Profile Form to include E-911 CLEC contact information and will provide an update at the next CUF meeting. This issue will remain open until all States are included. Printed: 01/22/08 Page 7

8 # 96 Maintenance Dispatch Out Process Change CLEC SUBMITTING ISSUE SHOULD COMPLETE ITEMS 1 through 8. (Item 9 is optional): 1. CLEC NAME: Trinsic Communications, Inc. 2. INTERNAL CONTACT & PHONE NUMBER: Peggy Rubino (813) SUBMISSION DATE: June 28, SELECT PRODUCT(S) THIS ISSUE AFFECTS: (Double-click on box(es) to mark) Collocation Line-Sharing Special Access (FCC Tariff) DSL Line-Splitting UNE-Loop Interconnection/IXC LNP UNE-Platform Interconnection/Switched Access Resale UNE Specials/IOF (Local Tariffs) OTHER (Please Specify): 5. SELECT THE ISSUE CATEGORY: Pre-Order (Record Verification) Ordering (Process) Provisioning (Process) Billing (Process) Maintenance and/or Repair (Process) 6. SELECT STATE(S) WHERE ISSUE OCCURS: Ancillary Services (OS/DA/DL, etc.) Other General Issue Connecticut Maryland New Jersey Rhode Island Washington, DC Delaware Massachusetts New York Vermont West Virginia Maine New Hampshire Pennsylvania Virginia Entire Footprint 7. DESCRIBE THE ISSUE: Verizon is closing out DPO trouble tickets as Test OK without dispatching out and without contacting the CLECs prior to closing. 8. PROVIDE EXAMPLE(S): PAD , NYB487165, MDCH468869, NYB IF CLEC HAS PROPOSED RESOLUTION, PLEASE DESCRIBE: VZ should dispatch out on trouble tickets opened by the CLEC as DPO, or contact the CLEC to discuss test results if the CLEC is dispatching incorrectly. CUF REVIEW DATE: 7/13/2005 Printed: 01/22/08 Page 8

9 10. Issue Accepted? Yes / No If No, give reason:. 11. Assigned Issue # 96 and Entitled: Maintenance Dispatch Out Process Change. 12. Other CLECs Supporting Issue: Mettel, MCI. 13. Issue Closed: 5/7/ Issue Moved to Another Forum: 15. Agree to Disagree GENERAL MEETING MINUTES 5/9/07- During the March CUF meeting, Verizon kept this issue open for Peggy Rubino of Trinsic to check with her operations people. Peggy did not have any additional input. Cathy Gorman moved to close this issue, and Peggy Rubino agreed. 3/14/07 Tom Delaney reported that he reviewed this issue with Bruce Nugent and there are no general issues with the front end close out process. He moved to close the issue. Peggy Rubino of Trinsic requested that this issue remain open until she checks with her operations people. Verizon agreed to do so. 12/13/2006 Verizon reported that one CLEC sent in trouble ticket information on a Wholesale Advantage customer. Tom Delaney reported that the front end close out rate is approximately 85% with no new trouble tickets received. Only 15% of tickets that are closed out in the front end come in for testing. He confirmed that Verizon does have an automated system that calls customers to advise them when tickets are closed and that the process was reviewed on the RCMC process review call held previously during the year. He will check with Bruce Nugent to see if any CLECs have gone to him. 9/13/2006 On July 19 th, a conference call was held to review the RCMC process. This issue is being left open to continue to monitor the scrubbing process to ensure that tickets are not closed inappropriately. 7/12/2006 A conference call was scheduled to review the RCMC process on July 19 at 3PM ET. Notification will be sent via the CUF Mailbox. 5/10/2006 The CLECs would like to set up a meeting to review the process flows, originally distributed in November of 2004 to the community, with the East RCMC and West VRCC. Tom explained that there is a restructuring effort underway by Verizon to combine the two groups into one Maintenance center handling the footprint. He agreed to contact Peggy Rubino to coordinate a meeting between the CLECs and the RCMC before the next CUF meeting. Tom also advised that any CLEC interested in reviewing their data tickets should contact him to set up a meeting. 3/15/2006 Tom Delaney still has the action to meet with the CLECs on this topic. 1/11/2006 Tom Delaney advised that he had not had time to meet with the CLEC participants but will schedule a meeting before the next CUF session. 11/9/2005 Tom Delaney advised that he had a general call on Friday Nov. 4 th, with Peggy Rubino, Trinsic and other CLECs. He s received a request for additional sessions from other CLECs. Mettel requested a chart to use as a guide. Tom advised that Verizon is in the process of developing one. Additional details will be provided at the next CUF session. 9/13/ Peggy Rubino advised that the RCMC is closing tickets without contacting Trinsic and requested to see the Verizon written process that would describe when the tickets should be closed. Tom Delaney offered to hold a CLEC specific meeting to review the overall process and/or individual meetings with CLECs about their specific tickets. Interested CLECs should contact Tom or Rosemary so meetings with the appropriate Verizon subject matter experts can be arranged. 7/13/05 - VZ agreed to accept this as a new issue in order to review existing Maintenance Dispatch Out Procedures for determining if what Trinsic and other CLECs are requesting may be accommodated. Printed: 01/22/08 Page 9

10 #103 Reduce Repeated Truck Rolls CLEC SUBMITTING ISSUE SHOULD COMPLETE ITEMS 1 through 8. (Item 9 is optional): 1. CLEC Name: Optimum Global Communications 2. CLEC Contact, Phone Number and Address: 3. Alternate CLEC Contact, Phone Number and Address (Optional): 4. SUBMISSION DATE: 12/19/2005 Stephen Hayes shayes@thelocalphonecompany.net 5. SELECT PRODUCT(S) THIS ISSUE AFFECTS: (Double-click on box(es) to mark) Collocation Line-Sharing Special Access (FCC Tariff) DSL Line-Splitting UNE-Loop Interconnection/IXC LNP UNE-Platform Interconnection/Switched Access Resale UNE Specials/IOF (Local Tariffs) OTHER (Please Specify): 6. SELECT THE ISSUE CATEGORY: Pre-Order (Record Verification) Ordering (Process) Provisioning (Process) Billing (Process) Maintenance and/or Repair (Process) 7. SELECT WHERE ISSUE OCCURS: Entire Verizon East Or Entire Verizon West Or Ancillary Services (OS/DA/DL, etc.) Other General Issue California Connecticut Delaware Florida Idaho Illinois Entire Footprint Or Check off Specific State(s) Below: Indiana New Hampshire Pennsylvania Maine New Jersey Pennsylvania - W Maryland New York Rhode Island Massachusetts North Carolina South Carolina Michigan Ohio Texas Nevada Oregon Vermont Virginia Virginia-W Washington Washington DC West Virginia Wisconsin 8. DESCRIBE THE ISSUE: Dispatched technicians close order (repair or installation) as working and tagged at Network Interface when the line is not in fact tagged and working at the interface. Printed: 01/22/08 Page 10

11 9. PROVIDE EXAMPLE(S): For line # , two dispatches after loop drop failed to provide dial tone to end user. VZ reported good to NID on third resulting in charge to CLEC. All three dispatches were to wrong address resulting in a vendor meet at the correct address. Customer dial tone was established on the fourth try. 10. IF CLEC HAS PROPOSED RESOLUTION, PLEASE DESCRIBE: When a Verizon technician goes to customer premise for an installation or repair, technician will call designated toll free number at company. Company will immediately call back the technician at the newly installed/repaired line to confirm completion and location of the Network Interface. CUF REVIEW DATE: 1/11/ Issue Accepted? Yes / No If No, give reason:. 12. Assigned Issue # 103 and Entitled: Reduce Repeated Truck Rolls. 13. Other CLECs Supporting Issue: Blue Casa, Choice One, McGraw. 14. Issue Closed: 5/9/ Issue moved to another Forum:. 16. Agree to Disagree GENERAL MEETING MINUTES 5/9/07- It was agreed to close this issue. This issue is aligned with Operations Summit Issues #2 and #3, which were closed 5/9/07. See Discussion Topics. 3/14/2007 Covered under Discussion Topics. 12/13/2006 Covered under Discussion Topics. 9/13/2006 Covered under Discussion Topics. 7/12/2006 Covered under Discussion Topics. 5/10/2006 Tom Delaney reported out that the Verizon Installation/Maintenance team is continuing to work with Optimum Global on their specific issues. The issue in general is part of the broader discussion topic about field operational activities. 3/15/2006 Included as part of Discussion Topics. 1/11/2006 Stephen Hayes (Optimum Global) advised that Verizon Technicians are closing out tickets or completing orders as being tagged at the demark and working, without verification. As a result, Optimum has to redispatch. Beth Cohen stated that she, Kathryn Kalajian, and Tom Delaney would talk with senior managers to inform them of the field operations concerns being raised by the CUF and report back at the next meeting. Printed: 01/22/08 Page 11

12 #105 Vendor Meet Billing Issue CLEC SUBMITTING ISSUE SHOULD COMPLETE ITEMS 1 through 8. (Item 9 is optional): 1. CLEC Name: Optimum Global Communications 2. CLEC Contact, Phone Number and Address: 3. Alternate CLEC Contact, Phone Number and Address (Optional): 4. SUBMISSION DATE: Stephen Hayes, shayes@thelocalphonecompany.net Will McCarthy, SELECT PRODUCT(S) THIS ISSUE AFFECTS: (Double-click on box(es) to mark) Collocation Line-Sharing Special Access (FCC Tariff) DSL Line-Splitting UNE-Loop Interconnection/IXC LNP UNE-Platform Interconnection/Switched Access Resale UNE Specials/IOF (Local Tariffs) OTHER (Please Specify): 6. SELECT THE ISSUE CATEGORY: Pre-Order (Record Verification) Ordering (Process) Provisioning (Process) Billing (Process) Maintenance and/or Repair (Process) 7. SELECT WHERE ISSUE OCCURS: Entire Verizon East Or Entire Verizon West Or Ancillary Services (OS/DA/DL, etc.) Other General Issue California Connecticut Delaware Florida Idaho Illinois Entire Footprint Or Check off Specific State(s) Below: Indiana New Hampshire Pennsylvania Maine New Jersey Pennsylvania - W Maryland New York Rhode Island Massachusetts North Carolina South Carolina Michigan Ohio Texas Nevada Oregon Vermont Virginia Virginia-W Washington Washington DC West Virginia Wisconsin 8. DESCRIBE THE ISSUE: Dispatch charges are being assessed when a vendor meet is held soon after the original dispatch and the trouble is found to be with the Verizon equipment. Printed: 01/22/08 Page 12

13 9. PROVIDE EXAMPLE(S): Trouble Ticket MAAV82215 opened on 3/25/2005 for line # result good to DMARC, tagged. TT# MAAV opened 3/30/2005 for a vendor meet as Verizon tech had performed work at the wrong location. Result aerial multiple PLC to correct dropped service. A charge appeared on the 6/06/05 UNE-P invoice for MAAV82215 (but not for MAAV825796), was claimed by Optimum on 6/16/05, and denied by Verizon WBCC on 7/28/05. Claim went into escalation at that time, however the claims associate had never heard of the term vendor meet. Claim escalation finalized denial reversed on 11/07/05. Trouble Ticket MAAT opened on 12/22/2004 for line # result OK to NID, DT good to NID. Optimum tech dispatched for inside wiring discovered that there was no dial tone at NID. TT# MAAT was opened on 12/28/2004 as a vendor meet result repaired at NID, tagged, DT. On the 2/06/2005 UNE-P invoice, a charge was assessed for MAAT but not for MAAT Claim was filed on 6/30/2005, denied and escalated on 7/28/2005. Again, claims associate was not familiar with vendor meets. Claim escalation finalized denial reversed on 11/07/ IF CLEC HAS PROPOSED RESOLUTION, PLEASE DESCRIBE: 1. Root cause needs to be investigated and addressed on why related trouble tickets are not having charge code (1200 series VZ Trouble Disposition Code) changed to non-chargeable code. 2. Insure education claims associates and management on vendor meets and removal of previous charges when the dispatched trouble was found to be in the Verizon side. CUF REVIEW DATE: 1/11/ Issue Accepted? Yes / No If No, give reason:. 12. Assigned Issue # 105 and Entitled: Vendor Meet Billing Issue. 13. Other CLECs Supporting Issue: McGraw, Choice One and IDT. 14. Issue Closed: 3/14/ Issue moved to another Forum:. 16. Agree to Disagree GENERAL MEETING MINUTES 3/14/2007 It was agreed to close this issue. This issue is aligned with Operations Summit issue #4, which was closed 3/14/07. See Discussion Topics. 12/13/2006 Covered under Discussion Topics. 9/13/2006 Covered under Discussion Topics. 7/12/2006 Tom Delaney confirmed that he reviewed the vendor meet tickets with the Verizon billing group. There should be no charge if the meet results in a trouble found. This issue is associated with several Operations Summit issues; i.e. mailbox solution (discrepancies between TT disposition code and narrative) and the NODR process. Therefore, it was determined that this issued will be grouped under Discussion Topics. 5/10/2006 Tom Delaney advised the CLECs that he would have the Verizon Billing group review Vendor Meet ticket information and provide a read out at the next meeting. He also will contact Will McCarthy from Optimum Global following the meeting to discuss their specific billing issues. 3/15/2006 Tom advised that CLECs should not be charged for a second visit when the second visit is as a result of the initial visit not resolving the initial issue. He will review the tickets with the WBCC and provide feed back at the next CUF session. Printed: 01/22/08 Page 13

14 1/11/2006 Stephen Hayes (Optimum Global) advised that Optimum Global submitted billing claims regarding Vendor Meet issues. Stephen stated that there is nothing on the claim form where one could advise that the claim was due to a Vendor Meet. Tom Delaney advised that he would look into the process to determine if Vendor Meet tickets are treated differently. With regard to RCMC trouble tickets, he will find out if there is disposition code that would identify Vendor Meet requests. He will provide his findings at the next CUF session. Printed: 01/22/08 Page 14

15 #107 FTTP/Two LSRs CLEC SUBMITTING ISSUE SHOULD COMPLETE ITEMS 1 through 8. (Item 9 is optional): 1 CLEC Name: AT&T Texas 2 CLEC Contact, Phone Number and Terri Mansir, , terri.mansir@att.com Address: 3 Alternate CLEC Contact, Phone Number and Address (Optional): Barry Queen, , barry.queen@att.com 4 SUBMISSION DATE: May 24, SELECT PRODUCT(S) THIS ISSUE AFFECTS: (Double-click on box(es) to mark) Collocation Line-Sharing Special Access (FCC Tariff) DSL Line-Splitting UNE-Loop Interconnection/IXC LNP UNE-Platform Interconnection/Switched Access Resale UNE Specials/IOF (Local Tariffs) OTHER (Please Specify): 6 SELECT THE ISSUE CATEGORY: Pre-Order (Record Verification) Ordering (Process) Provisioning (Process) Billing (Process) Maintenance and/or Repair (Process) 7 SELECT WHERE ISSUE OCCURS: Entire Verizon East Or Entire Verizon West Or Ancillary Services (OS/DA/DL, etc.) Other General Issue California Connecticut Delaware Florida Idaho Illinois Entire Footprint Or Check off Specific State(s) Below: Indiana New Hampshire Pennsylvania Maine New Jersey Pennsylvania - W Maryland New York Rhode Island Massachusetts North Carolina South Carolina Michigan Ohio Texas Nevada Oregon Vermont Virginia Virginia-W Washington Washington DC West Virginia Wisconsin Printed: 01/22/08 Page 15

16 8 DESCRIBE THE ISSUE: As Verizon has converted customers over to their fiber network in Texas, technicians are separating the NID from the loop for re-use with Verizon s FIOS offering. When AT&T Texas submits a BB LSR with an ACT of V to install a UNE-L & LNP VZ End User to our network, VZ returns a reject back to the CLEC as Product not Available. VZ states they are unable to reconnect or install a new copper loop on this initial LSR since VZ is unable to convert its End User to the CLEC as they are currently served by Fiber to the PREM (FTTP). VZ is requiring the CLEC to submit 2 additional LSR s to convert the End User to the CLEC s network. The first LSR is to install a dry copper loop on an AB LSR with an ACT of N. Once the new loop has been installed and the LSR has profiled, the CLEC must then submit a second LSR to port the End User s telephone number over to the CLEC. In actuality, this is creating a 3 LSR process, because the first LSR receives a reject with a Product Unavailable description. This process is creating unnecessary delays in converting the End User to the CLEC along with the additional cost to the CLEC required to process multiple LSRs for this order activity. 9 PROVIDE EXAMPLE(S): AT&T Texas has already provided through its Verizon Account Management team multiple spreadsheets with examples to Verizon. These examples can be provided to the CUF as needed. 10 IF CLEC HAS PROPOSED RESOLUTION, PLEASE DESCRIBE: AT&T Texas proposes that Verizon reconnect the NID to the loop and the subsequent porting of the End User occur on a single LSR with no more than a 5 business day due date. CUF REVIEW DATE: 7/12/ Issue Accepted? Yes / No If No, give reason:. 12 Assigned Issue # 107 and Entitled: FTTP/Two LSRs. 13. Other CLECs Supporting Issue:. 14. Issue Closed: 5/9/ Issue moved to another Forum:. 16. Agree to Disagree Printed: 01/22/08 Page 16

17 GENERAL MEETING MINUTES 5/9/07- At the March meeting, Verizon left this issue open for further input from Barry Queen of AT&T Texas who was not at the March meeting. Barry said he is not comfortable with the cumbersome process of issuing two and sometimes three orders. Verizon explained (as noted in previous minutes) that Verizon s process does not require three LSRs if the pre order check is done before the LSRs are submitted, however the process is not designed to accept one order due to potential out-of-service conditions. In addition, there are currently very low volumes of activity for FTTP port orders where a two LSR process is required. Cathy Gorman moved to close this issue as agree to disagree which Barry agreed. Customers stated that they may reopen this issue if the volume of FTTP port orders increase. 3/14/2007 Verizon researched the CSR process and reported that after a service order is completed, it takes two to three days for the CSR to be updated. Verizon moved to close this issue. Terri Mansir from AT&T said Barry Queen s input is needed before closing this issue. Verizon agreed to keep this issue open for Barry s input. 12/13/2006 Verizon s has no new information to report and will provide a read out in March at the next CUF meeting. 9/13/2006 Verizon s current practice is to connect the inside wire directly to the ONT and remove the copper drop and NID. When the inside wire cannot be swung to reach the ONT, a cross connect is made between the NID and the ONT and the NID becomes part of the FIOS network. Using the NID as part of the FIOS network also ensures proper bonding and grounding of the inside wire from the network and eliminates foreign voltage. If the NID is used in the FIOS network, the copper drop is disconnected. If the NID is not used, both the copper drop and NID are removed. The removal of the drop and NID eliminates the need to inventory and maintain two sets of equipment. Verizon is currently charging for the dispatch to install the loop and NID, however, there are two initiatives to suppress the charges that are tentatively scheduled for the December release. Verizon also checked with the NMCs to determine if the two orders could be related to shorten the interval. Related PONS cannot be issued for LSRs with different due dates. However, the West intervals have been reduced and using the pre order tools to check facilities will inform the CLEC whether the address is served by fiber and therefore eliminating the first order. Two orders are still required, one for the loop installation and the second for LNP. AT&T clarified that regardless of the expected improvement in intervals, they want to have the loop installation and number porting completed on the same day via one (1) LSR. Verizon explained that it does not have the capability to accept one order and agreed to look at its internal processes to determine if the loop installation and number porting could be completed on the same day via one (1) LSR. Verizon also agreed to investigate the CSR process after a number is ported. 7/12/2006. This issue was presented at the July meeting and accepted into the CUF as issue # 107. Verizon agreed to review the policy issue regarding the removal of the NID for fiber overlay. Verizon also agreed to check with the NMCs to determine if the two orders could be related in order to shorten the interval. Printed: 01/22/08 Page 17

18 #109 Jeopardy for Incorrect NC/NCI Codes No Conditioning Required CLEC SUBMITTING ISSUE SHOULD COMPLETE ITEMS 1 through 8. (Item 9 is optional): 1. CLEC NAME: Integra Telecom 2. INTERNAL CONTACT & PHONE NUMBER: 3. SUBMISSION DATE: Laurie Fredricksen 4. SELECT PRODUCT(S) THIS ISSUE AFFECTS: (Double-click on box(es) to mark) Collocation Line-Sharing Special Access (FCC Tariff) DSL Line-Splitting UNE-Loop Interconnection/IXC LNP UNE-Platform Interconnection/Switched Access Resale UNE Specials/IOF (Local Tariffs) OTHER (Please Specify): 5. SELECT THE ISSUE CATEGORY: Pre-Order (Record Verification) Ordering (Process) Provisioning (Process) Billing (Process) Maintenance and/or Repair (Process) Ancillary Services (OS/DA/DL, etc.) Other General Issue 6. SELECT STATE(S) WHERE ISSUE OCCURS: Verizon West States of Washington and Oregon 7. Connecticut Maryland New Jersey Rhode Island Washington, DC Delaware Massachusetts New York Vermont West Virginia Maine New Hampshire Pennsylvania Virginia Entire Footprint DESCRIBE THE ISSUE Integra has recently starting seeing JEP s for incorrect NC/NCI codes when we have used the correct NC/NCI codes based on the loop qual at the time we submit our order. 8. PROVIDE EXAMPLE(S): PON RL DSL was ordered with the correct NC/NC codes of LXC- 02QB9.00A to remove LC based on the loop qual. The day after the due date, we received a JEP notice saying the loop meets Verizon requirements for DSL and the conditioning was not required, the CKT should be ARSU, not ARFU. 9. IF CLEC HAS PROPOSED RESOLUTION, PLEASE DESCRIBE: Integra proposes that if an LSR is submitted using NC/NCI codes for conditioning and Verizon is able to find facilities that do not require conditioning that they complete the order with out JEP ing the order back to the CLEC. This would allow our end users to get the service they have ordered on the expected due date. CUF REVIEW DATE: 12/13/ Issue Accepted? Yes / No If No, give reason:. Printed: 01/22/08 Page 18

19 11. Assigned Issue #109 and Entitled: Jeopardy for Incorrect NC/NCI Codes-No Conditioning Required. 12. Other CLECs Supporting Issue:. 13. Issue Closed: 5/9/ Issue moved to another Forum:. 15. Agree to Disagree Printed: 01/22/08 Page 19

20 GENERAL MEETING MINUTES 5/9/07-. This issue had been left open from the March meeting in order for CLECs to provide additional examples. No further examples have been submitted by the CLECs. Laurie Fredericksen of Integra agreed that the issue can be closed. 3/14/2007 Verizon reviewed the samples from Integra (four orders) and AT&T (33 orders). Only one sample from Integra was an example of Issue 109 where Verizon sent a late jeopardy notice advising Integra that conditioning was not required and requested Integra to sup the order with new NC/NCI codes. Cathy Gorman explained that the CLEC shouldn t be losing the due date. Verizon explained that if Engineering follows current procedures and the CLEC sups the order within 24 hours, the CLEC should be able to keep the original due date. Verizon s current policy allows one day for Engineering to review the order in queue and five days for Construction to complete the conditioning. In this case, Engineering should have returned the jeopardy within 24 hours to the CLEC for a sup, and since conditioning was not required, the original due date could have been retained. If more of these situations arise, Verizon will go back to Engineering to provide coaching on the process. Integra wanted to know why it had to sup the order to begin with if the loop qual database gave Integra the information.. Beth Abesamis explained that it could be a timing issue as the loop qual database is continuously updated. Beth Cohen concurred that the information changes regularly. Beth Abesamis requested CLECs provide examples of orders in which they put conditioning codes and Verizon jep d back the order that the conditioning code is not needed. Cathy Gorman then reviewed the research on the remaining order samples provided by the CLECs. Two thirds of the samples were examples of orders where the CLEC did issue the LSR with the correct NC/NCI codes for conditioning. Verizon failed to provide the correct information back to the CLEC advising that a work order was required and the due date needed to be lengthened. Verizon is providing coaching to Engineering and NMC employees to review the correct codes and handling of these types of orders. In addition, Verizon has an initiative pending that will care for this issue by identifying NC/NCI codes that require longer due dates and will provide the CLECs with the longer due date upfront. The initiative is a candidate for the October 2007 release. The rest of the samples were for CLEC orders where conditioning was not required and excessive bridge tap needed to be removed. The samples were too old for Verizon to verify if the LQ information was accurate. Verizon will keep this issue open and encourages the CLECs who are experiencing this problem to send current samples to the CUF mailbox so Verizon can investigate. 12/13/2006 Integra Telecom presented a new issue involving the receipt of jeopardy notices for incorrect NC/NCI codes when the correct codes were used based on the loop qual at the time the order was submitted. In the example they provided, the jeopardy notice advised Integra that conditioning was not required and they were requested to sup the order with new NC/NCI codes. Integra proposes that if Verizon can find facilities that do not require conditioning, that the order be completed without a jeopardy notice being sent. The issue was accepted into the CUF as issue # 109 but the proposed resolution is not accepted. Verizon believes there may be a timing issue between the time when the loop qual is complete and when the order is submitted. Verizon agreed to review examples that were submitted and to determine if the same due date can be retained even if a supplemental order is required Printed: 01/22/08 Page 20

21 #110 NC/NCI Codes Required on Line Share to Line Split Orders CLEC SUBMITTING ISSUE SHOULD COMPLETE ITEMS 1 through 8. (Item 9 is optional): 1. CLEC Name: TC3 Telecom 2. CLEC Contact, Phone Number and Dale Horn, , dale.horn@tc3net.com Address: 3. Alternate CLEC Contact, Phone Number and Address (Optional): 4. SUBMISSION DATE: 10/23/ SELECT PRODUCT(S) THIS ISSUE AFFECTS: (Double-click on box(es) to mark) Collocation Line-Sharing Special Access (FCC Tariff) DSL Line-Splitting UNE-Loop Interconnection/IXC LNP UNE-Platform Interconnection/Switched Access OTHER (Please Specify): Resale 6. SELECT THE ISSUE CATEGORY: Pre-Order (Record Verification) Ordering (Process) Provisioning (Process) Billing (Process) Maintenance and/or Repair (Process) 7. SELECT WHERE ISSUE OCCURS: Entire Verizon East Or Entire Verizon West Or UNE Specials/IOF (Local Tariffs) Ancillary Services (OS/DA/DL, etc.) Other General Issue California Connecticut Delaware Florida Idaho Illinois Indiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Nevada Entire Footprint Or Check off Specific State(s) Below: New Hampshire Pennsylvania Virginia New Jersey Pennsylvania - W Virginia-W New York Rhode Island Washington North Carolina South Carolina Washington DC Ohio Texas West Virginia Oregon Vermont Wisconsin Printed: 01/22/08 Page 21

22 8. DESCRIBE THE ISSUE: Converting line share to line split, requires line split NC/NCI to match the line share NC/NCI code. This causes unnecessary work for both CLEC and Verizon in addition to possible double billing. 9. PROVIDE EXAMPLE(S): Let's say the customer originally requested DSL service in November, At that time, the customer's phone line had 1 load coil on it. A line share DSL PON was submitted in WISE with an NC/NCI code that requested the removal of that load coil. Using this code, the WISE system due dates the order out 11 working days. This allows time for engineering to create a work order to have the load coil removed and schedule manpower to do the work. The load coil was removed and the order completed providing the customer DSL service. Now, in 2006, the customer decides to migrate the phone service as well to the same CLEC that provides the DSL service. When submitting this line splitting PON, the system requires that a line splitting NC/NCI code be used that matches the original line share NC/NCI code. That means we again must submit a code that requests the removal of a load coil that was removed three years ago. This causes the order to be due dated out 11 working days again since we are requesting the removal of a non-existent load coil. We then have to contact NOMC, give them the long explanation that this work does not have to be done, and request to have the due date pulled back to three days. This causes unnecessary work on both our parts. There is also the issue of billing. There is a charge to remove the load coil if the loop is over 12kft. 10. IF CLEC HAS PROPOSED RESOLUTION, PLEASE DESCRIBE: Eliminate the requirement to match line share / line split NC/NCI codes. Once the conditioning takes place on the line share order we should not have to make the same request on the line split order. CUF REVIEW DATE: 12/13/ Issue Accepted? Yes / No If No, give reason:. 12 Assigned Issue # 110 and Entitled: NC/NCI Codes Required on Line Share to Line Split Orders. 13. Other CLECs Supporting Issue:. 14. Issue Closed: 7/11/ Issue moved to another Forum:. 16. Agree to Disagree GENERAL MEETING MINUTES 7/11/07 At the May CUF meeting, Verizon agreed to keep this issue open to see if they could provide a work-around for TC3 Telecom, which Verizon was able to do. Laurie Fredericksen of Integra asked if the work-a-round would be available for other CLECs. Cathy Gorman said that there were no other CLECs that were experiencing this problem; and in the future, if a CLEC does experience the same problem, they should notify Verizon and Printed: 01/22/08 Page 22

23 Verizon will look into providing assistance. At the last meeting, Dale Horn of TC3 Telecom agreed to close this issue, and it will be closed as of the July CUF meeting. 5/9/07- Verizon verified that this is a known ordering issue but that it would require significant systems work to fix it. Verizon needs to determine the volume of these types of orders in order to evaluate this further. TC3 Telecom stated it issues approximately of these orders per month. At our last meeting, Verizon kept this issue open and encouraged CLECs to submit order volume data. Verizon did not receive any additional data from the CLECs. Verizon will keep this issue open to investigate whether a work-a-round can be found for TC3 Telecom and other CLECS who may find themselves in the same situation. 3/14/2007 Verizon verified that this is a known ordering issue. Product Line Management has been reviewing this issue to determine if an initiative could fix this situation. The systems work identified to date is very expensive. Verizon needs to determine the volumes of theses type of orders. Verizon will keep this issue open and encourages CLECs to submit order volume data. 12/13/2006 TC3 Telecom presented a new issue that when an order is submitted to convert line share to line split, the order requires the line split NC/NCI codes to match the line share NC/NCI codes from the original order. This results in unnecessary work for Verizon (for example, the codes trigger Verizon to perform engineering work to remove a load coil that had been removed on the original line share order) and possible double billing for the removal of the load coil. The issue was accepted into the CUF as issue # 110. Verizon will speak to Mike Clancy regarding different migration strategies previously discussed in Change Management for additional information on this issue. Printed: 01/22/08 Page 23

24 #111 DSL Port Intervals CLEC SUBMITTING ISSUE SHOULD COMPLETE ITEMS 1 through 8. (Item 9 is optional): 1. CLEC Name: Cox Communications 2. CLEC Contact, Phone Number and Address: 3. Alternate CLEC Contact, Phone Number and Address (Optional): 4. SUBMISSION DATE: 10/4/2006 Gayle Gissendanner (757) Gayle.gissendanner@cox.com 5. SELECT PRODUCT(S) THIS ISSUE AFFECTS: (Double-click on box(es) to mark) Collocation Line-Sharing Special Access (FCC Tariff) DSL Line-Splitting UNE-Loop Interconnection/IXC LNP UNE-Platform Interconnection/Switched Access Resale UNE Specials/IOF (Local Tariffs) OTHER (Please Specify): 6. SELECT THE ISSUE CATEGORY: Pre-Order (Record Verification) Ordering (Process) Provisioning (Process) Porting Intervals Billing (Process) Maintenance and/or Repair (Process) 7. SELECT WHERE ISSUE OCCURS: Entire Verizon East Or Entire Verizon West Or Ancillary Services (OS/DA/DL, etc.) Other General Issue California Connecticut Delaware Florida Idaho Illinois Entire Footprint Or Check off Specific State(s) Below: Indiana New Hampshire Pennsylvania Maine New Jersey Pennsylvania - W Maryland New York Rhode Island Massachusetts North Carolina South Carolina Michigan Ohio Texas Nevada Oregon Vermont Virginia Virginia-W Washington Washington DC West Virginia Wisconsin Printed: 01/22/08 Page 24

25 8. DESCRIBE THE ISSUE: Cox Communications would like to see the DSL porting intervals reduced from (7) days to (3) days to mirror the standard porting intervals. With the implementation of CO5-1642/ T5 Disconnect DSL on shared loop where the TN and facility is ported, there is no need for the extended DSL interval to remain in effect. 9. PROVIDE EXAMPLE(S): 10. IF CLEC HAS PROPOSED RESOLUTION, PLEASE DESCRIBE: CUF REVIEW DATE: 12/13/ Issue Accepted? Yes / No If No, give reason:. 12. Assigned Issue # 111 and Entitled: DSL Port Intervals. 13. Other CLECs Supporting Issue:. 14. Issue Closed: 5/9/ Issue moved to another Forum:. 16. Agree to Disagree GENERAL MEETING MINUTES 5/9/07- Verizon confirmed this initiative was implemented in April 2007, with no issues reported. Two notifications were sent out and the information posted on the Verizon Partner solutions website. Cathy Gorman moved to close this issue. Gayle Gissendanner from Cox Communications agreed. 3/14/2007 Verizon reported that the DSL porting intervals will be reduced from seven business days to three business days with the April release. Verizon will keep this issue open until the implementation is complete. 12/13/2006 Cox Communications presented a new issue requesting that DSL porting intervals be reduced from seven days to three days to mirror the standard porting intervals. The issue was accepted into the CUF as issue # 111. Verizon explained that there are on-going work efforts to reduce intervals, and that they will share information on the status of this issue in January. Some industry carriers do not want the interval reduced. For example a reduced interval could provide problems for DSL providers that utilize line splitting. If changes are made to the interval prior to the next CUF meeting scheduled for March, the notification process is via an Industry letter. Printed: 01/22/08 Page 25

26 #112 UNE-L Maintenance Tickets CLEC SUBMITTING ISSUE SHOULD COMPLETE ITEMS 1 through 8. (Item 9 is optional): 1. CLEC Name: Broadview Networks 2. CLEC Contact, Phone Number and Address: 3. Alternate CLEC Contact, Phone Number and Address (Optional): 4. SUBMISSION DATE: 9/26/06 Jennifer Kuhns jkuhns@broadviewnet.com 5. SELECT PRODUCT(S) THIS ISSUE AFFECTS: (Double-click on box(es) to mark) Collocation Line-Sharing Special Access (FCC Tariff) DSL Line-Splitting UNE-Loop Interconnection/IXC LNP UNE-Platform Interconnection/Switched Access Resale UNE Specials/IOF (Local Tariffs) OTHER (Please Specify): 6. SELECT THE ISSUE CATEGORY: Pre-Order (Record Verification) Ordering (Process) Provisioning (Process) Billing (Process) Maintenance and/or Repair (Process) 7. SELECT WHERE ISSUE OCCURS: Entire Verizon East Or Entire Verizon West Or Ancillary Services (OS/DA/DL, etc.) Other General Issue California Connecticut Delaware Florida Idaho Illinois Entire Footprint Or Check off Specific State(s) Below: Indiana New Hampshire Pennsylvania Maine New Jersey Pennsylvania - W Maryland New York Rhode Island Massachusetts North Carolina South Carolina Michigan Ohio Texas Nevada Oregon Vermont Virginia Virginia-W Washington Washington DC West Virginia Wisconsin Printed: 01/22/08 Page 26