Verizon Internal

Verizon Internal
October 12, 2004
Confirmation #6076638
Operator: Pardon me everyone; we are now beginning the
conference call. All lines will be open throughout the presentation. To keep
background noise to a minimum you may press star, six, to mute and unmute
your phones as needed. Again, all lines are currently open. Please press star,
six, to mute and unmute your phone as needed to keep background noise to a
minimum. Miss Derrig, please go ahead.
Jean Derrig: Thank you. Good morning everyone. This is the East
Verizon Wholesale Change Management meeting. As most of you know this is
my first meeting, hosting the meeting as the new Manager of Change
Management. Let’s start by, let’s go round the room and just say who is here
and then we will go around on the telephone and then I’ll set up the agenda.
Beth Cohen: Beth Cohen from Verizon.
Lisa Provenzo: Lisa Provenzo with MCI.
Sue Pistacchio: Sue Pistacchio from Verizon.
John: John (inaudible) from Verizon.
Nicole: Nicole (inaudible), Verizon.
Jean Derrig: We have a small gathering here today. Who is on
the phone?
Catherine Hannen: This is Catherine Hannen from Bridgecom. Hey Lisa
I was in that position just a couple of months ago. Just keep smiling.
Sue Pistacchio: We’re – you’d better not say, he’s on the phone.
Peggy Rubino: It’s a funny email but bet he will be.
Beth Cohen: I’ve got a feeling he is going to show up.
Peggy Rubino: This is Peggy Rubino from Z-Tel.
Carol Frike: Carol Frike with Sprint.
Bennie Almas: Bennie Almas with Neustar.

John Boshier: John Boshier with Covad.
Janice Ziegele: Janice Ziegele from Broadview.
Jennifer Koonz: Jennifer Koonz from Broadview.
Amy Kwak: Amy Kwak, CTSI.
Stephen Manion. Stephen Manion, Verizon.
Larry Blair: Larry Blair, Remi Communications.
Amy Brown: Amy Brown, Time Warner.
Amy Blackman: Amy Blackman, Talk America.
Lisa Peterson: Lisa Peterson, Verizon
Sylvia Hillard: This is Sylvia Hillard Verizon.
Tim Burkhart: Tim Burkhart, Verizon.
Carol Yozzo: Carol Yozzo, Verizon.
Jay Randas: Jay Randas, Verizon.
Jean Derrig: OK, anybody else out there?
Bob Urisay: Bob Urisay, Excel.
Jean Derrig: We have some banging in the background here so let
us know if that interferes with you being able to hear us. And also Tanya Coates
joined us in the room.
OK, anyone else not announce themselves? OK just
to let everybody know we have a very tight agenda today and several of us here
at Verizon actually have a hard stop at 12.25. If the meeting goes beyond that
we can reconvene around 2.15 but there’s an executive level meeting that we
can’t get out of right now. So hopefully we can stay on the agenda and not, you
know, go into the afternoon but that will be an option if needed.
The first agenda item is the communication plan for
the CABS consolidation, and I believe I did hear Lisa Peterson on the call. Lisa?
Lisa Peterson: Yes I am here. Thank you, good morning everybody.
Just wanted to give you a quick status on the CABS East consolidation. As you

know we did experience a delay and it’s mostly due to our testing. We’re not
completely satisfied that we are where we need to be from a testing perspective
so I did send out a communication at the end of last month indicating that we
were going to be delaying until further notice. And the only reason we felt until
further notice was more appropriate was because we couldn’t specify you know,
thirty days or forty-five days, but we are definitely moving in the right direction,
making a lot of progress and do expect within the next month or two that we will
be sending out another communication with the specific date for everybody.
For anybody that still does require old band/new band
information my email address is lisa.a.peterson@verizon.com, and I can be
reached at 301-236-8148.
morning? OK Jean.
Jean Derrig: OK thank you Lisa.
Lisa Peterson: Sure.
Does anybody have any questions on the status this
Jean Derrig: the next project to be discussed is end user listings
and I believe Carol is the one that does that.
Carol Yozzo: Yes, hi Jean and good morning everyone. OK I have
a few things to say about end user listings. Let me start with what is going on in
the North, and we had originally targeted the North data conversion to begin in
October but that has been postponed – and this is a fairly recent development so
if you look in the status of the CMP materials you’re going to see that it still says
October. That will be updated.
At this point we don’t have a specific date but the
CLECs that are involved in the beta, and I believe you know who you are; you
will be contacted individually as soon as the new date is set.
Furthermore in the North, and again the North is the
New England States and New York, this is the only area now where end user
listing has not been implemented. So in MDVW and NPD you should be using
end user listings. You should not be creating any new listings in band format.
But in the North you should continue to process new listings and migrations in
the band format until further notice. And again the non-beta CLECS will also be
notified individually once the conversion schedule has been set. I’d like to point
out that that there are a lot of listings in the North. It’s about twice the size as the
other jurisdictions so it is going to be a long process, so we will get the schedule
put together and notify the individual CLECs of their schedule. But again in the
meantime you should be using the band format in the North and the end user
listing format in NPD and MDVW

OK, now in the South since we have completed the
conversion of all the eligible listings the bands that remain have been significantly
reduced in size and it really brings us to the issue of the ALI code report. This
report was developed to address the fact that the bands were so huge that we
could not return the information in the CSR record, so the ALI code report was
developed to provide that information. I guess as a handy reference. Again, now
since the bands have been reduced we feel that this situation has changed and
we are planning to discontinue the issuance of the ALI code report. Only in those
States in the North it will continue. I would ask though that any CLECs that –
well any CLECs that use the ALI code report, and I’m not sure how many there
are, but use it as say a system interface, there will be some preparation needed
to no longer use the ALI code report.
Any questions – oh, and the timeframe for retiring the
ALI code report is the end of this year so you will continue to receive the weekly
reports in the meantime. Any questions on that?
Lisa Provenzo: Carol this is Lisa. On additional listings are you
required an ALI code for the South?
Carol Yozzo: I’m sorry I didn’t hear the question.
Lisa Provenzo: In the South for additional listings aren’t you required
to add an ALI code?
Carol Yozzo: Yes but now you can retrieve the listing information
via the CSR so you really don’t need the ALI code report for that anymore. The
reason for the ALI code report is that you had up to 10,000 listings on a band and
they were not necessarily related listings. You could have literally thousands and
thousands of name listings or you’d have names and additionals. Now if you
have a name listing, even if it has hundreds or thousands additional listings
associated with it, you can pull that on the CSR.
Lisa Provenzo: OK, that’s good though because that kind of parks it
where it doesn’t get lost.
Janice Ziegele: Janice Ziegele from Broadview.
Carol Yozzo: Yes, go ahead.
Janice Ziegele: I have a question on the listings that could not be
converted. How are we going to get our ALI codes on those?
Carol Yozzo: Well again the bands themselves are reduced in size
so that now you can actually pull a CSR on the band. I’m actually going to be

doing an in depth study on the remaining bands to see exactly what is left and to
ensure that there are no bands that are too large to be returned via CSR. But
any remaining listings – and the bulk of those ineligible listings are actually
duplicate listings that we need to address separately. But again any band that no
longer contains the listings that were converted, the band should be small
enough to pull via the CSR, and I will determine within the next week or two if
there are any bands that don’t fit that criteria.
Jean Derrig: OK, any other questions for Carol? OK, thank you
Carol. Our next agenda item, Sue Pistacchio is going to discuss LSOG 9
implementation.
Sue Pistacchio: Good morning everybody, this is Sue Pistacchio and
we are beginning our rollout of LSOG 9 and when it comes to communication on
this project it’s something that I will share with Carol Yozzo. Specifically I will be
addressing and communicating to the CLEC industry our plans for the LSOG 9
implementation. Carol will be addressing communicating with you plans on the
sunset of LSOG 5 and 6. So you will be hearing from both of us on this project.
For LSOG 9 specifically our plans are to implement
LSOG 9 with the October 2005 release. From a timeline perspective we would
be disseminating to the CLEC industry in the March timeframe the detailed plans
of changes and the 180 day window would take place in the April timeframe. So
those milestones would be as we’ve done previously.
We are aiming towards moving towards one LSOG.
There is a great decrease in the number of issues that are being brought to the
industry with each successive LSOG. With LSOG 10 there’s only three issues
that are being entertained, and LSOG 11 has two. And in many of the cases
what is going into the LSOG is stuff that Verizon East has already introduced, or
in many cases we have it and we are bringing it to the LSOG. So again the plans
that we have are to drive towards one LSOG.
That’s basically the information I had on the LSOG 9
implementation. Carol did you want to go over the plans for the sunset of 5 and
6?
Carol Yozzo: Sure. Actually yesterday a notice was sent out that
outlined the plans for sunset, so if you haven’t received that or you have, either
way I will review that will you and then if there are any questions I can answer
them. Just bear with me for a minute because I need to pull the notice up.
Sue Pistacchio: I have the dates on these Carol if you just…
Carol Yozzo: No, I’ve got it here. OK, December 1 st of this year will
be the cutoff for any new entering CLECS, and I would imagine that new entrant

CLECs are not on this call anyway, but new entrant CLECs will be able to use
LSOG 6 only. So we will not set up any new CLECs in LSOG 5. And then as
Sue mentioned October of 2005 will be the date for the sunset of LSOG 5 and
that will coincide with the LSOG 9 implementation.
Sue Pistacchio: What was that date again for sunset on the 5?
Carol Yozzo: October 2005, and depending whether you’re East or
West it will be whatever the release week is, so it does differ from East to West
but it’s basically the second or third week. Third week in the East, second week
in the West. And then from October 2005 to February of 2006 we will be
operating in LSOG 6 and LSOG 9. And then in February 2009 we will sunset
LSOG 6 and at that point our plan is to go (inaudible) 9.
Beth Cohen: February of 2006, not 2009.
Carol Yozzo: I’m sorry, it’s LSOG 9. OK, getting my numbers
confused! So February of 2006 we will sunset LSOG 6 and at that point LSOG 9
will be the only version. Beyond that we will make those plans as they get into
the foreseeable future.
I would like to point out that this is something that we
have not done in the past, was to allow CLECs to skip an LSOG version. But
any CLECs that are currently on LSOG 5 we will open it up so that you can go
directly from 5 to 9. Now there are some considerations with that, the main one
being that since LSOG 5 is sunsetting at the same time that 9 is being
implemented it will be, to you it will be a flash cut, meaning that on Friday you will
be entering your LSRs in LSOG 5 and then come the weekend after the
implementation you will go straight to 9. There will be no overlap, so that is
something that you have to determine on an individual basis, whether it is
acceptable.
Technically the LSOG sunset and implementation
currently, and up to the February ’06 date, are on a phase basis in that you can
go from LSOG 5 to LSOG 6 now and overlap the two while you are transitioning
from one to the other; and you will be able to do the same thing going from 6 to
9. But the bottom line is the sooner you get off LSOG 5 the better. You know if
you’re planning to go straight from 5 to 9 then you are locked into that October
2005 date, but if you are going from 5 to 6, again the sooner the better just to be
able to get that, get this sunset behind you and get your pending orders starting
to come in in LSOG 6.
Any questions so far?
Gloria Velez: Carol this is Gloria Velez from AT & T. So October
2005 is when you’re making LSOG 9 available?

Carol Yozzo: Correct.
Gloria Velez: So that basically gives a company November,
December, January and February, roughly four months to go from 6 to 9. That’s
traditionally not what has been done in the past. In the past we’ve had a much
greater period of time to transition before you sunset. And I have reservations, or
AT & T would have reservations in going to 9 right away because when we went
to 6 right way we might have been, maybe not the first CLECs but one of the first
couple of CLECs, and we had issues that, you know, were not worked out with
Verizon until we came on board, and so we have reservations in going right
away. So we would like to see not so much – I mean changing the timeframe of
when you make available 9, but the retirement of 6. Rather than retiring 6 in
February we would like to propose retiring it in June, your next release. Because
we have to work on pipeline orders and we just don’t feel comfortable that that
four month period is adequate enough based upon the history, based upon what
things we encountered when we went to LSOG 6.
Sue Pistacchio: Well one of the things Gloria to point out is (and this is
Sue) what is going to be implemented with LSOG 9 will not be as substantial as
what has come in previous LSOG implementation. In addition to that even
though there is that four month window when LSOG 9 will be up, delivering the
initial LSOG 9 business rules six months prior to that will provide significant time
for the industry to begin their analysis on it. So I guess what I would question is,
are there things that we could be doing, you know, sooner to the rollout to
prepare the industry for the LSOG implementation?
Gloria Velez: We’ve never done a flash cut up in the North. I have
a little concern. I’ll take this back to my (inaudible) you know to support that but
do we do that in the West now?
Sue Pistacchio: No the West follows the same process that we do.
Gloria Velez: But that’s my only concern on the LSR. I know on the
ASR we do that but it’s a little bit different. We don’t have all the business rules
and we don’t have probably – we could still (inaudible) the validation the same for
an edit so I’m just a little worried about the pipeline orders.
Sue Pistacchio: Looking at the analysis pipeline orders is something
Carol can speak to better than I can, but just looking at what we are
implementing so much of what is going into 9 and then also coming into 10 is
stuff that we already have. So when it comes to implementing it in a lot of cases
you know, there may be change another value or whatnot but we’re really not
implementing a lot of new functionality. I think the only thing that’s coming in
LSOG 9 that’s really substantial is the IECN form. But other than that I mean

that’s one of the things that we’re looking at. You know LSOG is beginning to
look more like ASR when it comes to (inaudible).
Gloria Velez: Its clean, it’s cut and dried. (Inaudible) is a different
animal because you have all the little details and features and feature formats in
the USOC so you can’t even compare but I mean.
Gloria Velez: Carol when are you making available the business
rules?
Carol Yozzo: That’s Sue’s area. What is that, 73 days in advance?
Sue Pistacchio: No that would be 180 so it’s in the April timeframe.
Gloria Velez: April, OK. But we actually couldn’t start - testing
would be – what’s the test window then?
Sue Pistacchio: It would be the normal test window. So from October
30 days beforehand I believe.
Gloria Velez: OK, and also Sue are you planning to do a very, very
detailed analysis? Because I know when we went from 5 to 6 I mean, you know,
Verizon did provide documentation at a high level but as a systems engineer who
is responsible, myself, who is responsible for doing detailed analysis, we had to
do field by field comparisons to see exactly what changed. So I don’t know now
that you’re saying not a lot has changed with 9, are you actually doing a very
detailed analysis field by field?
Sue Pistacchio: Yes we are.
Gloria Velez: OK, and you will be providing that so we’re basically
having a change log that we could rely on. A change log, again, that we could
rely on that actually tells us at a very, very detailed level, the differences.
Sue Pistacchio: Yes that’s what we are working towards.
Gloria Velez: OK.
Carol Yozzo: And I’d like to address the pipeline question. If you
have seen the notice that went out to change management I did mention that for
LSOG 5 pipeline orders I gave a date of November 30 th 2005. That’s for the
latest due date. So that fills in time for those orders to clear the pipeline before
LSOG 5 is sunset.
As we go forward with LSOG flash cut we will – I
guess what you could say is we’re building planning into the pipeline for one

thing, so that – you know what I found when we sunset LSOG 2 and LSOG 4
was that there were orders in the pipeline with dates that were ten, twenty or forty
years out that were probably just placeholders but they were not realistic dates
and we had a lot of abandoned orders.
As we go forward by working with the due date edit
that will basically control the pipeline, that will address the issue of having to
clear it out at the time of the sunset. And then again as we go through flash cut
of LSOGs, you know, ultimately to have a single version where the, one version
sunsets and the next one comes in, obviously we can’t have an immediate
clearing of the pipeline. That will be built into there so that orders that are in the
pipeline can be processed and completed in – well they’re not really processed
or provisioned in an LSOG. That’s really for ordering purposes. But we will fill
that in so that those orders are able to complete and your completion notifiers are
able to be returned. So we’re trying to simplify this process. It shouldn’t be the
horrendous transition that LSOG 2 to 4 and 4 to 5 were because of the kind of
restrictions that were built in there.
Gloria Velez: But for right now, between October and February,
there’s two releases up. There’s 6 and 9, correct?
Carol Yozzo: Correct, yes.
Gloria Velez: So if you were a CLEC that you wanted to migrate to
9 prior to February you would still have – I guess this is the question – we would
still have the ability to finish out our LSOG 6.
Carol Yozzo: Correct, right. And that will exist but we anticipate
that LSOG 9, LSOG 6/9 will be the last opportunity where we will have that, or
last situation where we will have that overlap and then going forward we want to
see it as a flash cut from one to the other. And you know, as any release is it
should not be a major undertaking to change LSOGs as we stabilize the LSOG
releases.
Gloria Velez: After all that I’ve learned I’d still like to make the
request that the LSOG 6 not be sunsetted until June and that maybe going…
Carol Yozzo: We will take that under advisement.
Sue Pistacchio: And Cheryl (inaudible) wonderful about when we
sunset one LSOG and move on to the other but…
Gloria Velez: But a flash cut is a different – I mean I think it’s a
different scenario. I would like to have a better, clearer picture and
understanding of, you know, just the pipeline orders. I’m not talking about dated

orders six months down the road. Just you know, production orders that might
be out there pending normal intervals.
Carol Yozzo: Right. Well that’s why were coming out with this
information this far in advance, so we can plan this as we, you know, we’re
talking about over a year out so we really can plan this and minimize the
concern.
Gloria Velez: Right so when will Verizon have that plan to give us a
better picture because I have to take this back to our company to ensure that we
can go to a flash cut.
Beth Cohen: Let me weigh in here. This is Beth Cohen. One of
the things that we want to make sure, number one, this will now be an agenda
item on every month meeting from now until rollout you know. So that we
obviously realize that quite a lot of taking back to your own companies that has to
be done here once we put out kind of what our plan is at this point. Its far in
advance we could have you go back to your internal. Really flesh out what are
the issues that you guys think that you’re going to you know be facing, and bring
them back so we can discuss them, you know, as we go forward, this far out and
at least begin to raise them, to the table. And I hear Gloria’s concern, which we
will take back, but we would like to hear even, you know, more specifically what
are the concerns so that we can address them and we can, you know, manage
them in a good timeframe as opposed to an immediate timeframe.
Mary Halpin: I have a (inaudible) question. Carol, when you
mention the pipeline and controlling that better, and let me say at the outset (this
is Mary Halpin) it is not our policy to rent the extended due date out to several
months. But you mentioned a due date edit to help to curtail pipeline orders.
Could you elaborate on that?
Carol Yozzo: Well at this point I don’t have the detail on this but it
would be something to the effect if we’re saying that – again this is in the case of
LSOG 5 sunset and LSOG 9 implementation. That if we need to clear the
pipeline prior to a certain date then we would, it would be a post LSOG 5 sunset
date that we say you could not have a due date, lets say after October 2005.
Now obviously you’re not going to be submitting LSRs in LSOG 5 after that date
but again we want – I’m not going to put a date on it right here and now. We
really need to define this in more detail, but what I’m putting out to you is ways
that we make this process cleaner, more manageable, you know, and addresses
the concerns.
My point is we’re not going to be left with pipeline,
with stranded pipeline orders. Whether it’s the ability to process them in a post
sunset environment in the old sunset – I’m sorry, in the old LSOG, or a kind of a
cutoff date that says you won’t have any due dates after this date anyway. They

can’t come in with a due date later than that so by necessity all of those pipeline
orders will be cleared out. And I’m going to throw out an example just to
illustrate. These are by no means official dates.
Mary Halpin: Carol could you use LSOG 6. Is it…
Carol Yozzo: Well I was going to use, let me use LSOG 5 as an
example where we’ve got an October 2005 sunset date. Let’s say that you can’t
have a due date later than November of 2005. That way by – after the sunset
you’re no longer able to submit orders. Anything that’s in the pipeline has got a
due date of November 30 th 2005 or earlier. So we, Verizon has a cutoff of that
LSOG 5 pipeline and we know it gets cleared out.
And the reason I’m not using LSOG 6 or 9 or beyond
is because we don’t have the specifics of how we’re going to handle the pipeline
ongoing again. Once they are in to the pipeline the orders are not really
processed in an LSOG. They are submitted in an LSOG because that’s the
guidelines of getting them in, but they are not provisioned in an LSOG so it
becomes kind of a, I guess like a hazy issue. Again I don’t want to go into a
lower level of detail at this point, but these are the things we are looking at as to
how to manage that issue.
Mary Halpin: You know Carol I can understand this is very high
level hypothetically, what you’re saying, but I think it would be more of a LSOG 6
environment, and I’m also you know, I have a few concerns about the proposed
process. The fact is, you know, the idea of some sort of a due date edit perhaps
on LSOG 6 that may inhibit our ability to even get a good due date for a while.
And the second thing is the flash cut, and then finally
is the reason why we have two versions available at one time, was not so much
based on the content of a particular LSOG release, but it was more based on the
operational impact to the CLECs of having to flash cut to a new release, a new
LSOG version and not have any leeway and potentially be out of business. In
fact previously Verizon would not even entertain a company being able to do a
flash cut. They would absolutely not even allow it. Not that we wanted it
because you could potentially put a company out of business from an ordering
perspective.
So I think we need a lot more information on this
proposed project and I also just want to point out that my understanding, and I
have to take this back, is that having two versions available was not a ‘nice to
have’ but came out of our original UNE negotiations and in particular for CMP.
But that’s what’s the guideline here then. So several concerns around this and
LSOG 6 examples would be better. The due date edits that you mentioned, the
flash cut and this very short timeline and only having from then I guess,

eginning February 2006 there would only be one version available. Is that
correct?
Carol Yozzo: That is our proposal, correct. And again I don’t want
to throw out dates for an end due date for an LSOG 6 order because I think it’s
premature to do that, but you know whether its thirty days or sixty days or ninety
days, you know, at this point I think it would be premature to discuss that.
What I would ask though is if you – the concerns that
you do have to document them, send them into change management so that we
have them, and we will have to have ongoing discussions on this. As Beth said
we are going to, this will be a change management agenda item going forward so
we will have plenty of opportunities to discuss it.
Mary Halpin: Yes it sounds like your plans are pretty well set. I
mean you’ve got the dates and plan in place. You may not have all the details
yet and we need that and so, you know I just think AT & T has concerns right off
the bat of changes to the CMP process and a new due date edit perhaps and just
the whole timeline.
Elliott Goldberg: This is Elliott Goldberg and I apologize for arriving late
but I think I’m here just on time. On page 20 of the Wholesale Network Services
OSS Interface Change Management Process, Version 2001 dated April 5 th 2001,
downloaded from the web it says, under Section XI - Versioning of LSR Preorder
and Order Application-to-Application Interface, the first heading: Verizon
Practice. “Verizon practice will be to maintain two (2) versions of the LSOG
preorder and order interfaces.”
This was done for very specific operational reasons.
It is a time honored practice that has been done since the start of competition,
certainly since the start of this group. I believe Mary, and I’m not sure because I
couldn’t find it, but the pre-filing thing may also do that but I didn’t have a chance
this morning to review it and I went out yesterday. But we would strenuously
protest the elimination of this practice.
Beth Cohen: We are clearly aware of what the Change
Management document states, and I think that one of the reasons that we are
putting this forward at this point in time is we recognize that if we go to this, if we
agree that this is the direction that we as an industry, and probably not just
Verizon but other ILECs as well, that this would be obviously to change the
change management process. We understand exactly what the change
management document says that. The reason we are trying to bring this up at
this point is so that we can have some forward (inaudible) discussion to move,
we believe, where the entire industry is trying to move to as those LSOG, new
LSOG versions become less and less difficult, I guess, or less and less difficult or
hard things to change as a new LSOG version rolls out. Obviously some are

eneficial (inaudible) beneficial all around from resources and changes and
managing processes and so, you know, we’re putting it out there and you know
this is kind of where we would like to go.
Sue Pistacchio: What if the ILECs do the flash cut. Is there an item
there?
Beth Cohen: I don’t know if it is ILECs that are doing the flash cut.
I’m not aware but I know that there are discussions among the, within the
industry about how to manage LSOG versioning you know, as this industry
matures. So it’s a discussion topic.
Elliott Goldberg: At this point, and I deal with three ILECs, I’m not
aware of any of them that – four if you count US, the former GTE – that could
flash cut so that this would be, this wouldn’t be an industry standard practice as
of this time.
Sue Pistacchio: But I think there has been discussion on (inaudible).
Elliott Goldberg: OBF discussion takes up to five years sometimes.
And I see no reason why, given the problem – and it doesn’t affect you so much
as…
Beth Cohen: I want to deal with business here. We don’t want
necessarily deal with rules. Rules are there to help guide us and I think our goal
here is we don’t know. Maybe it is time for a change of how we have been
operating, which is why we are putting it out there as a discussion topic.
Elliott Goldberg: You do realize that flash cut is very high risk, because
the CLEC that does it has no fallback and therefore their entire business could be
disrupted. They can be out of business.
Beth Cohen: Then we need to talk about it going forward. We’re
not going to resolve this today. As I’ve said it’s going to be an agenda item every
month going forward and also for those of you who – I’m sorry that I’m going to
push this along but we know this could be a very big discussion and for those of
you who came in the room late we are on a time schedule today, so we actually
need to – for those who have joined late, Jean mentioned at the beginning of this
meeting several of us have an executive meeting that has (inaudible) today and
we need to end our meeting here at 12.25. If we don’t finish we can come back
but we can’t come back until 2.15. So I just want to make sure that everybody is
aware of our timeframe.
Mary Halpin: Well you know thank you for reminding us of the
timeframe but from an AT & T perspective we are very concerned. Because it
just sounds to me that a detailed plan is already in place. Carol has a lot of

information and so does Sue. Timelines, dates, plans, LSOG 5, 6, 9, etc. New
due date edits to control pipeline, flash cut, major major changes. And I think
before it can even be – I mean it sounds to me as if we’ve been told here’s the
plan, it’s in place so get ready and we will entertain your questions.
I think we need as much information as you can
provide immediately because this really is a very, very major concern. Flash cut
means if something goes wrong you are at risk basically and that’s why there are
rules in CMP. And we’re not meeting just for that rule we’re meeting because
you know it keeps our OSS viable to Verizon’s OSS so it’s a critical pipeline for
us. And I think that we need to form an understanding that that’s why there was
the two versions rule negotiated with CMP to begin with so that you know those
companies could be either, you know, really put at a disadvantage because they
can’t either do it with the speed Verizon determines. OK, this date we’re
making the change. You’ve got to make it, you’re out of business, etc. We need
a lot more details before there can be a discussion. Because to me this was
you’re letting us know but I think also it sounds to me as if there are some fairly
detailed plans and dates in place and we need much more information to have
any type of a dialogue.
Beth Cohen: I think that the only thing that’s in place actually is the
plan that really went out through the mail. There, I think there have been some
high level discussions and I think that we want to put out our thinking to the
industry and we want to hear back the concerns, because we want to he able to,
number one, address the concerns if there are responses that can be made to
the concerns, or we want to be able to bring back internally the concerns and say
hey, there’s some real issues here that we have not even thought about and that
we need to kind of go through and vet. And so I think that you know, what we
are asking here is we really are, this is an initial kind of plan that we are putting
out. Yes we would like to go towards this plan. This is, you know, our thinking
internally, but we need to hear from you what it is from this plan that is of
concern.
Mary Halpin: I think you’ve heard.
Beth Cohen: I think so and I think what both Sue and Carol are
asking is for you to really even take this back internally and really talk about it
within your companies and flesh out the concerns and send them to us in an
email, so that we can take them internally as well and work them and we can
continue with dialogue here.
Elliott Goldberg: The fact that you want a short, a type schedule
meeting. You don’t send out an email at 11.37 am on the morning before the
meeting when people, some of us are on vacation, others that have corporate
holidays and everybody picks this up and has to come in here on a short notice.

The right way to handle these meetings is to provide the information with a
sufficient lead that we can coordinate this within our company.
Beth Cohen: We agree.
Elliott Goldberg: There are two items that came out with this meeting,
this being one, the other I will address later, that were so short notice as to
preclude virtually any meaningful discussion at this meeting and it’s a travesty
that (a) you send it out so close to this meeting and (b) discuss it at the meeting.
Now as far as two releases go, and my last comment,
Verizon like Microsoft has an excellent track record of putting out very fuzzy first
releases and to force us to go to a track through a flash conversion to a system
that your, has been traditionally buggy and problematic without giving you time to
settle in and stabilize it when most of us convert six to eight months after the
initial release is too risky and too dangerous to the continuity of our business, I
want Verizon’s plans to indemnify us. And that’s all I could coordinate this
morning. And that’s why I’m upset about this whole proposal. One, it’s against
the rules, it’s a travesty and it’s improper. And I hope the recorder got all that.
Beth Cohen: Sure, we recorded it.
Elliott Goldberg: I tried to speak very clearly just for that purpose.
Beth Cohen: I would ask you to please send in…
Elliott Goldberg: Because I was in this office early this morning trying
to coordinate this.
Beth Cohen: I would ask that you please send in your concerns to
change management so that we can work them internally. I think we have heard
them here and I think that we want to take those back here as well as any others
that come forward and to think about this more, and this will be on the agenda,
as I said, of all upcoming meetings.
Elliott Goldberg: By the way we will not accede to a single change in
the change management rules (inaudible) elimination of the two versions.
Paul Haven: Beth if I can – this is Paul Haven. I have been, I had
to call back in because I had been on mute somehow by the operator but I would
like to just share a few things here. One is that the, we’re attempting to bring this
to the change management meeting today providing a year’s worth of notice on a
plan that we would like to pursue. I greatly appreciate the feedback we’re
getting, but this is a long notice that we’re trying to give so that we can have that
discussion and we clearly intend to have that conversation. But want to

ecognize that we wanted to try to get this into the conversation today so that we
could get it started.
In addition I think Sue in her comment at the
beginning shared that the industry has changed very significantly since the time
the change management rules were written, and when the industry changes,
rules should be reviewed. We’re looking at LSOG versions starting with I
believe, LSOG 8 that have less than a handful of issues in them and if you think
of each issue as basically a CR that’s the kind of volume we’re talking about.
We’re talking about LSOG 10 and LSOG 11 with two or three issues each and
frankly most of which has already been implemented. So going forward, alright,
going forward beyond, clearly beyond LSOG 9, the LSOG versions are very, very
small and they relate more to a single CR being implemented than they do to
what we have become accustomed to as an LSOG version. So that’s why we
think it’s an appropriate time. That’s why frankly the industry thinks it’s an
appropriate time when they discuss it in the industry standards bodies, to start
looking at LSOG management. In fact as part of LSOG 10 LSOG management
was an issue.
So I think one of the things that would be helpful is if
folks can, folks that are involved in the OBS, could between now and the next
meeting go back and take a look at what has come out in each of those LSOGs.
Clearly we will be providing and be talking about them at a much lower level but if
you look at the contents of each of those LSOGs from, frankly from 8 on out, you
know LSOG 7 is a little bit bigger than 8, 9, 10, 11 but it’s still very, very much
smaller than LSOG 5 and 6 was.
I mean those are a couple of things that I wanted to
make sure I shared and clearly we recognize one of the reasons why we want to
make sure we've brought this to the industry as early as possible, we recognize
that a change in the CMP document would be needed to go from two versions to
one. But again you know, the rationale for that – it’s not something we would
have thought about proposing in the past but looking at the LSOG versions going
forward you know, that is the reason why we brought it to this meeting.
Elliott Goldberg: Well if they’re that close then there should be no
problem maintaining both of them.
Paul Haven: The problem with maintaining two versions of
something, I mean you know very well what the issues are with maintaining two
of something and we think that it’s an opportunity for all of us to get a little bit
more efficient.
Elliott Goldberg: Considering I have to maintain two, deal with different
ILECs its not, I think of my miniscule resources compared to yours.

Jean Derrig: OK, like Beth said this will be on ongoing agenda
item. I’m sure we will be discussing it further.
Gloria Velez: This is Gloria Velez. I hate to do this, I don’t want to
talk about this item, but my line was also muted when I joined the call and so I
didn’t have an opportunity to state some concerns that I have with Carol Yozzo’s
presentation on the directory listings. So I don’t know if Carol is still out there.
Carol Yozzo: Yes I am.
Gloria Velez: OK. Carol I heard you say that you’re planning on
retiring the ALI code spreadsheet when you finish the last set of States in the
conversion. And I think I heard you say that you planned on doing that at the end
of this year. That’s basically a three month notice and I know that I have
expressed great concern to you one on one with retiring that ALI code
spreadsheet. And I don’t think that that is enough of time to do that because I
have expressed great concern in the past with that, and I was rather shocked to
hear you say that you were even planning on discontinuing it because my last
conversations with you, you said that you felt as though you could continue it
because the report was going to be rather small.
And secondly if the billing bands are still going to be
out there for accounts or listings that couldn’t be converted it’s very, very difficult
for bands in New York or in the North that are in CABS to be able to use the
CABS system to figure things out. I mean if the bands were in the CRIS system
that is a different story, but in the North they are in the CABS system and it’s
very, very difficult to use that system for any type of CSR work. So I hope you
take this because I really don’t want to see that ALI code report go by December.
Carol Yozzo: OK, well first of all let me just clarify. We are not
retiring the ALI code report in the North. This was strictly for Maryland, DC,
Virginia, West Virginia and New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, which all have
been converted. And as I did mention I do need to do a study of what remains in
the bands just to make sure that there are no band (I just unplugged myself) that
that can not be reprieved because it’s the SR. And it is not a matter of you won’t
have this information, it is just a different (inaudible) media that delivers it to you,
and the ALI code report was developed as an interim solution because the CSR
could not return the information. Again I will work with you Gloria…
Gloria Velez: We’re definitely opposed to it because you are
assuming that people are able to use your different sources. That’s what you’re
assuming.
Carol Yozzo: Yes. Well I’m assuming that people are able to use
the sources that were intended for that purpose, yes.

Gayle Gissendanner: Hi Carol this is Gayle Gissendanner from Cox. I do
have a concern too with the retirement of the ALI code (we are located in the
North) because we depend on that basically each week that it is sent and we
have a lot of listings that are still coming up on that report, and we are unable to
retrieve that ALI information off of the CSR.
Carol Yozzo: Right and we are not talking about retiring it in the
North at this time. We are talking about strictly in the South because the South
has been converted to end user listing. So you will continue to receive your ALI
code reports for the North.
Gloria Velez: But at some point in time you would want to retire that
as well.
Carol Yozzo: After the conversion when you have a lot fewer band
listings remaining in the North, when the North is in the same situation as the
South is in now, then the ALI code report will have outlived its purpose.
Gloria Velez: I really don’t think a three month notice – I know
you’re talking about the South right now but I just don’t think that a three month
notice is adequate.
Carol Yozzo: All right well I will accept that input and this is why it
was brought up for discussion today. You know, if three months is not adequate
then that’s what I need to know and I need to have this discussion and have the
information from the individual CLECs. It may be a problem for one and not a
problem for anyone else in which case we have to address that.
Gayle Gissendanner: OK thank you.
Carol Yozzo: You’re welcome.
Jean Derrig: OK we are a little behind schedule now so lets move
on to the other topic that Sue will speak to, the FTP report.
Sue Pistacchio: Yes the FTP report, this is change request number
C040377. It was a Type 4 request that was brought to the industry for rating in
February of this year. What I wanted to do with this, and this is a little bit of a
change. This is currently a candidate for the February release and because it’s
really not business rules or edit related, just talking with Beth we thought it would
be a good idea to just bring this a little bit sooner than we normally would and just
give you a little bit of status of what’s going on with the project.
We did see that with this migration of the FTP report
we were going to be going over to a new platform. The reason that we were
pursuing this was to eliminate storage, support, privacy and security issues. So

that was the impetus for us making this change. And I do, I know Elliott said this
went out kind of late and I apologize for that. I was securing some information,
but basically just wanted to share this information with you and just kind of tee-up
some of the activities that will be coming with this project in the February
timeframe.
Currently the FTP server is accessed by the CLECs
and there is a variety of reports that the FTP reports are used for. There’s a
CSR report over l0K which provides access to CSRs that are over certain size
constraints whereby you can’t view them via the LSI or retrieve them via EDI.
There is the DSL (inaudible) extract which is used to download all DSL
qualification information. There’s a listing verification report which is utilized by
both Verizon East and West which provides information on book closing. There’s
the OQS report which currently provides information on maintenance, and I did
want to get back to that one after going through this presentation.
There’s a provider notification which provides the line
loss data and that supported Verizon East. There’s a PSA file which provides the
download of product availability information. I have Verizon East but in reality it’s
supported in New York only. There is the STAG file which provides information
on address validation of files which is supported in New York only, and then
there’s the USOC report that’s provided in Verizon East.
So those are the reports that are currently available
via the FTP server and the plan is to migrate all of those reports over to the new
platform. I wanted to provide for the industry kind of like a before and after look
to see, you know, what changes would be apparent to them. In the current
procedure you have what we call an individual registration model, and what this
is, is anybody who wants access to the FTP server calls individually to
connectivity management to set up a user ID and password. That’s the current
model. We also, when it comes to access it’s via dialup modem via Telnet or
FTP Client software. There is some manual intervention required. At the very
least you need to enter in secure ID information and there is currently no
validation on dormant accounts.
In the new model we want to drive towards a
delegated indirect station model, and this is something that is coming out of the
new security requirements that we have. With the delegated user model each
CLEC would establish a super-user and that super-user would then be able to
enable any of the individual people that needed access within their company.
In addition to that access would be via the web
browser to Verizon.com using a secure https connection. With this process full
automation is possible. We would do validation on dormant accounts and the
inter-company relationship would be based on contract data. And this is a very

important thing and this is one of the things I really want to make sure everyone
is aware of.
Currently when we look at the relationship between
companies and you know there’s different merger activities we call a parent/child
relationship. It’s kind of built on you know discussion with some of the CLECs
and negotiation but what we’re driving to is a more consolidated model and it’s
something that I know some of the folks that work on the CLEC profile database
that composing from contract data, they’re actually looking at a way to more
efficiently look at the contract data and identify the parent/child relationship.
When we migrate over to this new model we will be using the CLEC profile
database to identify parent/child relationships. What that would mean to you is if
you go and asked us a provider notification or line loss report, depending on how
you are currently set up it will go over to this new model, it could look different.
We’re going to be basing what you get in your provider notification on how you
look to us from a contract point of view. So however you are established from a
merger point of view, or how you are doing business with us contractually us how
you will start getting your report. So it’s actually kind of streamlining and coming
up with a more unified process on how we look at you and your company. So
that’s a big change and I wanted to point that out.
So from a CLEC’s perspective they will see that
difference depending on, you know, how entwined the parent/child relationships
are. The schedule is that the migration is targeted for the February 2005
release. While the migration is going on reports will be available during both
platforms and what we are going to do is to migrate, you know, report by report.
There will be a dual move up, excuse me, a dual mode window established for
thirty days. That’s what we’re looking for, and during this timeframe CLECs
would need to register for a new user ID and password for this site and to set up
that single point of contact. And that single point of contact will maybe create the
additional IDs. So the activity is that the CLEC community would need to do
during this thirty day window is establish the new user ID and password, and
again during that timeframe the reports will be available in both windows.
That’s basically giving the high level of what’s going
on with this FTP project. There’s one thing I wanted to discuss with on the O2S
requests. Does anybody have any questions on this?
Female Speaker: I do. Does the metrics report come over the FTP
server?
Sue Pistacchio: No.
Female Speaker: OK, and the second question is how many days prior
do we have to have our profiles updated to make sure that we are (inaudible).

Sue Pistacchio: That’s something – I talked to somebody that actually
works for that, who is doing the CLEC profile database and I believe that they are
finalizing all that parent/child stuff in the December timeframe. It was my
understanding that she was composing some notification to the industry or
working individually with the CLECs.
Female Speaker: (Inaudible)
Sue Pistacchio: Yes it is.
Female Speaker: And then – OK (inaudible) thirty days (inaudible).
Sue Pistacchio: What she had told me was that that stuff should be
finalized in the December timeframe, which would be in time for this.
Female Speaker:: OK. Sounds like that has to be that parent/child
relationship.
Sue Pistacchio: Correct.
Female Speaker: And then probably ICA (inaudible) based on contract
data.
Sue Pistacchio: Right, correct.
Female Speaker: OK, all right.
Mary Halpin: Sue what about lost line data that comes back from
EDI?
Sue Pistacchio: We’re not touching that so this is for anything that’s
coming back on the FTP server only. It won’t touch the EDI or I believe the NDL
part of it at all.
Mary Halpin: When you talk about the (inaudible) based on the
profile. I mean today pretty much reports on (inaudible) those profiles have to be
valid and have a contract, etc. but it’s done pretty much by OCN. So for any FTP
report you’ll be (inaudible) put together and organized.
Sue Pistacchio: No actually, and I’m not an expert on this. I was
asking how data is arranged now and there is some relationship that’s built but I
believe that it’s more by negotiation with the CLECs on how they want to. Most
things don’t have profiles (inaudible)
(Inaudible)

Sue Pistacchio: What I was told was that it’s basically how you’re
doing business and if there’s a company and they have a parent/child
relationship but if you’re still doing business separately we would consider you
separate then you get your reports separately, and I guess in some cases that’s
not the case now. Again what I would like to do, I’m not an expert on this. I
know Gigi is and again I was putting together this together quickly. What I could
do is to see if maybe she could come to the next change management meeting
and talk a little bit more on that for me. What I did want to stress is the line loss
could look different because I know that they have looked at some of them and
said well, when we go over to this new model this report wouldn’t come out like
this again. And I know she would cite certain companies so you know, that’s the
kind of thing if you go on a contract (inaudible).
(Inaudible)
Sue Pistacchio: That’s one of the reasons. I mean historically we
bring this information at 73 days and one of the things that we had thought about
with this one, this is an important thing. We didn’t want it to get lost with all the
business rule changes and everything else going on. We thought this was
important enough to bring it to you a little bit sooner. I’d just give you a heads up
on where the changes would be. So it could be how you see your reports for the
parent/child relationship and to make sure that you understood that you will need
to establish that new user ID and password.
(Inaudible)
Sue Pistacchio: Yes, that’s the new security model that they are going
by so the company would set up one super-user who would then be able to
establish users within their own company. If you have any questions (inaudible)
Gloria Velez: Sue this is Gloria Velez. On the feature procedures
side where you talk about access via the secured https.
Sue Pistacchio: Right
Gloria Velez: So I’m thinking that we would not need any secure
IDs and secure ID keys.
Sue Pistacchio: No more secure ID card, correct.
Gloria Velez: OK, and then the second question that I had was on
the fourth bulletin, validation of dormant accounts. Could you explain what that
means relative to the provider notification report?
Sue Pistacchio: Well what that means is we have reports that we,
we’re trying to track down (inaudible) and from doing a lot of digging we feel if

they haven’t been accessed in over a two year period, but we really didn’t have
any defining measurement to say if something was being inactive. So as part of
the new requirements we wanted to be able to measure that certain reports were
being accessed and that will help us like if we wanted to look to say do we need
these special reports anymore. Also as part of the security model they do want
to establish a dormant period where if a report isn’t accessed within a certain
amount of time, and that hasn’t been defined as yet - it could be thirty days or
sixty days - the account would become inactive and the user would need to set
up a new user ID and password. And I’ve been told that's pretty much the model
and that’s for security concerns.
Gloria Velez: OK so when you use the word ‘account’ you’re not
talking about an account for an end user that you have, you’re talking about the
account relative to accessing the web. So if you’re a user, if Mary was active and
Mary didn’t use it for three months then she might become automatically
disabled.
Sue Pistacchio: That’s correct.
Gloria Velez: OK. Thank you.
Sue Pistacchio: Any other questions on the FTP migration?
There was one other point that I wanted to bring up
and I did look back on the transcript because I wasn’t exactly sure how we left it
off, but there is one report that we have diligently looked at and have found no
activity for well over two years, and that is the OQS report. (Inaudible) Open
Query System and it provided a data base by maintenance information, where
you could look at the status of open and closed tickets.
Elliott Goldberg: (inaudible) I tried personally for eight or nine months
to access that report and use it and never successfully got in. So the reason it
may not be used (inaudible) physically impossible. I’d be curious if anybody
outside Verizon can get into that because I thought I was reasonably good about
it and I couldn’t get in. And I gave it to one of my guys and he gave it up in
screaming frustration.
Sue Pistacchio: Yes it could be something (inaudible) It could be
pointed in the wrong place but I know when they were looking at it they were like,
no-one’s asked (inaudible) pretty much (inaudible)
Beth Cohen: Well I know (inaudible)
(Inaudible)

Elliott Goldberg: We tried to get in because we wanted to use it and we
just couldn’t get it.
Beth Cohen: My understanding of the (inaudible) is that the
information (inaudible) on that report (inaudible) other process (inaudible) trouble
tickets (inaudible) the trouble admin or I think through the line watch report
(inaudible) that was an unusual report that was built when we first started this
business in order to provide some kind of information you know, regarding
(inaudible) and I believe the line loss was also part of that.
Elliott Goldberg: Well as I say it looked promising but we were never
able to access it.
Dok Matthews: This is Dok. Can you hear me?
Sue Pistacchio: Yes
Dok Matthews: Quick question. How are you going to establish the
single point of contact? Are you going to do it through sending a change
management memo out and ask us to enter a window to do it or?
Sue Pistacchio: Yes again this is the first notification on this. We are
going to pin down the timeline. There would be a change management
notification that would go out. It would be reiterated I know during the 73 day
timeframe. We want to come up with the comprehensive rules on how you would
access the reports and whatnot. But you know we would send out several times
notification to let you know here is the window. You would follow the common
procedures that you do contacting productivity management to set up your what
you would call super-user.
Dok Matthews: And you would be getting a certificate as well,
correct?
Sue Pistacchio: Oh now you’re asking me connectivity questions. I
believe we should already have your – I think a digital certificate that came out.
Dok Matthews: Yes.
Sue Pistacchio: That I don’t know. I’m not (inaudible) productivity
(inaudible)
Dok Matthews: Just checking, that’s all. Thank you.
Sue Pistacchio: You want to know if you need to have a digital
certificate?

Dok Matthews: I’m wondering if there might be an additional one that
would be issued for it, that’s all.
Sue Pistacchio: I can take that back.
Dok Matthews: Thank you very much. I don’t want to hold you up
because we’re already running late.
Beth Cohen: Thanks Dok!
Sue Pistacchio: OK, I just wanted to leave on this with more
affirmation that our viewpoint is there is no longer a requirement for the OQS
report. It is covered particularly within trouble admin with the statusing
transaction so it is our proposal, and without any reservation from the CLEC
community, we want to cease producing the OQS report that no one has asked
for. So (inaudible) for discussion. OK, great.
Beth Cohen: I think what we need to do though because not
everybody is (inaudible) is send out a notice with that information and asking the
whole community if there is anybody out there (inaudible)
Elliott Goldberg: I guess my real question will be what is the OQS for
because I think its (inaudible)
(Inaudible)
Elliott Goldberg: I suspect you’re right that there’s no information that’s
not otherwise obtainable but we can always (inaudible) so I’m curious to know
what exactly was on it. I suspect that those of us who have electronic (inaudible)
are already getting the status (inaudible).
(Inaudible)
Elliott Goldberg: (inaudible) days it may be taking on a whole new
importance.
Sue Pistacchio: That goes back to the old days.
(Inaudible)
Beth Cohen: As I remember it was almost like a stop gap measure
to try to get…
Elliott Goldberg: And I’m not (inaudible) I just don’t know…
Sue Pistacchio: I do have a copy that and I can send it to you guys.

Elliott Goldberg: That would be helpful, yes.
Dok Matthews: Yes some of us are new; we don’t know everything
that’s out there.
Elliott Goldberg: What did you say Dok?
Dok Matthews: I said some of us are new, we don’t know everything
that’s out there.
Elliott Goldberg: You’re right.
Jean Derrig: OK, moving on with these then Beth. (Inaudible)
some departmental discussions. WCCC update. Nick are you out there? Press
star, six if you’re muted.
Nick Umrani: Hello.
Jean Derrig: There you go Nick.
Nick Umrani: OK. All right, thanks Jean. So from a WCCC
perspective there is nothing new to report since last time.
(Inaudible)
Dok Matthews: Nick.
Nick Umrani: Yes I’m here.
Dok Matthews: This is Dok at Penn Telecom. I’m sorry to take up
time on this meeting but there is some stuff new from us. I’m getting inundated
with reports from my staff that calls into WCCC are going back over thirty
minutes and also being dropped and we can’t get back to the people we were
trying to talk to. I have some information and I will send it to you in an email.
Nick Umrani: Yes, hey Dok this is Nick. Have you ever tried using
the self service utility?
Dok Matthews: I’m trying to get them to start that.
Nick Umrani: Yes that would be very helpful because it does save
us time and then we can focus on finding closeouts. You’d get responses faster
also.
Dok Matthews: Yes.

Nick Umrani: But yes do send me the information because I do get
these reports daily and I could not see those kinds of time lags anywhere. In fact
on several days the ATF seem to be within a few seconds so I’d be very
interested in seeing timeframes, days, etc.
Dok Matthews: Will do.
Nick Umrani: Great but yes please to the extent possible encourage
your people to utilize self service.
Dok Matthews: Thank you.
Lisa Provenzo: This is Lisa. How are you doing? Nick are you there?
Hello?
Nick Umrani: Hello. Yes, not sure what’s happening but it’s…
Lisa Provenzo: OK, I thought you were running from me! This is Lisa,
MCI. Can you just verify we (inaudible) call into the connectivity management
process (inaudible) reestablish user ID and name for some reason. Is it better if
we (inaudible)
Nick Umrani: I’m sorry Lisa, could you repeat that please. Your
voice was cutting in and out.
Lisa Provenzo: Oh I’m sorry. Can you hear me better?
Nick Umrani: Yes a little bit.
Lisa Provenzo: A little bit. Is it – the user ID when you reestablish the
user ID for the LSI sometimes you have to you know reestablish it. Does the
WCCC are they taking the responsibility of that now? We used to go directly to
connectivity management but now they’re referring us to the WCCC.
Nick Umrani: Yes what we are trying to do Lisa is try and collect
that sort of information through the WCCC tracking system. So the ticket will still
be handled by connectivity management but it just gives us better tracking of the
issue.
Lisa Provenzo: OK so you want us to open a trouble ticket when a
user has to reestablish their user, even ID?
Nick Umrani: Yes that would help, but in the meantime if it’s urgent
you know you can certainly reach out to your connectivity folks and what we
would do then in that case is open a ticket internally so.

Lisa Provenzo: OK yes, because we’re getting our folks are, our
internal folks are going to connectivity management and they’re pointing to your
department so.
Nick Umrani: Yes. Connectivity management is within my
organization so.
Lisa Provenzo: Oh it is.
Nick Umrani: Yes.
Jean Derrig: OK, any other questions for Nick? Right. Moving
along to training and website enhancements. Stephen are you out there?
Stephen Cuttle: Yes I’m here.
Jean Derrig: OK.
Stephen Cuttle: Thanks, good morning everyone. I will try to make
this as quick as I can. Just to bring this to your attention on the events calendar
there are several local ordering workshops planned for this month. Actually on
Wednesday of this week, the 13 th , there will be a directory listing workshop for
both East and West customers. There is a workshop scheduled on October 26 th
for local ordering East and West and actually that will be launched and placed on
the events calendar for registration. Actually it’s in process right now. And there
will be a final October 27 th East ordering workshop and that will also be launched
to the events calendar very shortly.
I just wanted to find out, we did receive some
feedback – I want to thank you Lisa from MCI on some directory listing
recommended updates at the web based training. Lisa contacted me and I have
to pass that information on to the web education team under Kathleen Hamm. I
think Michele (inaudible) here in the process of trying to reach you to discuss it
further.
Lisa Provenzo: Great.
Stephen Cuttle: And I would welcome again on that (inaudible) if there
are other customers out there that are looking for specific directory listing
content. I know that was a point of concern last month, please let me know. You
can send that in to the verizon.system.team@verizon.com mailbox and I can
forward that on to Kathy Hamm for the education team.
Gayle Gissendanner: Stephen this is Gayle Gissendanner from Cox. Could
you repeat that email address again?

Stephen Cuttle: Sure. Its verizon.system.team@verizon.com.
Gayle Gissendanner: Now I do have a concern with the call that is
scheduled for tomorrow. It’s been brought to my attention that our directory team
has (inaudible) some problems with it. The second degree of indention and the
third degree of indention. Do you think that will be discussed on the call
tomorrow?
Stephen Cuttle: To be honest with you Gayle I’m not sure. I can
certainly find that out and get back to you. I can check with Kathy Hamm’s folks
but I haven’t actually seen the agenda yet. But I can contact you.
Gayle Gissendanner: OK, do you have my contact information?
Stephen Cuttle: No, I was going to say can you give me your direct
line?
Gayle Gissendanner: Sure. 757-222-2585.
Stephen Cuttle: OK.
Gayle Gissendanner: Thank you.
Stephen Cuttle: Sure. Moving on. As far as additional content that
we’ve launched as of October 1 st we did launch a new error code documentation
for the East, specifically 22 new error codes were launched to the error code
page and the local ordering guide and again these are error codes that we track
that are coming in to our cert help desks to try and document those error codes
and provide recommended solutions. So please look for those.
Female Speaker: (inaudible) Stephen where are they located, on the
training? I’m referring to the error codes that come into the cert desk.
Stephen Cuttle: They’re actually, if you go into, if you go to the
wholesale webpage under Doing Business Local if you click on Ordering and you
get into the Ordering local Services page.
Female Speaker: Right.
Stephen Cuttle: It’s on the right hand side of that page. There’s an
actual link that says Error Codes.
Female Speaker: OK.

Stephen Cuttle: And it takes you to a bridge page which gives you
some information that’s applicable to East and West, and at the bottom of the
page there’s an actual link for the East error codes and then the West error
codes.
Female Speaker: OK, thank you.
Stephen Cuttle: Sure. One of the action items from last month I took
back to look into that had come up was regarding the cert online form that
customers can fill out as opposed to calling in to the cert desk, and there was a
request that came up to provide some sort of cross reference information once
you’ve, once you submit the online form and you get that acknowledgement
email back, a request to have some sort of tracking mechanism associated with
that. I did talk with – I went to my IT partners and brought the requirements to
them and it is something they feel they can introduce some functionality to
include that. It would actually be some sort of tracking number that would be
populated both – it would be in the online cert form and then when you get your
acknowledgment back you would get that tracking number as well so you would
have a way to cross reference those emails. So it is certainly something that’s
doable you know, it that’s something that the customer community is interested in
pursuing.
Teresa Castro: This is Teresa from Vartec. That would be something
that we would be interested in. Do you need us to go ahead and open a Type 5
CR for that or is that something – do you need that to pursue this?
Stephen Cuttle: Yes I would need that to pursue it so that my IT group
could develop, you know, the level of effort and what the timeframe would be to
deliver that functionality, exactly Teresa.
Teresa Castro: OK I’ll get that in this week.
Stephen Cuttle: Great. Another interesting piece of content that we’ve
– has been out on the web but hasn’t been utilized on the local side of wholesale,
is the FAQ or the Frequently Asked Questions portal. I just wanted to bring it to
your attention. You can get to the FAQ section of the web on any page on the
wholesale website if you look at the top of the page there is some radio buttons,
for example the Events Calendar and Training, and there is a button for FAQ and
we’ve actually launched a number of new FAQ just as of October 6 th and there’s
not a lot yet. But we plan on utilizing this location on the web to address some of
the questions that are coming in to the help desk and that you might have. The
questions that we actually launched this month involve questions that were
coming into the cert desk, sort of the top five or six that were coming in. And so
there’s a question, there’s a response and then there’s links to additional
information.

So what you do is if you click on that FAQ button at
the top of the page you get to a bridge page where you have to identify if you’re
doing business local or access. In this case you would click on local and it will
take you to the Frequently Asked Questions page. Right now there are five, the
top five questions are listed automatically but you can also go in by State, by
topic and you can also select by key word to bring up a particular question. So
right now they are on the web. There are actually six in the East and five in the
West but we will be planning on adding a great deal more content to that section
and again we just wanted to bring that to your attention, that we are now utilizing
that place on the web.
Finally two last points. We haven’t launched any new
order samples but we are planning on launching a significant number of samples
this month.
Speaker: Hello.
Stephen Cuttle: Hello? Everyone can hear me?
All: Yes.
Stephen Cuttle: OK, but I just wanted - by the end of October and
actually many of these new order samples specifically one will be dealing with
the new loop share product in the East. A line split to loop share single migration
order. These will be launched in time for the October 26 th workshop.
We have updated two existing samples on the UNE
library that deal with the hot cut process. The samples themselves are the same
but there are now direct links to the hot cut process documentation that has been
launched to the provisioning page on the web, so it’s a nice tie in. So I want to
bring that to your attention.
And finally just an update on our continuing effort to
retire the CLEC to port pages of the web. The August through December 2003
CLEC East industry letters were migrated. Actually that was completed on
September 20 th . The 2002 CLEC East letters were migrated completely over as
of October 8 th , and by the end of October we will complete that project and
remove the remaining 2001 CLEC East industry letters.
Any questions?
Jean Derrig: Thank you Stephen.
All right, moving on to the items by release portion.
You’ve got the materials (inaudible) and you’ll see that we’re still carrying the

October items and the release is going in this weekend. (Inaudible) will be
removed.
Sue Pistacchio: The only two changes…
Elliott Goldberg: (inaudible)
Jean Derrig: If we move on to I believe its page 21 you’ll see some
additions to the items by release. There appears either four items that have
been added to this for a December release. These are new. These are all Type
4s having to do with order error messages. We plan on rating these during the
PWG today. Just to let you know we realize these are coming in late in the
process. The reason behind that is these were originally categorized as Type 2s
and as we’ve been checking through our Type 2s to make sure they were
appropriately rated or not we came across some that should have been rated
and changed to a Type 4. And this is the category that these fell into. So
because of that they are coming late to the process but we are, we realize
(inaudible) get these earlier to you and you know work report (inaudible) and
hopefully we will not come across this again.
Elliott Goldberg: I really appreciate that Jean because this practice has
been going on for well over a year. And (inaudible)
Jean Derrig: (inaudible) on page 21 where we (inaudible) in the
December release.
Elliott Goldberg: And we requested a year ago that Verizon give us a
list of the Type 2s that were out there so we could understand what’s going on
and then at least we would have had advance notice of what was going to
become Type 4s. We still would like (a) that list (inaudible) Type 4s or not. But if
we can understand what’s in the pipeline (inaudible) because we think its
important if this group is going to do its function. First of all if we know there’s a
Type 2/Type 4 in the bill we can decide whether or not what it is appropriately
early and rate it prior to development. You know it should be rated prior to
development if not prior to request requirements generation.
Then secondly it may preclude us from putting other
changes in because we know something is already in the hopper. So we would
like, again, to renew our year old request for a list in some detail of what is in the
hopper.
Beth Cohen: (inaudible) to really do some serious (inaudible)
Elliott Goldberg: It’s aggravating.

Beth Cohen: And we knew that the industry would (inaudible) to
really go through and find all those all of those projects that are out there and did
have a Type 2 rating on them. So we don’t necessarily know what are there. We
bring them to the table so that we can indeed do this kind of, what needs to be
done at the rating much earlier (inaudible)
John Boshier: Beth can you just talk a little louder please.
Beth Cohen: Sure, sorry.
Elliott Goldberg: Especially since one of them is CLEC effecting.
Beth Cohen: Actually Elliott I think that you’re kind of blocking the…
Elliott Goldberg: Well no one's ever complained they can’t hear me
Beth! One of these especially is CLEC affecting and is therefore in the wrong
release. And we can get to that when we rate it but it is quite clearly CLEC
affecting and thus it should not be (inaudible).
Beth Cohen: Somebody is making some racket in the background.
They need to go on mute please.
Jean Derrig: The star, six will put you on mute and also take you
off. Thank you. OK we did discuss that one. This is Jean.
Beth Cohen: I’m not sure that it was worded differently than the
other ones but it is the same as the other ones so I think we need to talk about it.
Elliott Goldberg: Well let’s discuss it because it should be discussed.
This may of may not be the time but if we’re (inaudible) a definitive time is
forthcoming.
Beth Cohen: Yes.
Sue Pistacchio: Steve Manion are you on?
Steven Manion: Yes I am.
Sue Pistacchio: OK can you just do a brief description of these going
in December, these Type 4s. (Inaudible) at PWG just so people know what
they’re about.
Steven Manion: Sure.
Bennie Almas: Steve, before you move to December can we talk
about the October release? There are a couple of initiatives that we have not

een able to test for the October release so I would just like to see if you can give
me a status on that and tell me what your plans are if these items cannot be
resolved?
One is the shared UNE loop product and one is the
migration from UNE-P to UNE loop.
Jean Derrig: And pardon me, I’m not as good at voices as Tom
was. Can you tell me who is speaking?
Bennie Almas: Yes absolutely. It’s Bennie Almas with Neustar.
Jean Derrig: Thank you.
(Inaudible)
Sue Pistacchio: Lisa are you still on? In terms of the second one. I
think I know which one she is talking about, the one that is – what was the
second one you gave us?
Bennie Almas: There are two initiatives. One is a UNE-P to UNE
loop migration or UNE loop to UNE-P migration, that’s a single LSR migration.
Sue Pistacchio: UNE-loop to UNE-P right.
Bennie Almas: I’d have to go to the CR and give you that detailed
information. We’ve been trying to test these two initiatives using a progression
test basis and they have failed ‘product not available’ consistently. Now I know
that you’ve been working on your (inaudible) to get this resolved but today is
October the 12 th . It goes in this weekend and these are still not resolved in the
test environment.
Beth Cohen: Bennie have you been working directly with your test
coordinator for the release?
Bennie Almas: Yes I have.
Beth Cohen: And have you had any discussions at all directly with
Nick?
Bennie Almas: Nick who?
Beth Cohen: Nick Umrani who is the Director.
Bennie Almas: No I have not.

Beth Cohen: I don’t think he is still on the phone. I think that
probably where you need to take this is directly into the CTE group. Ask your
test coordinator if that person can get through to the manager, either her
manager or get involved with you in discussion.
Sylvia Hillard: Hi this is Sylvia Hillard. Hey Bennie, we can discuss
this later on today this point they’re still working on it. There’s another (inaudible)
thing.
Bennie Almas: OK because I’m getting from my guys. They need to
see these things are tested before they move them to production and we’re
getting really close and.
Sylvia Hillard: OK we can talk it out later.
Sue Pistacchio: You could also go to Cindy if you want at this point.
Bennie Almas: OK.
Sylvia Hillard: But you know we can discuss it later. It still has not
passed and we anticipate definitely on Wednesday. And the evening for the
(inaudible)
Bennie Almas: Well that means we can’t test it until Thursday and
then Friday the test environment is closed, right?
Sylvia Hillard: The test environment is open on Fridays.
Bennie Almas: It is open on Friday?
Sylvia Hillard: Yes it is.
Bennie Almas: OK, great.
Elliott Goldberg: Is that closed just can’t work in the test environment
or is that you’re still working on it to try to get it to work so it could be released?
Sylvia Hillard: We’re still working on it internally to get it released.
Elliott Goldberg: That’s kind of shaky there to get it working and hope
that in two days its stable enough for release isn’t it?
Sylvia Hillard: No it’s been published to the CLEC community, the
testing status so far and if you do have any questions you can come directly to
me or (inaudible).

Beth Cohen: I think that, you know, the CLEC folks are working
with IT on whatever issues are in place there and I know that again this is new
functionality. It’s not existing functionality and I know that there has been some
issues related to some of the new functionality which is being worked through.
I’m not privy at the moment to know the exact…
Sylvia Hillard: This is something we can take offline. I can take this
offline with Bennie later.
Beth Cohen: All the test coordinators are working with CLECs
directly where the functionality is (inaudible).
Elliott Goldberg: No, and I understand that. What I’m saying is if this
stuff is being worked on several days before implementation my question is
whether it will be adequately tested enough so that it doesn’t bomb out
something else that’s in the release or currently stable in production. I know
there’s so much more (inaudible). The transaction testing is fine and those
CLECS that plan to use it immediately and test it will probably do so. So some of
us will probably just wait and see if it blows up first. But I question whether
anything is stable enough that three or four days before a major release, and if it
hasn’t passed testing that you know that you can confidently state it won’t affect
anything else in this massive scope.
Beth Cohen: Well I think testing anything else (inaudible)
regression in testing, so (inaudible) I understand.
Elliott Goldberg: I’ve heard it before Beth.
Beth Cohen: I understand your comments but I think that is clearly,
you know, exactly what’s being looked at here and making sure its not, testing
whatever isn’t working isn’t impacting something else.
Female Speaker: So we will be able to order the product after this
Monday after the release right? I mean
(Inaudible)
Beth Cohen: You are supposed to be able to.
(Inaudible)
Dok Matthews: Beth, stupid question time please. Is that going to
count both in EDI as well as LSI, or I mean GUI?
Beth Cohen: Yes I believe so. I don’t think it’s a connectivity issue.

Dok Matthews: OK.
Elliott Goldberg: So that’s 3202, and what was the other one?
(Inaudible)
Elliott Goldberg: 1333?
Dok Matthews: Elliott do you have a page on that?
Elliott Goldberg: I’m looking at 14 and 15. I’m assuming its those two.
Jean Derrig: No the shared UNE loop product is on page 21.
Elliott Goldberg: OK, so the one she’s talking about is not UNE-loops
to platforms?
Jean Derrig: There was two. There was that one.
Elliott Goldberg: And I thought the other one was 1333 – single LSR to
migrate voice data.
(Inaudible)
Elliott Goldberg: I’m sorry?
Jean Derrig: Single LSR to migrate voice data. That is correct.
Elliott Goldberg: Oh thank you.
Beth Cohen: (inaudible) something about shared UNE loop
products?
Jean Derrig: Yes that’s the same one.
Sue Pistacchio: No its not.
Jean Derrig: OK then I have the wrong number. Sylvia can you?
Elliott Goldberg: Which two are we talking about?
Jean Derrig: It’s CO3-1333.
Elliott Goldberg: Thank you ma’am that’s what I thought it was.
Jean Derrig: 1641.

Elliott Goldberg: And 1641?
Sue Pistacchio: 1641 is the shared UNE loop.
Elliott Goldberg: So that’s not the one I thought it was.
Jean Derrig: OK it’s back to December. Stephen:
Steven Manion: All right, the first item is 388230, change number
CO4-0429. The title of this is Query for the RCU TWC in former GTE Region.
The purpose of this initiative is to automate a query back to the CLEC that is
going to the NMC today and out to the CLEC manually. When the LSR is
requesting a three-way calling block, and that’s the RCU TWC in former GTE
Virginia. This block is ineligible in former GTE Virginia therefore the query would
be sent back on resale and platform residents request with an ACT of C, N, T or
V. Any questions on that?
(Inaudible)
Elliott Goldberg: Stephen is this query in any way different from what’s
being sent out manually?
Steven Manion: This is the actual message. The actual message is
manual today. I cannot guarantee it’s exactly the same as what the message is
when it’s automated but it is…
Elliott Goldberg: If the message changes that means we’ve either got
to change our systems and procedures, in which case this would become CLEC
affecting.
Steven Manion: OK, it’s manually being sent to you today.
Elliott Goldberg: No, I’m not worried about the methodology with
Verizon I’m worried about the content that’s seen by the CLEC.
Beth Cohen: Whenever we have a manual query it is at the whim
of the rep who is actually sending that message back to you as to exactly what it
says. So it is not a standard message today. It is, it could have any number of
things in the message so what this does actually, every single one we’re talking
about here. It does provide now a standard message.
Elliott Goldberg: I understand that but you see when we get automated
messages if you will, just for discussion purposes (inaudible) carry over to a
number (inaudible) many of us have those programmed into our systems so they
are handled automatically. We don’t do things – when you send out this manual
stuff they drop to a bucket someplace. They may or may not ever get looked at

depending on the CLEC because I know different CLECS handle them different
and I won’t speak for anybody else. But when we then have to (a) insert a new
error code into our table or (b) worst and most horrible case, which is something
we have always fought against, give a new meaning to a multiple error code, that
involves change for our people and our systems and thereby that becomes
CLEC affecting. That's why when we do these things early in the process, as
they’re supposed to be, the CLEC that uniformly for the last four years that I
know of insisted that every new message come with its own distinct error code.
Beth Cohen: Let me just ask this question here because this is not
the first time obviously this has…
Elliott Goldberg: But I’ve lost this argument before.
Beth Cohen: This is not the first time this has been brought to the
table. Because it’s actually been a practice of Verizon to bring these kinds of edit
changes that then have an error message associated with it. We’ve done these
in the outside of the three major you know, releases.
Elliott Goldberg: They should be part of the three major releases.
Beth Cohen: Let’s – and I understand that that’s your point Elliott,
but I would like to obviously hear some other folks here because we have done
this. There are clearly advantages on both sides of the fence for these types of
issues.
Steven Manion: And one thing Beth is to make sure when you have
the discussion everybody understands, for whatever it’s worth Elliott, just to bring
up is that these are also on the 73 day notice. They did go out, so we do notify
on 73 and 48, 45.
Sue Pistacchio: And it is right, I’ve just done research on this one
because it looked familiar. This is something that we actually updated the
business rules on as part of the October release to show that this product was
unavailable in former GTE. And I think what happened for some reason I don’t
think that the order as a block but what (inaudible) still put this USOC in the
feature field. But notification that this block is also available is covered by the
October release.
Beth Cohen: I think that what we’re doing here is the in all four that
we’re going to talk about (inaudible) they are all – yes there will be a change to
the message because it will be standardizing a message that has been
somewhat fluid up to this point. It also, what it does, it brings back by automating
an existing manual query it also gets that error or that query back to you in a
much more timely basis. Right now it takes 24 hours for these to get processed.
So there is clearly a benefit operationally to the CLECs as well as to Verizon. I

mean, you know, no question here that driving manual work out of the NMC is
something that I think we all want because first of all it’s more efficient and faster
for the CLECS to do (inaudible) and second it allows us to be less prone to error
because it’s being managed by (inaudible) systems as opposed to manually. So
clearly there’s benefits here. Clearly we’ve done these in the past. I understand
the discussions that we have had in the past and (inaudible) but I am bringing
before us, as we are bringing before us as things we would really like to do in this
December release because of the efficiencies it provides to both sides of the
house.
Lisa Provenzo: And I understand, you know, automating the query is
but it does have some kind of, there are complications. Not every time but
sometimes there are when you introduce a new error code. Because you may
be entering on a CO that you never used to be before and that could be
something that we would probably want to hard edit internally in our company
because we don’t send you an order. It’s going to be sensitive when we go
outside the October release (inaudible). In this particular case is this something
that you’re (inaudible) former GTE Virginia (inaudible).
(Inaudible)
Beth Cohen: (inaudible) from the four edits that we have, it’s about
2,200 a month.
(Inaudible)
Lisa Provenzo: (inaudible) because every single error code that we
receive back is programmed.
(Inaudible)
Beth Cohen: Whoever has a barking dog in the background could
you please mute your phone.
(Inaudible)
Mary Halpin: (inaudible) Then we have to go to WCCC to get
clarification, and if we knew about all of this in advance (inaudible).
Steven Manion: Beth this is Steven. There’s a 73 day notice…
Beth Cohen: Hang on Steven.
Steven Manion: OK.
Elliott Goldberg: The mere fact that we have to do programming
change (inaudible). And you know just as there are things in the rules I don’t like,

there are things in the rules I’m sure you don’t like and the point is they’re there
to expedite the relationship between the two companies and doing things like this
you know, for all Verizon may or may not know I may be doing another major
systems release for another ILEC in the month of December and therefore the
my ability to squirrel in regardless of the 73 day notice some additional
programming may be very constrained. I plan on CLEC impacting releases
because when we ask for 4 a year Verizon says no, three is all we can handle. I
plan for the time with my staff to do the three CLEC affecting releases a year
from Verizon. I allocate my staff to other ILECS to do CLEC affecting releases in
other months.
Lisa Provenzo: And so no one obviously (inaudible)
(Inaudible)
Lisa Provenzo: It’s the same thing with CSR when they introduce new
edits (inaudible) clean up the orders but if you don’t know what field to get an edit
on that I got (inaudible) with you it makes a difference. I don’t (inaudible)
Beth Cohen: The issue here that would bring (inaudible) in the
process.
Lisa Provenzo: I don’t see why you couldn’t have this done in
October.
Beth Cohen: I don’t think anybody knew about it October and it
probably wasn’t capacity. If somebody was actually looking at it (inaudible) but
it’s possible there was a capacity issue in October. And probably (inaudible)
small development effort you probably would (inaudible) but we end up just
having (inaudible) which is why I think (inaudible) probably, because I know this
was one of his issues that he was (inaudible). Now we’ve got you to fight for it.
Lisa Provenzo: Yes for certain CLECS. I mean I may not program
every error code (inaudible). If you do that then that would be a CLEC
(inaudible). Flow through (inaudible) with a whole bunch of rejects you never got
before (inaudible)
Gloria Velez: And this is Gloria. May I ask Sue a more detailed
question? Which block value was this affecting? I thought I heard someone say
it might be affecting the block values.
Sue Pistacchio: The block 7 for platform block 4 for resale.
(Inaudible)
Gloria Velez: OK, thank you.

Beth Cohen: I would…
Gloria Velez: And Beth if I could I ask another question. This
doesn’t affect the feature code that you use to order three way calling?
Sue Pistacchio: I don’t understand that one.
Gloria Velez: Well isn’t there a, for platform isn’t there a feature out
there that one can order or one can place on an order so that the line has threeway
calling? So is this – I’m a little bit confused. I don’t know if this is solely to,
solely associated with blocking three-way calling.
Sue Pistacchio: Stephen you were explaining exactly what this block
was, right?
Steven Manion: Right.
Sue Pistacchio: Why don’t you do that again.
Steven Manion: Well my understanding is that it’s the three-way
calling block which is specific, and its specifically former GTE Virginia that we
don’t allow that.
Gloria Velez: Right, OK. So it’s not affecting the ability to order
three way calling?
Steven Manion: Right because it’s the three-way calling block, you’re
correct.
Gloria Velez: OK, so in other words today if you use block 7 on a
UNE-P order and you happen to be in an area of Virginia that belongs to former
GTE Pennsylvania its going through your system. The NMC is catching it and
sending back a query, and now you want the system to catch it up front and
therefore change the error code.
Steven Manion: Right. The only difference is we’re sending it back to
you today; we’re just going to do it through the system instead of through the
NMC, correct.
Elliott Goldberg: Right now when I look at this change you’ve got two
error codes with (inaudible) so that at the very least you’re going to automate
this, automate it down to the single error code for meaning so we can process it
expeditiously so that everybody gets the full benefit of these changes. And I
grant you that…

Steven Manion: What two error codes are you referring to Elliott?
Elliott Goldberg: (inaudible) point, your documentation on page 4 or 5
on the December error code list you’ve got BS138 means it relates either to
feature or feature detail, (inaudible) and RS100 the same. Now I don’t see that
the use of this code leads directly to a single change that has to be made to fix
the order.
Steven Manion: One is the port form service form and one is for the
resale service form.
Elliott Goldberg: Right but either one could have two meanings,
according to your documentation, or two paths, or whatever.
Steven Manion: I don’t understand what you mean by two meanings.
Elliott Goldberg: The BS138 message could relate either to the feature
or the feature details. So that therefore there’s got to be some derivative logic
put on the CLEC side to process it.
(Inaudible)
Elliott Goldberg: 0249, I turned to 0249 in the documentation.
Sue Pistacchio: I think there is a logic there. You have that error
coded you populated the RCU WT…
Steven Manion: RCU TWC.
Sue Pistacchio: RCU TWC – thank you Stephen and (inaudible)
feature/ feature details field. It’s coming in on both so it’s like to find out
(inaudible) that incorrect USOC you want to know the field.
(Inaudible)
Gloria Velez: So you’re saying you can do, you can order the threeway
call block via two methods. One is a block code and one is a feature. Is that
what you’re saying Sue?
Sue Pistacchio: Well the thing is the block should only be ordered by
the block code.
Gloria Velez: Right, I agree.

Sue Pistacchio: Right, so part of this was, and I believe what Stephen
was getting to was it can only be ordered via the block field and it’s not available
in former GTE.
Steven Manion: Right. And what we’re looking for is the presence of
RCU TWC.
Elliott Goldberg: Just so I don’t belay the point but what I would really
be looking for as a systems programming type would be BS138F clearly and
distinctly means feature and TS138FC clearly and distinctly means feature
details so the system can go directly to the field and check it. If you’re going to
automate it then automate it down to a unique level.
Beth Cohen: I think that we’re not here to design..
(Inaudible)
Beth Cohen: I think there are some folks obviously our business
rules folks are the ones who understand the Verizon side of this and we’re not
here to design, that is not what we’re here to do.
Sue Pistacchio: Well is this a unique new error or is this something
that was already existing?
Beth Cohen: It’s currently manually queried. It falls from the NMC
for manual (inaudible).
Sue Pistacchio: No I understand that I just wondered if it was a new
error code (inaudible)
Steven Manion: As Beth said before I can guarantee you it will be a lot
clearer when you get these two messages versus what you’re getting today
because I know you’re getting variations.
Elliott Goldberg: (inaudible) the fact that when we started there were
error codes that had over 70 (inaudible) If its not I’ll happily take it to another
forum because this is the place we were told by Verizon to address it.
Beth Cohen: I think right now what we are talking about is, it looks
like four specific error codes that are being suggested for this particular scenario,
so that’s really what we’re talking about here. And it sounds like we’ve beaten
this one to death. I’m just rather concerned about the December timeframe.
Jean Derrig: This is Jean, Can we move on to the next one.

Steven Manion: All right. The next one is 387538, which is change
number CO4-0462 - flow through line share on suspended accounts in the South
and in this one the purpose is to automate the query back to the CLEC. It’s gone
to the NMC and manually to you today. The query will reject the order back to
the CLEC if SNP, which is Suspend Non Pay, or DNP, Disused Non Pay,
appears on the account. Any questions?
The next one is 388232, change CO4-0834 - query on
Centrex migration when the CLEC leaves less than two lines on the CSR. The
purpose of this initiative again is to query back to the CLEC what we are now
doing manually through the NMC and it will be queried back when the Centrex
account being migrated on a platform or a UNE request is leaving only one
Centrex line or basically less than two. And what we’re saying is in order for
Centrex to function correctly we need a minimum of two lines. So this initiative
will validate for this condition and query if the CLEC leaves only one Centrex line
on the account. We’re doing it today but we’re doing it manually so we’re going
to automate that error message back to you.
Lisa Provenzo: And where is that error message, a new error
message?
Steven Manion: It was in that 73 day notice and it should read 7040G
as in good 101SNP/DNP.
Lisa Provenzo: Right, I can’t seem to find that other document, so
7040G101/SNP/DNP not eligible on line share.
Lisa Provenzo: No I’m sorry; I’m talking about the Centrex one.
Steven Manion: I’m sorry. I just jumped at the line. That is 7020WT22
and it reads partial migration of Centrex requires leaving a minimum of two lines
to maintain the Centrex service.
Lisa Provenzo: OK thank you.
Janice Ziegele: Stephen this is Janice Ziegele from Broadview. I can
(inaudible) on this one. Is this only expecting Centrex if you dial 9?
Steven Manion: I’m sorry there was a lot of noise, I couldn’t hear you.
Janice Ziegele: Is this only expecting Centrex as being dial 9 service?
Steven Manion: That I do not, I do not believe it’s just dial 9.
Janice Ziegele: I’m looking at the error codes and that’s what it is
showing.

Steven Manion: I would have to verify that. I’m not sure on the dial 9.
Are you Sue?
Sue Pistacchio: No I’m not.
Steven Manion: OK I’ll have to verify that.
Janice Ziegele: It’s also only showing certain USOCs.
Steven Manion: My understanding is it’s not just tied to certain USOCs
it’s just basically the number of lines.
(Inaudible)
Janice Ziegele: The error message then is really misleading.
Elliott Goldberg: (inaudible) and I quote “CSR shows retail Centrex
AB9 (inaudible) USOCs R3G or R3K.”
Beth Cohen: So Stephen it sounds like there’s clarification needed
for this as to exactly what this applies to and we will send out a notice to the
industry updating the information.
Steven Manion: Will do. I’m making a note.
All right the next one is 385142, change 03-1939.
This one is query when the WTN (main BTN) is disconnected on ACT of C.
What we’re saying is we’re going to query the CLEC for an ACT of C, an L, an A,
a B when the end users BTN is populated without a telephone number change
requested. The error message is 7020B as in Boy, T as in Tom 04, cannot flow
through disconnect of main BTN line.
The next one is 377765.5.
Jean Derrig: Hold on for a second Steve, that’s all for December.
Now we’re moving into the February release.
(Inaudible)
Steven Manion: The next one is for February, as you said it’s a
candidate. 377765.5, change request CO2-2937. The title is flow through
changes from res to bus and bus to res. We’ve had several discussions on this
particular initiative. This one that I’m bringing in to change management is phase
5 and it is for resale request to change from residence to business.

Elliott Goldberg: This is only resale?
Steven Manion: This only affects resale res to bus.
Jean Derrig: It says primary area.
(Inaudible)
Steven Manion: I apologize, the (inaudible) should be taken off.
That’s a mistype. It’s resale for phase 5, and I think the confusion if you look at it
was very generalized. We should have specified that.
Beth Cohen: Yes I think you could change the description as well
too to reflect what this is actually for.
Steven Manion: Correct.
Elliott Goldberg: What phase will UNE-P be?
(Inaudible)
Steven Manion: Yes it was a past phase. Platform was phase 4 I
know and phase 6 is for resale bus to res.
Lisa Provenzo: So would this affect the AC field?
Steven Manion: The AC field?
Sue Pistacchio: It is using the AC field. The AC field you would use to
designate you’re going fro res to business.
Lisa Provenzo: Then I have a question if I may then. Was this
change the way that you handle a situation – I know you’re talking resale but if its
in a platform arrangement where let’s say the customer is with CLEC A and now
CLEC B wins the customer, today it looks like you’re requiring that AC field be
populated when the order comes in from CLEC B, but CLEC B doesn’t know how
you, the wholesale side of Verizon, has set up the account for CLEC A. So
would this affect in the resale environment, so if the customer is moving between
two CLECs? Are you going to require the AC field to be populated?
Sue Pistacchio: We do require the AC field be populated, correct.
Lisa Provenzo: Yes, OK so.
Sue Pistacchio: That’s like if you’re doing res to bus. Bus to res
changes part of the migration.

Lisa Provenzo: But do you see my point? How does the winning
CLEC know how the existing CLEC had the account set up on the wholesale
side?
Sue Pistacchio: This is the current process for you to go to the
(inaudible) to get that information.
Lisa Provenzo: Right but, that is, but they might not have set up the
account in their system the way that it’s set up in your system. You know I’ll give
you an example. CLEC A set it up and they set it up as a residential customer on
their side but maybe when they sent the order in to migrate it, it was migrated as
a business customer. So you’re expecting the winning CLEC to go in there
knowing that you have the account set up as a business customer. I mean I
have difficulty right now with this.
(Inaudible)
Lisa Provenzo: I’m not sure whether or not it makes sense to require
it on a CLEC to CLEC migration when it’s the way that you have the wholesale
side has set up the account.
Sue Pistacchio: I mean it may be difficult. I mean I know that the
(inaudible) has responsibility to let you know how that customer is set up. Are
you saying you don’t feel they have responsibility to provide that information?
Lisa Provenzo: Not that they don’t have the responsibility. They may,
they set it up one way in their system which is different than the way that it’s set
up in the wholesale side.
(Inaudible)
Sue Pistacchio: I guess the reason why we put this in is this has been
such a prevalent issue with just how to interpret the TOS field and if it’s different
from the existing account, and there were cases where something was business
but you know the CLEC accidentally put residence and accounts were being
changed. It seemed to be a requirement and I know that this is also associated
with trouble tickets that there just needed to be some more clarification on the
LSR coming in on what the intent of the change was. So I think until I have a
better understanding where you’re doing a migration but as far as that migration
and reclassifying the end user, there are other ramifications here that have to do
with listings and I know that was one of the components here where people going
from residence to business we need to understand that and have validation on
directory closing. So when those LSRs are coming in its a really important for us
to be able to process it correctly we do need to know exactly what the intent is of

the LSR and its important for us to know is this a migration or is this a migration
that also includes the reclassification of the customer.
Lisa Provenzo: I don’t discount what you’re saying Sue, I just have
problems with the CLEC to CLEC. I mean one is the retail side that’s clear cut.
Sue Pistacchio: This is an old issue.
Beth Cohen: Yes and I’m not sure that it has (inaudible)
(Inaudible)
Lisa Provenzo: No I was just bringing it up because you have this
initiative out there and it is for resale so it sounds as though you’re going to
implement this initiative relative to resale the same way that you’ve done it for
platform.
Sue Pistacchio: Correct, the business rules are already in, so I don’t
see them taking any additional flow through modifications but the res to bus, bus
to bus those two will be put into place with the October release, so those rules
are (inaudible) a lot changes.
(Inaudible)
Steven Manion: I’m sorry what was that?
Sue Pistacchio: We hear music over here.
Elliott Goldberg: We’re right next door to the Verizon gym and
somebody put on a particularly vigorous musical accompaniment.
Mary Halpin: Gloria this is Mary. I had to go out to make a call.
Can you tell me what your concern is about this?
Gloria Velez: I’ll talk to you offline?
Mary Halpin: If you want that’s fine.
(Inaudible)
Jean Derrig: There’s really only (inaudible) the addition of FTP
report migration project we went over earlier as well as for CO4-00553, the
(inaudible) pending status information transaction. That was moved out of
February to not scheduled.
(Inaudible)

Sue Pistacchio: Yes it is currently not scheduled.
John Boshier: What was the reason for the change?
Sue Pistacchio: You mean to not scheduled?
John Boshier: Right.
Sue Pistacchio: That I don’t know if it was capacity constraints or
other issues. We’ll have to take that back.
John Boshier: Yes I think I’d like an explanation as to why this CR is
not scheduled from February.
Sue Pistacchio: Isn’t this the retest one?
John Boshier: Yes.
Female Speaker: Isn’t this the one that has issues with carrier working
group?
John Boshier: No.
Female Speaker: No.
Elliott Goldberg: The one that has carrier working group (inaudible)
Sue Pistacchio: And I don’t know if that’s tied to that. I mean I’m not
really sure.
(Inaudible)
John Boshier: Well I notice its mine that keep getting kicked into
oblivion.
(Inaudible)
Gloria Velez: Why was the one regarding the virgule and the slash
in the end user name changed too?
Sue Pistacchio: It’s capacity. This is one Gloria where had it been a
Type 5 it probably would have gone in about a year ago. But currently right now
its (inaudible)
(Inaudible)

Sue Pistacchio: I’m serious, this one had a low priority because it was
a Type 4.
Elliott Goldberg: (Inaudible) the relative percentages that go in and
what the relative ratings are for the ones that did go in.
Gloria Velez: Well what I would like to know next month or as soon
as possible is when the February candidates are final. I mean we’ve got to be
closer where we, requirements are wrapping up and if it’s February you should
be able to tell that.
Sue Pistacchio: This was the initial time we were bringing the
February list and we were bringing the ones that were good candidates for
February. We would give, again it would be probably the beginning of November
that things would start to solidify. It really depends on the initiative. There can
be one or two that slide to the last minute but (Inaudible) I know the one that you
brought in (Inaudible) looks really good.
Elliott Goldberg: (Inaudible) Type 4s are running about 41% of what’s
going in this year. Type 5s are 30%. It looks like Type 4s average a hundred
days less, rather fifty days less in age with a proportionate smaller deviation and
roughly a point and a half are lower in rating. So.
Sue Pistacchio: But with a lot of that a lot is due to the size. Takes
size at least its sitting and I know just the complexity of the project. I know the
Type 1 specifically but it was in a previous release and I think it got removed a
few times because it was rated as a Type 4 and they are rated with less priority.
(Inaudible)
Elliott Goldberg: I’m such a believer.
Jean Derrig: Right, any more questions on the items by release
document?
John Boshier: I didn’t catch who got the action items to explain why
the 0053 was moved out to February. Who got that? Was that Sue?
Sue Pistacchio: Yes I’ll take that one yes.
John Boshier: OK thanks. It’s really hard to hear on the bridge. I’m
sorry.
Beth Cohen: It’s hard to hear in here. Obviously there’s a 12
o’clock aerobics class right next door.

Dok Matthews: So Beth are you saying you will come back after your
meeting this afternoon to finish this off?
Beth Cohen: You bet.
Dok Matthews: At least you could hear me well enough on that one!
Dok Matthews: See you after lunch?
(Inaudible)
Dok Matthews: Say Elliott I just saw a pig fly too.
(Inaudible)
Janice Ziegele: This is Janice Ziegele from Broadview. Can I ask a
question about the execute report migration?
Jean Derrig: Sure.
Janice Ziegele: You had said that this would possibly impact how
(Inaudible)
Beth Cohen: You’re breaking up Janice.
Janice Ziegele: My understanding was the FTP report may be
configured differently based on the FTP and how it relates to your profile?
Sue Pistacchio: The layout format will not change. What may change
is you have what I call parent/child relationships where, you know within your
own company you may have several companies you know, higher people
whatever. That could change. So what company actually comes back on your
line loss report will change.
Janice Ziegele: Today we get different line losses reports based on
our IDs.
Sue Pistacchio: Correct.
Janice Ziegele: So are we sauomg that there will be one report with
multiple IDs within it?
Sue Pistacchio: It depends on how your company is set up. If you, if
all of those companies have separate contracts with us then you will probably still
get the separate reports. It depends on how you’re actually set up to do

usiness with us. And its my understanding that that information is being firmed
up or solidified within the CLEC profile databases so that that would be the route
to check to say how do I look like to Verizon.
Janice Ziegele: OK. Thank you.
Jean Derrig: OK so let’s break and we will reconvene at 2.15 for
the PGW
__________________________________
Operator: Excuse me everyone, we will now resume the
conference. Miss Jean Derrig has now rejoined the conference. If you would like
to mute your phone please press star and the number six on your touchtone
phone. To unmute please press star and six.
Miss Derrig you may begin.
Jean Derrig: Thank you. Welcome back everyone. Could we just
do a quick roundtable to see who is back on the bridge with us? It’s Jean and
Beth, we’re here.
Gayle Gissendanner: Gayle Gissendanner from Cox Communications.
Carol Frike: Carol Frike from Sprint.
Catherine Hannen: Catherine Hannen, Bridgecom.
Janice Ziegele: Janice Ziegele, Broadview.
Nancy Sanders: Nancy Sanders, Comcast.
Ninfa Bennett: Ninfa Bennett, Cox Communications.
Dok Matthews: Dok Matthews, Penn Telecom.
Amy Blackman: Amy Blackman, Talk America.
Larry Blair: Larry Blair, Remi Communications.
Annmarie Sturtz: Annmarie Sturtz, Choice One.
Steven Manion: This is Steven at Verizon.

Pam Beattie: Pam Beattie, DSCI.
Jean Derrig: Is there anybody else on the bridge?
Paul Haven: Paul Haven, Verizon.
Sue Pistacchio: Sue Pistacchio, Verizon.
Tanya Coates: Tanya Coates, Verizon.
Nicole: Nicole (inaudible), Verizon.
Mary Halpin: Mary Halpin, AT & T.
Lisa Provenzo: Lisa Provenzo, MCI.
Jean Derrig: On today’s agenda we have…
Elliott Goldberg: Elliott Goldberg, and I’m back.
Jean Derrig: OK, on today’s agenda we had three deferred Type
5s that we will discuss again today. There are four new Type 5s and five Type
4s that we will discuss. Type 4s are (inaudible) discussed early this morning
(inaudible).
The first deferred Type 5 is CO4-1590 - change
provisioning process for UNE-P migration. This was submitted by Remi
Communications. This is deferred from last month so Larry could provide some
additional examples. We put the info he provided to us into the business
narrative and hopefully that helped clarify. I think there was a little confusion as
to what was, he was actually asking for. So Larry I’ll open it up to you or anyone
who has questions for you.
Larry Blair: OK thank you. Should I review it again or has
everyone had a chance to read and understand it, or questions?
Lisa Provenzo: I might just have a little, but I’m just reading over this
Larry. It’s MCI.
Larry Blair: OK.
Lisa Provenzo: It says right here when a CLEC needs to migrate a
TN for Verizon retail for UNE-P service using different facilities. I really don’t
know what that means. Within the same Verizon split the CLEC is forced to take
ownership of the old facilities before it can migrate the TN to UNE-P facilities.

You know, I guess I’m a little confused because it’s Verizon's facility and you’re
moving UNE-P from a retail to wholesale product.
I guess I want clarification why you think it’s different
facilities, just for a better clarification for my purpose.
Larry Blair: Well a lot of times a customer will install a CRI for
example and then they currently have Verizon's let’s say POTS lines or Centrex
numbers. If they want to become DID (inaudible) CRI, so I would like to be able
to do it in one step. Pick up those numbers and move it towards the CRI instead
of having to bring them across with analog facilities and then move the numbers.
Does that make sense?
Lisa Provenzo: No.
Larry Blair: OK.
Lisa Provenzo: I don’t know. Does anybody else on the line?
Sue Pistacchio: Well I mean basically this is, he wants to migrate and
what I consider like regrade at the same time but regrade from POTS facilities to
- and reclassify. So he wants to go from POTS on the retail side to ICN CRI on
the wholesale side, in less steps than it takes today.
Larry Blair: Right, that’s one example. Or you may have analog
DID trunk and you want to pick up those DID numbers and put them on a digital
facility.
(Inaudible)
Sue Pistacchio: What do you do now Larry?
Larry Blair: Well we have to bring those, in this particular example
we have to bring those analog DID trunks from Verizon retail to UNE-P and then
once we own the facility and the numbers then we move the numbers off the
analog facility onto the digital facility.
(Inaudible)
Sue Pistacchio: You’re actually migrating over the telephone numbers
as POTS lines, right? I think one of the things – there’s so many scenarios that
I’ve heard. At some point you need to disconnect the analog facility, correct?
Larry Blair: Right.
Sue Pistacchio: And you’re doing that after the migration?

Larry Blair: Yes.
Sue Pistacchio: And then you do a new connect to put them on digital
facilities.
Larry Blair: Correct.
(Inaudible)
Sue Pistacchio: I mean we don’t currently have a process where we
can go from like a plain old telephone number and migrate it over to an ICN CRI.
Larry Blair: That’s the reason for this request.
Sue Pistacchio: Right. And I’m even thinking if it was just retail
through something like that it would be a disconnect and new install. I mean it
always would be. And then I guess the thing is, I mean is this something that is
done frequently?
Larry Blair: Oh yes.
Beth Cohen: Frequently for your company.
Larry Blair: Correct.
Beth Cohen: Is this done – is anybody else in the industry who is
on this call doing anything like what Larry is talking about?
Janice Ziegele: Yes, Broadview does.
Pam Beattie: DSCI does.
Beth Cohen: Are you doing it in the same way Larry has laid out for
the current process?
Janice Ziegele: Broadview yes.
Larry Blair: They don’t have a choice. That’s the Verizon policy.
We have to do it that way. But if I’m taking numbers from another CLEC I don’t
run into this problem.
Sue Pistacchio: Because you’re porting the numbers.
Larry Blair: Exactly.

Sue Pistacchio: To their own facility.
Beth Cohen: Well it sounds like we actually have to take it in to
take a look at to see if it’s something that’s even doable. I don’t think that we’d
know that yet but…
Larry Blair: Well start your conversation with Steve Hurling.
(Inaudible)
Beth Cohen: Well it’s obviously doable as its being done now. It’s
being done in a manual, multiple process.
Larry Blair: Correct.
Sue Pistacchio: OK.
Larry Blair: Yes talk to Steve Hurling first because we’ve had
about seven conversations along these lines and he was the one suggested I
bring it in here because there is no procedure to do it today.
Sue Pistacchio: I mean if one of the procedures, if you were just to
port out the numbers and then plug them into the PRI like a two step process that
way.
Larry Blair: Say that again.
Sue Pistacchio: I mean if all you’re looking for is the telephone
numbers, I’m just thinking. You know we don’t want to work it here but I did see
Tom before he had left to track a kind of like a rudimentary proposal but it would
really need to be looked at.
Larry Blair: Sure.
Jean Derrig: OK, let’s rate it. AT & T?
(Inaudible)
Jean Derrig: Sorry, didn’t know the protocol. Remi?
Larry Blair: Five.
Jean Derrig: Bridgecom?
Catherine Hannen: Could you come back to me please?

Jean Derrig: Sure. Broadview?
Janice Ziegele: Five.
Jean Derrig: Choice One?
Annmarie Sturtz: Four.
Jean Derrig: Comcast?
Nancy Sanders: Four.
Jean Derrig: I didn’t hear John out there. Is Covad out there?
John Boshier: Yes I’m here, I joined a little bit late, sorry. We will
give it a four.
Jean Derrig: Cox?
Gayle Gissendanner: Four.
Jean Derrig: CTSI? DCSI?
Pam Beattie: Five.
Jean Derrig: MCI?
Lisa Provenzo: Pass.
(Inaudible)
Jean Derrig: Met-Tel?
Elliott Goldberg: I’m going to pass at the minute. I’m still waiting for an
answer from my people. I will have to send this to you by email.
Jean Derrig: OK. Penn Telecom?
Dok Matthews: Pass ma’am.
Jean Derrig: Sprint?
Carol Frike: Four.
Jean Derrig: Talk America?

Amy Blackman: Four.
Jean Derrig: Time Warner – I didn’t hear them out there. US
West? Vartec? Exchange Telcom? XO?
Loriann Ercan: We’ll pass.
Jean Derrig: Z-Tel?
Peggy Rubino: We’ll pass.
Jean Derrig: Anyone else out there that I didn’t call? That's it.
Moving on to – to review: AT & T had it pass; Bridgecom…
Catherine Hannen: Why don’t you put that down as a pass.
Jean Derrig: OK. Broadview five; Choice One four; Comcast four;
Covad four; Cox four; DCSI five; Met-Tel pass; MCI pass; Penn Telecom
pass; Sprint four; Talk America four; XO pass; Z-Tel pass; and Remi five.
Larry Blair: Thank you.
Jean Derrig: Thank you. OK, moving on to the next deferred. This
is a CCC Communications. I don’t know if they are on the phone. CO4-1609,
this is flag order for technician to be dispatched to tag dmarc. We deferred this,
actually this has been sent over to CUF as one of their issues. Its now been
opened as CUF issue number 87. Basically I provided them with the
documentation that came to us and then they opened up one, so this is now off
of change management.
The third deferred was a Comcast, CO4-1612 - allow
migration to occur when DSL on loop with DSL left provided by Verizon. We
essentially called this at last meeting ‘naked’ DSL. We did take this back, I think
our action was to take it back and see what was going on within Verizon. What
we have learned is Verizon is looking at this as a potential new product offering,
therefore we feel it should not be a change management issue but a new product
issue since I believe we’re establishing CUF.
Beth Cohen: Yes the last – or with account management.
Jean Derrig: With account management.
Catherine Hannen: Can you read that, say that again? This is Catherine.
Beth Cohen: You got my voice message!

Catherine Hannen: I did. I guess I called in at 1.15. And I’ve got to wait
around for thirty-five minutes and thinking hum! OK, sorry about that.
Jean Derrig: This is – Catherine I don’t know if you were in the
room last month when we were talking about this, what we call naked DSL at the
time. After we pulled this into Verizon and discussed it they believe this is a
potentially new product offering within Verizon and not really an interface change
but it’s a new product offering (inaudible).
Beth Cohen: It’s to allow migration to occur when DSL is on the
loop with DSL left provided by Verizon.
Jean Derrig: So basically the Verizon line would only have DSL
and somebody else would have voice, on their own facility.
Sue Pistacchio: Right, with line share. Right.
(Inaudible)
Nancy Sanders: The DSL would stay with Verizon and more
importantly with this the customer wouldn’t have to call in and disconnect their
DSL. You know right now we get a reject back on the CSR. We have to contact
the customer, who has to contact Verizon to get the DSL removed and
sometimes there are problems with that, sometimes not. And so the customer
wants to stay with Verizon for their internet and they want to come with us for
their voice and we don’t need a facility or anything so.
(Inaudible)
Jean Derrig: Nancy?
Nancy Sanders: Yes.
Jean Derrig: The question was is this UNE-P? I think they’re just
porting the number out.
Nancy Sanders: Right. We’re just (inaudible).
(Inaudible)
Jean Derrig: And like I said they are looking at that potential
(inaudible).
Nancy Sanders: Somebody sent me an article from The Boston Globe
that Verizon was beginning to offer standalone DSL.

Beth Cohen: But standalone DSL is different I think than what
you’re looking for here. Because you’re looking to have a line that’s got both
CSL and – you’re looking for line share. It’s got the data and the voice on it.
You’re the voice provider.
Nancy Sanders: Right. Yes, OK.
Beth Cohen: I think that’s different than standalone DSL.
Female Speaker: I didn’t think Verizon offered this.
(Inaudible)
Sue Pistacchio: (Inaudible) check out scenario, the ordering scenario,
almost? John?
John Boshier: It’s sort of the same because what we want to go from
a line share or a line split, which would be a voice and data service, to an XDSL
only loop.
Elliott Goldberg: But this is very similar to what Met-Tel proposed, and
leave the data provider unchanged.
Beth Cohen: I think that the issue with the CR that’s in front of us
from Comcast is that it is not necessarily a product that we actually have in place
right now.
John Boshier: And just to help you out a little bit Beth, you’re not
talking about a UNE product you’re talking about a retail service to provide that
end user with the data only line.
Sue Pistacchio: Exactly.
John Boshier: Right.
Sue Pistacchio: They’re just porting the number without a loop, right?
John Boshier: Right.
Sue Pistacchio: they’re porting without a loop.
Female Speaker: Which would leave it with a retail (inaudible) only.
Beth Cohen: Catherine I think to your question, when you heard
CUF I know your ears perked up.

Catherine Hannen: Yes.
Beth Cohen: Since we believe this is in the realm of a new product
offering we feel it doesn’t belong here in change management and the question
becomes does it go to the CUF or is it something that really needs to go to
account management, and I would say that it probably – probably both unless
you tell me I’m wrong.
Catherine Hannen: How many CLECs are looking for this?
Elliott Goldberg: Well Met-Tel is.
Gayle Gissendanner: Cox Communication would like to see it also.
John Boshier: Covad.
Dok Matthews: I would say Penn Telecom will.
Beth Cohen: I would put it in as a CUF issue.
Sue Pistacchio: How does (inaudible) product manager that had the
other CRs (inaudible).
(Inaudible)
John Boshier: It actually, I mean if the end game is that Verizon’s
involved then it all will actually cross channels under your retail group too.
Beth Cohen: John can you speak up a little bit? Say again.
John Boshier: Sorry, I said if the end game scenario is to have
Verizon be the DSL provider then I guess somebody from your retail group would
have to be involved too.
Beth Cohen: Probably, which is probably why, I mean I think it
needs to be worked through product management. So I guess the – Catherine
since you said that you believe this does belong in the CUF the question
becomes can we do a warm transfer here of this one just like we did for the
previous one, and send you the data and have you open it up as an issue?
Catherine Hannen: Well what I would like to do is have (inaudible) on the
form and make sure that the CLEC community is OK with how it looks on the
form so that it can be submitted with the other new issues.
Beth Cohen: Nancy.

Nancy Sanders: Yes?
Beth Cohen: Do you have the CUF forms?
Nancy Sanders: No I don’t. Is it out on line?
Beth Cohen: Catherine can you answer that question?
Catherine Hannen: It is not on line, no.
Peggy Rubino: Nancy what’s your email address? I’ll send it to you.
Nancy Sanders: OK, nancy_sanders@cable.comcast.com.
Peggy Rubino: OK.
Catherine Hannen: And what I would do Nancy is, you’re on the calls that
Peggy chairs, correct?
Nancy Sanders: Yes.
Catherine Hannen: OK. I would you know, socialize it on that next call
before the next CUF and submit it with the new issues.
Nancy Sanders: OK.
Catherine Hannen: If you want to get it over to Dave Russell who is the
main contact for collecting data for the CUF before that, that’s OK as well. But I’d
like it to come in you know – you certainly can send it over beforehand. Let’s put
it that way, instead of waiting that long. But I would want to make sure that it is,
you know, that you guys agree with how it’s submitted.
Nancy Sanders: OK, and Dave Russell’s email is?
Catherine Hannen: Hold on, I’ve got to look up his external one. I’m
pretty sure its david.f.russell@verizon.com.
Nancy Sanders: OK.
Jean Derrig: This will be removed from future change management
discussion.
Right, moving into the new Type 5 requests, the first
two were submitted by Cox. They appear to be related so I will let you discuss
them. The first one is CO4-1888 – to include DSL order number on the CSR
along with the date of install. I believe Gayle is on the phone.

Gayle Gissendanner: Yes I am.
Jean Derrig: Would you like to explain this a little more, and I don’t
know if you want to talk about the two together or not.
Gayle Gissendanner: Yes, lately we’ve been getting lots of rejects on our
PONS that we submit with regards to DSL, and we don’t have any information as
to the order number that created the DSL on the line. In addition when we give
the information back to the end user they, in most cases, are not even aware that
they even have DSL on the line. So I figure if we had more information as to the
order number of the DSL and a date when it was provided on the CSR, that
information would be helpful that we could pass on to the end user when they
have to make those additional calls back to the office to get it removed.
Jean Derrig: Catherine, isn’t there a CUF issue around this as
well?
Sue Pistacchio: It’s a little different but kind of a similar problem.
They’re porting their POTS line and they have DSL; the customer cancels DSL
but it doesn’t – it’s not removed from the CSR, it stays in the record, so it does
prevent us from kicking it back. And I don’t know if it’s just (inaudible) I mean
Tom Delaney at one time investigated that. I don’t really remember the defining
issues (inaudible).
(Inaudible)
Female Speaker: This is just kind of putting another (inaudible) as well.
Say hey this is what the order is, for when you talk to your customer.
Gayle Gissendanner: Right if we just hit more information as to you know
the order number on DSL. I mean anything would be helpful because right now
we don’t have anything and lately we’ve been getting lots of orders that are being
rejected because of DSL and we have nothing to give back to the customer
because they’re telling us they didn’t order anything but this code is still on their
records and it’s not coming off like…
Sue Pistacchio: Can I ask a question? So you would want this order
number to then give it back to your end user so they can call retail to investigate?
Gayle Gissendanner: Right. That would be good to have that order number
so that we can pass it back to them, because right now we have nothing to give
them other than your order has been rejected.
Sue Pistacchio: The order isn’t required because if they were to call a
retail office all the retail office would need is their account number. So with the

account number they could reference any, you know, any past orders. One of
the things that is on the CSR for the USOCs that are designated as CSL, it won’t
have the date of last activity. So in most cases for DSL I believe you put it in or
you take it out and maybe it will change fees. So that is the date that would
appear on the CSR so they would be able to check the last time there was some
type of activity on their retail account in response to DSL, but I know if you were
to call the retail office they really don’t need that order number. All they would
need to do is look at the BTN and they can look at past orders or look at the
account and see the last time that DSL was touched.
(Inaudible)
Gayle Gissendanner: Yes, I mean it sounds good Susan but it’s really not
that easy, and I have accounts actually (inaudible) because they are going
through, I mean they’re going through a lot to get something removed that should
not have been there in the first place.
Female Speaker: Sometimes (inaudible) the customer and the retail
service rep will say you know, we removed that. (Inaudible). Anyway whoever
the retail rep that got it would have to investigate it
(Inaudible)
Sue Pistacchio: I mean yes even if they have the order number that’s
methods and procedures then…
Female Speaker: If she gave an example would that be helpful to have
something. I mean its not, I know the wholesale side is like nothing in the retail
but just kind of walk through and investigate.
Beth Cohen: Well it’s not even that we don’t want to. I mean we
have to abide by certain regulations here.
(Inaudible)
Sue Pistacchio: The customer had DSL but the order keeps rejecting
(inaudible) and you call the retail office (inaudible).
Beth Cohen: Who is calling the retail office?
Female Speaker: The end user. And then sometimes they are so
frustrated (inaudible) order.
Gayle Gissendanner: It has happened just like that.

Female Speaker: So the end user is getting billed for DSL and they
don’t have it and they don’t…
Sue Pistacchio: I don’t think its something on their bill it just hangs out
there.
Gayle Gissendanner: On the records, yes, because sometimes there’s not
even a cost associated with it. I think it may have something to do with
marketing also.
(Inaudible)
Gayle Gissendanner: Sometimes maybe Verizon they have some kind of
marketing campaign going on in which they somehow label this on the accounts
as being eligible for DSL and that prevents also a lot of PONS from going
through.
Beth Cohen: I think that what we’re talking about here is a process
issue and I think what we need, in order for us to be able to go back to retail and
say this is causing wholesale a problem, we actually are going to need some
examples in order to be able to even, you know, see what these are. Now
having said that, now understanding that this is probably more of a process issue
because it’s going to involve retail from what I understand.
Catherine I hate to do this to you but because it’s
process and not necessarily systems interface. I don’t think there is anything that
we are going to be able to do from a systems perspective because there’s the
policy question probably involved here and this sounds like a retail process
question. What’s your take on whether it’s a CUF issue or not?
Catherine Hannen: Well I barely could hear everybody. I do agree with
you that I don’t think it’s a system change management issue.
Sue Pistacchio: Tom Delaney will probably have a lot of history to link
this order scenario that happens, you know, (inaudible).
Catherine Hannen: This probably falls under the open issue that we have
in the CUF. Its issue 70 that has to do all of these issues go right under there
and I know…
Jean Derrig: Do you think what we are talking about is a subset of
that?
Annmarie Sturtz: I know Choice One has the same issue. It’s all having
DSL on that retail account, and the end user and us cannot get it off, so that end
user cannot migrate.

Nancy Sanders: Comcast has that trouble too and I do have some
examples.
Annmarie Sturtz: And we’ve sent in samples and I know Catherine
we’re waiting for the minutes from the last CUF meeting because we are
supposed to get an interim process or a solution that was going to help us.
Jean Derrig: Right. So is this the same issue that it should be in
one or two places then it’s already in the CUF?
Beth Cohen: It sounds like maybe issue number 70 needs to be
expanded with some different examples that are coming out of this kind of
scenario.
Catherine Hannen: If you want to send the examples, we certainly can
expand it. I know our meeting minutes I don’t think have been processed yet
because I’m still waiting on input from Tom Delaney and another person but
certainly can expand it if it’s appropriate. But I would like them to have the
examples sent in and whatever you recommend is, should be changed to the
wording of what the issue is.
Gayle Gissendanner: So you’re saying this initiative, forward it to the CUF?
Have it expanded on number 70, which is already in the CUF now? Is that what
you’re saying?
Catherine Hannen: That’s what I’m saying if I understand what you guys
are saying is these are just more examples or a subset of what issue 70 is to
begin with. Is this the same issue?
Jean Derrig: It appears to be the same issue just from I’d say
recommendations for a work around the issue, this one and the next one.
Catherine Hannen: Then I would say it’s appropriate to discuss it with
issue 70 as part of the CUF instead of opening, trying to open something else up
or a change management side, as well as it doesn’t, so far to me it doesn’t sound
like it should be another CUF issue either. There’s no point in continuing to
opening up, you know, issues if it’s all related. So I’m OK with expanding issue
70 but unfortunately since I’m not in the room and I didn’t take my (inaudible) with
me I don’t have the actual write up that you guys are looking at now.
Jean Derrig: We will send it to you Catherine, after the meeting.
Probably tomorrow.
Catherine Hannen: OK.

Beth Cohen: But it does sound like again this is another situation
where we need examples, additional examples.
Gayle Gissendanner: Well I provided examples.
Beth Cohen: With the change management issue?
Gayle Gissendanner: Right.
Beth Cohen: Did you give us PONS?
Gayle Gissendanner: Actually I gave you the phone numbers.
Jean Derrig: Yes, the phone numbers.
Beth Cohen: Does that work for us or do we need PONS?
Jean Derrig: Well if we’re telling them to do it from a retail
investigation standpoint so phone numbers will probably work.
Sue Pistacchio: So Catherine does that mean we will also have a
work around process in place by November?
(Inaudible)
Catherine Hannen: The minutes will have a proposal. I don’t think its
(inaudible).
Jean Derrig: Gayle I don’t know if you want to speak to the next
one. I think its still around that same issue. So to close up this one we are going
to remove this from change management. Potentially if there is a solution that
comes out of process it may reappear in change management for system
changes required for that solution but for now this is being removed from change
management.
Gayle Gissendanner: OK.
Jean Derrig: And just so everyone (inaudible), the other one that
Gayle submitted was C04-1890 - provide a field on the LSR to identify the DSL
removal confirmation number. I think this is just like another angle to play.
Gayle Gissendanner: Well yes, with that particular initiative when the end
user does call into the retail office they are given a confirmation number and
which is not being recognized by the NMC. Therefore if there was a line on the
LSR in which we could have created it to put that confirmation in which still works
in the NMC or can be recognized by the system as being a valid order, then

maybe our port order will go through or flow through the system. Because right
now we’re getting information back from them that means nothing to the NMC
and it definitely doesn’t mean anything to us and we really can’t us it.
Jean Derrig: I do still think it’s around the whole issue.
Beth Cohen: Yes, however I think that once the whole issue 70
kind of gets resolved, it sounds like this then becomes a follow up action from a
systems perspective.
Jean Derrig: It depends on the (inaudible) solution.
Beth Cohen: That’s right, which would need to come back here.
Jean Derrig: Back, right.
Beth Cohen: But we can’t necessarily do anything with this until we
actually work through the issue.
Jean Derrig: Recommendation is to remove it for now and…
Sue Pistacchio: Well what happens when you open up a trouble ticket
in WCCC?
Gayle Gissendanner: I’m sorry, what was that?
Sue Pistacchio: I just wondered what the WCCC does with your
trouble ticket.
Gayle Gissendanner: Well we open up a trouble ticket to get the DSL
removed. A lot of times they pretty much say they see the same thing that we’re
seeing, and this last one that we had a trouble ticket was opened. They were
able to find that it was a coding error on Verizon end and some type of coding
issue that they had to address. Actually remove the DSL but the time that it took
almost, I want to say almost two and a half months.
Jean Derrig: And sometimes they could ask for a refresh. Kind of
(inaudible) the CSR has been refreshed recently.
Gayle Gissendanner: Yes and that’s how we open up the ticket by
requesting a refresh on the CSR and that last ticket that was opened took about
two and a half months before we actually got the DSL off of it and it was a coding
issue on you guys’ end.
Beth Cohen: The question is do we defer this since it could very
well be a systems change here, but it’s really pending the outcome of the…

Sue Pistacchio: It still involves manual work and its within the NMC, I
thinking like when she says confirmation number I’m thinking this is basically the
retail order number and it’s like have almost brought to the NMC to know if this
doesn’t go through you need to investigate it, so it is a process issue. It’s like
you have a problem and they want to have more of a defined way to get it to the
NMC and flag it and say this requires, you know, investigation. So I still see it
like (inaudible).
Beth Cohen: I think that’s what I’m also hearing is there may in
some short time, come back to change management (inaudible) something work
but I don’t think we know what it is here.
Sue Pistacchio: I think the issue at the CUF needs to be pushed along
so we get like a resolution (inaudible) stuff that’s been sitting there for some time.
I mean it is a – I know we (inaudible). So what do we do Catherine? Bump it up
and move it. Is this all Tom Delaney’s stuff? (Inaudible)
Beth Cohen: Catherine it sounds like we probably ought to talk to
Tom about, you know, discussion about this whole subject at the November
meeting.
Catherine Hannen: Yes, OK.
Jean Derrig: OK so for now we will remove it from the change
management application.
The next Type 5 was submitted by Talk America. It’s
CO4-1894 - have the touchtone feature added back end at migration. And Amy I
believe you are on the phone?
Amy Blackman: Yes I’m here, hello.
Jean Derrig: Hello.
Amy Blackman: I’m not really sure how to address this specifically
because in speaking back and forth with Suzanne regarding this CR it looks as
though the business rules state that for New York we should actually be adding it
on the migration but its always been understood that on our New York accounts
the touchtone feature is added back end automatically at migration. But in all the
other States we are required to add it or the customer will not have it once the
migration order completes. And we would just like for all the States, either all of
them get it, you know, added back end or all of the don’t, because we see that it
generates calls to the NMC and to repair if the order completes and it doesn’t
have it on there for us in the South States and for the other North States.

Sue Pistacchio: It’s my understanding that touchtone is considered
part of your basic service. I know in some of the States they actually made it part
of your basic service so there’s actually not a billing element for it. And I think
one of the things is it, you know, depends on how its looked at you know, at the
State level and if it’s a billing element I don’t think it, we should really be in a
position to assume that you definitely want touchtone. It’s a product, it’s
something that I think the CLEC should be required to request and if its
something that is, is something that you’re always going to ask for then it should
always be asked for when the service is going in.
Amy Blackman: OK.
Sue Pistacchio: But I do believe, I mean I don’t know if anybody does
do non-touchtone anymore but there could be some people that are doing it for
different kinds of service. I don’t think we should assume that everybody wants
touchtone because there are charges for it in some States.
Amy Blackman: OK.
Female Speaker: New York does ?
Sue Pistacchio: Right, it’s like yes I think this is a case where a State
gave it to everybody and said we’re not going to bill you anymore. Then it’s like
well if we’re not going to bill you, you know, put it on but in some States I know
there is still a charge so they just give it to you without asking for it. Something I
think we’ve always shied away from.
Amy Blackman: OK so is it more or less broken out by State and
States that there’s no charge for will be added on then its legal for the States it is
then we’re still required to place it on the order?
Sue Pistacchio: I didn’t, if they’re adding it on in New York I could
investigate that but I would think New York is the only one that’s doing that. I
would need to check some States to see where it’s not billed.
(Inaudible)
Beth Cohen: So if I read this correctly basically you’re saying that
they have in New York but not everyplace else?
Amy Blackman: Yes but if that’s, understanding the process now as
far as seeing charges in some places but not in others obviously that would make
sense but if it were possible or feasible to make it so all the States are the same,
that’s what the CR is requesting.

Female Speaker: We should probably change New York to where you
don’t want it ?
Amy Blackman: Right, exactly. I would say that’s probably the only
option right now.
Beth Cohen: I think that we would probably all like to have a
situation where every State was exactly the same and so it makes everybody’s
life a lot easier but unfortunately that isn’t the case.
Amy Blackman: OK. That’s fine. I mean I do appreciate the
clarification on that so.
Jean Derrig: OK so does that mean we are withdrawing this CR?
Amy Blackman: Yes.
Jean Derrig: Thank you. I believe that’s all the Type 5s.
(Inaudible)
Jean Derrig: This is submitted by MCI and its CO4-1765 - continue
availability of 911 services for UNE-P in Vermont, and I think some aware
(inaudible) office because we were off investigating what this meant and what
you were asking. And from our investigation we don’t feel that this is an interface
change once again. We feel this is a new product offering so to bring it to the
new products office. Carol (inaudible) account management.
Elliott Goldberg: Why wouldn’t this be a Type 2 if the Commission
ordered it?
Jean Derrig: They didn’t order it. It was recommended.
Beth Cohen: No order. Not an order Elliott.
(Inaudible)
Jean Derrig: I haven’t looked at it yet. I haven’t (inaudible).
Elliott Goldberg: Say that this turns into a problem and if the (inaudible)
rule is promulgated will this move to a Type 2?
Jean Derrig: Excuse me Elliott, what did you say? Can you repeat
that Elliott?

Elliott Goldberg: I’m reading the page. It says the staff report issued
prior to the promulgation of this rule directed the underlined carriers in Vermont
yada, yada, yada. The (inaudible) rule is promulgated does this become a Type
2?
(Inaudible)
Beth Cohen: Lisa and I talked a little bit about this earlier and I said
that if we needed to have some legal interpretation discussions here that we
could work this offline. But we viewed it as really (inaudible) change
management at this point based on the State (inaudible).
Jean Derrig: Do you want to withdraw this or defer it?
Lisa Provenzo: I’m going to withdraw it at this time. I mean I may be
back but (inaudible).
(Inaudible)
Jean Derrig: All right I think that’s all we have for the Type 5s.
Moving to the Type 4s. I believe the list here are the ones that we addressed
earlier but I will let Steve discuss them and any further detail that anyone would
like. The first one is CO2-2937 - flowthrough changes from res to bus and bus to
res. Anyone need any further clarification or can we go into rating because we
did discuss this earlier?
Mary Halpin: What was that?
OK, we’re going for rating. AT & T?
Jean Derrig: This is the flowthrough changes from res to bus and
bus to res.
(Inaudible)
Stephen Manion: I’m sorry I can’t hear what she said.
Beth Cohen: She asked if we could list the phases, and I think
where we are at is we’re trying to list new projects as opposed to phases on
other projects instead of continuing (inaudible).
(Inaudible)
Sue Pistacchio: Currently right now if you’re doing a migration I
believe the edit is in place, you have to use the AC field otherwise we reject it.
My impression, and I don’t have all my stuff in front of me, that we do look at the

way that the account exists now and if the process is default, the same as the
process service and we don’t see the ACCO, we reject it. And I believe that was
in place for October.
Stephen Manion: And that’s correct Sue. I just checked here, it’s on
here.
(Inaudible)
Beth Cohen: Elliott, you’re breaking up. Hello.
Elliott Goldberg: Hello.
Beth Cohen: Start talking now so we can see if we hear you.
We’re not hearing you Elliott.
Elliott Goldberg: Can you hear me now?
Beth Cohen: OK.
Elliott Goldberg: I said I’m on live not mute.
Beth Cohen: OK, we heard that.
Elliott Goldberg: All right. On the statement you made about not
tracking phases, is that - I think in the list by prioritization you should continue to
track phases so we know what’s open and what is potentially coming down the
line, because these will all turn out to be scheduled items later.
And secondly since this is phase 5 were any of the
first four phases prioritized, in which case we could use that prioritization.
Because the prioritization should cover the entire project.
(Inaudible)
Sue Pistacchio: The thing is I don’t have my stuff in front of me. I
don’t remember because we did do phase 1. Steven when did we do phase 1 of
this?
Stephen Manion: I was just looking at my notes.
Sue Pistacchio: October?
Stephen Manion: Yes. I think it might even have been before that.
Elliott Goldberg: October of 2004?

Sue Pistacchio: Yes.
Stephen Manion: OK, hold on, I can find out for us. Hang on.
(Inaudible)
Sue Pistacchio: What I remember about this one is I remember talking
about it at change management at one point and I remember, the thing that came
to mind was saying that there were trouble tickets associated with the…
Elliott Goldberg: It was done in June and it was not rated.
Stephen Manion: It was a Type 2.
Elliott Goldberg: It was a Type 4, non-rated. We were told it was too, it
was identified as a Type 4 too late to rate, and because we didn’t – and it did not
have a phase indicator so we had no way of knowing it was part of a multiple
phase otherwise we could have listed the subsequent phases.
(Inaudible)
Jean Derrig: OK, AT & T said five. Bridgecom?
Catherine Hannen:: Three.
Jean Derrig: Broadview?
Janice Ziegele: Three.
Jean Derrig: Choice One?
Annmarie Sturtz: Four.
Jean Derrig: Comcast?
Nancy Sanders: Three.
Jean Derrig: Covad?
John Boshier: Pass.
Jean Derrig: Cox:
Gayle Gissendanner: Four.

Jean Derrig: CSTI? MCI?
Lisa Provenzo: Four.
Jean Derrig: Met-Tel?
Elliott Goldberg: One.
Jean Derrig: Penn Telecom?
Dok Matthews: Three.
Jean Derrig: Sprint?
Carol Frike: Three.
Jean Derrig: Talk America?
Amy Blackman Four.
Jean Derrig: XO? Z-Tel?
Peggy Rubino: Two.
Jean Derrig: Remi:
Larry Blair: Three.
Jean Derrig: Anybody out there that I didn’t get? OK ? AT & T
five; Bridgecom three; Broadview three; Choice One four; Comcast three;
Covad pass; Cox four; MCI four; Met-Tel one; Penn Telecom three; Sprint
three; Talk America four; Z-Tel two; and Remi three.
OK, moving on to the next. This is CO4-0429. This is
the query for the RCU TWC in former GTE regions. This is the block for the
three-way calling. Any other questions on this project? All right, we will go with
the rating. AT & T?
Mary Halpin: Pass.
Jean Derrig: Bridgecom?
Catherine Hannen: Three.
Jean Derrig: Broadview?

Janice Ziegele: Pass.
Jean Derrig: What was that?
Janice Ziegele: Pass.
Jean Derrig: Choice One?
Annmarie Sturtz: Pass.
Jean Derrig: Comcast?
Nancy Sanders: Pass.
Jean Derrig: Covad?
John Boshier: Pass.
Jean Derrig: Cox?
Gayle Gissendanner: Pass.
Jean Derrig: MCI?
Lisa Provenzo: Pass.
Jean Derrig: Met-Tel?
Elliott Goldberg: One.
Jean Derrig: Penn Telecom?
Dok Matthews: Pass.
Jean Derrig: Sprint?
Carol Frike: One.
Jean Derrig: Talk America?
Amy Blackman: Pass.
Jean Derrig: XO? Z-Tel?
Peggy Rubino: One.

Jean Derrig: Remi:
Larry Blair: Pass.
Jean Derrig: Anyone I missed?
Pam Beattie: DSCI. Pass.
Jean Derrig: Right. AT & T pass; Bridgecom three; Broadview
pass; Choice Once pass; Comcast pass; Covad pass; Cox pass; DSCI pass;
MCI pass; Met-Tel one; Penn Telecom pass; Sprint one; Talk America pass;
Z-Tel one; and Remi pass.
And going on to the next one is CO4-0462. This is
flowthrough line share on suspended accounts in the South. Any additional
conversation needed on this one? OK. AT & T?
Mary Halpin: Could you get back to me, I want to check.
Jean Derrig: OK. Bridgecom?
Catherine Hannen: Three.
Jean Derrig: Broadview?
Janice Ziegele: Two.
Jean Derrig: Choice One?
Annmarie Sturtz: Pass.
Jean Derrig: Comcast?
Nancy Sanders: Pass.
Jean Derrig: Covad?
John Boshier: Three.
Jean Derrig: Cox?
Gayle Gissendanner: Two.
Jean Derrig: DSCI?
Pam Beattie: Pass.

Jean Derrig: MCI?
Lisa Provenzo: Pass.
Jean Derrig: Met-Tel?
Elliott Goldberg: One.
Jean Derrig: Penn Telecom?
Dok Matthews: Pass.
Jean Derrig: Sprint?
Carol Frike: Two.
Jean Derrig: Talk America?
Amy Blackman: Pass.
Jean Derrig: Z-Tel?
Peggy Rubino: Two.
Jean Derrig: Remi:
Larry Blair: Two.
Jean Derrig: All right. AT & T will get back to us. Bridgecom is
three; Broadview is two; Choice One is pass; Comcast is pass; Covad is three;
Cox two; DSCI is pass; MCI pass; Met-Tel is one; Penn Telecom is pass;
Sprint is two; Talk America pass; Z-Tel is two; and Remi is two.
OK, moving on to the next one. (Inaudible) The next
one is CO4-0834 - query on Centrex migration when the CLEC leaves less than
two lines on CSR.
Stephen Manion: Right and there was a clarification that we talked
about on that and it is assume dial 9, I verified that.
Female Speaker: It’s only assume dial 9?
Stephen Manion: Correct.

Female Speaker: So any other type of Centrex will allow less than two
lines.
Stephen Manion: If the CSR shows retail Centrex assume dial 9.
Female Speaker: So non-assume dial 9? You can leave less than two
lines behind?
Sue Pistacchio: No I would just say that NMC is probably querying
you. These are existing NMC queries. This suggests (inaudible).
Elliott Goldberg: Steve, did you say this was retail?
Stephen Manion: Reading off of your notice that you got for the 73
days, yes. That’s when rec type DB, AB, BB or CB with an active D and the CSR
shows retail Centrex assume dial 9. Line (inaudible) USOCs R3G or R3K.
Elliott Goldberg: Well why would we deal with retail? We would deal
with resale UNE or UNE-P.
Sue Pistacchio: These are migrations from retail.
Elliott Goldberg: OK.
Sue Pistacchio: Basically if you’re migrating on a two dial 9 Centrex
from retail you can’t leave one line hanging there. You’ve got to either
disconnect it or something.
Elliott Goldberg: OK.
Female Speaker: I don’t understand. Are you saying it’s a retail
account now or just migrating that one line retail account you won’t allow that?
Sue Pistacchio: No you’re trying to migrate everything but one line; it
won’t allow that if it’s Centrex. This is just now going be mechanized very fast
instead of a manual clear.
Gloria Velez: And I’m just curious - this is Gloria. Why – in Centrex
in general you don’t allow less than the two lines regardless of whether its
assumed or non assumed, so why is it that its more important to Verizon right
now to put the upfront edit in place on assume dial 9 and not on both types of
Centrex?
Sue Pistacchio: When they look at flow through opportunities they do
look at volume. I would assume the volume is later on these. It would be a

coding change and you have to identify all the different process of server so I
would assume why they’re looking at this is volume.
Jean Derrig: Any other questions? OK, rating – AT & T?
Mary Halpin: I’ll email our response, OK.
Jean Derrig: OK. Bridgecom?
Catherine Hannen: One.
Jean Derrig: Broadview?
Janice Ziegele: One.
Jean Derrig: Choice One?
Annmarie Sturtz: Two.
Jean Derrig: Comcast?
Nancy Sanders: Pass.
Jean Derrig: Covad?
John Boshier: Pass.
Jean Derrig: Cox?
Gayle Gissendanner: One.
Jean Derrig: DSCI?
Pam Beattie: One.
Jean Derrig: MCI?
Lisa Provenzo: Pass.
Jean Derrig: Met-Tel?
Elliott Goldberg: One.
Jean Derrig: Penn Telecom?
Dok Matthews: Four.

Jean Derrig: Sprint?
Carol Frike: One.
Jean Derrig: Talk America?
Amy Blackman: Pass.
Jean Derrig: Z-Tel?
Peggy Rubino: One.
Jean Derrig: Remi:
Larry Blair: Two.
Jean Derrig: Anyone else out there? OK. AT & T will get back to
us; Bridgecom is one; Broadview is one; Choice One is two; Comcast pass;
Covad pass; Cox is one; DSCI is one; MCI pass; Met-Tel is one; Penn
Telecom four; Sprint one; Talk America pass; Z-Tel one; and Remi two.
And going for what I believe is the last is CO3-1939 -
query when the WTN (main BTN) is disconnected on ACT C. Any further
discussion needed on this one before rating?
Elliott Goldberg: Yes this didn’t come out – the email on this came out
at 10.07 last night and I didn’t have time to check it out with my company. I’d like
to push this to next month.
Jean Derrig: This is currently scheduled for the December release.
Beth Cohen: Are there other CLECs in the same, have the same
feeling as Elliott from Met-Tel?
Catherine Hannen: Bridgecom agrees with Elliott.
Janice Ziegele: So does Broadview.
John Boshier: So does Covad.
Pam Beattie: So does DSCI.
Jean Derrig: Sounds like defer rating until next month.

Dok Matthews: So Elliott there’s your answer on whether we could
have done this in five minutes before lunch.
Elliott Goldberg: Well I didn’t have a problem Dok. I would have given
them all the same rating.
Dok Matthews: This on is schedule for December release?
Jean Derrig: It was on the December IBR.
Elliott Goldberg: I’m looking at the list. 1939?
Stephen Manion: It’s on the IBR release on page…
Jean Derrig: On the revised document.
Elliott Goldberg: I got it, thank you.
Jean Derrig: You’re welcome. Any other questions? Well I’d like
to thank everybody and I guess I survived my first change management meeting.
Elliott Goldberg: And it wasn’t too bad. As these meetings go it was
pretty tame!
Jean Derrig: Well thank you for being tame for me the first time!
Our next meeting is November 9 th .
Beth Cohen: I actually have a question for folks on the phone who
are also participating in the West. Just trying to get a sense of how many folks
are planning to travel to Dallas next week for the, our quarterly on site meeting.
Anybody on the call planning on being in Dallas?
John Boshier: Beth this is John Boshier. I will not be there.
Beth Cohen: OK.
Annmarie Sturtz: And Annmarie from Choice One. I will not be there.
Beth Cohen: OK. Mary are you now the change management
APMP?
Mary Halpin: Yes.
Beth Cohen: I knew there was something. Teresa – she’s not on
the call right now. OK, I think that there will be some folks who will be in Dallas.
Our next meeting in November is the 9 th . And the CUF meeting the day after.

(Inaudible)
Jean Derrig: All right, well thank you everybody.
Gloria Velez: This is Gloria Velez. I just have a question. This is
regarding Verizon West side. I’ve been having difficulty trying to get on to the
CMP notifications. I’ve gone through the website, I signed up and they still don’t
come. Can someone tell me where I can send an email to, to see how I might,
you know, just can get added? I receive the confirmations, when I go on to the
subscribe portion of the website. I’ve had people internally try to help me with
the various Verizon West people.
Jean Derrig: Can you give me your phone number. I will have
someone investigate and get back to you so you’re not playing with emails back
and forth.
Gloria Velez: That would be wonderful. My name is Gloria Velez
and my number is 973-360-1834.
(Inaudible)
Jean Derrig: I’ll get your actual email address.
Ninfa Bennett: This is Ninfa Bennett with Cox Communications. I’m
experiencing the same thing.
Jean Derrig: OK.
Ninfa Bennett: Yes there’s several choices when you go through the
website and I probably did registered or subscribe to maybe five or seven of
them and the only bulletins that I get or notifications that I get are your outages
from a network perspective.
Jean Derrig: And you signed up for the OSS change management
I think is what’s in the (inaudible) field.
Gloria Velez: I’ll double check. I’m not sure if that’s exactly what it’s
called but I will double check for you.
Jean Derrig: What’s your name again, I’m sorry.
Gloria Velez: This is Gloria Velez.
Jean Derrig: OK, no I thought there was someone from Cox.

Ninfa Bennett: Ninfa Bennett.
Jean Derrig: Bennett. What was your first name?
Ninfa Bennett: N-i-n f as in Frank-a.
(Inaudible)
Jean Derrig: It’s the same website, we have different distribution
lists. And you’re having problems with those getting on both the East and West
or just the West?
Gloria Velez: No I only have the problem on the West. From what I
understand from talking with Tom Rodgers a while ago is that on your website it
is only for the West. Even though it doesn’t say the West, but it is only for the
West. And so on the East website, to get on the East distribution Tom told me
through email. You have to send someone an email. So I had always thought
to register for the West you go to the website and you go through that subscribe
process.
Jean Derrig: Yes, I’ll look into it.
Gloria Velez: Thank you.
Jean Derrig: OK thank you everyone, have a nice afternoon.
All: You too, bye.