CUF MEETING MINUTES March 7, 2005 Meeting Minutes · March 7, 2005 Meeting Minutes 1. ... A summary...

CUF MEETING MINUTES *Notes from meetings previous to July 24, 2001, and relevant to a topic, have been archived separately.

March 7, 2005 Meeting Minutes 1. Review of New Business and/or Issues

Three new issues were submitted by CLECs and two of these were opened. A summary of the discussion on the issues is on the issue form below. Four issues (76, 79, 80 and 84) were closed.

2. Special Presentations

There were no special presentations.

3. Review Status Of Open Issues

Updates to open issues are shown on the individual issue forms.

4. Round Table Discussions If CLECs wish to have VZ address issues that are raised in the Round Table, an issues form must be submitted.

Printed: 05/05/05


#1: REVIEW VERIZON CHANGES OF INTEREST TO CLEC-COMMUNITY:

DESCRIPTION: Includes any changes to VZ organizations, systems, and/or business practices that may occur and affect the CLEC-community. EXAMPLE:

OPENED: May 1998 by J.Katzman (Covad), M.Moor (Net2000), P. Appandrianopoulos (Rhythms), & T.Evans (Teligent).

CLEC SPONSORS: ALL

VERIZON FACILITATOR:Kathryn Kalajian

PRODUCT (S) AFFECTED BY ISSUE: Collocation Line-Sharing Special Access (FCC Tariff) DSL Line-Splitting UNE-Loop Interconnection/IXC LNP UNE-Platform Interconnection/Switched Access Resale UNE Specials/IOF (Local Tariffs) OTHER (Please Specify): Anything that may affect Inter-Company Processes

STATE(S) WHERE ISSUE OCCURS: Entire Footprint Connecticut Maryland New Jersey Vermont “North Region” Delaware Massachusetts New York Virginia “South Region” Maine New Hampshire Pennsylvania Washington, DC

Rhode Island West Virginia

CLOSED as of: RESOLVED AGREE TO DISAGREE UNRESOLVED MOVED TO OTHER FORUM:____________

FOLLOW-UP ACTION ITEM(S) & ASSIGNED OWNER(S) & DATE(S) DUE: GENERAL MEETING MINUTES – 3/7/05 – The website was updated to reflect the current escalation list for the VRRC. Also, Rosemary Hernandez reported that Rosanna Fischer has replaced Ray Cartee as the Director of the Pittsburgh CATC and Sam Luxton has replaced Rosanna Fischer as the Director of the California BRPC. Lastly, the management of the CUF is changing going forward. Beth Cohen replaces Kathryn Kalajian as the Verizon CUF Director and Rosemary Hernandez replaces Dave Russell as the VZ CUF Manager. 1/15/05 – Rosemary Hernandez reported that the Customer Focus Management group has been moved from Kim Hylton’s group to Beth Cohen’s group. CLECs reported that the escalation list for the VRRC is not up to date. Managers listed are no longer in place. 11/10/04 – Beth Cohen reported that Jean Derrig has replaced Tom Rodgers as the manager responsible for Change Control. 9/15/04 – No major organization changes have recently taken place. 7/14/04 – No major organization changes have recently taken place. An Industry Letter has been distributed describing the impact that the DNC will have on provisioning and maintenance. A similar letter will be distributed re the RNC. There has been an update to the website to make escalation lists available in a user-friendly printable format. 5/12/04 – There were no organization changes announced. CLECs reported that website contact section updates previously requested had been completed. CLECs also indicated that the escalation number for Pat Trevino in the San Angelo NACC did not work properly (fast busy). This has been investigated and is working properly. 3/10/04 – There were no organization changes announced. Verizon has initiated a project to review the contact section of the website to ensure accuracy. Covad had previously provided input that was forwarded to the VZ web master. Any inaccuracies identified by CUF participants can be forwarded to Rosemary Hernandez at [email protected].

Printed: 05/05/05


1/14/04 – Tom Delaney, representing Local Operations, and Rosemary Hernandez, representing Access Operations, reviewed organizational changes that have taken place in the last two months. Changes reviewed were: Rich Murtha replaced Dave Stewart and has responsibility for the West NMCs, Tom Thirsk replaced Mike Redmond and is responsible for the East NMCs, Ed Marcella, Tom’s boss, was replaced by Gerry Berian, Beth Cohen is now responsible for Change Management. VZ reported that the web site has been updated but if CLECs find any contact lists not up-to-date they are welcome to bring them to the attention of the CUF for action. 11/13/03 – VZ agreed to provide information associated with organization and people changes resulting from the VZ Management Voluntary Separation as soon as possible. Tom Delaney stated that Bill McDermott, Manager – Boston RCCC, is being replaced effective 11/21 by Paul Lynch. CLECs stated that it will be very important for VZ to keep the web site current with all personnel changes. 9/10/03 – Eli Diaz has assumed responsibility (from Ray Cartee) as Director of the NJ CATC and reports to Nancy McFeeley. Julia Stefanini has assumed responsibility (from John Rourke) as Director Unbundled/Resale Operations reporting to Tom Maguire. Going forward, UNE Hicap orders will be processed through the CATCs. 7/9/03 – No Changes. 5/14/03 - Verizon is developing a plan to do all of same type of work in a single National Market Center (NMC). A final plan has not been developed. 3/12/03 - Georgene Horton and Deborah Kugelmann are leaving Wholesale Account Management and joining the Service Management organization. Kathryn Kalajian has replaced Georgene as Director CLEC Account Management and Sales and will manage the CUF. Dave Russell, Sales Manager CLEC Account Management and Sales will assume Deborah Kugelmann's role on the CUF. Effective March 1, Mary Giorgio replaced John Keenan as Director of the NY CATC. Terry Young has assumed responsibility for all of the Silver Springs CATC. Tom Sautto has replaced Karen Maguire as Executive Director Project Management and John Keenan has moved to Mr. Sautto's team. A copy of the organization announcement is attached. 1/15/03 – VZ provided executive level updates for the Wholesale organization. A copy of those announcements is attached to the minutes. A request was made to provide any available updates specific for maintenance. The VZ-Wholesale website has been updated with the new maintenance (RCMC) contacts. 11/13/02 – VZ agreed to provide updates to include changes in the CATC for provisioning and maintenance. . 9/12/02 – NMC Update – All LSR work has been transferred from Pittsburgh to the Silver Springs/Falls Church area. ARS UNE1 & UNEP work has been sent to the appropriate CACT, except for a few special projects. Effective September 9th the CSG helpline became operational. CATC service management will be reviewed at the November meeting. 7/10/02 – No significant organizational changes reported. The transition of the PA NMC is still in process. Target date for completion is 9/02. Changes in the North CATCs will be included on the September agenda. 5/21/02 – T. Delaney presented an update on the consolidation efforts underway in the NMC. Updates to contact and escalation lists will be available on the VZ Wholesale website. 3/13/02 – Organizational updates: Chuck Lee to retire and Ivan Seidenbreg to become sole CEO of Verizon. Eli Diaz to replace Orlando Montan as Director of UNE HiCap, David Kelley replaces Eli Diaz as Director of UNE Complex Provisioning. 1/23/02 - The CLECs are requesting organization updates posted to the web in a timely manner. VZ shared organization charts from the North NMC. Other organization changes were communicated verbally by Georgene Horton with commitments to provide hard copies with the meeting minutes. 11/27/01 – Georgene Horton provided verbal updates to Nancy McFeeley’s CATC organization. Industry mailing is planned for December to provide additional detail. An advanced copy of January organization announcements attached to November meeting minutes.

July 24, 2001 – D. Kugelmann (VZ): A current organization chart was provided for the Wholesale Markets organization. Debbie Kugelmann has replaced Tom Dreyer as the Verizon Facilitator to the BAUG. Georgene Horton is now Director for all CLEC Account Management and Sales, also replacing Tom. Peg Ricca has retired. Tony Yanez will be the sole VP for Account Management and Sales to the CLEC Community.

Printed: 05/05/05


#70: – Porting of Telephone Numbers with Line Sharing. DESCRIPTION:: When a customer has Verizon DSL sharing the loop with a dialtone line, Verizon will not release the telephone number for porting. Typically, the DSL is on the first line of a hunt group. When the end-user attempts to circumvent the porting limitation by re-arranging their retail account to be able to leave the shared line behind, Verizon Retail imposes fees and DSL disruption during business hours. By denying individuals the right to select a new provider of choice, Verizon is engaging in anti-competitive conduct in violation of state and federal rules and regulations.

EXAMPLE: Verizon shows TN 412-771-6672 as being a Centrex line with line-share. Initially, this line was part of the end-user’s hunt group. Upon notification from Penn Telecom that this was not portable, the customer contacted Verizon Retail to have this line removed from his hunt group so the remainder of his telephone numbers could be ported. This change resulted in billing by Verizon Retail to the end-user. Penn Telecom received an on the number portability request indicating that a minimum of two lines must be left on the account to maintain the Centrex. The customer contacted Verizon again to regrade the Centrex line with the line-share to a POTs line. Verizon Retail agreed to do this for an additional fee but stated that the DSL would be out of service for up to one hour and that the work would not be scheduled outside of business hours. As the service outage was unacceptable to the customer, the customer ended up leaving three lines with Verizon, the one line which had been previously removed from a hunt group and a two-line hunt group.

OPENED: Tentatively on July 9, 2003

CLEC SPONSORS: Joelle Blaho-Sinclair/Penn Telecom

VERIZON FACILITATOR: Dave Russell

PRODUCT(S) AFFECTED BY ISSUE: Collocation Χ Line-Sharing Special Access (FCC Tariff) DSL Line-Splitting UNE-Loop Interconnection/IXC Χ LNP UNE-Platform Interconnection/Switched Access Resale UNE Specials/IOF (Local Tariffs) OTHER (Please Specify):

STATE(S) WHERE ISSUE OCCURS:

X Entire Footprint Connecticut Maryland New Jersey Vermont “North Region” Delaware Massachusetts New York Virginia “South Region” Maine New Hampshire Pennsylvania Washington, DC

Rhode Island West Virginia

CLOSED as of: __ RESOLVED AGREE TO DISAGREE

UNRESOLVED

FOLLOW-UP ACTION ITEM(S) & ASSIGNED OWNER(S) & DATE(S) DUE:

GENERAL MEETING MINUTES – 3/7/05 – Verizon is continuing to investigate a handful of current exceptions that were sent to Rose Clayton and Cassie Watkins. For the time being, CLECs should continue to send exceptions to [email protected]. Rose will be

Printed: 05/05/05

mailto:[email protected]


implementing a new process that will include reporting exceptions to the WCCC for implementation around the time of our next meeting. 1/12/05 – Cassandra Watkins has received and addressed 30 examples of not being able to port due to DSL on line. Based upon analysis of these examples, it has been determined that the DSL has not been removed due to: end user contacting wrong office to have DSL remove, delay in processing the DSL removal order, no order to disconnect was placed by end user and system errors. Based upon this analysis and to address the issues, VZ has undertaken: customer education, action with VOL to help ensure orders are processed in a timely manner and establishment of the escalation process. Rose reviewed the new escalation process. CLECs stated that they have a problem with the provision of the process requiring that the DLEC escalate since the DLEC is not incented to have the DSL removed. As a result, Rose agreed to further review the escalation process with the VZ WCCC. 11/10/04 – VZ is continuing to research examples provided to [email protected]. 9/15/04 – Seven examples have been provided. VZ analysis of examples have found two internal issues: CSR completion timeframe and order writing. The timeframe for completing the CSR is longer around the time that the bill is rendered. The normal 2 – 3 day interval increases to approximately 5 days. To address the order writing problems, VZ will issue a flash to the field or update M&Ps to help ensure proper handling. VZ has reviewed the SBC process and we do not believe that will fix the problem. The internal issues detailed above must be addressed first. Additionally, a group within VZ is preparing a potential counterproposal to the SBC process. 7/14/04 – CLECs reported that the problem having some numbers that have line sharing on them ported is continuing. VZ has conducted an analysis of a sampling of the 30 tickets that have been opened with the WCCC re this issue. The analysis has shown that there are multiple issues contributing to not being able to port. VZ asked that CLECs send recent examples (no more than one month old) to [email protected] for analysis. Examples should include: end user tel. No., order no. to remove DSL and the port order no. More detailed analysis needs to be completed before a final plan for solving the issue can be presented. Verizon clarified that end users should call their ISPs (not necessarily VZ, unless VZ is the DSL provider) to have line share removed. Anne Marie Sturtz agreed to send VZ the SBC process for VZ to evaluate. 5/12/04 – CLECs reported that they are having trouble opening a ticket with the WCCC when this problem is encountered. VZ agreed to investigate. Also, VZ agreed to analyze how many trouble tickets regarding this issue have been reported to the WCCC and the results of analysis of the problem. 1/14/04 – Tom Delaney reported that the two examples of this issue were reviewed by VZ and it was determined that there was a timing problem in VZ order processing systems. In one example, the order to disconnect VZ service and port service over to the CLEC was issued before the order to install Line Sharing was completed. Apparently, the end user changed their mind about the DSL installation after placing the order with VZ. Future examples of this problem should be reported to the WCCC so that they can be tracked and analyzed. CLECs asked for guidance on what information needed to be provided when reporting this type of trouble to the WCCC. Following is that guidance:

If a customer receives the following error - 7020LV10 LN share exists on TN specified - not eligible for migration, the WCCC needs the PON and the Service Order that was issued to remove the lineshare. While the WCCC can investigate with just the PON, the Service Order is a critical piece of information required for a timely resolution. . If the WCCC sees that an order was written to remove lineshare and it is not complete, the NMC is contacted to get the order completed. When this error message is reported to the WCCC and we see that an order was not issued to remove lineshare, we have the CLEC refer the end user to their provider to remove lineshare

11/13/03 – VZ is working to fix the problems that are resulting in line share disconnect orders not being completed on due date and CSRs not being updated. Also, the process for internally escalating this problem is being reviewed. Also, recent examples provided through the CUF are being reviewed to determine if other system/process changes need to be evaluated. CLECs reported that they have a problem with CSRs not being updated approximately one-half of the time. CLECs agreed to provide future examples so that more analysis can be done. CLECs asked for a point person that they can work with when their end users experience this problem. VZ took this under consideration. 9/10/03 – VZ stated that a process to port numbers that have line sharing has been established, reviewed and accepted by regulatory commissions. That process is for the CLEC to check the CSR for the presence of line sharing and if line sharing is present to direct the end user to contact VZ to have the line sharing removed. CLECs stated that they direct their customers to do this but the CSRs are not consistently updated so they cannot issue their port order. Allegiance has provided examples of this and suggested alternatives that are being reviewed by VZ product management. 7/9/03 – CLECs argued that not porting numbers associated with Line Sharing was in violation of PSC order in Docket 0188. It was agreed to tentatively keep this issue open and investigate the VZ policy.

Printed: 05/05/05



#76: – Centrex Assignment Form

CLEC SUBMITTING ISSUE SHOULD COMPLETE ITEMS 1 through 8. (Item 9 is optional):

1. CLEC NAME:

MetTel

2. INTERNAL CONTACT & PHONE NUMBER:

Elliot M. Goldberg 212-607-2031

3. SUBMISSION DATE:

12-15-03

4. SELECT PRODUCT(S) THIS ISSUE AFFECTS: (Double-click on box(es) to mark) Collocation Line-Sharing Special Access (FCC Tariff) DSL Line-Splitting UNE-Loop Interconnection/IXC LNP UNE-Platform Interconnection/Switched Access Resale UNE Specials/IOF (Local Tariffs) OTHER (Please Specify):

5. SELECT THE ISSUE CATEGORY: Pre-Order (Record Verification) Ordering (Process) Provisioning (Process)

Billing (Process) Maintenance and/or

Repair (Process)

Ancillary Services (OS/DA/DL, etc.) Other General Issue

6. SELECT STATE(S) WHERE ISSUE OCCURS: Connecticut Maryland New Jersey Rhode Island Washington, DC Delaware Massachusetts New York Vermont West Virginia Maine New Hampshire Pennsylvania Virginia Entire Footprint

7. DESCRIBE THE ISSUE: The present process to migrate Resale Centrex from CLEC to CLEC relies on the CLEC completing an Assumption of Service Form that is appropriate to the original Retail to Resale migration. A modification to the form (or a redesign of the form) is required to render the form applicable to subsequent Reseller-to-Reseller migrations. This issue was originally in Change Management, and progress was being made on the form redesign when it was determined that the issue was not a Change Management issue but should be referred elsewhere.

8. PROVIDE EXAMPLE(S):

9. IF CLEC HAS PROPOSED RESOLUTION, PLEASE DESCRIBE:

CUF REVIEW DATE:

Printed: 05/05/05


10. Issue Accepted? Yes / No – If “No”, give reason: . 11. Assigned Issue # and Entitled: . 12. Other CLECs Supporting Issue: .

GENERAL MEETING MINUTES – 3/7/05 – Final language was agreed upon between VZ and Mettel. This language was shared with the other CLECs in the CUF. The final language is included with the minutes. The form has been posted to the website. Closed. 1/12/05 – VZ Legal does not want additional changes to the form beyond the last modification. Elliot and Patrick will confer to ensure agreement on the last modification and Elliot will distribute to the CLECs for acceptance. 11/10/04 – New language was submitted by Mettel. This language is being reviewed by VZ legal. VZ Product Management (Patrick McCarthy) will talk directly to Elliott Goldberg. 7/14/04 – Mettel legal still not satisfied with language. Elliot Goldberg agreed to talk to Bill Meehan regarding stepping away from the issue and letting lawyers address. 5/12/04 – Elliot Goldberg and Bill Meehan have agreed to language for the centrex AOS form. The new language must be reviewed by Mettel’s legal. Once final language is agreed to between VZ and Mettel, the form will be sent to Peggy Rubino to ensure it meets the needs of other CUF participants. 3/10/04 – Mettel and VZ agree in concept regarding the application of liabilities when a centrex contract is transferred. However, Mettel legal does not believe that the language clearly states that the assignor’s (losing CLEC) liability ceases effective on the date of the assignment to new carrier. Bill Meehan agreed to craft new language designed to meet Mettel’s needs. Subsequent to the meeting (March 18) a revised copy of the AOS form was sent to Mettel. 1/14/04 – Prior to the CUF meeting, VZ Account Management and Product Management had a discussion with Mettel. Mettel’s concern is that they believe the current language requires that the losing CLEC continue to be liable for centrex charges. As discussed at the CUF, Verizon has amended this form to address the industry's concern on the continued liability of the Assignor (losing CLEC) after the date of contract assignment to the Assignee (gaining CLEC). Verizon agrees that the responsibilities of the Assignor (the losing CLEC) end as of the date of the assignment of the contract to the new party. As we modified the form, we expressly included the phrase "that exist as of the date of this assignment," to address that concern. As in the previous version of the form, the Assignee (the gaining CLEC in this case) continues to be jointly and severally liable for all contractual obligations to Verizon even after the date of the assignment. The Assignee, not the Assignor (the losing CLEC) remains jointly liable going forward as the obligations of the contract must remain with the contract. Thus, it is the Assignee who takes on that liability along with the contract assignment, not the Assignor. The new form is included with the distribution of the meeting minutes.

Printed: 05/05/05


#79: – Migrating Lines with Local PIC Freeze


1. CLEC NAME:

Lissa Provenzo


703-749-7334

3. SUBMISSION DATE:

4/29/04

4. SELECT PRODUCT(S) THIS ISSUE AFFECTS: (Double-click on box(es) to mark) Collocation Line-Sharing Special Access (FCC Tariff) DSL Line-Splitting UNE-Loop Interconnection/IXC LNP UNE-Platform Interconnection/Switched Access Resale UNE Specials/IOF (Local Tariffs)

X OTHER (Please Specify): RETAIL

5. SELECT THE ISSUE CATEGORY: Pre-Order (Record Verification) Ordering (Process)

X Provisioning (Process)


Repair (Process)


6. SELECT STATE(S) WHERE ISSUE OCCURS: Connecticut Maryland New Jersey Rhode Island Washington, DC Delaware Massachusetts New York Vermont West Virginia Maine New Hampshire X Pennsylvania Virginia Entire Footprint

7. DESCRIBE THE ISSUE: Verizon Retail Representatives in PA are migrating MCI UNEP lines that contain a local PIC Freeze with out contacting MCI.

8. PROVIDE EXAMPLE(S): 70 Examples that MCI can forward to VZ

9. IF CLEC HAS PROPOSED RESOLUTION, PLEASE DESCRIBE: Place a hard edit on the VZ Retail system to ensure they can not override the Local PIC Freeze placed on the local line without contacting the CLEC.

Printed: 05/05/05


CUF REVIEW DATE: May 11, 2004


GENERAL MEETING MINUTES – 3/7/05 – The PIC freeze mechanization was completed as scheduled in February. Closed. 1/12//05 – Mechanization is still targeted for 3rd week in February. 11/10/04 – The mechanization targeted for November 22 was not completed as planned. The mechanization is now targeted for the February 2005 release. We will continue to monitor this item. 9/15/04 – VZ is still targeting November 2004 for mechanized solution. 7/14/04 – VZ reported that steps have been taken to address this issue. A reminder was sent to representatives to remind them to fully check for the presence of a PIC freeze prior to migrating an account. Also, a mechanized solution is targeted for completion in November 2004. It was agreed to keep this issue open until the mechanized solution is implemented. 5/12/2004 – MCI stated that this issue has been brought to Account Management, Change Control and the CUF. CLECs clarified that this has been an issue impacting multiple CLECs. It was also stated that VZ is not sending LSRs when migrating customers. It was agreed to accept this issue and VZ is currently analyzing the examples provided.

Printed: 05/05/05


#80: – WSOP


1. CLEC NAME:

Z-Tel Communications, Inc.


Peggy Rubino

3. SUBMISSION DATE:

4/28/04




Repair (Process)



Printed: 05/05/05


7. DESCRIBE THE ISSUE: Z-Tel has been encountering difficulty clearing interfering stations. When the address validation shows working service on premises and Z-Tel’s customer affirms that they are new residents of the dwelling, the interfering station needs to be disconnected to avoid unnecessary dispatches. The new service can be provisioned as an additional line, but that frequently requires both a dispatch of a Verizon technician and dispatch of an inside wire vendor to connect the line. This process adds time and cost, and increases customer dissatisfaction. It is much more efficient to simply disconnect the abandoned service and re-use the facilities that are in place. However, to do so, Verizon’s NMC representatives have been instructing the CLECs to:

1. Attempt to locate the previous occupant 2. Contact the end user and validate their address 3. Verify working service 4. Contact the property owner (i.e. landlord, homeowner, building supervisor, etc.) to inform them of the need to contact the local service provider to disconnect the working service at the end user's premises

It is nearly impossible for either Z-Tel or the new occupant to identify the previous occupant and/or the previous local service provider. Further, Z-Tel has been unable to locate any documentation of the above-described process.

8. PROVIDE EXAMPLE(S): SPR0000001681881

SPR0000001797256

SPR0000001688861 <----now complete, but took nearly 3 weeks to resolve

SPR0000001831948

SPR0000001822044

SPR0000001796341

9. IF CLEC HAS PROPOSED RESOLUTION, PLEASE DESCRIBE: As this issue should affect both Verizon retail and the CLEC community, Z-Tel proposes that Verizon sponsor a working group to devise a workable process that all companies must use to clear interfering stations.

CUF REVIEW DATE:


Printed: 05/05/05


GENERAL MEETING MINUTES – 3/7/05 – In a recent order, the PA PUC rejected Verizon’s in place process for handling WSOP. The trial that was in effect in PA has been stopped and all CLECs will follow process of ordering an additional line when necessary. Closed. 1/12/05 – VZ is progressing toward long term solution which will require a new field on the LSR. The required system change is currently targeted for October 2005. VZ is also reviewing whether the PA trial should continue. 11/10/04 – VZ is progressing toward developing a new WSOP process. In trying to implement the short term process, issues were encountered regarding using email communication as official communication to disconnect a line. VZ is targeting having new process defined by next CUF meeting (January 2005). Implementation timeframe cannot be determined until the process is defined. 9/15/04 – VZ has reestablished the WSOP internal team and is reworking the process. Since the original process was developed a couple of years ago, it is necessary to ensure a process that will be effective in today’s environment and to get buy in from all involved organizations. The process previously shared with the CLECs will be used as the springboard for the process under development. 7/14/04 – Bill Meehan reported that the PA trial process was working well and thousands of stations have been successfully cleared utilizing the trial process. ZTEL expressed concern that the trial is only with MCI. CUF participants indicated that they wish to go forward with implementation of the trial process but for all CLECs. Bill agreed to take the lead in implementation. 5/12/2004 – Bill Meehan, reported that there is a process proposal in front of the PA PUC that VZ would like to implement for all areas. The proposal was distributed with the meeting minutes. CLECs should review the proposal and provide feedback that reflects the consensus of the CUF through Peggy Rubino.

Printed: 05/05/05


#81: – Information Provider Call Billing


1. CLEC NAME:

IDT America, Corp.


David Lucky 973-438-3891

3. SUBMISSION DATE:

06/24/2004




Repair (Process)



Printed: 05/05/05


7. DESCRIBE THE ISSUE: IDT not receiving call detail on IP (Information Provider – calls made to npa 976, 540 lottery, chat lines,etc) calls in DUF records for state of New York as of March 15, 2004. Verizon wholesale billing representatives have told IDT that a third party CLEC is now handling IP calls in NY however no additional information has been made available. IDT has not received any call detail on rate Information Provider calls made by IDT customers since that date. As a result IDT is unable to effectively manage the process as cant block and monitor end users activity if not receiving the appropriate call detail. In addition cant bill and collect for it and if IDT receives data at some later point in time the ability to effectively bill for it months later is very problematic and not effective particularly for these call types.

IDT needs clarification as to what the process in NY for IP calls is and further information on the contractual arrangement and process that Verizon has entered into. Two main questions - will Verizon continue to send us usage detail for our customers that call these numbers, and will Verizon continue to bill the CLECs for this usage. Prior to March 24 CLECs were billed the retail rate for the calls, less (in some cases) a billing and collection fee. CLECs were expected to bill and collect from our end users, and remit the amount to Verizon. We have not been receiving any usage detail for these calls since the transition date, but we would like Verizon to clarify whether this is a permanent condition or a temporary one.


9. IF CLEC HAS PROPOSED RESOLUTION, PLEASE DESCRIBE: A written clarification to clearly articulate what has happened since this transition date and what CLECs/IDT are responsible for in terms of collections/blocking of IP calls made by IDT local customers in NY in this new environment.

CUF REVIEW DATE:

16. Issue Accepted? X Yes / No – If “No”, give reason: . 17. Assigned Issue # 81 and Entitled: Information Provider Call Billing . 18. Other CLECs Supporting Issue: .

GENERAL MEETING MINUTES – 3/7/05 – VZ has requested an IT initiative to post credits to the bills. A date for when credits will be posted has not been provided. VZ agreed to communicate what bill the credits would appear on and what the phrase code will be so that CLECs can confirm receipt of credits. 1/12/05 – VZ product management is analyzing the applicability of credits. IDT asked for a commitment for when this issue will be resolved. 11/10/04 – VZ’s April Spinelli explained that VZ is continuing to gather information for credits and is targeting putting credits on bills in the next couple of months. Credits will first be issued for 540, 550 and 970 calls. 976 credits will be issued subsequently. April explained that customers will receive DUF data (probably in EXCEL format). Also, a letter will be distributed that describes the phrase code that will be displayed on the bill identifying the credits. 9/15/04 – VZ billing for 540, 550 and 970 calls continued from 3/25 to 7/22. 976 calls were billed through 7/23. CLECs will receive two bill adjustments: one for 540, 550 and 970 calls and one for 976 calls. As discussed before, if CLECs have questions/issues re information services overbilling please contact your Account Manager, not the WBCC. VZ agreed to provide CLECs info re how credits will be identified on the bills.

Printed: 05/05/05


7/14/04 – In March 2004, the NYPSC allowed VZ to withdraw from the billing and collection of information service provider calls. Starting March 25, 2004, RCN, Global Naps and other vendors assumed responsibility for billing and collecting of these services on behalf of the ISPs. RCN and GNAPs will directly bill the CLEC end users. No billing records will be sent to the CLEC by RCN, Global Naps or VZ. VZ will still provide records of these calls on the DUF as local end user calls. Applicable local call charges will apply. All blocking codes for ISPs are still in place and available for CLECs. CLECs expressed concern re how Globals Naps and RCN will get end user billing information and decided to contact these companies at their own discretion to obtain required information. If any CLECs were inappropriately billed for ISP calls after March 25, they should contact their Account Manager who will involve the appropriate billing SME. It was agreed to keep this issue open pending determination of whether there was inappropriate billing that must be corrected.

Printed: 05/05/05


#83: – SPUNE


1. CLEC NAME:

XO Communications


Loriann Ercan 631-821-2315

3. SUBMISSION DATE:

8/20/04

4. SELECT PRODUCT(S) THIS ISSUE AFFECTS: (Double-click on box(es) to mark) Collocation Line-Sharing Special Access (FCC Tariff) DSL Line-Splitting X UNE-Loop Interconnection/IXC LNP UNE-Platform Interconnection/Switched Access Resale UNE Specials/IOF (Local Tariffs) OTHER (Please Specify):

5. SELECT THE ISSUE CATEGORY: Pre-Order (Record Verification)

X Ordering (Process) Provisioning (Process)


Repair (Process)


6. SELECT STATE(S) WHERE ISSUE OCCURS: Connecticut Maryland New Jersey Rhode Island Washington, DC Delaware Massachusetts New York Vermont West Virginia Maine New Hampshire Pennsylvania Virginia X Entire

Footprint

7. DESCRIBE THE ISSUE: New SPUNE process is cumbersome and the conversion process itself seems flawed. Verizon will only process orders for 5 circuits per lata per day, preventing conversions being done in a timely fashion. Although it was promised that these orders were for record purposes only, we have experienced several end user outages which have proven difficult to resolve

8. PROVIDE EXAMPLE(S): Some circuits disconnected

95HCGS835516NE

95.HCGS.635766.NE 95HCGS529621NE


CUF REVIEW DATE:

Printed: 05/05/05


19. Issue Accepted? X Yes / No – If “No”, give reason: . 20. Assigned Issue # and Entitled: . 21. Other CLECs Supporting Issue: .

GENERAL MEETING MINUTES – 3/7/05 – Based upon available feedback, instances of inappropriate disconnects during SPUNE conversions have been rare over the last several months. It was agreed to keep this issue open awaiting additional feedback. Going forward, examples of inappropriate disconnects should be communicated following the standard exception process. 1/12/05 – The mechanization is completed. Penn Telecom experienced an outage associated with a SPUNE project on Dec. 27. Based upon Penn Telecom providing the details, VZ agreed to investigate whether that outage was the same outage that the mechanization was designed to prevent. No other CLECs reported SPUNE related outages. 11/10/04 – VZ is targeting the end of November for mechanization to be completed. Issue will be kept open to monitor actual completion of mechanization. 9/15 – XO and Telcove explained that as a result of SPUNE conversions circuits have gone out of service (as recently as the previous week). CLECs want procedures put in place to prevent the disconnect of circuits during SPUNE conversions. VZ’s Jennifer Stocker explained that VZ has done approximately 5,000 SPUNE conversions and that there have been only a handful of inadvertent disconnects. To do a SPUNE conversion two orders are required, a disconnect and a new, not record only orders. Manual intervention is currently required to complete one of the order work steps. VZ hopes to have that work step (completing the disconnect and the new together) mechanized. A target date has not yet been established. Additionally, VZ is monitoring the manual process to ensure the work step is properly completed. It was agreed to open this issue to monitor results and to monitor completion of the mechanized work step.

Printed: 05/05/05


#84: – Repair Dispatch


1. CLEC NAME:

John Boshier


703-376-2960

3. SUBMISSION DATE:

8/3/04

4. SELECT PRODUCT(S) THIS ISSUE AFFECTS: (Double-click on box(es) to mark) Collocation X Line-Sharing X Special Access (FCC Tariff) DSL X Line-Splitting X UNE-Loop Interconnection/IXC LNP UNE-Platform Interconnection/Switched Access Resale UNE Specials/IOF (Local Tariffs) OTHER (Please Specify):



Repair (Process)



7. DESCRIBE THE ISSUE: Verizon Repair centers require tickets to be opened in or out. If ticket tests OK, the CLEC must open a second ticket to check the remainder of the service. For example, a ticket is opened in and is tested OK in the central office, if the CLEC then wants a dispatch pout to check the line, a new ticket is required. This practice is inefficient for both Verizon and the CLECs and adds needless time to the repair cycle.

Practice at other ILECs is that the CLEC can request a dispatch out at the time a call is made to close the original ticket. A second ticket is not required. At Verizon it often takes three or more tickets to resolve a single trouble.

Printed: 05/05/05


8. PROVIDE EXAMPLE(S): #CC678049, CC679039 opened within 1 day

CC676505, CC677250, CC677801, cc 679125 all opened within a span of 4 days

CC678456, CC679303 opened 1 day apart. VZ replaced feeder, then required a new ticket to check the loop.

9. IF CLEC HAS PROPOSED RESOLUTION, PLEASE DESCRIBE: Allow the CLEC to request a dispatch out or in on the same ticket, rather than opening a new ticket. Allow a single ticket to move between departments without opening new tickets.

CUF REVIEW DATE:


GENERAL MEETING MINUTES – 3/7/05 – For unbundled stand alone DSL, VZ cannot open multiple trouble tickets based upon a single trouble report from the customer as doing so will impact metrics. Tom Delaney and Mike Clancy agreed to have a separate dialogue regarding this issue. Closed. 1/12/05 – The VZ/CLEC joint call on December 19 clarified what products require multiple tickets. Covad stated that understanding the process does not solve the problem and wants a single ticket process for DSL. Tom agreed to further investigate whether VZ can implement a single ticket process for DSL. Tom also agreed to host joint CLEC/VZ RCMC calls from time to time. 11/10/04 – VZ internal meetings have taken place on this topic. A call with the CLECs took place on November 19. 9/15 – John Boshier of Covad explained that VZ requires a second trouble ticket if the initial trouble ticket request a dispatch in the wrong direction (in vs. out). Tom Delaney agreed to verify what the VZ process is and to set up a call with the RCMC and interested CLECs. To date, Tom Maurer (Mid Maine) and Loriann Ercan (XO) have indicated they are interested in participating in this call. Additional interested CLECs should send an email to [email protected]. A separate notice re the call with RCMC will be distributed shortly.

Printed: 05/05/05



#85: – CNR Process


1. CLEC NAME:

Z-Tel Communications, Inc.


Peggy Rubino (813) 233-4628

3. SUBMISSION DATE:




Repair (Process)



7. DESCRIBE THE ISSUE: At the August CMP meetings (East and West), Verizon introduced C04-1461 to make contact information required rather than optional to minimize repeat dispatches. The CLECs generally supported this request with the caveat that a process be developed to ensure that calls are actually made to the contact number prior to Verizon declaring a no access or customer not ready condition. The process should include some confirmation provided to Verizon by the CLEC that the customer or premises is unavailable, and ideally that confirmation would flow to the wholesale bills to reduce the number of disputes regarding this issue.


9. IF CLEC HAS PROPOSED RESOLUTION, PLEASE DESCRIBE: Covad and Verizon have an agreement under which Covad will provide a confirmation number when it is unable to reach the customer to arrange access. A similar process could be used for other CLECs.

Printed: 05/05/05


CUF REVIEW DATE:


GENERAL MEETING MINUTES – 3/7/05 – VZ’s wholesale CNR process is in parity with retail. Mettel expressed concern though about being billed for CNRs that they did not believe were CNRs. VZ agreed to leave issue open awaiting additional review by VZ senior management. 1/12/05 – Preliminarily, VZ is not able to implement serial number process (this is part of the process that has been set up for DSL) for voice. Retail voice does not have a CNR process so it may not be appropriate to establish a CNR process for wholesale voice. Tom to ensure VZ senior level agreement on this position. 11/10/04 – This issue is being addressed by a VZ internal team. Tom Delaney expects a readout in approximately 4 weeks. Readout will be sent as soon as it is available. 9/15 – A CNR process is followed on DSL, but not on POTS, UNE-P, etc. CLECs specified that they would like this process for provisioning and maintenance. Tom Delaney has submitted the CUF’s request for this process to be implemented on POTS, UNE-P, etc to a VZ team that is looking a process changes that will reduce unproductive dispatches. Tom will interface between the internal team and the CUF.

Printed: 05/05/05


#86: – LVR Errors


1. CLEC NAME:

CTSI


Amy Kwak 570-631-3920

3. SUBMISSION DATE:

8/25/04

4. SELECT PRODUCT(S) THIS ISSUE AFFECTS: (Double-click on box(es) to mark) Collocation Line-Sharing Special Access (FCC Tariff) DSL Line-Splitting UNE-Loop Interconnection/IXC LNP UNE-Platform Interconnection/Switched Access Resale UNE Specials/IOF (Local Tariffs) OTHER (Please Specify): LVR



Repair (Process)



3. DESCRIBE THE ISSUE: Listings on the LVR are changing from year to year without CTSI processing any Directory Listing Changes. Karen Mansor at the NMC is working with us to get those listings corrected. This is an issue that should not be happening. It is creating additional work for Karen’s group as well as our Directory department.

4. PROVIDE EXAMPLE(S): See Attached spreadsheet that was sent to Karen Mansor.

5. IF CLEC HAS PROPOSED RESOLUTION, PLEASE DESCRIBE: CTSI would like Verizon to research the problem to find out why this occurs and fix it. We feel this may be a system issue between Verizon and VIS.

CUF REVIEW DATE:

11. Issue Accepted? X Yes / No – If “No”, give reason: .

Printed: 05/05/05


12. Assigned Issue # and Entitled: . 13. Other CLECs Supporting Issue: .

GENERAL MEETING MINUTES – 3/7/05 – VZ communicated that Directory Listing LVR issues raised within the CUF are being communicated to an internal VZ Directory Listings task force. Though a timeframe for resolving issues could not be provided, VZ agreed to continue providing feedback to the task force and requested that future examples be sent to [email protected]. However, CLECs were urged to follow the existing LVR process in order to have required corrections made. 1/12/05 – VZ will continue to attempt to determine root cause of Wyoming and Richmond LVR errors. Plus, if additional recent examples are provided to [email protected], VZ will investigate. 11/10/04 – CTSI and US LEC required feedback re why listing changes not initiated by CTSI/USLEC were made in the Wyoming Valley, PA (CTSI) LVR and the Richmond, VA (US LEC) LVR. 9/15 – CLECs reported that this problem is with business customers and with both captioned and straightline listings. VZ’s investigation of this issue determined that most of the errors are not in the NMC. When errors are identified, Verizon Information Services is conducting root cause analysis and when appropriate putting fixes in place.

Printed: 05/05/05




#87: – Porting Voice with DSL on Line


1. CLEC NAME:

Comcast Communications


Nancy Sanders 720-267-8321

3. SUBMISSION DATE:

Initially submitted to Change Management on 8/9/04. Transferred to CUF on 10/12.




Repair (Process)



8. DESCRIBE THE ISSUE: Currently when a Verizon East customer has DSL bundled with their voice line and the customer wants to port their voice line only, the CSR receives a reject with a USOC indicating the customer has DSL on their line. At that point, Comcast has to notify the customer to remove their DSL. It is Comcast’s position that 1) the customer should not have to contact Verizon and 2) Comcast should be able to port the voice line without interruption to the data service.

9. PROVIDE EXAMPLE(S): Nelson, Sharon 412-233-3970 Ziecina, Anthony 412-782-1457 Kelley, Sandra 724-258-7586

Ash, Jeff 412-233-3888 Kimmel, Michael 412-766-0902


Printed: 05/05/05


CUF REVIEW DATE:


GENERAL MEETING MINUTES – 3/7/05 – VZ prepared and distributed a 1 page document (attachment A) showing several porting and migration scenarios which were discussed. The parties agreed to the porting scenario (from 1 to 2). VZ will ask Comcast to submit a Type 5 to Change Management for this porting scenario in order to rate it at their April meeting (4/12). The processes related to the migration scenarios where DSL is on the line (1 to 3 and 1 to 4) need further discussion as several CLECs indicated they were interested in retaining the digitally qualified loop when the voice migration took place. This component was not considered when the migration scenario chart was prepared.. 1/12/05 – Peggy Rubino gave a readout of the CLECs meeting on this topic – VLECs want the voice provider to be able to indicate what action should be taken with the data, ie, disconnect or migrate. VLECs would obtain a LOA from the end users granting VLEC authority to move the voice and the data. There was brief discussion including whether slamming rules need to be expanded to include data. Peggy will document the proposed process and review with CLECs. VZ will review the documentation after CLEC review to determine if the solution is feasible. 11/10/04 – This new issue is to develop a process to port the number without the customer having to contact VZ to disconnect the DSL. A subteam headed by Rose Clayton will be established to solicit input from the industry and to address the issue. The first subteam meeting will be held on November 16 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern. This issue will be monitored through the CUF.

Printed: 05/05/05


#88: – Providing Demarc on PAC Orders


5. CLEC NAME:

CTC Communications


Marc MacDonald 508-699-5314

7. SUBMISSION DATE:

Initially sent to Chg Mgmt on August 9, 2004, transferred to CUF on Sept 15, 2004

8. SELECT PRODUCT(S) THIS ISSUE AFFECTS: (Double-click on box(es) to mark) Collocation Line-Sharing Special Access (FCC Tariff) DSL Line-Splitting UNE-Loop Interconnection/IXC LNP UNE-Platform Interconnection/Switched

Access Resale UNE Specials/IOF (Local

Tariffs) OTHER (Please Specify):

11. SELECT THE ISSUE CATEGORY: Pre-Order (Record

Verification) Ordering (Process) Provisioning (Process)

Billing (Process) Maintenance

and/or Repair (Process)

Ancillary Services (OS/DA/DL, etc.)

Other General Issue

12. SELECT STATE(S) WHERE ISSUE OCCURS: Connecticut Maryland New Jersey Rhode

Island Washington,

DC Delaware

Massachusetts New York Vermont West

Virginia Maine New

Hampshire Pennsylvania Virginia Entire

Footprint

13. DESCRIBE THE ISSUE: To flag order for Technician to be dispached to tag demarc.

We have been having several orders go PAC. There is no dispatch to tag the lines and the end user has no idea where the lines are. We then have to go thru repair to tag the lines.

Printed: 05/05/05


14. PROVIDE EXAMPLE(S): Some samples of orders that went PAC, then we needed to issue a trouble ticket which when dispatched on, tech found the lines were not installed and needed to actually run wires or ferret out cable/pairs to complete the install. Kennebunk Savings Bank - moving 207-985-7050 F&T5WM8779, dd 8/19/04 Order went PAC I didn't open the ticket. Kiki O'Donnell, Mgr at NMC issued ticket on 8/20/04. I don't have ticket #. A Verizon tech went out and wired the lines to the RJ21x. Metso Paper-installing 207-283-0363 N5WK8700, dd 8/10/04 Order went PAC Ticket MEAR705325, 8/11/04 Verizon tagged and wired at demarc. Olympia Sports-installing 207-594-0195, 2918 N5QV1526, dd 8/4/04 Order went PAC Ticket MEAR703456, dd 8/5/04 Verizon tech said this demarc was a mess. He cleaned it up, wired and tagged lines at the demarc. SIGCO - New #'s 761-7902, 0683, 2537, 9256.. Order N5SA3536.. Due dated 7/28/04.. We issued tt MEAR683268 Closed with DISP - 341 BA wire... Cause 111 Employee... LInes were not at Dmarc - needed to be wired

15. IF CLEC HAS PROPOSED RESOLUTION, PLEASE DESCRIBE: There is a field on the LSR to flag the order for dispatch. We will not have to duplicate efforts by ordering service and then have to order a repair ticket. 2 entrys for 1 result.

CUF REVIEW DATE:


GENERAL MEETING MINUTES – 3/7/05 – VZ stated that eWPTS can be used to determine demarc on UNE loops. Secondly, there is new functionality in eWPTS that puts tone on a UNE P and/or Reslale Line. CLECs can use this functionality to find their pair. VZ agreed to

Printed: 05/05/05


provide an overview of this functionality. ATX, CTC, Covad, Choice One, Penn Telecom and Mettel expressed interest. Tom Delaney will schedule. 1/12/05 – Today, the same process is followed in wholesale and retail, customers are instructed to contact repair. Tom agreed to continue investigating. 11/10/04 – Tom Delaney explained that retail and wholesale PAC orders are treated the same. It was decided to open this issue to further investigate whether VZ will change procedures and dispatch to tag PAC order lines.

Printed: 05/05/05


#89: – WMC Holding Times


9. CLEC NAME:

Covad Communications


John Boshier 703-376-2960

11. SUBMISSION DATE:

12/9/2004




Repair (Process)



18. DESCRIBE THE ISSUE: This issue is with the WMC and affects all VZ-West states. Covad is experiencing excessive call answer delays at the WMC. It is common to encounter wait times in excess of 10 minutes and in some cases 15 minutes, when attempting to reach a WMC agent. This issue has been an on-going problem at the WMC for many months. Covad has raised the issue to WMC management without seeing sustained improvement.


Printed: 05/05/05


20. IF CLEC HAS PROPOSED RESOLUTION, PLEASE DESCRIBE: Call center staff should be maintained at a level to provide adequate service results. Target answer times should be set at NTE 5 minutes with answer time averages of about 1 minute.

CUF REVIEW DATE:

16. Issue Accepted? Yes / No – If “No”, give reason: . 17. Assigned Issue # 89 and Entitled: WMC Holding Times 18. Other CLECs Supporting Issue: .

GENERAL MEETING MINUTES – 3/7/05 – VZ reported that 20 new associates have been added to handle incoming calls at the WMC. 3 more are to be added in next month. Initial feedback is that the hold times are not as severe as in the past. However, it was agreed to keep this open to get additional feedback and monitor. 1/12/05 – VZ asked CLECs to utilize mechanized trouble reporting systems whenever possible. CLECs encouraged VZ to establish a single trouble reporting system, like VTAG, for reporting a DS1 and DS3 troubles whether they are UNE or Access. The WMC has added 10 new people to handle incoming calls. These people will not be trained and on line until approximately mid-February.

Printed: 05/05/05


#90: – No Facilities Notification


13. CLEC NAME:

ATX Communications


Alex Kuhner – 212-509-4152





Repair (Process)



23. DESCRIBE THE ISSUE: The current “no facilities” order rejection statements conflict with the recent NY PSC ruling on case numbers 02-C-1233, 04-C-0314, and 04-C-0318. This order requires Verizon to conform to the “no facilities” ruling in the TRO, which includes the “mux” as equipment that Verizon is required to place for a UNE order. Therefore, we ask that reason #3, “need to place fiber or mux” be changed to “need to place fiber” and not include instances where a mux is the issue.


Printed: 05/05/05


25. IF CLEC HAS PROPOSED RESOLUTION, PLEASE DESCRIBE: The current “no-facilities” responses are listed here:

1. No repeater shelf in CO or Customer Location/Remote Terminal 2. No apparatus or double Case 3. Need to place fiber or mux 4. Need to turn up shelf or mux 5. No riser cable or buried drop wire if trench or conduit not provided 6. Copper cable defective no spares available-would need to place new cable

(fiber/copper) However, number 3 should read: 3. Need to place fiber

This should be changed across the entire Verizon foot print. The ruling only applies to New York, but Verizon can continue to use the other responses in states where the ruling does not yet apply. Additionally, the “mux” is included in response number 4 already, so removing “mux” from number 3 will make it clearer.

CUF REVIEW DATE:


GENERAL MEETING MINUTES – 3/7/05 – VZ agreed to accept this as a new issue in order to determine the process for addressing the change to no facility response.

Printed: 05/05/05


#91: – E911 Updates


17. CLEC NAME:

MCI


Lissa Provenzo 703-749-7334


3/2/05




Repair (Process)



28. DESCRIBE THE ISSUE:

To improve the current process to update E911 discrepancies or update street address that has been renumbered.

Current process is to send a Move order to correct the E911 or renumbered street address discrepancies which interfere with the customer service.

Steven Cuttle and the NMC requested this to go to the CUF. The NMC has been requesting this for over a year to the policy procedure SMEs at Verizon.

Printed: 05/05/05




Create a process that allows updates without sending a Move order to VZ

CUF REVIEW DATE:

22. Issue Accepted? Yes / No – If “No”, give reason: . 23. Assigned Issue # 91 and Entitled: E911 Updates . 24. Other CLECs Supporting Issue: .

GENERAL MEETING MINUTES – 3/7/05 – VZ agreed to host a separate call with the VZ 911 product manager to review this issue and get input re enhancing the process. CLEC s that expressed interest were: MCI, Trinsic and Mettel.

Printed: 05/05/05

CUF MEETING MINUTES March 7, 2005 Meeting Minutes · March 7, 2005 Meeting Minutes 1. ... A summary...

Documents

Transcript of CUF MEETING MINUTES March 7, 2005 Meeting Minutes · March 7, 2005 Meeting Minutes 1. ... A summary...