Tom Gregson, Metro Teleconnect. Okay, great. If I could have some folks from the dialin sites introduce yourselves, if you d like.

Transcription

1 Verizon Service Group August 13, 2002 Confirmation # Operator: Excuse me everyone, at this time Mr. Ara has now joined. Your lines will be interactive. If you need to mute yourself, please press star then 6. Thank you. Good morning everyone. I think we re finally on track here. I apologize for the delay. We had a problem from our original conference site that was assigned to us, and there was a problem with the out-sound circuit. So, we relocated and we re ready to go. So, what I d like to do is just introduce the folks in the room with me. We ll go around the room and just do basic introductions, and then we ll see who s on the bridge as well. Starting on my left Dorothy Atwell: Pat Pungatori: Mike Key: Nicola Gordon: Charisse Latimer: Nicole Palmer: Dorothy Atwell, AT&T. Joyce Perry, AT&T. Pat Pungatori, WCCC. Tom Gregson, Metro Teleconnect. Mike Key, Metro Teleconnect. Nicola Gordon, (inaudible). Charisse Latimer with (inaudible). Nicole Palmer, Verizon. Okay, great. If I could have some folks from the dialin sites introduce yourselves, if you d like. Lewis Davidoff: Mark Linder: Greg Wardell: Dexter Lilly: Bill Stewart: Lewis Davidoff, VSAT Corporation. Mark Linder, ANNOX. Greg Wardell, CableVision. Dexter Lilly, VarTec Telecom. Bill Stewart, BusTel One.

2 Jim Milner: Alyssa Verbenzo (sp?): Cheryl Peterson: Jane Truant (sp?): Daniel Sauvon (sp?): Andy Sudack (sp?): Jenna Segal: Tom Burrard: Sophia Lewis: Pat Spencer: Pam Long: Peggy Robena (sp?): John Nugent: Gary Coburg (sp?): Terri Clark: Tim Burkhart: Nicole Barnes: Bob Carrias (sp?): Larry Blair: Jim Milner from Quest. Alyssa Verbenzo with WorldCom. Cheryl Peterson, AT&T. Jane Truant, Talk America. Daniel Sauvon, Talk America. Andy Sudack, RCN. Jenna Segal, Broadview. Tom Burrard, COVAD Communications. Sophia Lewis, Verizon OSS. Pat Spencer, CTI TAC Communications. Pam Long, Accenture. Becky King, Verizon. Peggy Robena, Zetel. John Nugent, MetTel. Gary Coburg, MetTel. Terri Clark with COX. Tim Burkhart, Verizon. Nicole Barnes, COX. Bob Carrias, NightFire Software. Larry Blair, Remi Communications. Greg Patenod (sp?): Greg Patenod and Mary Monico with the Interstate Department of Public Service. Okay folks, it looks like we re ready to go. I just wanted to begin with just telling you who s not with us this morning. Kim Brown, who normally discusses topic 75 PAVA uniformity, called us to say that she had

3 nothing to report. She will have some items forthcoming for the September meeting. So, that s our PAVA report for this month. Monica Moore, Director for the website and a number of other areas, topic 77 also nothing to report, but will schedule a WebEx tour, which we ll be announcing through Verizon East Change Management later on this month. So look for that. Nothing outside of Monica s area regarding the website to discuss. But I know WebEx is a big feature going forward for training and so on and so forth it s kind of neat, so. What I d like to do is begin with the next topic then, topic 51, in the WCCC, and we ask Pat Pungatori to cover that. Pat Pungatori: Good morning everyone. Do you have anything, any issues or concerns for the WCCC? Nicole Barnes: Communication. Pat Pungatori: I actually have one this is Nicole Barnes with COX Nicole? Nicole Barnes: Yeah. It was brought to our attention that a ticket was put in for a request that we could not pull a CSR, and that was put in of Friday, and as of Monday morning, we just went ahead as for our information to see if we could try to pull the CSR, and we were able to pull it, but we had never been notified that the ticket, or that the system was refreshed to where we could pull that order. What is the timeline of response resolution notification that the ticket has been resolved? Pat Pungatori: There s really no specific timeline, and I m not sure I d have to actually look at the actual ticket, Nicole, to look to see exactly what happened. Because it could have been a point where we just got notified it had been refreshed and had not been able to get to you, and vice versa. It could have just been a timing issue. Nicole Barnes: Okay, because we still Pat Pungatori: Reported it on Monday and then, I mean on Friday, and then Monday you were able to pull it. Nicole Barnes: Right. I know that she has left the ticket open, and still has not been notified, so Pat Pungatori: Okay, can you give me do you have the ticket number? Or do you want to call me later, or? Nicole Barnes: Actually, you know what? She was here at my desk this morning and didn t have it up, but she was actually going to join the call. Let me her and maybe we can get that really quick for you.

4 Pat Pungatori: Yeah, that would be great. Yeah, because I d like to check that out for you. Okay, so you re going to get me that information, right Nicole? Nicole Barnes: Pat Pungatori: Nicole Barnes: I will. Awesome. Okay, any other questions? No, that s it. Pat Pungatori: Okay, thank you Nicole. Are there any other concerns or issues? All right, well thank you everyone. Pat Carney: billing? Okay. Do we have Pat Carney on the line for billing? Yes, Nick, I m here. Pat, did you want to go over a few things regarding Pat Carney: Sure. Thank you. Good morning everyone. Billing has one item to announce this morning, and this is an update to an item that was originally sent and distributed on June 7 th, on the subject of resale uniformity. I, along with two other members of my organization, will be speaking this morning. I asked for their assistance to cover there are three main areas in resale uniformity that were being faded. Today we re going to talk specifically about some of those areas, which the implementation dates we are deferring, and putting off from the originally scheduled August 19 th date, to dates in October. Just to take a step backwards and refresh everyone s memory, on the June call, my announcement was that Verizon was implementing paper and CABS BOSS BDT functionality changes for resale products throughout Verizon East on August 19, This project will deliver CABS BOSS BDT in a uniform record format throughout Verizon East. All CLECs who use Verizon resale products are affected. Those three areas that I spoke of a minute would be in product usage level discounting, CAB BOSS BDT changes, and resale admin bills. Kathleen Conroy was going to speak on the subject of product and usage level discounting. Kathleen Conroy: Okay, this is Kathleen. Okay, and updated change control went out last Friday to notify you that the product and usage level discounting for the NPD area, for New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware was going to be delayed until October 19 th. The impact that is on our original notice

5 we said the implementation will result in resale discounting being applied at the usage product level. This is the way it s done in New York, New England. This piece of uniformity is going to be delayed until October 19 th, just for the NPD area, meaning that in NDBW, on the 19 th, you will see that resale discounting will be done at each usage and product level, as it s done in the North. And then NPD will be putting that piece in October. This impacts the BDT where you won t get a summary record any longer, a discount summary record in NDBW, because of the release. But in NPD you will still receive that summary record until their release in October. talk? Kathleen Conroy: Kathleen Conroy: Kathleen Conroy: Kathleen, this is Tom Gregson with Metro can I Yeah, hi Tom. Kathleen? Mm hmm. This is Tom Gregson with Metro Teleconnect. Hi, Tom. We ve been made aware recently that with the conversion from Legacy to Express Track on the Simple View product? Kathleen Conroy: Right. That the detail does not exist in the Express Track Simple View at the line level. Have there been any adjustments made to this yet? Kathleen Conroy: know anything? I d have to ask. I wasn t aware of that. Gwen, do you It appears that no one was aware of that problem. Kathleen Conroy: Okay. So you re saying at the line level the discounts weren t appearing in Simple View? No, what s happening is that there s no line detail in Express Track. You can t get it. What we re being told is we went from Legacy to Express Track in the Simple View product, and we re now being told that in

6 order to get the line level detail, we need to get BDT, I mean the DUFF tapes. We didn t set up to get the DUFF tapes. Kathleen Conroy: look at that Okay. Well that s a whole separate issue. I d have to Right, but it impacts what you re talking about because if it s going to be, if the discounts are going to be applied at the line level in the detail, the detail is not there in Express Track Simple View. Kathleen Conroy: records at the line level? Pat Spencer: So you re not receiving usage records or product That s correct. Pat Spencer, you there? Yes, I am. You want to help me out on this one? Pat Spencer: Yeah. The information is not there. It shows up, of course, on the paper bill. And it was there during Legacy, but it has now, since we went to Express Track, it has disappeared at the line level. Kathleen Conroy: charges? Or So you re not getting like day, evening, night usage Pat Spencer: Any of the outbound usages that they make, as far as directory assistance calls, and information of that sort we re not getting. Kathleen Conroy: Pat Spencer: Kathleen Conroy: Kathleen Conroy: It s not showing up at your bill at all? That s right. That s right. So that s a larger problem than just not getting the It s a huge problem. Okay. It s a huge problem that came to light because of the Public Utility Commission of Maryland, when we were requested on a Public Utility complaint filed by one of our end users to provide the detail is when we found out that the detail no longer existed. The Public Utility Commission in Maryland is not real happy with us at this point. And also, if you speak with Ed

7 Amotto (sp?) and his team Dick Nyland (sp?) it was made clear during all the discussions of Express Track that Simple View would have all of the exact same functionality. And now it does not, and nobody wants to do anything about it. Kathleen Conroy: Okay. Well, I ll have to take that back. I mean this discounting piece is not if Simple View is straightened out, obviously your discounting piece will be straightened out. If you re not getting the usage records at all, then the discounting doesn t help you or hurt you, that s not the issue. Right, but it means that I can t touch it. If you don t fix Simple View first, Express Track, the discounting I m not going to see anyway. Kathleen Conroy: Right. But you re not seeing anything anywhere, so that s the problem we have to address. But I ll follow up back with Ed Amotto and see what they re doing (inaudible) you notified the correct people, and I ll have to check back and see what they re doing about it, because it s the first I m hearing about it. Really? Kathleen Conroy: Yeah, because my piece is just the discounting piece. It assumes that everything in production works and you re getting what you need, and we re just updating the discount. half ago. Ed Amotto was made aware of this a month and a Kathleen Conroy: Okay. Like I said, it s the first I m hearing it, so I ll have to get back to you through Ed, and see what they re doing about it. be it for billing? Is it still listed as an item to stay here? Yeah, absolutely. Okay, Pat and everyone, will that Pat Carney: To continue on thank you Kathleen. Does anyone have any other questions on Kathleen s piece of product and usage level discounting? Nicole Barnes: I didn t have any question, but Pat Pungatori, I have that ticket number for you this is Nicole Barnes from COX. Pat Pungatori: Okay. What is it Nicole? Nicole Barnes:

8 Pat Pungatori: today. All right, let me check it out and I ll call you later on Pat Carney: Then to continue on with this billing item the second piece is CABS BOSS (inaudible). In the area of uniformity, there were five categories that were being updated RST/RSE values, local calling plan type codes, uniformity of the sign, usage record sequence, and discount OCC record removal. What we had to defer there was the New York and New England LCPT codes. The plan was that all files in all jurisdictions were going to look like what was in New York and New England. That is going to happen, except for the LCPT codes in New York, in New England. In other words, for those in NPD and NVBW you ll see the new codes coming out as VE appropriate next to bytes of the four character fields, whereas in New York and New England they ll remain at the current values of an X and the next two appropriate characters of that four character field. And again, all other areas for those five areas of this BDT part will remain on track. There was one other NPD for the removal of discount OCC records that is deferred until the 19 th of October, because that s tied with Kathleen s product and usage level discounting. Did anybody have any questions on that second part of this? Okay then, if not, then I ll pass the baton to Gwen Warren, who ll speak to the third and last part, resale bills. Gwen Warren: Good morning everyone, this is Gwen. In the August release, Verizon will be implementing an administrative bill for the former Bell Atlantic South. This is to mirror what they receive in the former Bell Atlantic North. The bill will contain all ancillary charges, and they will be moved from currently from the master account to this separate bill. The first bill that you will actually receive will be your September 1 st bill. The September 1 st bill may, it ll include things such as it ll show you the deposits that are being held on the account, it will show you charges such as dump usage, CSR access, street address guide, OSDA charges, Simple View charges. Now, if these charges are not currently being billed in the south, and the majority of them are not, they will not be moved. But when and if they are instituted into the south, they will then be billed on this administrative bill. And this is also part of the plan of record for uniformity. Are there any questions? Pat Carney: Okay. Gwen, thank you. Nick, that does it for our items today, and I want to thank everyone for bearing with us. It was a little more involved and complicated than most months. You re welcome, Pat. Thank you very much. Nick, I have a question for Pat.

9 Sure. Pat, is there any way you can provide this information beforehand? Because I know you guys come on here and you give us an update, but you talk so fast that, and it s so much to absorb, that by the time you get through what you re talking about, we can t even, we don t even remember what it is you spoke about to ask any questions about it. Is there any way you can provide because we get this from you approximately 3 or 4 days before the meeting. Is there any way you can provide the information you re discussing now with this? Pat Carney: Well, Nick, you might be able to help me here. We had, like you said, when I first started, originally this subject was distributed to the team on June 7 th, and I spoke to it on June 11 th. And this, the information for this update was distributed, I believe on Monday the 12 th, yesterday, and we re speaking of it today. I actually worked from the same documents that Nick s team passes along, so I don t know what else I could send to you. Does that come to us? Let me just say that what Pat just stated is correct. The initial distribution was June 7 th, and that announced the intent to have everything implemented by August 19 th. And then on the 12 th of this month, just a couple of days ago, a day ago, we got, this was distributed out. Okay. All I m just trying to find out it s not part of this document, but it s on another document that you You send an individual document? Right, after the agenda went out. But I would suggest to my Verizon counterparts that if there is anything significant that would maybe involve some detail instead of just a sentence or two that could be quickly jotted down, if you just pass it along to us at Verizon East Change Management, we ll always include it even if it is post-distribution, the 7 day distribution that we always follow prior to the meeting. At least CLECs would have a copy of whatever that would be so they could follow along. It makes it a little easier. Thanks, I appreciate it. Pat Carney: But in this case, the implementation for these resale bill data tape changes did go out. Well, I ll start looking for those so I can bring it, and when he s talking I know what he s talking about. So if I have questions, I can

10 ask. But I did not realize it was going out on separate documents. Thank you, Pat. No problem. Pat Carney: Oh, you re welcome. I actually know I talk a little fast. I apologize for that. I ll try to slow that down in the future announcements. Sorry about that. Thanks, Pat. Anything else from the billing side? Or for the billing side? Okay, the agenda did say website enhancements, Monica Moore. Again, she s not with us today. She ll do a report next month. I just don t want to miss anything here. It looks like we re up to topic 78, which is LSOG 4 sunset. Carol, are you there? Carol Yozo: I m here. Can everyone hear me? I m having a little trouble, I m using a spare phone today. You sound great. Carol Yozo: Okay. Let me start by just giving you a brief overview of what we re doing. We are making progress toward LSOG 5, and thank you to all the CLECs who have already started LSOG 5 because it makes my job a little bit easier to handle. Just to review, we are talking subset of LSOG 5, I m sorry LSOG 4 on February 15 th in the east and we are recommending that CLECs do all they can to get their new activity into LSOG 5 by the end of November. We realize that s not going to be possible in every case, but that is what we re targeting for. And that s so that we can then pay attention to the pipeline, make sure we get that cleared out. I m in the process now of contacting any CLECs that have not started LSOG 5, to find out what your plans are. I am having some trouble getting in touch with people, so I m going to make a request here anyone who is on the call, if you would send me an , and my address is carol.a.yozo@verizon.com, and just give me a contact name and phone number, and very briefly what your plans are for moving to LSOG 5 and any issues you might be having, anything that will prevent, at least an early move to LSOG 5. Any questions? Okay, can everybody hear me still? I m still having trouble with this phone it cuts in and out. Yeah, we can hear you. Carol Yozo: Okay. So that s all I have to cover today. Are there any questions from any CLECs? Okay, then thank you. And I would, really would appreciate if you could get that to me with the contact information.

11 Okay, great. Well, we started a half hour late and somehow we wound up 15 minutes early I don t know how that happens, it s kind of a black hole of time. Anyway, okay. I d like to move on to change control items by release, June, or July, August, and October unless someone has anything else they d like to bring up before we move into that? Okay, Becky? Yes, I m here. Normally Becky is with me here in New York she decided to stay away. I don t know why. Becky, take it away. It was nothing personal. I know, I know. Okay. We re going to the document that s called change control items by release, and it s a 29-page document. Unidentified Speaker: on the bridge. Unidentified Speaker: Whoever is shuffling papers, it s really difficult to hear It s probably me, I m sorry. Thank you. The first item to discuss is on page 2 of 29. And it s CR 2594, the electronic listing verification report via STP that we discussed last month. And currently that s distributed via U.S. Mail in the north, and also we have a paper document, it s mailed. And this was to put it on a STP server, so that you would have a report that could be sorted more easily. Information went out about that, a bulletin was distributed on July 26 th giving the detail of the report and the format layout. Becky, excuse me. I m getting a lot of stray conversations in the background. If you re not participating, really right now, Becky s reading something important, please put your speakerphone, or your headphone, or something, on mute. Thank you. Okay. There was a bulletin distributed on July 26 th that explained the format of the file layout, and also how to apply for access to the report. Okay, the next new item is on page 14 of 29, and this is CR 905. And this is to have the ability to, well it s changing the existing capitalization logic associated with the listing address locality. And the purpose of this was so that CLECs could enter, for the ones that are shown here, an abbreviated community name, and then they could use what s returned on pre-order when they go to order their service. It s only for Massachusetts, Main, and New Jersey.

12 On that same page, change request it has a to be determined message there. That message has been removed, and it has been replaced with 7020HT16, and the text on that is the HID, the HID on LSR, not on CSR. And I ll update that when I send out this documentation again. Okay, the next request is on page 27 of 29, and it s initiative And it s the X.6 bill analysis tool for Verizon. The objective of a bill analysis tool is to provide small, medium, and large resellers the ability to mechanically manipulate billing data as they deem necessary, in a high volume environment. The application resident on the CD-ROM will enhance the resellers ability to analyze their billing data. In addition, the bill manager format functionality reduces the potential for claims, because the reseller can audit the bill easier than in a paper environment. And there should be more information that comes from billing on this tool. And those are the new requests that have come in. Any questions? Okay, thank you. Thanks, Becky. I think what I d like to go over, if there are no objections from the participants, is Tim Burkhart s LSI user form it s a good time to do that. And now I know that Tim did distribute this earlier to CLECs via Verizon East Change Management I think it was back on the 9 th. So Tim, would you like to go over this now? Tim? Hello? something else? Pat Pungatori: Nicole Barnes: Pat Pungatori: not in my office, so Let me see if I can get in touch in Tim. Can you go to Sure will. Okay, Nicole Nicole Barnes. Yes. Could you just give me your callback number I m Nicole Barnes: Sure area code Pat Pungatori: Okay, thanks. I wonder if I could actually, without damaging things too much, go over some of the things that Tim had to cover? I have it with me, I m sure I do.

13 No, they were sent out, they were documents sent out let me start what Tim Burkhart was going to cover, because it looks pretty straightforward here. There were some documents sent out back on August 9 th, the afternoon of August 9 th, regarding the local service interface, which of course if the web GUI phase 3, we don t use the term web GUI anymore, but. And there s a cover letter, and I guess I could read that. It says, Verizon invites CLECs that are currently using the local service interface to participate in a user forum. The mission of the local service interface user forum is to meet and exchange information on the processes, format, and functionality of the LSI. Verizon would like one or two current users from each company to join this group. Each CLEC should submit the names of their representatives by Friday, August 16 th, 2002, and please complete the attached form and return to Verizon East Change Management at verizon.com. Tim Burkhart: Tim Burkhart: Tim Burkhart: Hey, Nick? Yeah, hey Tim. I m back. I got cut off a few minutes ago, so Yeah, this isn t a good day for dial-ins. I don t think so, it just threw me out, so Well, anyway, I started going over the cover letter, and I guess you could take it from the first session day. Tim Burkhart: Okay. The first session is going to be on Tuesday, August 20 th. This will be a monthly meeting. It will be on the, actually it s going to be the third Tuesday of the month through the rest of the year, without a meeting in December, okay? So it ll be for August, September, October, and November. And basically it s a way to get feedback from our customers, in terms of how they re using the local service interface and what they like, what they don t like. Are there any questions? Laurie Anne: Tim, this is Laurie Anne from Allegiance. Is the audience that you re looking for the people who use the LSI to process orders? Tim Burkhart: currently for processing. Laurie Anne: Orders, pre-order, yeah. Anybody that s using the LSI Thank you. Bertha Wisensee (sp?): This is Bertha Wisensee from Curry Communications. Would this be the forum to discuss questions on how the LSI, not necessarily the

14 form of exchanging information, but the form itself has changed? There are certain fields, which are no longer utilized, but yet are posted on the resale page, or the directory-listing page. Tim Burkhart: Well, you currently yeah, that would be something we could discuss at that group. Bertha Wisensee: Okay. All righty, very good. John Burrard: This is John Burrard from COVAD. I m trying to find a copy of that memo. You said it went out on the 9 th? Eastern Time. It went out on August 9 th. You know, I have 4:11 p.m. Yeah, I got it yesterday. John Burrard: Oh yeah additional meeting materials for the 8/13 Verizon East OSS interface change management meeting. John Burrard: on this? Teleconnect. Tim Burkhart: So, if you look at that, you ll see it attached up front. Got it, thanks. You re welcome. Okay, any other questions for Tim Hey, Tim, this is Tom Gregson with Metro Yes, Tom? Have you spoken to Diane Yeager (sp?) in the last 24 hours? Tim Burkhart: Tim Burkhart: Tim Burkhart: I have not. You had wanted her to run that test for you. Yes. But she never got the ? Right, I haven t sent it yet.

15 that? Tim Burkhart: Okay, hearing nothing Oh, all right. Would you contact her and let her know Sure. Thanks. Thanks, Tom. Anyone else for Tim on the LSI? I have a question. Sure, go ahead. There, CRs that are candidate for October as of today s date, and are not committed yet, can they get committed by October, for October release? Becky? Becky, what do you think? My 2452 and 53 they re still candidates. Is it possible to get those committed for October? We are still working on that. Let me Okay, we re at the point right now, and it s only 5 after 11 I would say we can just go right on through to the new CLEC CRs. Can we take about a 10-minute break so I could call the people of Verizon that have CRs on here? Sure. Since they re planning of being here at one. Oh, okay. Gotcha, that s true. And Nick? Yes. This is Elliott I hate to say this, but there may be CLEC people that were not planning to call in till one. That s true. I think that that happened last month.

16 I hear your point, Elliott. So what do we do? Take a long lunch hour? Well, would the participants that s quite a while, but Right. And Nick, also I was looking for some followup after last month s meeting this is Alyssa about the CR Initiative , the resale CLEC embargo. Was I to get that for you, Alyssa? Right. There was some additional clarification. Right. Right. And I don t see like the formal letter process, and also I had some concerns I m not certain if this is a new error code, but it s kind of confusing, because it s telling you three different messages state invalid or missing, or action not certified in state. I mean, is that an old error message and it just, we might just have to change the? My understanding is that they are not new error messages. So what you re looking for is some kind of a bulletin to be sent out? No, I just think you were supposed to follow-up with some information from last month s meeting. Well, the information that I got was that they were all existing error codes, and that error code 8001 has a new message to an existing error code, and that, and then I made a correction that what last month said ACBA, should have been ACNA ACNA certification date failure. When I asked further for someone to explain to me in other words what the embargo is, basically it s if the CLEC has not paid their bill then there would be embargo action taken. But if you re looking for something formally in the form of a bulletin, then I can talk to the product manager for this, and they would send out Okay. Yeah, because I d like to get some additional, better clarification, and I know that there s a formal letter, and I just wanted to have a clearer understanding of it. This is Tom Gregson with Metro Teleconnect. I agree with Alyssa this should be a detailed process. You should tell us exactly step by step, from day one to dead day, what is going to happen and how it s going to happen in this process.

17 And I m not quite certain why these and I ve just a question that I m just thinking out loud, I guess but the error message related to that, are they really, I would think that if it s not a, the ACNA (inaudible) the LSP table, it would be irrelevant to this subject. I m just trying to think of why these certain I mean, how would you associate these error codes logically with a resale or CLEC embargo? Why wouldn t you just create another one? I would think 8001 might be either appropriate, but I m just trying to have, understand the logic here. Bertha Wisensee: Excuse me, this is Bertha from Curry Communications. What is that error message that s being identified as resell CLEC embargo? There s four of them 8001, 8200, 8201, and Bertha Wisensee: Okay, can you repeat that? 8001, , Bertha Wisensee: Okay. Thank you. You re welcome. I m just Bertha Wisensee: Now, do we anticipate these codes to change, please? Is that what we re talking about here? And I agree with the gentlemen who said that there should be a detailed process. No, we don t anticipate these error codes to change, and I ll see who I can get a detailed process from. that (inaudible). Okay. And I think Mike Toothman enlightened me I m sorry, I couldn t hear How did that get so high up and get moved in front of some of the other changes? I m sorry Mike Toothman was indicating that there s like a formal process, a letter that goes out, et cetera, and it s just be nice just to see all the, what they re planning to do.

18 Becky, Tom has a question about this one being moved up. Was it in fact moved up ahead of the others? Who initiated this one, Becky? Well, it was initiated within Verizon. Right. How long ago? I don t know that. Who initiated it, do you know? Well, let me see. I don t know, but I can find that out. Tom, which page is that on? 8 of 29. I mean, this is a Verizon collections procedure that s being handled here, with no detail with it. And it s basically this would be a piece directed at the rest of us on this phone. I think detail would be a really, really good thing to provide for us. process. So, what you re asking for is you want the detail of the Right. Before this thing is ever implemented number one, who initiated it? And then let s get that person to tell us everything that goes with this. This is a collection procedure, is what you re putting in here. This is somebody s late on their bill and this is going to give you a really big hammer to say, pay your bill or else. If there s a dispute issue out there, this is leverage for you to shut us down. I think that being forthcoming with a lot of detail would be a good thing here. Okay. And that s a good point about the dispute. I think everybody audits and disputes. So, is there a timeframe? Are they looking at a 30-day, or sometimes some ILECs look at 15 days after the bill has been distributed. So that kind of detail would be really helpful. Alyssa? Yes? Wouldn t you agree that this should probably be removed from the August release until all the detail is forthcoming?

19 Well, yeah, that would be great. I m trying to decide the state tariff it s not, I have to brush up, I m not certain with a change request type 2 if the regulatory initiated, or if this is a filed state tariff, if this is a new procedure that you re doing. Well, we have the New York Public Utility Commission on the phone, don t we? Public Service Commission? Greg Patenod: Greg Patenod: Yeah, we re here. Did you guys initiate this? I m not aware of this myself, no. I mean, doesn t this seem like we re pushing forward, Verizon s pushing forward with a collection tool that maybe wasn t initiated correctly? Sorry guys, nothing personal. this, within a week. business procedure. I ll see what I can find out and something out before Yeah, I m just trying to understand the policy and According to this it goes into effect in four days. Can we stop it until we get more detail? to break, I ll talk to him. I don t know. Well, who would? You can talk to Mike Toothman. Becky, can you give him a call? Yup. Get him to join us? Well, he s on another call right now, but when we stop Perhaps Mike could join us at 1 o clock? I don t think he can, but I ll ask him.

20 Well, 12:30 is good. Go get em, Elliott. Well, we ll pass on lunch. Let s do it at noon. Well, the reason I say that is he s leaving here to go to New Jersey, so he may be in travel but I ll see if he can. hear me now? Oh, come on. He has a cell phone. Does he have Verizon cell phone service? Can you Loud and clear. Okay. Tom, all I m doing is backing you up. Thank you, sir. So we ll clearly take this back to Mike one way or another. If we can get him on the bridge, on the call as soon as possible, let s put it that way, we ll do that. Hearing your sentiment, and duly noted and all of that, so we ll move this to the top of the heap for sure. Right and just Nick, this is Alyssa again just to be sensitive when you re doing a business process change. I mean it would be nice just to get this up front before the change management meeting, so that we can be a little more prepared for you. And too, instead of just a little bullet, because sometimes we just don t find out about these things until these meetings, which would helpful. Okay. Heard you loud and clear. We ll take this right to the top, as I mentioned before. Now, where are we now, folks? Elliott, I know you did say that prioritization should wait until more or less the scheduled time, which is one o clock. Well, I just feel that other CLECs may have, or various people may have scheduled their day to join a meeting that they thought was at one o clock, and we have no way of knowing who they are, or advising them that we re going to start early. Right, okay. So that s fair enough. I mean, if you d like, we can reconvene. I can actually shut down the bridge, bring it up at one o clock, and we can pick it up from prioritization as scheduled. If that s what you want, it s your meeting.

21 Well, my suggestion might be that, as per Tom and Alyssa s issue, that you take a list of us who want to join in on it, and soon as Mr. Toothman s available, perhaps you could call us, or whatever, and we can all bridge together. But in case I can t get him, Elliott I mean, again, I m going to take this to the top, but I don t want to stop prioritization either, you know? Right. I probably don t expect to hear from Michael today if he s on route to New Jersey. We ll do everything we can to get him, okay? And again, hearing what you ve said I would just like to, and we can leave the bridge open and we could just chat away, but I think that would be a waste of everyone s time. You can use this time for something else and get back at one o clock on this bridge number, and if anything comes up, we ll make sure Mike is the first one to speak at one. Okay. Nick, I just have one question for you. Tomorrow we re still scheduled for the pending order process discussion, correct? morning. Yes. We have a pending order call tomorrow Okay. And will Mike Toothman be on that tomorrow? I don t know. I would imagine he would, but I can t answer for him, you know? I m going to try to be on that. I have like three calls at that hour, but this is important, too. just asked that. I saw that his name was a chairperson, so that s why I Well, do you want to address this then, Alyssa? Well, we could have him talk about it after. Just in all fairness to Mike, instead of dragging him in I don t mind hanging in a little longer on that call. I just want to know the process, because I know other ILECs have put a different audit process where after 15 day they put kind of like,

22 somewhat of embargo I don t want to call it that but, many cases, everyone s billing cycles differently, so that s what I m just trying to understand here. Well, another question here, Alyssa, is how we re going to deal with the current disputes with Verizon. A lot of us have huge disputes outstanding now over issues that have not been resolved, because the dispute group Mr. Sampson once upon a time, and currently Mr. Morton can t seem to get anything solved. And then we have the January 01 letter that everybody got hit with, and it sounds like now Verizon is geared up to shut some of our services down. You know, how s it drop in on July 2 nd and get committed by August 17 th, that quickly? So it needs to get the plug pulled on it until we all get comfortable with it, I think. Nick, perhaps would the project manager, product manager know a little bit more than what Mike would, or? when we break. Well, the other thing is Well, I ll try to get in touch with the product manager Okay. You know, some of these disputes, I would assume, Tom and Alyssa, and correct me if I m wrong these are all really claims that you ve put in. Claims against a bill. And I know that New York regulatory is on, and I know that as part of the VIB case, Verizon committed to resolve disputes in 30 days. I got 2 year old disputes. Excuse me? I got 2 year old disputes, claims, with Verizon. Tom, I m not disagreeing with you I do too. What I m saying is I don t propose Verizon be allowed to do any embargoing or anything else until they achieve that 30 day standard. And I address that to the regulatory folks. Greg Patenod: Yeah. The fact that this is going on, I don t think that there s final resolutions in that group that was looking at the billing question issues. Well, I sit on that group, and it s going to the commission in September, and I think this is all premature.

23 Greg Patenod: Well, I would agree. I just want to point out that there s nothing final has been presented to the commission yet that s all I was saying. Well, in that case and I understand, but Verizon has participated in that group. They are aware of the conclusions, they did agree to parts of it, parts of that are consensus. They re the ones that came up with the 30 day standard. Greg Patenod: Right, and I would agree. It seems like you would want to wait until that process is done before you would want to make the changes that are proposed here. How do you get it pulled? I m sorry? How do we get it pulled then? Well, we got two choices. I guess, and I don t mean to pick on the Verizon guys, Nick, but Verizon can either gracefully pull this, pending the New York Commission s action, or we can all draft a lovely letter to the judge, asking for a stay effective immediately which I don t think Verizon would like. Well, Elliott, what I ll do is I ll escalate it to Mike, and he ll take the next step from there. That sounds great. And again, I m not trying to put anybody in the middle, Nick, but it just seems that there s a process going on to resolve timetables and everything else, and to do this in the middle of everything is sort of taking the work we ve all been doing Verizon and the CLECs since, what, last November, December? And Verizon is saying, Well, we weren t really serious. We did this just to buy time and distract y all. Again, I hear you and I understand what you re saying. Let me get with Mike. Bertha Wisensee: Excuse me, this is Bertha with Curry Communications. Are we only discussing potential embargo for CLECs and resellers in New York, or is that cover all the footprint? All of the footprint. That would be just for the east region, right?

24 Yeah, north and south Verizon East. Yeah, the only thing is, what Verizon tends to do tends to be 14 state common, which is why I raise the point. Bertha Wisensee: And again, this is Bertha Elliott, you represent I m sorry, I joined the meeting late. Bertha Wisensee: I m with MetTel M-E-T capital T-E-L. And may I have a phone number for you, sir? Sure can 607, rather Bertha Wisensee: That s ? Bertha Wisensee: Bertha Wisensee: You got it. Thanks buddy. Any time. All right, thank you. Again, this is Bertha. Okay folks let me do this, it s almost 11:30. I m going to basically hang up the phone, but we ll pick it up at one o clock and we ll go to prioritization, and I hope to have something from Mike by then, or Mike on the phone by then, to lead things off with that. All right. We can also do it at the end of prioritization if he, if it suits his schedule better. one. That s fine. We re flexible? Thank you. Don t laugh, Gregson. Okay folks. We ll rejoin the same bridge number at Hello?

25 Nancy Donovan: Mary Monico: PUC. Hi, it s Nancy Donovan. Mary Monico and Greg Patenod from the New York Hey folks, this is Nick Ara it s a couple of minutes past one. I d like to begin. Becky, have you returned? I guess folks are starting to trickle back. What I ll do is wait a couple of minutes more, then we ll get started. Thank you for rejoining us at one. left off with ? Hello? Hello? Yes? This is Becky King. Hi. Is this the prioritization meeting? Yes, it is. Oh, okay. I just thought I m sorry? Okay. Well, Becky? Yes? I guess we can begin. I ve got like 5 past one. Okay. What would you like to do? Pick it up from where we We can do that. Okay. Okay. This is the information that I ve gotten, is that the embargo is not a new process, and that the process is explained in the state tariffs, or your interconnection agreement. And this initiative was to ensure that the embargo could be applied by jurisdiction in product, and that it will not restrict billing or DUF feeds, or your access to repair. According to Mike, if you don t feel that this should go into the release, that you should follow the change management escalation process, which basically is to send, have your director

26 send him, as the Director of Change Control, an and it explains it in the Change Management process of what should be included in that. Okay, Becky? Yes? This is a type 2, which means it s regulatory mandate. Right. Which regulatory authority mandated it? I don t know. I looked to see if I could find, but according, from what I understand, according to the state tariffs, you should embargo by state, be able to embargo by state and product. No, I understand that, but type 2 is reserved for a change that directly corresponds to a regulatory mandate. Okay, or a tariff. To a regulatory mandate. Just a regulatory mandate it s got nothing to do with the tariff. A regulatory board has to have stepped forward and said, You must do this. So what Elliott s asking is who said it? Right. And if it was not in result to a specific regulatory mandate, then it should be a type 4. If it is a type 4, then it should have been voted on and prioritized. Okay. I agree with you, if it s a type 4, it should have been, but I keep getting told it s a type 2. I understand that, but the point that I m making is type 2 are reserved for specific regulatory mandates. We ve gone around this loop before, where we thought Verizon was unduly putting things in the wrong category. I would like to know, if at all possible, by to the concerned parties, exactly what regulatory authority mandated this. And I really would, if possible, and I don t mean to pick on you, I m just trying to be very precise, because the issues come up and anybody on the call feel free to correct me but I would also like to know, not only which board, i.e. was it the New York PUC, the Jersey PTU, the Pennsylvania whatever but what the citation is, i.e. where and when did they do that so I can look it up on their website.

27 don t put this through. If you don t have that, Becky if y all don t have that, Okay. Well, then again, per Mike, send in an escalation to him through , stating why, following the escalation process of why it shouldn t go in. And he also said if you want to him in writing what your concerns are and what you want answered, then he ll try to answer those things. What state tariff are you referring to, Becky, when you talk about referencing a state tariff to find out about a product? I mean, I m sure that there are several things that we could reference a state tariff. And I don t know which one. I tried to go look, and I can t get into tariff stuff right now. Right. And then also, I was just wondering what the citing is, and then why would this be any different? This business procedure. If you re trying to understand it, why would this be any different, to reference a tariff versus the other products? Well, it shouldn t be different, if it s not legitimately I mean, we haven t been deferred there before, so I m just trying to understand, I guess. And I can t explain that. I was told that it was a type 2, and it was a type 2 because of the state tariffs. That doesn t qualify it to be a type 2, by the procedures Verizon agreed on. Okay. So do you want to vote on it as a type 4? than Well, you ve got it as already committed. I mean, I don t know what to do at this point, other Well, if it s a type 4, then I need a lot more understanding of what it is and what it will do before I can vote on it. But Elliott, I don t know that we don t have mandate for this, so maybe it is a type 2 and we just don t know. I wouldn t vote on something that s I don t see what voting would accomplish. We ve got to see why it s a type 2, and maybe in fact it s a type 2 and somebody left out a number

28 off the description or something, which you, or by you or someone documenting this in an to Mike, Mike Toothman, you can get a little more clarity. Tariff? Becky, do you know if this is a New York Wholesale My understanding was that there s a, it s a tariff in several, in different states. Right, because you don t have wholesale tariffs filed everywhere. I mean there are some Right. I tried to go look at New York, but I couldn t get into it, so no, I can t tell you. So, that would be another question that should be sent to Mike, of what tariff is it. Why are we sending this to Mike? Well, because you all asked that this be pulled out of the release, and Mike s response to that is that it needs to be sent through the escalation process to have it pulled out. If you guys broke the rules and submitted a type 2 Well, I don t know that we did, but okay. Well that s can I finish? If y all did that, wouldn t you want to make sure that you re not breaking the rules by handling that yourselves? Well I guess my point is that if you want it pulled out of the release, it s not going to get pulled out unless it gets sent through an escalation. If y all submit this and y all didn t have regulatory mandate to do it, it ll be my attorney that ll deal with y all at that point. Mm hmm, okay. I mean, wouldn t you want to avoid doing that? Well, sure I d want to avoid doing that. Mike made the decision, so you should go to Mike because Becky can t do anything for you.

29 I m trying to get Becky to go back to Mike and talk to Mike about it and deal with this themselves, and not have me do work for Verizon. Well, I ve already gone to Mike, and he s not available right now, so I m trying to relay the process that he feels should be used. Are you going to speak to him again this afternoon? I ll try to, yes. Let me give you my number change requests? Okay. Thank you. You re welcome. Okay, shall we move on to the new I ve got a request before, if it s okay with wait a minute, let me stop for one second, I apologize. Becky, I m, I want to make sure that I m clear on asking for one thing the regulatory board that mandated this, I want an telling me who the regulatory board was that mandated this requirement. I don t think that s an unreasonable request. Somebody initiated it. Somebody had to hear from someone to make this request I want to know who that is. All righty? Okay. Yeah. And this is Tom, or is this? This is Tom. Yeah, okay. How could you confuse us, Becky? Well This is Elliott, I m the mild mannered one. Well, that s why I wasn t sure. I ve got nicer hair than him. Okay.

30 you saying y all for? Jeff: Plus Tom says y all a lot. Oh, all right. But he s from Pennsylvania what are That s the New Orleans coming out of him. All right. It s Jeff I d like to say I ve got a couple Tom has a request, if it s okay with everyone else 2612 global blocking. this was a medium. Yeah. Can we do that one first, Becky? Okay. The floor is yours, Tom. The level of effort of A medium? Yes. What do you mean? Well, we give a level of effort of either high, medium, or low, and it was a medium. Okay. The block is pretty straightforward for the CLEC community. It s a level 4 block. It s available, it is supposed to be available within resale. It is being used by Verizon in a retail environment right now, but for some reason it s not available in the wholesale blocking matrixes. It s been left off. However, it does work. Some of us in the wholesale community have used it and it does go through, and it does perform as it s supposed to. We d like it actually listed available for resale, as it should be, and we d like to get it available for UNI-P. Okay. There aren t if you look through the blocking matrixes, for those of you not familiar there is not a block like this in UNI-P. The block will block inter and intra directory assistance, 700, 900, collect, and third party. It s the highest level of blocking there is in New York. This is for New