Verizon Internal August 10, 2004 Confirmation #6076636 Operator: Good morning everyone. At this time Mr. Tom Rodgers is now joining the teleconference call. All lines will be completely interactive so if your speaker phone has a mute button please use that. If not then simply hit star, six; that will mute and unmute your own lines. Mr. Rodgers sir, you may begin. Tom Rodgers: Thank you. This is the Change Management call for August. My name is Tom Rodgers. Joining me here at 1095 is: Sandra Post: Sandra Post. Sandra Post: Sandra Post from Verizon, sorry about that. Catherine Hanlon: Catherine Hanlon (sp?), Bridgecom. Beth Cohen: Beth Cohen, Verizon. Deborah Crisp: Deborah Crisp for Verizon. Tom Rodgers: Could I ask the folks on the bridge to introduce themselves this morning please. Rose Clayton: Rose Clayton, Verizon. Tom Rodgers: Hello Rose. Rose Clayton: Good morning. Lisa Provenzo: Lisa Provenzo with MCI. Tom Rodgers: Where are you? Lisa Provenzo: Hi, I’m speaking from Newport, Rhode Island, so I’m here in Virginia. Tom Rodgers: Good for you. Susan Pistacchio: Lisa you came to Newport and you didn’t visit me! This is Sue. Susan Franklin: Hi, Susan Franklin here. Tom Rodgers: Hi Sue. Janice Ziegele: Janice Ziegele from Broadview. Jan Tanzer: Jan Tanzer from Verizon. Stephen Cuttle: Stephen Cuttle from Verizon. Tom Rodgers: Hey Stephen. Stephen Cuttle: Hi Tom. Lisa Lipuma: Lisa Lipuma with Verizon. Tom Rodgers: Hi Lisa. (Inaudible) Verizon. Bennie Almas: Bennie Almas with Neustar. Tom Rodgers: Hi Bennie, good morning. Joe Cambria: Joe Cambria Verizon. Tom Rodgers: Hello Joe. John Olson: John Olson from Verizon.

Page 1 of 33

Tom Rodgers: Hello John. Richard Handley: Richard Handley from Ntelos. Tom Rodgers: I’m sorry; could I have your name please? Richard Handley: Richard Handley from Ntelos. Tom Rodgers: Oh, hello Richard, how are you? Richard Handley: Pretty good. Tammy Swenson: Tammy Swenson, Accenture. Tom Rodgers: Hi Tammy. Tammy Swenson: Good morning. Teresa Castro: Teresa Castro, Vartec. Tom Rodgers: Hi Teresa. Teresa Castro: Good morning. Gail Gissendanner: Gail Gissendanner from Cox Communications. Tom Rodgers: Hi Gail, good morning. Gail Gissendanner: Good morning. Mya Mistry: Mya Mistry, CGI AMS Tom Rodgers: I’m sorry I didn’t catch your first name. Mya Mistry: Mya Mistry, CGI AMS Tom Rodgers: Hi Mya. Mya Mistry: Hi Tom. Lisa Peterson: Lisa Peterson, Verizon. Tom Rodgers: Hi Lisa. Lisa Peterson: Good morning. Pam Beattie: Pam Beattie, DSCI Tom Rodgers: Hi Pam. Pam Beattie: Good morning. Julie Lever: Julie Lever from Verizon. Tom Rodgers: Hi Julie. Julie Lever: Hi Tom. Nancy Sanders: Good morning Tom, Nancy Sanders from Comcast. Tom Rodgers: Hi Nancy, good morning. Jennifer Koonz: Jennifer Koonz from Broadview. Tom Rodgers: OK. Can I have the male voice that tried to introduce themselves. Paul Haven: Paul Haven from Verizon. Tom Rodgers: Oh, we thought you were coming out.

Page 2 of 33

Paul Haven: Yes, I thought so too. Tom Rodgers: All right. Carol Yozzo: Hey Tom, it’s Carol Yozzo from Verizon. Tom Rodgers: Hey Carol. Loriann Ercan: Hi Tom, its Loriann from XO. Tom Rodgers: Hi Loriann. We have a person from Broadview that we didn’t catch their first name. Jennifer Koonz: Jennifer Koonz. Tom Rodgers: Hi Jennifer. Jennifer Koonz: Hi. Angela Campbell: Angela Campbell from Verizon. Tom Rodgers: Hi Angela. Tim Burkhart: Tim Burkhart from Verizon. Tom Rodgers: Hello Tim. Tim Burkhart: Hi Tom. Peggy Rubino: Peggy Rubino, Z Tel. Tom Rodgers: Hi Peggy. Peggy Rubino: Hi. Tina Marques: Tina Marques, Verizon. Lisa Menadue: Lisa Menadue from Verizon. Tom Rodgers: Hi Lisa. Lisa Menadue: Hi. Annemarie Sturtz: Annemarie Sturtz from Choice One. Tom Rodgers: Hi Annemarie. Annemarie Sturtz: Hi Tom. John Boshier: John Boshier, Covad. Tom Rodgers: Hey buddy, how are you? Beth Cohen: Nobody is here! John Boshier: I haven’t been yet. Nick Umrani: Hi Tom, this is Nick from Verizon. Nick Umrani. Tom Rodgers: Hello Nick, good morning. Doc Matthews: Tom, its Doc Matthews from Penn Telecom. How are you sir? Tom Rodgers: Doing well Doc. Doc Matthews: Hey Tom. Tom Rodgers: Sure.

Page 3 of 33

Doc Matthews: Did I mention to you that there’s a golf course three miles up the road from us if you ever want to host this conference nearby? Tom Rodgers: There you go. Beth Cohen: Where are you Doc? Tom Rodgers: There you go, road trip. Elliott are you out there? Doc Matthews: Yes, where’s Met-Tel? Joanne Thetga: Joanne Thetga from Verizon. Tom Rodgers: Hello Joanne, good morning. Joanne Thetga: Hi Tom. Rich Brauchle: Rich Brauchle, AT & T. Tom Rodgers: Hey Rich. Rich Brauchle: How you doing Tom? Tom Rodgers: The usual suspects. Joyce and Elliott, will be the two missing. Should we wait just a little bit longer for them or proceed? OK, let’s go. Doc Matthews: Hey Tom. Tom Rodgers: Yes Doc? Doc Matthews: I emailed Elliott earlier today and didn’t get a response. Maybe he is not in. Tom Rodgers: OK. Well he certainly knows how to reach us. Lisa Lipuma: Hey Tom this is Lisa. I didn’t get the agenda. Is there anybody that could send it to me? Tom Rodgers: Sure, thanks for reminding me. For those that might be on the call for the first time, the meeting material is available on the website. I assume you can get to the Verizon wholesale website, under OSS Interface Change Management, and you’re looking for the current month. There’s two pdf documents there; you would open the first and the agenda is in that first attachment. And if anyone has any more difficulty or needs more instruction on that, Joan Costello is on line with us and she could go off line with you and help you get there if you needed to. OK. Carol Yozzo has been giving us an update on the Pennsylvania OSS uniformity project, either in the East or the West CMP meetings for, I guess, four years now. I’m guessing. And Carol I kind of hate to see this project wrap up. Carol Yozzo: Yes, I feel the same way. (Inaudible) Carol Yozzo: Well you will be hearing from me on other topics anyway so it’s sort of not so bad. Anyway, what I am glad to say that we completed the full conversion in July, the weekend of July 17th/18th so now all of the former GTE accounts have been converted over to our Verizon East systems. I don’t really have too much more to say about that. I know that there are still a few CLECs that are working directly with Julie on any questions that they have resulting from the conversion. Other than that this project is wrapping up. Do you have any questions on it? Tom Rodgers: I have one Carol. Would you send me a summary for the statement so I can close the issue out. Carol Yozzo: Sure. Tom Rodgers: OK, great. Nice job and we will talk to you here in a few minutes about the other project. Carol Yozzo: I just want to say one more thing though about the project and really most of the credit goes to Kim Brown for doing a great job on organizing and coordinating the entire project. A lot of people had their hands in this one and I agree, a great job by everyone.

Page 4 of 33

Tom Rodgers: OK. Lisa is joining us to continue a discussion about the consolidation of the carrier access billing system. Lisa good morning. Lisa Peterson: Good morning Tom, thanks. Yes I did send out notification last week and I hope everyone has received me. At this point there will be a sixty day delay in the conversion beginning with New Jersey. We just wanted to allow some more time for our user acceptance testing so rather than start to receive the consolidated bills with the August bill period it has been pushed off until October. Along with that the other States of course move out kind of at the same time. So the current schedule would be October for New Jersey, November for Pennsylvania and Delaware and then for every VW it affects we’re going to be January 1st. I’ve fulfilled I think all of the requests that are out there for old band/new band information. If anybody continues to need old band/new band information my email is lisa.a.peterson@verizon.com or you can give me a call on 301-236-8148. There’s also a bill message page that’s being included with all of the August bills basically saying the exact same thing as the industry letter. The industry letter about the delay can be found on the wholesale website under Industry Letters and I think that’s probably about it. Was there any questions? OK Tom. Tom Rodgers: Thanks Lisa. Linda why don’t you introduce yourself? Linda Dorsey: Sure. Good morning, Linda Dorsey from the PFC. Tom Rodgers: Welcome. We’ve just reviewed the Pennsylvania uniformity project which is completed and Lisa just gave us an update on consolidation of the CABS billing system. There’s a sixty day delay noted on there. The next topic is actually a Type 5 change request that Sue wanted to discuss alternatives on how we implement it. Sue if I understood our discussion we wanted to know if you wanted to do this discussion here or later this morning. Sue Pistacchio: During the prioritization, yes. I mean basically we can only manage to solicit approval from the CLEC community to implement an immediate process change or response to this Type 5 request. So I can talk about it now or during prioritization when we talk about the Type 5s. I just wanted to have it flagged, so which does the community prefer? Tom Rodgers: Rich with AT & T, do you know if Joyce or Gloria will be attending? This was their initiative. Rich Brauchle: Not aware of that Tom. I’ll see if I can raise them, OK? Tom Rodgers: OK. Rich Brauchle: Joyce and Gloria? Tom Rodgers: One or the other please. Rich Brauchle: OK, I will see what I can do. Tom Rodgers: Thanks. Rich Brauchle: All right. Sue Pistacchio: Tom why don’t we defer it to the prioritization piece Tom? Tom Rodgers: OK. Yes, because this was their enhancement and it’s probably appropriate to wait for them on the call with this one. Sue Pistacchio: Right. Tom Rodgers: Thanks. Now that Carol has all this spare time from not doing the Pennsylvania conversion the oldest project is the end user listing project and we’re also tracking that as a weekly topic. Carol I understand the basic status of the project is kind of on hold. Is that the current status? Carol Yozzo: No actually in the last couple of weeks we’ve really picked up a bit of steam in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware. And by the way let me interject, Beth would you take care of Tom after the meeting for that wisecrack, before I forget! (Inaudible)

Page 5 of 33

Tom Rodgers: Someone I think has a microphone (inaudible) please. We’re hearing a lot of breathing. Thanks. Carol Yozzo: OK, as I was saying we have really picked up some steam on New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware conversion and we’ve actually just begun. We’ve completed the data and all of the CLECs that were involved in the PA conversion. We’re now in the full conversion mode and proceeding through that. We expect to finish – well by the end of September. I won’t be too optimistic and say any earlier but we do expect it to be before the end of September. And then we will pick up the North, New York and New England States and sort those conversions. Tom Rodgers: For the benefit of those that might be on the call for the first time, you are working directly with CLECs involved in the (inaudible). Carol Yozzo: Yes, that was actually my next statement was that as the CLEC is getting, as we are getting ready to convert each CLEC we send out a notification letter giving them their conversion dates and then – this has been communicated through various ways to the CLEC community but then after their conversion we also send out a file of their converted listings and this is pretty much our routine with the conversion. So you get a pre conversion letter and a post conversion letter as each CLEC comes up for conversion. Tom Rodgers: OK. Nancy Sanders: OK. Carol this is your friend from Comcast. We need to have a conversation here about that, OK? Carol Yozzo: Yes. We can give you a little more information now about your timeframe. Nancy Sanders: OK. Carol Yozzo: We still have a few weeks to go. Nancy Sanders: OK. Thank you. Carol Yozzo: Any other questions? Then I’ll sign off and turn it back over to Tom. Tom Rodgers: Thanks Carol. Nick is joining us to give us an update on the activities involved in the WCCC. Good morning Nick. Nick Umrani: Good morning Tom. A couple of items and then I’ll open it up for discussion. But the outage notification bulletins have been modified and that process has been put in place. And then secondly the CLEC self service component should be in production shortly for utilization by the CLECs and there will be a notice to that effect coming out soon. Beth Cohen: Nick, for the benefit of those who don’t, who might not remember or may be here for the first time, could you explain the self service project. Nick Umrani: Yes absolutely. Let me start off by saying that training was held for the CLEC self service tool on the 17th of June, and then a second session will be held on the 9th of September for the benefit of those who were not able to attend the first time around. This is a tool that will be provided so that people can put in trouble tickets through the web instead of calling the 800 number for the WCCC. The format itself is very similar to the ones you have on the voice response unit currently. You have options for systems tickets, (inaudible) tickets, etc. and then there is opportunity to enter details specific to those tickets. So very similar to what people are used to currently through the 800 number. This provides a different channel so if for some reason the wait times are slightly longer on the 800 number you have the option of going to the web directly. Beth Cohen: Thanks Nick. Tom Rodgers: These trouble tickets are associated with the system outage, right? Nancy Sanders: Will the service be in place by the time the training takes place in September? Nick Umrani: Pardon me? Nancy Sanders: Will, you know, the self service tool be in place? Nick Umrani: Absolutely, yes. Nancy Sanders: By the time of the training. OK. Nick Umrani: Yes, we held the first session in June, the middle of June but I believe not everyone was able to attend.

Page 6 of 33

Nancy Sanders: Right. Nick Umrani: So we had some gap in that week. But yes the system will be in place. It’s relatively simple to use. It is through the LSI interfaces that drop down under the PON exception setup. Nancy Sanders: OK, thank you. Nick Umrani: Any specific questions for the WCCC? Any comments? Things that could be improved? Any feedback for us? Teresa Castro: Nick this is Teresa from Vartec. I just have a quick question. I know West a couple of CLECs that they had already started using the tool. Is it available now or are we to wait? Nick Umrani: Yes, I would request that you wait until the notice comes out. The tool is out there but we want to make sure that things work as expected. So a few CLECs had submitted tickets and we honored those tickets but if you could just bear with us and wait for a week or so until the notice comes out. Lisa Provenzo: Nick this is Lisa. So if we open a trouble ticket on line we still have access to the, to a WCCC representative which we used to, correct? Nick Umrani: Yes, absolutely. Lisa Provenzo: OK, great. Richard Handley: This is Richard Handley from Ntelos. What date did you say that next training in September was? Nick Umrani: Yes, it’s September 9th. Richard Handley: OK, thank you. Nick Umrani: Any other questions? Tom Rodgers: Thanks Nick, appreciate your support as always. Nick Umrani: You’re welcome Tom. Thanks. Tom Rodgers: Stephen Cuttle joins us this morning to give us an update on any enhancements to the website. Stephen Cuttle: Sure, thanks Tom, good morning everyone. Just a couple of points I wanted to share with you. Regarding customer education, just a reminder that tomorrow August 11th at 1.30 pm Eastern Time there will be a local ordering workshop for the (inaudible) customers doing business with Verizon East and Verizon West. I believe you can still register for that workshop via the Events Calendar or you can do so via the Customer Training pages on the website. Also a second customer ordering workshop is scheduled, tentatively planned for this month on August 19th. It would be for customers doing business with Verizon East and it’s also slated for 1.30 Eastern start time. The agenda is actually being developed at this time and the notification for that August 19th workshop will go out via the change management notification process. As far as updates to the web documentation, for the order sample section of the web two new samples were launched at the end of July for both platform and resale involving moving network interface devices. So for the platform sample that’s order sample P32 East and then for resale it’s R21. We are currently involved in some new order sample development. Sue Pistacchio will be talking about this later in the meeting about involving the platform Centrex non 89 effort. My team is involved with that effort and the content is in the development process for that. And for those of you who also do business with Verizon West we are involved in a similar project for UNE platform Centranet service. There are new samples and we are hoping to have those samples launched at the end of this month. In addition we are also working on a new sample for stand alone port and hoping to have that launched on the web by the end of August as well. Within the local ordering guide just, I believe Lynne Sedlak on my team announced this last month but just a reminder that we did have two new pages under the Select Service Offering, which can be found in the About Ordering Local Services section on the portal page, involving both buried wire and hunting information.

Page 7 of 33

Also too we have just, with our error code documentation, which is also found within the Local Ordering Guide, we have added a significant number of East and West error code information involving a description of the error code and a resolution. And we are, my team is now actively updating that content every month so please be sure to pass that information on to your provisioning folks so they can keep abreast of the updates that are coming through. Gail Gissendanner: Stephen what document was that on? Stephen Cuttle: It did go in the local ordering guide. It’s the error code documentation. Gail Gissendanner: OK, so, OK. Thank you. Stephen Cuttle: Sure. And then finally just an update on the Establish and Maintain page, that has been delayed in its launch but we are hoping to finally have a new page launched at the end of August. Any questions? Doc Matthews: Stephen this is Doc at Penn Telecom. Stephen Cuttle: Hi. Doc Matthews: How you doing bud? Stephen Cuttle: Good. Doc Matthews: Just a quick question on, do you have a contact email address that I can send you a couple of notes? I did a survey of our representatives on the new system, the new portal and they have some – well they have some issues in it that they find significant enough that they are actually not using it. They are continuing to use the old system, because the new system is causing such long delays, and I want to send you a quick email on some things to see if you could give some feedback to them. Stephen Cuttle: Sure, I’d be glad to take a look. Is it specific to the local ordering guide page Doc or just the wholesale website in general? Doc Matthews: It’s part of the new LSI pages. Stephen Cuttle: Oh, OK. Doc Matthews: OK. Stephen Cuttle: OK. What you can do, if you send that to the verizon.system.team@verizon.com, that’s the mailbox that myself and my team, we monitor that daily. Tom Rodgers: Could we ask again that you mute your phone if you’re using a headset. Doc Matthews: Excuse me, is that systems with an s at the end? Stephen Cuttle: Systems singular so verizon.system.team@verizon.com. Doc Matthews: Not a problem. I’ll send these to you in an email and let you look at them and then maybe you can give me some feedback on it. Stephen Cuttle: Sure, I will be looking for it. Doc Matthews: Thank you. Stephen Cuttle: You’re welcome. Gail Gissendanner: Stephen this is Gail from Cox. I have a question. Stephen Cuttle: Hi. Gail Gissendanner: Now with the local ordering workshop that’s being held tomorrow, and I believe you said August 19th, they will be going through the process with the new LSI or will they be using the old LSI? Stephen Cuttle: The workshop tomorrow they will be looking, a part of the workshop will be dealing with – it’s not focused on LSI, but they will be talking about the new LSI in conjunction with the workshop. But it’s not specific to the new LSI updates.

Page 8 of 33

Gail Gissendanner: OK, because we also have some issues with regards to the new LSI. Different things that a couple of our LMP people cannot do with the new LSI process, and we’ve elected to go back to this old process as well. Stephen Cuttle: OK, well, I thought I heard Tim Burkhart is on the call this morning. Tim Burkhart: Yes I’m here and there’s an LSI user forum scheduled for next Wednesday the 18th to discuss, to get feedback regarding the new system. It’s scheduled for the 18th between 1.30 and 3.30. Gail Gissendanner: The 18th Tim? Tim Burkhart: Yes. Tom Rodgers: You can see the meeting available on the wholesale calendar, events calendar. Gail Gissendanner: Did a message go out on that? Sue Pistacchio: A while back but I just… Tom Rodgers: Sure. Joyce Perry: Yes Tim, Joyce. How are you? Tim Burkhart: I am good. Joyce Perry: Again can anyone who is having problems currently with using it come on and ask questions? Tim Burkhart: Sure. The purpose is to get feedback from users. Joyce Perry: All right, thank you. Tom Rodgers: But you do need to register, right? Tim Burkhart: No, there isn’t any pre registration required. Tom Rodgers: OK. Gail Gissendanner: This is just a dial in bridge? Tim Burkhart: It will be a bridge and a webex session. Tom Rodgers: But you do need to register for the webex? Tim Burkhart: Right. Doc Matthews: Is that in Industry Letters or where would I find that noted from the web page? Tom Rodgers: Wholesale calendar. Doc Matthews: Thanks. Tom Rodgers: You bet. Mary Halpin: This is Mary Halpin, I just joined. Tom Rodgers: Hi Mary, Joyce is here about this as well. Mary Halpin: Yes I know, hi Joyce. This is Tim speaking about a follow up meeting? Tim Burkhart: Yes, there’s an LSI user forum scheduled for Wednesday the 18th to get feedback regarding the redesign. Mary Halpin: All right, I – that did come out didn’t it? Tom Rodgers: Yes. Mary Halpin: OK, at the workshop. All right, thank you. I just wanted to confirm that.

Page 9 of 33

Beth Cohen: This is Beth Cohen. It sounds like the next week to ten days there’s three different sessions that are occurring, if I got this right, just to kind of recap. August 11th, tomorrow, there’s a local ordering workshop. Joyce Perry: And that’s the one you have to register for, is that correct? Tom Rodgers: Right. Tim Burkhart: That’s correct. Beth Cohen: Yes. Joyce Perry: OK. Beth Cohen: And then there’s another one on August 18th, a week later, which is the LSI user forum which Tim just spoke to and then Stephen also told us about another local ordering workshop on August 19th. Stephen Cuttle: That’s right, and that’s in the planning stages and that would be one that people would need to register for, but there will be a notification going out through change management once the agenda is finalized by Cathy Hamm (sp?) and her folks. Joyce Perry: The one on the 19th, is this one a repeat of the one for tomorrow or is it different? Stephen Cuttle: I’m sorry – is the one on the 19th a repeat of the one – no it will be different. Joyce Perry: OK, thank you. Stephen Cuttle: Sure. Are there any other questions? Tom Rodgers: Thanks Tim. Thanks Stephen. Stephen Cuttle: No problem, thank you. Tom Rodgers: OK, moving to the items by release discussion. We had a little bit of admin problem posting the two documents, or the one document, so we posted two, and in reviewing the first document the changes to the release that are normally highlighted didn’t appear, or at least they don’t appear in the paper copy that we have in the room. So I will walk you through and show you the where they’re changed, and the goodness in that is that they, for the most part, all change from candidate to committed. So for those in the room we’re looking at page 15 of 22. I believe the same in the room the white section Joyce. (Inaudible) Tom Rodgers: Sue and Paul and others will correct me should I go astray. We’re at 15 of 22, both of those multiple (inaudible) LSR and UNE loops to platform migrations. The action was to change from candidate to committed for the October release. Update both of those as committed. On page 16 there’s no change in status, these two enhancements. On page 17 both enhancements moved from candidate to committed for October. Page 18, at the top, CO40246. That also changed from candidate to committed for October. (Inaudible) goes out to you. We’re now on page 19, and we have a candidate for the CO31548, the line to repair conversion is listed as a candidate, and this Phase 3 is new to the report. And these document changes to the look and feel and screen navigation to LSR for the East community. CO31641 – shared UNE loop product is a candidate for October. John Boshier: Hey Tom, it’s John Boshier. So these were supposed to go in next week and now they are back on to October. Tom Rodgers: Are you at the UNE loop products? John Boshier: Yes. Tom Rodgers: Yes, that’s correct.

Page 10 of 33

John Boshier: So is this piece of it specifically what it says down there, numbers 7 and 12 migration scenarios, but the product itself went in in June, right? Tom Rodgers: Yes. These are actually adding trouble admin to this. John Boshier: I’m sorry I didn’t quite hear that. Tom Rodgers: I thought this phase was adding the trouble administration. Paul can you help me out there? Sue Pistacchio: I can help you out here. You’re talking of the 34693? Tom Rodgers: That too, yes. Sue Pistacchio: Right. No what this is doing - John was correct. This is deferring the rollout of the product in the East until the October release. Rose Clayton: Is that loop sharing? Sue Pistacchio: Excuse me? Rose Clayton: Loop sharing? Sue Pistacchio: Yes. Rose Clayton: We’ll talk about that in a minute John. John Boshier: Oh OK, because I just want to be clear was it just the migration scenarios or is it the – we can’t use the product now until October. Beth Cohen: John you are correct. The product will not be available until October. Rose Clayton: In the East. Beth Cohen: Right. John Boshier: Did somebody say we are going to talk about that in a minute? Rose Clayton: Yes. John Boshier: Ok, I’ll just hold off until then. Tom Rodgers: OK. Looking at page 20 there are no changes. And then on page 21 the parse out (inaudible) details on BCN is a candidate for February. Sue, did I mention any changes that you might have had to the schedule? Sue Pistacchio: No that’s the firm schedule and the only thing that I wanted to add is I just sent a meeting request on – hopefully people will still have their calendars open, but the release overview to go over the things for the October release in more detail is tentatively scheduled now for Friday the 20th from 10 to 12. So we are hoping to do what we’ve done in previous releases where we would go over the bulletin (inaudible) that would normally be covered at 11 and then go right into (inaudible) overview. So that request has been submitted to change management to disseminate so if everybody can please pencil that in on the calendar. And again that is Friday the 20th from 10 to 12. Tom Rodgers: Thanks Sue. Mary Halpin: Tom, this is Mary. I don’t know if Tim is still on the line but perhaps you could answer just to take one step back. For the LSI redesign did, the old ordering process system in LSI was due to be retired this month. That’s now effective October 16th? Tim Burkhart: Tom I’m here. This is Tim Burkhart. Mary yes, that’s correct. It’s going to be with the October release. Mary Halpin: OK. So actually that would be the final turndown day then, retiring midday. Tim Burkhart: Yes. Mary Halpin: All right. I just wanted to confirm. I’m looking at your notices and I know we’ve been back and forth, but I just wanted to confirm that one more time. Thank you.

Page 11 of 33

Tom Rodgers: OK. Beth Cohen: Rose, I think that you were on to speak to the shared UNE loop product. It says on here 19 of 22. It's CO31641- initiative 384693.2. Rose Clayton: Yes, thanks Beth. How you doing? Its Rose Clayton, Product Manager and Wholesale Markets. Beth asked me to come on the call today – we think timing is appropriate. We have an industry letter ready to go out regarding the loop sharing offering. So basically what I’m going to tell you is information that’s contained within the letter and give you a live update as far as the loop sharing offering. Right now product availability is as follows: In Verizon West, loop sharing will be available at the end of August of this year. In Verizon East, loop sharing will be available towards the end of October of this year. In preparation for loop sharing there are a number of things that need to be in place or pre positioned before loop sharing arrangements can actually be placed. And most of you are aware of this. I’ve had discussions with a number of CLECs over the phone already and some of this is already in progress for some of you. But again to recapture some of the information that’s contained in the industry letter that’s ready to go out. As you know amendments to interconnection agreements are required if you are going to be participating in loop sharing, and in the letter itself I do have an address where you can send your request to, or email, or fax to, requesting the loop sharing arrangement. I would say that before the industry letter goes out, if you have a need for the amendment contact me directly via email, and that’s just prior to the letter going out. Once you’ve actually received the letter in the mail then again it will give you directions on who to go to to get the loop sharing contract amendment. But in the interim, if you have a need I would say email, and you can send it to me rosemarie.clayton@verizon.com. The other thing that does need to be pre positioned in advance is the establishment of business partnerships between the voice providers and the data providers. And again a lot of you are familiar with this already. It works similar to the partnership agreements that are put in place for line splitting today. The way to accommodate the business partnership is to communicate your partnership agreements on the CLEC profile, which is located on the Verizon website, and once we receive that profile we will update our databases here. One thing that we have asked for is any CLECs who are interested in loop sharing anticipate any large migration activities that you start working with your account managers now, to make us aware of the migration efforts that you’re going to be involved in and that we can also start coordinating the activities. We’d prefer to handle any large volumes to the project management efforts in an organized fashion, so again if you are aware of any large migration projects from any of the migrations which will be happening, contact your account manager. And just to recap what we’re actually putting in. We are putting in three scenarios: a migration arrangement from line sharing to loop sharing; a migration from line splitting to loop sharing; and we are also putting in the capability for you to add new loop sharing arrangements, both voice and data, where there has been no prior service in place before. Now some of the systems work, meaning the detailed ordering and LSR information has already been forwarded to you. That was done in the April business rules. Beth Cohen: June. Rose Clayton: I’m sorry, thank you. June business rules, and one thing that is changing from what we published in June is because the East is moving to an October release we will be, the product will be offered in October. There are three loop sharing error messages that we published in June that will be implemented concurrent with the East products introduction. If anyone needs those error codes we can give them to you now, or they will be available to you in a couple of days once you receive this industry letter. The other two things I’d like to add is if any CLEC has any idea of forecast, if they could possibly pass that information along to me as quickly as possible. And secondly, the loop sharing product has been introduced in the material working group as well, and there are efforts going on there now to care for the metrics associated with loop sharing. Can I answer any questions for anyone? John Boshier: Yes Rose, John Boshier. Rose Clayton: Hi John.

Page 12 of 33

John Boshier: I have a couple of questions. I guess the first question is you haven’t spoken to me about these items. Have you spoken to anyone else at Covad? Rose Clayton: We have had some discussion with Mike Clancy. John Boshier: Mike Clancy, OK. I’ll hook up with him on that. Then as you went through the migration scenarios that you were putting in and you said there’s one for adding new loop sharing where no prior service is in place. What about going from a retail Verizon voice to a loop sharing voice? And mainly I’m concerned about number portability there. Rose Clayton: Well when you say Verizon voice are you talking line sharing to loop sharing? John Boshier: Yes. Rose Clayton: We are putting in that capability with no change in data provider, and that’s key here. John Boshier: OK. Rose Clayton: So if Verizon is the data provider in that line sharing arrangement today, and you’re migrating to loop sharing, it can be done with no change in data provider. John Boshier: OK, but they wouldn’t be able to go from voice to loop sharing. Adding a data provider would not work. Rose Clayton: No with this implementation. John Boshier: What would you do in those cases? Would you, is that something that’s down the road or would we just order new loop sharing and ask for the number to be ported or? Rose Clayton: You’re bringing up an interesting scenario John and there are a number of migration scenarios that we are working with now that include the porting of numbers when DSL is on the loop. So those are efforts that are ongoing. They’re being introduced in some cases new, and you’ll be hearing about some of them in the September meeting. Some of them are already on our migrations list and those are migrations that we are working with in the priority order that CLECs have given it, chosen. John Boshier: All right, and one more question about the partner list. If we already have a list in our profile of line splitting partners, is that sufficient or is there also going to be like two separate lists? Rose Clayton: It’s actually being maintained on the same table but we do need a separate business partnership arrangement for loop sharing versus line splitting. John Boshier: So how do we specify in our profile that they’re different? Is there like a box or something we check? Rose Clayton: (Inaudible) John. The profile has just been updated and if you access the profile on the Verizon CLEC website you’ll see a new entry for loop sharing. John Boshier: OK. Just a side note. We’ve had tremendous difficulty getting our profile updated over the last twelve months for simple things. Even as simple as changing the address where you mail our bills. So I’m concerned about the ability to update the profile via the web. That hasn’t been very successful. Doc Matthews: Ditto. Rose Clayton: Who dittoed, I’m sorry? John Boshier: That was Doc. Tom Rodgers: Penn Telecom. Rose Clayton: OK. The first I’ve heard of the issue. I’m happy to take it back to the appropriate people. John Boshier: Well yes, the profile folks are well aware of the difficulties because we’ve been working very closely with them. But everything is done very manually and that’s why I was kind of hoping that we could just use the existing partnership arrangements for line splitting for loop sharing or loop splitting, whatever we’re calling it this week. Because that would save a lot of paperwork for the CLECS. Doc Matthews: Double ditto.

Page 13 of 33

Rose Clayton: Yes, I understand what you’re saying but we are tracking the two product offerings separately and the tables do need the separate entries for the two different partnerships. John Boshier: Is there a particular reason why you separated those? I’m just curious. Rose Clayton: There just could be different partnerships with different types of an arrangement, and our systems are programmed to look for the arrangement for loop sharing or line splitting before we actually accept the orders in. John Boshier: OK, we’ll get started on that then. Rose Clayton: Thank you. Are there any other questions I can answer? Tom, back to you. Tom Rodgers: Thank you Rose, nicely done. Beth Cohen: Before we go on I have one more that I need to talk to. Tom Rodgers: Sure. Beth Cohen: I want to speak to CO31742 – allowing multiple phone numbers and circuit IDs on one trouble ticket, which is on page 20 of 22, which is still listed as a candidate for October, and just want folks to know kind of what is, where this one sits. The systems work actually is proceeding on this and if - the systems folks are still working towards the target of October. The issue that comes into play, however, with regard to this particular initiative has to do with metrics and our associated metrics with this particular initiative. And it’s been discussed, or I guess started to be discussed, in the carrier working group. That is the group that actually kind of ferrets out the metrics issues associated with this Verizon performance. And before we can actually implement this particular initiative the metrics issues have to be resolved. So there is a, I believe there’s a best metrics meeting that’s coming up some time in August, later this month, where I think we are hoping that this particular issue does get discussed and resolved. If it doesn’t get resolved prior to the beginning of September we can’t implement this particular initiative, because that’s our 45 day notification mark and that’s a deadline that we have in terms of the final business rule for the October release. So if there are still metrics issues outstanding at that point in time we will have to pull this particular initiative from the release. So having said that I would ask those of you who are involved in the carrier working group to please, or if your companies are involved and it’s not you it’s somebody else, make sure that they are aware that this is one that really does need some discussion and resolution at that next meeting. Doc Matthews: This is Doc at Penn Telecom. Beth Cohen: Yes. Doc Matthews: On this specific CR the other thing that I would be concerned about is, you know, I know specific work is being done, but when we can work into the history on a circuit we can find all those trouble tickets are filed. I’d be concerned that that functionality carries forward when you do multiple circuit IDs on a single trouble ticket. That’s just a thought to go back to the systems people as they are working through on this one. Thank you. Beth Cohen: I certainly hope that that was included in the original CR that was submitted, because if it wasn’t it means it may very well not be cared for at this juncture. And I don't know who the initiating CLEC was on this one. Sue Pistacchio: Beth can you ask that again because I’m not sure that’s covered and I know the intent was to be able to enter multiple tickets and the criteria was it had to be the same location, the same trouble condition. And then based on that multiple tickets are created, I mean separate tickets… Doc Matthews: Separate tickets, and what I see this is on a single ticket I could ID, lets say I have four circuits going into the same customer location and all down at the same time, just as a simple example. Instead of having to open four tickets I’m expecting that I will be able to open a single ticket on those four circuit IDs. Sue Pistacchio: Correct. Doc Matthews: And then a subset of tickets will be generated out so that you know there is a – I guess Verizon may need separate tickets for each, or a separate set of paperwork for each circuit ID. Sue Pistacchio: Correct. Doc Matthews: Now in the back end of it, if you go into the retest or other systems we can draw up a history, I can look at, I can put a circuit ID in. Well in theory I can. In fact really you can’t because the database hasn’t been functional, but we won’t go there. In theory I could put a circuit ID in and say OK, this circuit ID, I want to

Page 14 of 33

know how many trouble tickets have been opened on it and then I want to go in and look through the history of those trouble tickets of, you know, no trouble found or doubler bad splicing job replaced, whatever on down the line and be able to track what’s happened to those special – to a circuit to a customer. If this new functionality goes in I’m hoping that Verizon carries forward that dipping capability to, when I go into the history through the web GUI that I will still be able to pick up these instances in which may be more than one circuit ID was on a single ticket. Is that clear? Sue Pistacchio: It’s clear that wasn’t covered in the original scope of this CR. Doc Matthews: And I think that was probably just left out. They didn’t really think about it when they were filing in the paperwork. John Olson: Sue this is John Olson. Sue Pistacchio: Glad you’re here. John Olson: Yes. On the multiple trouble ticket, to the best of my knowledge it will – I know it will create up to twenty individual trouble tickets. I’ll go back and check to make sure that we will be able to see that in history. But right now I see no reason why it wouldn’t. Doc Matthews: That’s great. I mean I’m just bringing up the point that sometimes little things like that can get missed, you know, just in thinking through the functionality of everything and just not putting part A with part C in something like that. So thanks John. John Olson: OK. Sue Pistacchio: Yes, I may have been getting that wrong then. Because I mean what comes in on that multiple ticket would populate in history. That’s what you’re saying John, right? But I guess I took your question would you be able to do a history on multiple tickets. John Olson: Not a history on multiple tickets, a history on an individual circuit. Sue Pistacchio: Right. Doc Matthews: That’s exactly what I’m looking for guys. Sue Pistacchio: Right. I’m sorry, I misinterpreted your question. That’s why John better correct me. Sorry. Doc Matthews: Yes, I’m just making sure that when the dip is done that the dip is going to catch the unusual situations. Do you know what I’m saying? John Olson: Yes, we will ask that question. Doc Matthews: Thank you. Paul Haven: This is Paul Haven. Again, I mean just to reiterate what Beth was saying, we are in a position right now where unless we can get agreement in the carrier working group session that Beth was talking about, that we are going to have to pull this, because of the metrics issues. If we don’t have agreement then how to proceed with this. Tom Rodgers: Thanks Paul. Paul Haven: So any, I mean we’d like to put it in for you. We think it’s going to help you, we think its going to help us, but we can’t put it in without agreement on the metrics issue. Jennifer Koonz: This is Jennifer Koonz at Broadview. I do go to those carrier working group meetings - and I don’t think Elliott is on the call, is he? Tom Rodgers: No he is not. Jennifer Koonz: OK. Well as far as I know the August session has been postponed and we are not meeting again until September 16th, just to give you a heads up. Beth Cohen: Oh boy! Tom Rodgers: I think we’ve got (inaudible). Is there ability to, well (inaudible).

Page 15 of 33

Jennifer Koonz: I sent Elliott an email so I’m just trying to confirm that and I will let you know when he gets back to me. Paul Haven: I mean so unless there is another vehicle for, you know, for the CLECs to agree or, you know, for the industry to agree on it we are going to have to pull it. Does anybody have any suggestions about how to avoid that? Tom Rodgers: OK. Beth Cohen: Well let’s see if the meeting has definitely, you know, been postponed before we take any action here. But I would definitely say if the meeting has been postponed then we do have no choice but to pull it. Doc Matthews: You’re talking a three month delay, correct Beth? Beth Cohen: I think we’re talking about a delay until we can get agreement on the metrics. Doc Matthews: Let’s just get the… Beth Cohen: If we could get quick agreement then it will go into, presumably it would go into the next CLEC impacting release. Doc Matthews: That’s what I was asking. Tom Rodgers: OK. Now would also be a good time I think to discuss the platform Centrex non 89 project. Or shall we… Beth Cohen: (Inaudible) Tom Rodgers: We’re waiting for (inaudible). I’ll tee this up. You had submitted in last month, I think in April or June, and that enhancement involved discontinuing use of a paper form. Sue has an alternative where we would propose doing so almost immediately with industry concurrence. Sue, are you ready? Sue Pistacchio: I’m ready. Joyce Perry: Just before I start, is Gloria on the call? Tom Rodgers: Yes, I heard her a minute ago. (Inaudible.) Beth Cohen: I heard Mary, I didn’t hear Gloria. Rich Brauchle: Tom, I wasn’t able to get hold of her. Tom Rodgers: OK. Rich Brauchle: Either Gloria or Joyce. Tom Rodgers: Joyce is here. Rich Brauchle: Oh she’s in. OK, thanks. Beth Cohen: All right Sue. Sue Pistacchio: OK. And this is in response to the Type 5 request C041180 where the intent was to remove requirement for the data gathering form for non 89 Centrex in the North. There had been previous exercise where we had removed the requirement for the data gathering form in other jurisdictions and for 89 Centrex. What we are able to do is we’ve been working with the web documentation team and we have modifications to the Centrex scenarios ready. We have modified USOC and FID lists so the West documentation is ready to go. We went through mapping exercises and have, were able to remove the requirement for the data gathering form for non 89 Centrex. So as this is a process change we cannot implement this change without concurrence from the CLEC community, otherwise we would go through the 73 day, 45 day notification process. So with the concurrence of the CLEC community we can go forward, cease the requirement for the data gathering form for non 89 Centrex across the Verizon East footprint. And again scenarios will be made available on the web, modified scenarios. They are waiting for me to give them the OK, so they would be available – I believe the commitment date. (Hold on, I’m looking in the note.) August 18th was the date that they said they could get them up for me with concurrence from the CLEC community today, and that would include modified order samples and an updated USOC and FID list. So the intention is to get concurrence from the CLEC community to implement that solution immediately.

Page 16 of 33

Tom Rodgers: And I didn’t fully set the table on this one. For those on the conference bridge this is in the second document on the pdf file. You will find it on page 61. Sue Pistacchio: Yes, and again to provide a little bit more of a summary. I know Joyce is really familiar with this. Currently in the North you are required to provide a data gathering form when you submit non 89 Centrex requests. What we did with the mapping exercise was determine that with, I believe it’s two exceptions, all of the information that is on the data gathering form is replicated on either the PS form or the Centrex form. So what we are doing (and this is covered in the order sample) the information that doesn’t have a home within the LSR forms can be placed in the remarks section. I know off the top of my head one of the items that comes up is the POL pickup group and I think also the number of digits for station to station dialing. So that is information that would be populated in the remarks on the LSR. That would be covered in the order sample. So the intent of the change request was to remove the requirement for the data gathering form since it was viewed as a duplication of the LSR process. We are ready to implement that solution and no longer require the data gathering form, and just want to seek approval from the CLEC community to do it immediately. Joyce Perry: Let me just ask, that’s the data gathering form that you have to do manually and fax it over to Verizon. Sue Pistacchio: That’s correct. Joyce Perry: And… Elliott Goldberg: This is Elliott. Not all of us do it manually Joyce, and we programmed it and we send it automatically so this would involve a programming change for us. So if you are going to implement this immediately will you continue to accept the old way to give us time to make these changes? Sue Pistacchio: We wouldn’t reject it. I would, I can only solicit approvals from the NMC for that. Elliott Goldberg: And the other question is does this change the flow through of these orders by putting them, by putting anything in the remarks field? Sue Pistacchio: These products are currently not flow through. Elliott Goldberg: OK. So there’s no change on that? Sue Pistacchio: Correct. Elliott Goldberg: All right. I’m going to need some programming time to make this change. Sue Pistacchio: Right. Elliott Goldberg: Because we, you know at this point unlike AT & T, it’s a fully automated process for us. Sue Pistacchio: And in addition to the data gathering form you also submit the LSRs, correct? Elliott Goldberg: Oh yes, we have to submit the form and the LSR, but because there are always such linkage problems on your side we automated that to put the entire process so we submit the form and the LSR by two separate channels simultaneously. Sue Pistacchio: OK. Joyce Perry: Any other CLEC does that? Janice Ziegele: This is Janice from Broadview. I have one more question. You mentioned that there was going to be USOC updates? Sue Pistacchio: There’s only, to the best of my knowledge it’s just two USOCs that are only applicable for 89 Centrex. So in our review there was modifications that were being made to the USOC and FID list to designate that those USOCs and FIDs were only applicable for non 89. Janice Ziegele: OK, thank you. Sue Pistacchio: Elliott, let me ask you a question. And again I can go back to the NMC and just verify that they would not have an issue with continuing to receive that data gathering form. But do you have any indication on when you would be ready to speak to to the data gathering form?

Page 17 of 33

Elliott Goldberg: It – I have to get it scheduled into the programming mix. I really hadn’t, you know, it’s not even on our horizon at this point. I’d have to alter some, I’d have to alter some schedules and some programs. Sue Pistacchio: OK. Paul Haven: I think if we’re going to talk to the NMC it would be helpful to have some kind of idea of, you know, what Verizon (inaudible). I mean that would be, we’d like to go back to the NMC and say that (inaudible). Elliott Goldberg: I understand that but see normally I have more time than this to provide an answer. At this point, you know this is a change to a system that we programmed up and coded it in accordance with the (inaudible) specs. I walked into this meeting, this is the first I’m hearing that something that was just ranked in July is ready to be implemented and while I think it’s generically a great idea, or it’s a good idea or a bad idea, whatever; I can’t give you an answer off the top of my head. I’ve got to find a resource to do this. This is a program modification because I’ve got to transfer data through a remarks field. Sue Pistacchio: Let me ask a question, and I think it was already asked, I’m just trying to reiterate. Is there any other CLEC besides Met-Tel that also has an automated solution for the data gathering form? Elliott, I know you have my email address. Do you think you would be able to follow up with me within the next (inaudible) or two with an ETA? Elliott Goldberg: Well I can put it out and see what’s involved but off the top of my head, to be very honest with you, I don’t know. Sue Pistacchio: OK. What I can do is I’ll go back to the NMC and just verify that (inaudible) Met-Tel to continue sending the data gathering form and you and I can work together just to get an ETA so that the NMC will, you know, have a better idea of when they can expect not to receive them anymore. Elliott Goldberg: Sure. Sue Pistacchio: And following that exception if I have concurrence from the rest of the CLEC community that we can implement this process change request immediately? Janice Ziegele: Broadview agrees. Joyce Perry: AT & T agrees. Catherine Hanlon: Bridgecom is fine with this. Nancy Sanders: Comcast is fine. Loriann Ercan: XO is as well. Sue Pistacchio: Tom is someone taking minutes or do I need to capture that better? Tom Rodgers: No, we’re all recorded Sue, don’t worry about that. Sue Pistacchio: OK, just want to make sure because I’m scribbling and I can’t even read my own writing. Tom Rodgers: Let me restate this, without taking a roll call and with Met-Tel’s objection noted. Does anyone object to the plan? And with the – Sue how would you plan to document this change? Remove the form from the website? Sue Pistacchio: Yes. I know Stephen is on and so maybe he can speak better to exactly what the updates to be web will be. Steve, are you there? Stephen Cuttle: Yes, I’m on. Sue Pistacchio: Would you like to? Stephen Cuttle: Sure. Right, once this concurrence, we would remove that data gathering form off of the web where it’s currently housed within the local ordering guide on the data gathering form. So that would be removed and then we would add, I believe there are two new order samples that we’ve been working on with Sue’s team and we would add the samples and the associated USOC (inaudible) guide to those samples. Sue Pistacchio: And the last piece of that is again we have been working with the NMC staff so they are aware of the pending process change so they are expecting this and are just waiting for feedback from this meeting.

Page 18 of 33

Elliott Goldberg: Sue, can I just ask, do you have a listing of what fields are going to go where so I can give it to my programming people so they can give me a better estimate? Sue Pistacchio: That would be included on the order samples which Stephen, I think we have said if we got concurrence today would be available by the 18th. Elliott Goldberg: All right, because I need that to them to get a good answer. Sue Pistacchio: OK. Elliott Goldberg: So if I know what has to go where I can do this much faster because if those fields that are already on the form I don’t have to worry about. Sue Pistacchio: OK, I can track down a copy and get it to you Elliott. Elliott Goldberg: OK, thank you. Paul Haven: Elliott is Met-Tel OK with us removing the form from the web? Assuming that we are going to continue accepting… Elliott Goldberg: If you’re going to accept it I don’t see there’s a problem. Paul Haven: Yes, OK. Elliott Goldberg: And like I said we, you know, we can get it, work to get it coded as quickly as possible, but I’ve got to delete code and modify code and it’s a real short, give me a short cycle here. I’ve got to find what can be safely switched. Beth Cohen: I’m looking at the CR and the CLECs that actually rated this CR. Several of you have already spoken up and said that you are OK with the process change proposed. Two who actually rated it did not weigh in. I just want to make sure that they (inaudible). One was Z-Tel and the other is Xchange Telecom. I did hear Peggy Rubino out there. I don’t know if there is anybody from Xchange Telecom. Peggy are you OK with the process change proposed? Peggy Rubino: Yes, that’s fine. Beth Cohen: Is there anybody out there from Xchange Telecom? OK. Thanks. Joyce Perry: Thank you Tom, thank you Sue, thank you Elliott. Elliott Goldberg: OK. Tom Rodgers: Sue do you anticipate a notification going out on this? Sue Pistacchio: Yes I can write something up for you Tom. Tom Rodgers: OK. I think we’ve covered all the 10 am topics so 10 o’clock is the schedule. We do have several, we have the third change request. For those on the conference room, the people on the conference bridge and those in the room I’m looking at page 5 on the goldenrod section. This is to recap (inaudible). Beth Cohen: Can we take a five minutes… Tom Rodgers: Sure. Sue Pistacchio: Thank you. Tom Rodgers: We have a request for a break; so we will come back to the bridge in about five minutes. Thank you. Steven Manion: Tom, this is Steven Manion. I’ve been on. Do you want me to stay on otherwise I’m going to go work on some other things. Tom Rodgers: Go be busy. Steven Manion: All right, if you need me you’ll let me know? Tom Rodgers: Will do.

Page 19 of 33

Steven Manion: All right, thanks Tom. Tom Rodgers: Thank you. We’re back in the room. OK as I started to set before the break we are looking at the second document on the (inaudible) side. We’re on page 575 looking at the deferred change request from the prior month. Michele give me, or anyone from Cox, are you there this morning? Gail Gissendanner: Actually Michele is not on. This is Gail from Cox so I’m here representing her to the best of my ability. Tom Rodgers: OK. Would you consider this to be a new product enhancement? Gail Gissendanner: Yes. Tom Rodgers: OK. I looked at it again this morning that was kind of what struck me. We’re looking at CO41199 and the request as I interpret it to be is to add to directory listings accounts to the simple view of bill manager and I guess it’s a product. I would like to refer this to product management directly and see if the customer user forum would take this up as an enhancement to the product line rather than see it as an OSS enhancement, although you could argue that the (inaudible) might be (inaudible) OSS. Gail Gissendanner: OK. Well if you… Tom Rodgers: Are you OK with that? Gail Gissendanner: Yes, that sounds good. Tom Rodgers: Anybody object (inaudible) understand the reason and why we would try to work just through the CUF? Beth Cohen: Well I actually had a couple of other questions when I, you know, would use this as well. I guess Gail I would ask you has Cox, have you spoken to anybody in the, either in the industry forums around billing or any of the billing folks to see what (inaudible). There are some, there’s some work efforts in play here. One in the West in particular regarding I guess there’s a PDT version 42 has a, I guess a new form or new record that they are creating for directory listing information on the bill, and I wondered if this has anything to do with that particular record that’s already kind of in the works through one of the industry forums. Has Cox pursued this any place else? Gail Gissendanner: Actually I can check with Michele – what was your name again, I’m sorry? Beth Cohen: It’s Beth Cohen. Gail Gissendanner: I can check with Michele. She was the originator of the CR and check if she had checked with any other forum that was going on with regards to the electronic billing format. Because she was unable to make it today and I was just going to see what we can get as far as a rating on it today. But if Tom says he wants to refer to the project management we (inaudible) as well. Beth Cohen: I would, you know, ask us, ask if we could first, you know see, even within the billing organization if this is something that is already on the table. It may very well be and I don’t think that we know that at this point in time. So I think that there’s some legwork that will have to be done here on this one. Gail Gissendanner: Now you say that on the table, will that be out – did you say out in the West? Beth Cohen: Well… Tom Rodgers: The initiative that she’s speaking of is the creation of a type of account you use for directory listings that would place all charges associated with directory on a standalone bill (inaudible). And then I saw your request specifically as asking for that bill in a simple view product display. Gail Gissendanner: Right. OK. Tom Rodgers: OK. So it maybe chicken or egg, which comes first here. The appearance of it or the format of it. Doc Matthews: Tom. Tom Rodgers: Yes Doc? Doc Matthews: It is in one way. I looked at it a slightly different way. I thought it was kind of asking in a way, in a broader view it’s actually asking that the bill manager simple view becomes a format available throughout the spectrum of product lines that Verizon provides. Last time I looked, and last time I did a profile, in the

Page 20 of 33

South bill manager is only available, for example, on resale. Facilities based, UNE-P and other products cannot get a bill manager and that’s a good product if Verizon creates it as opposed to the PDT and it’s much more CLEC friendly and if bill manager were available platform wide, or products wide, that would be a good thing just to start with. And I kind of saw this as being part of what the CR is sort of asking, because directory listing is not specific, for example, to resale. It is system wide. Tom Rodgers: Sure. And you know, I think you reinforced my position that this really primarily is a product enhancement request. Doc Matthews: That I, when you made that comment I thought that was exactly hitting the point and if we could get (inaudible) to move on it, get the product managers to move on it, it could be a real positive thing. Tom Rodgers: OK. I’ll notify the CUF of the CR and I will cancel it here, they’ll withdraw it here as referred to the CUF. You guys can certainly reintroduce it in the future should something not work out but I have every confidence that the CUF will be the proper place to work this. Gail Gissendanner: OK. Tom Rodgers: And the next one is September… Peggy Rubino: The 16th, the day after… Tom Rodgers: The day after, yes. So we have one coming up. Michele – I’m sorry Gail. I may ask that would you send me an email so that I can send you the right forum to submit this to the CUF. Gail Gissendanner: Sure. Peggy Rubino: Tom I can send it to Gail. Tom Rodgers: Oh, thanks Peggy. Gail Gissendanner: Thank you Peggy. Peggy Rubino: (Inaudible) Tom Rodgers: I just want to make sure that we follow their right processes for it. Gail Gissendanner: OK. Tom Rodgers: You bet. OK. The next one is (inaudible) of the third Type 5 because we did end up (inaudible) about it a little bit last month, although we didn’t present it to the (inaudible). It’s CO41297 and it’s found on page 5. It came from AT & T requesting associated and the to and from (inaudible) orders. Joyce Perry: Correct Tom. Tom Rodgers: And I guess I’d ask you to explain it a little bit. Joyce Perry: Right now the orders, the T and F orders are not related on each other. We’re asking that the system write up – there are system changes made to relate the T order on the F order and vice versa. Because right now what is happening because they are not related, the F orders get worked in the morning and the T orders, most of the time, get worked in the afternoon or later in the evening. If there’s a situation where there’s a jeopardy going to the issues or whatever the issues may be, that prevents the order from going into service. The customer gets put out of service because that order is already worked. If the orders are related Verizon could see that and probably jeop both orders or try to get the order, the F order which would be a disconnect order that was worked, get the customer back up its service so they are not out of service. That’s really what the situation is. And I see the write up here explain it really very well. Any questions? Sue Pistacchio: Yes (excuse me) this is Sue. Hi Joyce. Joyce Perry: Hi Sue. Sue Pistacchio: Well one of the things – Tom asked me to do some investigation on this one also and I believe you had sent some sample PONs in. And from a processing point of view the F and T orders are related and the process that we have in place when you do, you’re doing a move order is we do have a field that is the DDO field, and that is the Desired Due Date Out. Joyce Perry: Right.

Page 21 of 33

Sue Pistacchio: Which when used in combination or it’s an F and T order, you can due date your F order for a few days out of your T order. And I know that’s kind of the current process because disconnect orders do normally get worked earlier than new connect orders, which can happen at any point during the day. So what we normally see on F and T orders is for the F portion, you know, a person may due date that out for a few days and then the desired due date would be the T portion. So if there’s any type of jeopardy at the new portion then that would allow the CLEC time to send in a separate request to modify the due date and, you know, request a new due date time for the F portion. In the PONs that we saw we didn’t see any use of the desired due date out field and I’m wondering if by using that, that would alleviate your problem. Joyce Perry: You know Tom sent back that question to me, two months ago Tom? And I sent it back to the center and they said they do use that date. But the samples that I sent you look at them and you don’t see separated? Sue Pistacchio: We do not see a different, we did not see the desired due date out time populated, which does not need to be the same date as the due date. Joyce Perry: Let me ask, is there any other CLEC having this problem? No, no other CLECs? Pam Beattie: Yes, this is Pam at DSCI. Can you hear me? Joyce Perry: Yes. Pam Beattie: And we do use the DDO field. The only thing is they do have to check facilities. It cannot be applied to all orders. It’s called dual service if you due date the F out longer than the T order. So there are some issues with that. It’s not positive on every order. Tom Rodgers: It’s not a perfect system but it’s there. Sue Pistacchio: You know what we have in the business rules is that the out portion cannot exceed 30 days, and I think in most cases people may do like a few days or up to a week just to make sure that the T portion is in. My understanding was with few instances on like regular POTS service that you would have to resale and platform that this would be applicable or available. I have heard of like provisioning issues just due to facilities where they couldn’t do it but I think that’s rare. Other people, you’re someone that use it, do you use it successfully in most cases? Joyce Perry: My understanding is – let me take this back Sue so I have more clarification on this. As a matter of fact what I may do, just set up the folks that give this to me just have a meeting with you and them and myself so we can go through this. Do you mind? Sue Pistacchio: No I do not. Joyce Perry: OK, so let me do that before we go through this and rate it because if nobody else has an issue with it and its something that we’re doing or not doing correctly, you know, I need to understand that before I… Sue Pistacchio: And may I – who – the other CLEC that spoke up. I didn’t get your name. Pam Beattie: Pam from DSCI. Sue Pistacchio: Hi Pam. You’re saying that you do use the desired due date out and in most cases when you use it is it successful for you? Pam Beattie: It all depends. I don’t have any data on, you know, on when it is or when it isn’t successful but I do know that there are issues with the dual service on occasion. Sue Pistacchio: On occasion. Lisa Provenzo: Sue this is Lisa and one of the cases too I think there is an abandonment line and you have, you know due date out and (inaudible) like Verizon may want to put new service in because there is an abandonment line at that location, it may take out that move order if you have it in process. You know, that’s the only problem we have with it. So we usually just try to shorten the date so that we can, you know, mutually agree. Sue Pistacchio: OK. Yes Joyce I’m available, and my understanding was, and you know back to my old web days, it seemed like that solved most of the problems. I knew occasionally there was like a facility issue that needed a non viable solution but Joyce I am available if you want to discuss this further. Joyce Perry: Yes, I will do that.

Page 22 of 33

Sue Pistacchio: OK. Joyce Perry: So Tom if you would remove this for me and (inaudible) discussion. Tom Rodgers: We will carry CO41297 over to September. Joyce Perry: Thank you very much. Tom Rodgers: Will you also be talking to CO41577 or is Mary? Joyce Perry: Mary is going to talk. Tom Rodgers: OK. We’re now on page 13, (inaudible). Joyce Perry: Mary. Mary Halpin: Yes I’m here. This particular change request is requesting that Verizon examine and implement some process and/or system improvements and the result that we’re looking for is that in the East, and in particular in New York State, but this can happen anywhere in the East, Verizon East States, is that when we select a due date from the SMARTS clock calendar that we be able to, that the date not be changed as frequently as it is. We understand that there is always the possibility that a date may not be available depending on how long it might take to get the order to Verizon or whatever other circumstances. But we are experiencing, particularly in New York State, the situation of having due dates changed so that the date that we obtain from the SMARTS clock is changed to a later due date and it is changing with such rapidity that we are experiencing a change due date, and for New York in particular, at a much higher rate than any other State and certainly any other State with a similar volume. And this causes extensive rework, it’s very costly and you have to go back and talk to the customer and obtain a new due date. And so what we’ve looking to do is to see if there could be a process and/or systems improvement that would lessen the number of changed due dates that we receive back in the local response confirmation. This would be a significant reduction in cost. Tom Rodgers: Mary have you looked at the delay between the preorder transaction and submission of the orders? Mary Halpin: Yes we have. That’s been studied many times and we’ve worked with the operations team in Verizon over the course of, especially the past year. Because at times the number of due dates really spikes too and it may be a scheduling issue, you know, with the way because we have studied this every which way with your operations team. And the net out is that it was decided that a change request be submitted so that this could be formally assessed by Verizon to determine, you know, what could be done to alleviate the situation. Beth Cohen: Mary this is Beth Cohen. I believe that while we are going to also take this in a CR that there is still work being done within the operations team to see if there are process changes that can be made to provide you a workaround or a solution. I know that that is continuing. Lisa Provenzo: Any idea that this was also an issue with the cut through date because we’ve seen, you know, is it just… Mary Halpin: It’s primarily for new install and move orders where we, it’s not really related to cut through where facilities should be available. It’s primarily where we’re seeing cut through is not available that we’ve had this recurring problem for a long time. Sue Pistacchio: Mary this is Sue. How would you see a criteria for success on this? I mean what would you like to see this, you know, because as Beth said we are, you know, there’s work going on. Mary Halpin: Well as far as the work going on I think I’ve been involved in all of that myself and the studies that we have done and the data that we have provided. I’m not sure what else is in the works right now. You know, I’m not aware that there is any other fix, you know, in place. I think that the due dates are being monitored more closely by Verizon so that if dates are being changed at a very rapid rate or when we have spikes in the number of changed due dates then that certainly, you know that’s looked at. But there is no long term fix or workaround in place that we can use right now other than going through the standard preorder and ordering processes and, you know, and we’re continuing to experience the changed due dates. Loriann Ercan: Mary this is Loriann. Is it that the SMARTS clock isn’t always accurate? Mary Halpin: Well in some cases it’s not. We have uncovered one situation where it was, we had a major spike in upstate New York – just this one example. I’m not saying – I don’t have all the answers for you because I don’t manage the SMARTS clock. I can tell you that we monitor the changed due dates. We did uncover one issue with input, data input to SMARTS clock where it was a training issue in three points in upstate New York where all of a sudden due dates were out weeks, and when we, you know, brought this back to Verizon’s attention they realized that there was some, you know, new personnel and they quickly corrected it.

Page 23 of 33

So we have been working with Verizon but I think the bottom line is that this is an ongoing problem for a long, long time, and we have provided reports and studied it each way and you know, Verizon has been responsive in attempting to deal with the spikes in certain areas. They’ve been responsive but I think that we all recognize at this point that there is a recurring underlying issue and it needs a more systematic end to end view to see what could possibly be done to alleviate the number of changed due dates that we receive. Tom Rodgers: Mary would I go to Pat Anderson for more background on this? Mary Halpin: No Tom I think you would go to Tom Delaney and Rich Morin. Tom Rodgers: OK, thank you. Mary Halpin: And Jim McDonald. Sue Pistacchio: And Mary I just wanted to clarify. I see on your change request you do have UNE-P listed only. Mary Halpin: Yes. Sue Pistacchio: I think you said residence maybe. Mary Halpin: Well I’m addressing – yes it’s more of an issue on the residence side we’ve experienced. Sue Pistacchio: So UNE-P, you said New York was your target area. Mary Halpin: Well New York is where we certainly encounter this in much, much larger numbers. The problem is magnified many, many times over for New York State. Loriann Ercan: Mary we might want to add the cut through dates too because they are very long, especially after the business rules (inaudible). We just thought we’d be a shorter due date timeframe. Mary Halpin: When cut through was available? Loriann Ercan: Yes. Beth Cohen: I think that there’s a – if I understand this correctly there’s a difference between a length of time in due date and a change in due date. Mary Halpin: Yes, that’s a big difference. Beth Cohen: Right. Mary Halpin: What we’re talking about Lisa is not so much that we, you know, extended due dates can be a problem if we track those too, where all of a sudden the due date might be out twenty-one days. This is more of an issue where it’s a normal due date, it’s just it’s getting changed in New York with great rapidity in New York State, and when we get the confirmation local response back the due date has been pushed out. Sue Pistacchio: Can I ask about how much live time you have between the preorder and order? Mary Halpin: Well that’s all been provided in the studies that we done. The actual time when the order is created; when it’s been batched and sent to Verizon; the exact time that Verizon edits the order; and when we get back the confirmation with the changed due date. That has been mapped out many times and I can say that even within – and I don’t want to quote any specific times – but even within orders that are sent very, very quickly, very soon, yet the preorder is done and the orders are batched in EDI, we’re still getting dates changed. Tom Rodgers: Is this isolated to product supported via the SMARTS clock? Mary Halpin: This is specifically addressing dates that we receive from the SMARTS clock for new install and move orders for UNE-P. And I guess, you know, it might affect other configurations as well, but right now I’m looking at UNE-P. Tom Rodgers: OK, so I’ll add the description to include SMARTS clock because I didn’t see it referenced in the description. Sue Pistacchio: I don’t know if you want to use SMARTS clock because not everybody understands that. I would say like via the due date availability function.

Page 24 of 33

Mary Halpin: Yes, in the documentation for the change request what I’m asking for is specifically to increase the match rate for the preorder due date availability transaction to the confirmed due date and the local response confirmation. Tom Rodgers: OK, there you go. Mary Halpin: That’s really at the heart, that’s the bottom line of this change request. Beth Cohen: Mary are you, you call out new installs and move orders. Mary Halpin: Well when the truck needs to roll, that’s really what we’re talking about. Beth Cohen: So it’s dispatch. Mary Halpin: Yes exactly, because that’s really the only time that you would go to the SMARTS clock, when something has to be, when you need a dispatch. Tom Rodgers: OK. Beth Cohen: Any other CLECs experiencing the same problem? Tom Rodgers: OK. Any questions about the enhancement? Mary I give you first up to rank it. Mary Halpin: Five. Tom Rodgers: Bridgecom? Broadview? Star, six to unmute as well. Broadview, are you out there? Janice Ziegele: Yes. I’m sorry Tom, what are you asking? Tom Rodgers: I’m asking for a ranking. Janice Ziegele: Oh, we’re going to pass. Tom Rodgers: OK. Choice One? Annemarie Sturtz: We’ll give it a four. Tom Rodgers: Comcast? Nancy Sanders: Pass Tom Rodgers: Covad? John Boshier: We’ll pass Tom. Tom Rodgers: Cox? Gail, are you out there? CTSI? DSCI? Pam Beattie: Five. Tom Rodgers: MCI? Lisa Provenzo: Five. Tom Rodgers: Met-Tel? Elliott Goldberg: This is not a huge problem for us. I’m only going to give it a four, but Tom sometime before conclusion I’d like to get back to the Centrex questionnaire for a couple of minutes. My people have raised some questions that may help me give you guys an answer. Tom Rodgers: OK, will do. Penn Telecom. Doc Matthews: Pass. Tom Rodgers: Sprint? TalkAmerica? Time Warner? Susan Bateman: We’ll pass. Tom Rodgers: OK, and that was US Select? VarTec?

Page 25 of 33

Teresa Castro: Five. Tom Rodgers: Xchange Telcom? XO? Loriann Ercan: We’ll pass. Tom Rodgers: Z-Tel? Peggy Rubino: Four. Gail Gissendanner: Tom this is Gail from Cox. We give it a four. Tom Rodgers: Thank you Gail. Anyone else that is on the bridge that would like to rank this or anyone that I’ve called out that would? OK. Next up, the Verizon enhancement – I’m looking at page 16. CO41461 - send CLEC contact information on LSR to required. Sue I assume you’ll speak to this. Sue Pistacchio: Yes I would. What the intent of this change request is to make changes to the ImpCon field, which is Implementation Contact field, to require that information during greater scope of PON. What we are looking at, what the implementation contact field does is it provides (inaudible) service a request who should be contacted on if there’s a dispatch or if someone needs to be talked to, or maybe to make arrangements for dispatch. Currently the use of this field is very restricted and it is only used in a very small scope of products, primarily with loop products. What we want it to do is expand the scope of this field to be required for anything that may have a dispatch. So primarily with acts of Ns and Ts; also with acts of C when the LNA is N, which is basically anything that may have a dispatch. Now in a lot of cases when you are installing new lines there may be cut through so we may not need to have a dispatch, but in certain cases where cut through may be available after trying to trap the service it may be determined that dispatch is required after all. So as a contingency we would like to have this contact information available. Again in any case where we may have dispatch. That’s basically the intent of this change request. Are there any questions? Joyce Perry: So what happens today; what’s happening today? Sue Pistacchio: Right now like for instance for resale service, I’ll give a perfect example. This information is restricted, so you can’t even put it in. What happens a lot of times is , you know, when they go out (inaudible) dispatch, if there is a no contact situation and there isn’t an appropriate party to call, it’s a missed appointment. The order is jeoped and you need to do a re-dispatch. The hope is if there is an implementation contact that’s available that they can call – and this can be anybody. It can be the CLEC, whoever you want it to be – if they are having situations like missed appointments or whatnot there is somebody that they can call as to not getting access to say, you know, “I’m here”, you know. “Does somebody have the hairdryer on and they can’t hear me ringing the door bell?” So it’s to hope that it will help alleviate some of the missed appointment situations. Lisa Provenzo: How often does this happen Sue? I mean and when? Sue Pistacchio: I actually do have some figures on where it was more prevalent. I think it was broken down by resell and platform. I would have to look for the notes. Lisa Provenzo: Because this is sort of the issue that we talked about before. Elliott Goldberg: (Inaudible) this in the CUF. Lisa Provenzo: Yes. Elliott Goldberg: Tom Delaney is supposedly, we’ve been working with Tom to try to set up a process to resolve this, that this would only be one piece of. Sue Pistacchio: Well this is coming through Tom Delaney’s group, its coming through that way. That’s where I got this from. Elliott Goldberg: What about the other half of the piece that Tom was working on? Do you know, because this is only a piece of it. Sue Pistacchio: They brought to me, was it something that would affect changes to the order process? OK Elliott, I’m getting up to speed on the CUF so that when we have these questions I’m prepared but on this one I’m not, I didn’t get a second piece. Can you…

Page 26 of 33

Lisa Provenzo: I think we had this issue some time ago, we said not to have this field as a required field. Elliott Goldberg: I mean I don’t have a problem – well the issue then Lisa was Verizon was saying that they wanted the customer. Joyce Perry: Right, and we asked for Verizon to… Sue Pistacchio: There is no indication on end users. We just want contact information. Elliott Goldberg: You know, as a matter of fact I would expect that you put on your form someplace, they should call your provisioning desk. Sue Pistacchio: Then they call whose provisioning desk? Elliott Goldberg: The CLECs. I was talking to Lisa, I’m sorry Sue. Sue Pistacchio: OK, and I guess the thing is you have to understand these are installers out in the field and they have the service order in front of them. Mary Halpin: You know Sue (this is Mary) the other item we discussed in addition to what type of a contact and the CLECs, you know, want the option of designating, you know, our provisioning group probably, you know. Or end user, depending on what we want to provide that seem like options. The other issue that we encountered was that although we were providing a contact number on all the orders, I think Tom’s team was investigating this, that it appeared that in some cases the tech was not getting that information. That it wasn’t flowing through to the information that the tech had. So when they were out in the field they didn’t always have the center numbers. Say for example they didn’t have the number that we provided that should be called if there are, if someone had a question. Sue Pistacchio: Where are you providing that field on the LSR? On some of the requests there’s no place to put that information. Mary Halpin: Well, I’d have to go back. Sue Pistacchio: And that’s the change. I mean we were working with Tom Delaney’s group and we did an examination of the LSR process and what we were finding was we felt that there was a deficiency and they were, you know, investigating why this information wasn’t on the service order and we were finding indications that we weren’t allowing it to come in on the LSR. Mary Halpin: Well I think we just send it in on contact information, but it may be that the system that generates or passes the information along to the tech, that actually they were looking for data in a different field, and that’s why at times they didn’t have the number. I thought that was still kind of an open question. That part of it was to the tech always getting the number, or is it that it’s kind of optional, you know, between two fields where you provide the information. And as a result, you know, they may not be getting the number all the time. Sue Pistacchio: In the field that was (inaudible) the contact information it is optional in many cases and restricted in others, it’s very seldom required. I think it’s only required for PONS that require a hot cut, and the PONS that we’ve seen the information does not come in. Mary Halpin: Yes, and maybe if you could – do you know exactly which field? Sue Pistacchio: It’s the ImpCon field. I-m-p-C-o-n - implementation contact. Who should we contact for any questions regarding implementation. Joyce Perry: Is that a new field you put it into or is that (inaudible). Sue Pistacchio: It’s an OBF field. Doc Matthews: That is an OBF field, that is certainly an OBF field. Lisa Provenzo: What’s an OBF field? Does it say it’s a required field? Sue Pistacchio: I believe OBF is an optional field. Lisa Provenzo: I think I’d like to keep it optional. Sue Pistacchio: We don’t have it as an optional field. You have (inaudible) on it already.

Page 27 of 33

Tom Rodgers: The heavy breather has returned. Use star, six please, especially if you are speaking on a headset. Thank you. Joyce Perry: So are you well situated to leave to Lisa, to what Lisa said. Sue, what you said in response to Lisa. Sue Pistacchio: Oh, there are conditions already on the field. We don’t have it as an optional field. We require it anytime there is a hot cut; we require it for loop requests. Lisa Provenzo: OK, that makes sense. Sue Pistacchio: It’s prohibited for resale, for platform it’s optional. And the thing is again we don’t want to have missed appointments, we don’t want to send out jeopardies. If the technician is out of there and they are having trouble getting access - and it could be there’s a dog growling in the yard, you need to put a leash on it, who do they contact? And what they want to get to is they want to be able to better respond to stuff like that. We need to have “who do I call for those situations?” And right now we’re not getting it in a large percentage of the time on orders. And it was like platform and resale. Platform is optional, it’s not coming in. Retail you can’t even put it in. Paul Haven: And just to be clear, I mean what Sue is talking about is a contact at the CLEC, or anybody of your choosing. Doc Matthews: Right. According to the OBF, ImpCon – Implementation Contact, identifies the customer, employee or office responsible for control of installation and completion. During installation the provider will notify this person when the end user requests activity in addition to specified actions or when the work cannot be completed as specified. Loriann Ercan: This is Loriann at XO. I mean… Doc Matthews: It sounds more like a total, like it should be a required field in almost every case because you need someone to get back to if you can’t complete the order out. Loriann Ercan: I agree. Elliott Goldberg: I actually think this is an important one and I agree with Doc and would expand it to repair tickets too. Doc Matthews: Elliott do you want me to pull the OBF for LSR and check out ImpCon on this? Elliott Goldberg: I believe you. I think this is critically important and it should be required. Doc Matthews: I mean in our company we use the ImpCon field constantly and we’re always taking calls just as Sue said. You have a case where we had two dogs in the back yard that had to be taken away in order for the technician to get to the NED in order to complete the work. If we hadn’t completed the ImpCon section the tech wouldn’t have called anyone, he would just have simply, you know, closed out the order, walked away and said no access. Elliott Goldberg: I agree with you Doc, I think this field should be required. Doc Matthews: I mean it may require some coding for some people but I think its not a, there really isn’t an issue on this one in my case. Beth Cohen: Elliott do you want to sponsor it? Elliott Goldberg: Sure. Tom Rodgers: Should we just change this to a Type 5? Doc Matthews: I think we just do. Would you like a co-sponsor? Elliott Goldberg: Let’s put it this way Beth, Tom and I have been working on this in the CUF. I think it’s a vital thing and I brought it up there so why would I be afraid to take ownership of it all the way down the line? Tom Rodgers: OK. Beth Cohen: I appreciate that, thank you. Sue Pistacchio: Now did I also hear a request to expand the scope to also include trouble admin? Elliott Goldberg: Got it.

Page 28 of 33

Sue Pistacchio: OK. Doc Matthews: But Elliott why would we want to move this from Type 4 to a Type 5? Elliott Goldberg: I don’t know, maybe it will go in slower this way. Doc Matthews: That’s my point; I don’t want it to slow down. Sue Pistacchio: It would go in quicker if it was a Type 5. I mean the thing is it’s my understanding that in reality this should be a Type 5 because it was brought to us by Tom Delaney and the provisioning group. It’s my understanding it came kind of from a separate forum and was brought to our side of the house because changes of the ordering process were needed. Elliott Goldberg: I brought it up at the CUF so it, you know, all kidding aside. Doc Matthews: Buddy it's yours, it’s a 5. Let’s rate it. Tom Rodgers: OK. AT & T: Joyce Perry: Four. Tom Rodgers: Bridgecom? Catherine Hanlon: Pass. Tom Rodgers: Broadview? Janice Ziegele: Four. Tom Rodgers: ChoiceOne? Annemarie Sturtz: Four dot five. Tom Rodgers: Comcast? Nancy Sanders: Four. Tom Rodgers: Covad? John are you out there? I’ll come back. Cox? CTSI? DSCI? Pam Beattie: Three dot five. Tom Rodgers: MCI? Lisa Provenzo: Three. Tom Rodgers: Met-Tel? Elliott Goldberg: Five. Tom Rodgers: Penn Telecom? Doc Matthews: Five. Tom Rodgers: Sprint? TalkAmerica? Time Warner? Time Warner: Time Warner passes. Tom Rodgers: US Select? VarTec? Teresa Castro: Four. Tom Rodgers: XChange Telecom? XO? Loriann Ercan: We’ll give it a five as long as we are required to put it in and the tech is required actually to call. Elliott Goldberg: That’s the whole idea Lori, that makes this possible. Now we can start working on piece two, which is how to ensure the tech does it. Tom Rodgers: Z-Tel?

Page 29 of 33

Peggy Rubino: Four. Tom Rodgers: OK. Covad, John are you out there? John Boshier: Yes Tom sorry, I had to drop off for a second. I just got back. What did I miss? (Inaudible) Doc Matthews: (Inaudible) product John, nothing more than a 5. Beth Cohen: If we change a Type 4 to a Type 5 sponsored by Met-Tel and Penn Telecom having to do with requiring the contact field to be populated on the LSR so that folks can be contacted if there’s a problem with the dispatch. John Boshier: So you’re just saying make it a required field. You’re not specifying that that should be user contact, it can be CLEC contact is that like that? Doc Matthews: According to the OBF, that is definitely what it says and I’m saying take a 5 so we can lobby Peggy to make it a 5 as well. John Boshier: I’ll give that a five. Doc Matthews: Peggy we’re lobbying you for that five. Peggy Rubino: And I’m cracking under the pressure. I’ll give it five. Doc Matthews: Back to lobbying AT & T for a five. Mary Halpin: This is Mary; I’ve just have one other bit of information. When we were working with Tom Delaney’s team on this issue and why the techs are not calling at times. We’ve always sent the telephone number, the contact number in the initiator telephone field. Loriann Ercan: Exactly Mary, that was my point. Mary Halpin: OK, right. So we always sent that because that’s what we had originally discussed in negotiations, and what we learned was that at times the techs would not, the information was not being sent to the techs so they were saying, you know, we’re not getting a contact number, and yet we’re – its hard coded, we’re always sending it. So then another field was mentioned, the LCon field and this is simply on the order, on the, on dispatches that require a repair. Certainly a number is always provided, hard coded on those as well. So I just want to make sure I really understand what change is being proposed, because again based on initial discussion a long time ago we are using the initiated telephone field, the number is hard coded in there. Doc Matthews: Mary, in a lot of cases the technician will not get the LCon. They get an ImpCon and they’ll get an LCon. An LCon should be a person located at that place that can provide access. Loriann Ercan: What’s Mary talking about then? Doc Matthews: What State? Loriann Ercan: Yes. Doc Matthews: I’m talking OBF. Mary Halpin: Yes well OBF is the beginning but then we’ve been going by what we program to with the initial discussion you know, that we had back in negotiations. So I guess… Doc Matthews: I can only speak to Pennsylvania. I guess that’s the best thing I can say. In Pennsylvania… Mary Halpin: I think we just need to be very, very clear on what fields we are talking about because we are, we do hard code a number in today in all the orders and initiated telephone fields but in some cases that’s not flowing down in Verizon’s system to the tech. So, you know, which fields are we talking about now that would, we’d have to hard code to change that and, you know, what difference will that make in the process? Someone else had mentioned the porting is CR if it means that the techs will actually get the number and they’ll call. Joyce Perry: And Mary they do get the number and they contact the CLECs and it’s part of my problem – well let me talk about New York where the technician who says they are outside the door and they are not there, and they’re calling, (inaudible) contact, because it’s happened to me. When they came to, supposedly came to my house eight times to install one POTS line and I’m standing looking there and they’re telling the AT & T folks on the

Page 30 of 33

phone, they say “I’m at the customers house” and I’m inside the door I said “where is the van?” So you have situations that technicians are not showing up and it’s an issue to be dealt with. Doc Matthews: You’re living on First Street in New York; there are nine hundred First Streets. So they could be standing in front of the right house… Joyce Perry: Let’s not go there Doc. Mary Halpin: Right. I think that we need – and that’s the process part of it, the NMPs in process. But again if we initiate – and I think this is something that the team was investigating. So then where we had numbers hard coded in initiator telephone field, which would be the one point of contact in AT & T if any one tech or anyone had a question on the order, directions, anything, that, you know we thought that was falling down to the techs in some cases. Is that not happening or is that happening but in addition to that? Sue Pistacchio: The initiator field is a required field in most cases and that does appear in our (inaudible) section. And again I’m not – I don’t profess to be proficient in provisioning methods and procedures, but I don’t think they normally interpret that as a contact person. Usually the initiator, the view is whoever is typing a request into but not the person who would be talked to if there were contact issues. Mary Halpin: Yes because it was confusing because the techs do call in to that number. Joyce Perry: They do call. Mary Halpin: You know, they do call. Sue Pistacchio: This is very – and they looked at a spectrum of across all of our CLEC customers and I can tell you what they are looking for specifically is what we call implementation contact information, and for a very large percentage of the orders that’s not coming in. Now I would need to investigate further to say well if they don’t have that today at least call the initiator field and contact that. I don’t know if that’s the appropriate number for all CLECs. Doc Matthews: And Mary it’s very easy for you to code in the ImpCon, the initiator’s number in the ImpCon field as well as the initiator field, which is what we do. You’ll find in ours we’ll put in the initiator, who is also the ImpCon, who is also the design con. Mary Halpin: Well you know, thanks for the design in coding tips but you know, again any change is costly and we just want to make sure because this has been discussed several times. It’s been quite some time since we did discuss it but I just want to make sure I understand because we are providing a number. It’s hard coded today and it seems that in many cases the techs are getting the number but maybe not all, and I guess if we’re going to, you know, do the change and say “OK, well don’t put it in this field, now put it in another field” what’s the process going to be? And also any type of a change does have to be coded and tested and that’s money. You know, that’s why we really need to assess what, because we’ve been providing the same number in that field, you know. I think we’ve used two different numbers over a period of six years. The last change was a few years ago, so we’re just trying to fully understand what the process change will be. What else will happen if you don’t use initiator and then the other field that was mentioned was LCon, that the techs may be looking at that, and now I think Sue you’re mentioning a different field. Sue Pistacchio: We were looking specifically at the implementation contact field because the LCon field is another one that’s very optional and that one looks more like they’re looking specifically for end user information. That’s why we kind of stayed away from that being a required field because we knew from a CLEC perspective in many cases you prefer the contact to be with the CLECs. So the LCon kind of suggests, you know, end user only. The implementation contact is like “who do you want us to call if there’s implementation problems?” Beth Cohen: It sounds like we’re trying to provide more of a standard approach to this particular issue of who the tech actually calls, and I think that while AT & T and Penn Telecom have probably used other fields to try to get to this, I’m not sure it’s been standard across the board. And it sounds like what we’re able to then do is we use a particular field. We can then write that into the methods and procedures that go out to the field techs to let them know here is the number and here’s where you find it for the contact in case of an implementation problem. Doc Matthews: Well that’s right Beth and what Penn Telecom has looked at from our standpoint is we treat it like belts and suspenders. If the belt breaks we don’t want our pants falling down. We want the suspenders to hold us up so we give them both the initiator contact and the ImpCon field, they have two ways of getting hold of us. Elliott Goldberg: I don’t see that is a problem to give any extra data if that improves our service to our customers, and while Mary is right it does require programming and testing I feel the same way about the Centrex questionnaire and, but in this case I think this is a benefit to everybody and if you don’t want to put it in. Everyone wants to manage their customers and have things installed and repaired on time. Joyce Perry: I don’t need to defend Mary. I have already voted. Mary Halpin: Right. We’ve already (inaudible) on it but I just want to make sure because we’ve discussed in the past in the operations discussions we’ve discussed initiating telephone number, LCon number as

Page 31 of 33

being the number that the techs should typically be looking for although they were getting initiator telephone, and now it’s a different field. So we just need to fully understand what the rules are and what the effect will be in operations so that we are all on the same level. (Inaudible) Loriann Ercan: I agree. Doc Matthews: All right Mary let me give you one quick thought for users is that the initiator contact who Verizon would contact if there’s a problem with the order like an error code, or say wrong cable code or something like that, you want to correct. An NCon is a person supposedly is responsible, makes sure that once its gone to order processing it gets installed, and the LCon is the contact that is your last resort contact for the ability to say “well, you’re at 9 to 5, well here I am at 8.30 in the morning or 9.30 in the morning and I still can’t get access to it” and sometimes for “I need to speak to XYZ in order to get access to the Telco room” or something of that nature. So that’s what the three different fields if you read through the OBF those are what they’re saying, just what the nature behind those are, and that’s why I feel strongly that putting the NCon in is just the belts and suspenders type functionality to it. Doc Matthews: Doc I think you should write our NMP for us. Mary Halpin: Except we don’t support your providing more than one contact, let me state that right now. Loriann Ercan: It doesn’t always work for every business (Inaudible) Mary Halpin: Yes it can, it depends on what you’re implementing and the type of service and if its (inaudible) and a lot of other things but I think we certainly don’t want to provide multiple contacts. We would like one. Tom Rodgers: I do appreciate the discussion but I do need to cut it off and refer it to the CUF for discussion and follow the procedure process would be followed once this field is implemented. Sue Pistacchio: Tom there is one more thing that I’d like to bring to the table… Tom Rodgers: Hold on just a minute. In summarizing this discussion I would ask that either Elliott or Doc submit the change request for the repair component of this. I’m not comfortable tying an order to repair, just kind of doing it that way. I’d prefer a second… Mary Halpin: Yes I fully agree, I think repair should be discussed separately. Doc Matthews: Elliott would you handle that? Elliott Goldberg: I’ll make a note of it Doc. I’ve got to talk to Delaney because it’s already in the CUF for him to work on. We started with repair and worked back to order so I’m a little nonplussed that all things aside that order came up first. But… Tom Rodgers: Well I guess it’s really a discussion. If you’re working with Delaney – our process is to bring issues that are CLEC affecting before the committee to rate it, and to rank, which we’ve done. To continue the discussion with Delaney may be – I can’t explain why repair didn’t get here first. But if you’re really sponsoring the enhancements, you know. Doc Matthews: Tom I’m sponsoring the installation part of it. The repair is not an issue as much to us. Tom Rodgers: OK, but the point being if you’re working through the CUF and it turns out that this is a system enhancement involved, they’re going to send it back to us so that we can all discuss it as (inaudible). Elliott Goldberg: I made a note but I have to talk to Tom first to find out what’s going on because the whole point of this was so that (inaudible) contacted if there was a problem on installation or repair, but we started with repair. Tom Rodgers: OK, understood. Now you also wanted to give us an update on CO41180 Elliott? Elliott Goldberg: Hold on let me get back to it. Is Sue still there? Sue Pistacchio: Yes and the other point that I wanted to make is this is also my impression going to be brought to the West team’s control meeting so we do want to implement this in the West also, so its T’d up and people are prepared. (Inaudible)

Page 32 of 33

Page 33 of 33

Elliott Goldberg: As long as we’re going to get – I’m all for communications that doesn’t, that avoids negative impact to my customers. On the Centrex questionnaire Sue, the first feedback I got back from my people was that on the questionnaire we list multiple TNs and everything so that we can do a Centrex migration as is, and from the little bit we understand of your change we believe that that functionality goes away because it won’t be able to specify all the TNs. Sue Pistacchio: Won’t be able – you can submit, on the PS form you can submit all the TNs. Elliott Goldberg: OK, so what you’re saying is we will not lose that functionality? Sue Pistacchio: Correct. The only thing that we didn’t currently have a specific field for on the LSR forms was a call pickup group and the designated numbers for station to station dialing. That we said would fit in remarks. So that’s covered in the order sample exactly how you should populate the remarks with that information. All other information, we did detail mapping. There is a specific field that is already available on the available forms, LSR forms. Elliott Goldberg: Sue could you send me all that? Sue Pistacchio: Yes I can. I'm going to send you the samples, yes. And again they will be available to everybody on the 18th on the web. Elliott Goldberg: All right, and that’s on the port form you’re saying you put the extra TNs? Sue Pistacchio: Yes. Elliott Goldberg: All right for the supplemental question, but I got that feedback right away and I’m trying to push this out today. Tom Rodgers: You should also expect to see a notification pertaining to the Republican National Convention in New York from senior P distribution list Friday or Monday. You should expect it to function much like it did in Boston, but then I can’t confirm that for you completely I guess. Are there any new issues to discuss before we adjourn? Doc Matthews: Tom may I ask a question? Tom Rodgers: Sure, shoot. Doc Matthews: Page 18 of 75, item number 3, CR2711. Tom Rodgers: Sure. Doc Matthews: Not scheduled. Is there any update to all that we have on that that we can look at, or anything that’s been, you know, discussed lately? Tom Rodgers: Nothing recent. Doc Matthews: OK. And I take it’s the same thing would be for item number 28 on page 19. (Inaudible) verification. Tom Rodgers: That’s correct. Doc Matthews: Thank you. Tom Rodgers: OK. I appreciate your participation in this morning and afternoon, and wish you all a good rest of August, summer and look forward to seeing you all in September. All: Thanks Tom.