Verizon Internal October 11, 2005 Confirmation #6863497 Operator: Pardon the interruption; we will now begin today’s teleconference. All lines will be open and interactive throughout the call. If you would like to mute your line from background noises please press star, six, on your touchtone phone as that will mute and unmute your line. Again, to mute your line from background noises, please press star, six, on your touchtone phone. I’d like to now introduce today’s speaker, Ms. Jean Derrig. Ma’am, please begin. Jean Derrig: Thank you, and welcome everybody to the October 2005 East change management meeting. I’m going to apologize upfront for my voice. I’m struggling with a cold; it may get weaker as the call goes on. We will see how it is. I actually feel better today than I have been. I’m going to start by asking the CLECs who are on the call to introduce themselves first. Loriann Burke: I Jean, this is Loriann Burke at XO. Sherry Lichtenberg: Sherry Lichtenberg at MCI. Rebecca Baldwin: Rebecca Baldwin, Telcove. Melanie Desmarais: Melanie Desmarais, CTC Communications. Madison Berry: Madison Berrry, CTSI. Carol Frike: Carol Frike, Sprint. Gayle Gissendanner: Gayle Gissendanner with Cox Communications. Brian Axelrod: Brian Axelrod with ATX Communications. Mike Clancy: Mike Clancy, Covad Communications. Dok Matthews: Dok Matthews from Penn Telecom. Peggy Rubino: Peggy Rubino, Trinsic. Jean Derrig: Any other CLECs? Peggy Rubino: Jean, Elliott will be a few minutes late.

Jean Derrig: OK, any other CLECs? That’s interesting. I have five after so hopefully people will join. OK, I’m going to ask for, find out if my presenters are out there. Carol Yozzo? Carol Yozzo: Yes I’m here. Jean Derrig: Sue Pistacchio? Sue? All right, we will hunt down Sue. Dan Duris? Dan? Is everyone on mute? Cindy Vaughan? Speaker: Cindy will be joining us shortly Jean. Jean Derrig: OK. Is Jamey Rawls on and Kevin Curran from… Jamey Rawls: OK Jean, this is Jamey. Kevin Curran: Morning Jean, this is Kevin. Jean Derrig: Thank you. Stephen Cuttle? Stephen Cuttle: Good morning Jean, I’m on. Jean Derrig: OK. Let me check. Carol Yozzo: I just saw (inaudible) Sue. Jean Derrig: OK, and Joan can you hunt down Dan for me too. If we can get started, Carol I think you’re going to update on where LSOG 5 is. Carol Yozzo: Sure I’d be glad to. Good morning everyone. Well actually we are getting down to the wire here. We have less than one week to go until sunset and I’m really happy with the way things are going. We’ve got all of our LSI CLECs (inaudible). (I’d do a little song and dance, but you really wouldn’t want me to.) Where was I? OK, all of the LSI CLECs are using LSOG 6 in some degree. Most of them 100% but as of last week we had 94% of the transactions coming in in LSOG 6, which was very good, especially when you factor in sups which we can’t avoid, so we are in great shape on that count. And then there still a re a few EDI CLECs that are in the process of doing their CTE testing and they have LSI as a backup so if they don’t finish in time I feel that they are also in very good shape. The pipeline files, there weren’t very many pipeline PONs to be sent in the first place but they were sent out last week to any CLECs that had jeops, queries, rejects I guess, and they look like abandoned PONs for the most part. We have asked that if there is any that you want to keep then you need to do something with them before sunset, but there were only about, I think

it was 20 or 25 CLECs that even received files so it was a fairly small number. So it was a very controlled situation and I’m pleased to see us a week before sunset with such a small burden to go. Any questions on LSOG 5 sunset? Jean Derrig: OK, has Sue joined us? Kathryn Kalajian: This is Kathryn Kalajian. Jean Derrig: OK, thanks Kathryn. Has Sue Pistacchio joined us? All right. Carol Yozzo: (Inaudible) so she’s probably tied up. Jean Derrig: I talked to her earlier, she’s coming. Anyway, for LSOG 9 the status is everything is on target to go in this coming weekend, our release weekend and unless anyone has any questions, really that’s all we were going to report on LSOG 9 at this point. OK, moving on to CABS consolidation. I believe Dan has joined us. Dan Duris: Yes I have, thanks. Jean Derrig: OK, and Dan I think this might be the last time you’re on the agenda. Dan Duris: (Inaudible) good news. I’m here to report that we did cut the last phase of our CABS consolidation consisting of the states of Maryland. Mike Clancy: Dan, could you speak up please. Dan Duris: Let me pick up my handset, hold on please. Can you hear me better now? Jean Derrig: Yes. Dan Duris: OK. We cut the last phase of our consolidation, which consisted of Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia, the first of the month, the 1st of October, so the CABS bills for those states will be coming from the CABS East billing system beginning this month, and that completes our CABS East consolidation project. Does anyone have any questions that I might be able to field? OK, it’s been a pleasure joining your calls every month. Jean Derrig: OK.

Sherry Lichtenberg: Good luck. Dan Duris: Thanks, bye bye. Jean Derrig: Bye. Thanks Dan for all your support. Dan Duris: Thanks. Jean Derrig: Moving on to our next topic, is the migration of ACCORD to the South replacing EXACT. We have Cindy Vaughan on the line; she will give a brief update. Go ahead. Cindy Vaughan: OK. Hi, we still are struggling with implementation dates, so those dates have not been decided yet. We are hoping we will get a decision on them next week. It looks like it will be probably sometime second quarter, they are looking at second quarter ’06, so I really don’t have anything new to add until we get something on dates. Jean Derrig: OK, but I would add to that is actually, since its been pushed out so far, instead of continuing to put this on the agenda for us to remove it until a time when we have a more confirmed date and then we will bring it back on and we will start talking about the impact again prior to any notice that needs to go out. Cindy Vaughan: I agree. Mike Clancy: Jean, this is Mike Clancy. I do have a question. Covad is, has undertaken a project to write code to electronically create ASRs and we’re writing that to the EXACT format. Is that going to change with this ACCORD implementation? Cindy Vaughan: Well the – no. I mean what you still send will be the same. Mike Clancy: OK. Cindy Vaughan: I mean you’ll still send the same fields and all of that. I mean it shouldn’t – are you coding it to ASOC specifications? Mike Clancy: Yes. Cindy Vaughan: OK, you should be fine. Mike Clancy: OK, thank you.

Jean Derrig: OK, any objections for us taking this off the agenda for the next couple of months until we are really ready to discuss it in full? Cindy Vaughan: Will you be checking back with me or do you want me to let you know when we have a date? Jean Derrig: We will be checking with you periodically. Cindy Vaughan: That would be great. Jean Derrig: All right, any CLECs have objections with that instead of us just kind of giving no status? All right, I think Sue finally made it on the call. (Inaudible) Jean Derrig: That’s OK. We are up to the FTP report migration. Sue Pistacchio: Just in time! Yes basically the only thing, an email notice went out on September 30th which pretty much covers where we are with the project. Currently what’s up next is the directory listing verification report migration and as noted in the email that’s due to transition or convert over to the new customer wholesale portal on November 28th. So what we will be doing – again when we did the other reports we kind of sent out a blanket registration letter to everyone and got a surprisingly low turnout, so what we are doing is we’ve asked the CLECs to send a letter in to us or send an email in to us if they are utilizing the DLVR and will be converting over and we received quite a number of registration requests. We will be faxing out the registration letters between November 28th and November 30th to the people that have requested and the registration period will run from November 28th until December 23rd and then there will be the parallel operational user period from December 26th to January 20th. The DLVR, directory listing verification report, will be retired from the FTP server on January 21st and we would send out notice around two weeks prior to notify the CLEC community of, remind them of that retirement. Are there any questions on the FTP report migration? Loriann Burke: Sue, this is Loriann at XO. Can more than one person access these reports or is it just like one person per company? Sue Pistacchio: Oh no, you can have multiple users on there. There are two levels of users. There’s a, we call them a CUA. They are an administrator and then there’s just general users. You need to have at least one administrator but you can have multiples. What the administrators do is they control access within their company to these reports. Loriann Burke: OK.

Sue Pistacchio: We did have a workshop and we are planning on having another workshop but we wanted to gear it so that is most likely going to be the same week that the registration letters go out. Actually getting the reports is very simple. When it comes to registering, you know, there is more steps like are you going to be a CUA, are you going to be a general user, and there is actually for the administrators a (inaudible) that you need to use for that. For instance if you became the administrator in your company, you would have to know who in your company would want access to this, you would have to provide them the registration information. They would register and then the request would go to you first. So you’re kind of like the first line and you either approve on and then send it on to Verizon, or you would decline them. So again there’s two levels of users, but you can have multiple CUAs and general users. Loriann Burke: OK, thank you. Sue Pistacchio: Any other questions? Jean Derrig: OK, thank you Sue. Moving on to our next agenda topic, which is the provider notification report. Carol: Carol Yozzo: OK, this is just a reminder of what I’ve been saying for the last several months. The SRPT report, which is still on the FTP server, is being retired as of the October release, so this coming weekend, so if you are still using the SRPT – and I know that there are probably, as of last week anyway, there were about a dozen or so CLECs still accessing the SRPT. We did check to make sure everybody had already set up their CWP access so that they can then use the LLR Prod provider notification report instead of the SRPT. So it does look like everyone is set up although there are still some people accessing the SRPT, at least for this week anyway. Any questions on that? OK and I think I’m next on the agenda. I don’t have it up… Jean Derrig: Yes you are, end user listing. Carol Yozzo: OK, end user listing. OK, this is also proceeding pretty well. We’re, I’d say we were 70% through the conversion in the North and largely what is remaining are a few very large CLECs. We are in the process right now of converting three major CLECs. We expect to complete all of the New York listings, including the three large CLECs, by the end of this week. That’s kind of give or take a day or two but we’re estimating that we should be able to get through the rest of the New York listings by the end of this week. As far as New England goes we expect, we’re again estimating that by the end of October we should be finished with the three CLECs that we’re currently converting and then we have one more CLEC to go, one more very large CLEC to go, and that will be the first round of the North conversion. I do want to explain a little bit about how this conversion is going.

When I say first round, we are converting listings that are eligible for conversion and at any given time not all listings are eligible, so as we complete this first major round, which will probably cover about, probably about 70, 75% of all the listings on the BANs. Once we get through that first round we will then go back and look for more eligibles, and actually this is happening on an ongoing basis. Even as we are running conversions we’re going back and seeing if any new listings have become eligible. The reason why we would find more eligibles is either a listing had a, an account had an order against it when we ran the first conversion or CLECs are still creating listings in BAN format, so we will pick those up over time. So even for the CLECs whose listings have been converted, and I kind of say converted with quotes around it, we’ve – I’m sorry completed, not converted – we may still find more listings for any CLEC, even if you are considered completed in this first round. So a couple of key points: you should be using end user listing for all new listings that you are creating. If you are still creating BAN listings you shouldn’t be, and we’ve actually run into a couple of cases where CLECs have needed, have run out of BAN space and have requested new BANs. There is no reason to be creating new BANS because you should be creating your new listings as end user. And most of the migrations are also eligible to be migrated as end user listing. Because we’re 70% of the way through the listings you should find that most listings you’re going to migrate are converted. You can check that by pulling the CSR and that will confirm it but again, most CLECs have been converted, you’re going to find that most of your listings for migration have been converted. Finally for any CLECs who are still waiting for files to be distributed, even though you may be completed with your conversion I just got a conversion file yesterday and I will be distributing that today to probably about the last ten CLECs that have been through the conversion and a couple that are in process. That covers the period from, well about two weeks back up until October 7, so some time end of September, early October the conversions were completed and files will be distributed today. OK, any questions on what I’ve said so far? And then I have one more item. OK, good. I just wanted to call attention to an issue that came up, and that is that any CLECs that are receiving a paper bill whose listings are converted to end user listings, you will receive a much larger paper bill unless your profile indicates that you only want to see a summary. Most of the CLECs that we’re working with we’re finding get BDT so this is not an issue. In fact it seems to be largely a non issue but even if you have a small volume of listings you should be aware of this. If your profile indicates listing detail then your paper bill is going to list each end user listing whereas before it would only list the BAN. Now that each listing is kind of in a sense its own BAN, each one would be listed. It potentially could cause your paper bill to grow significantly, but again most CLECs, if you had, if you’re using BDT it’s not an issue; if your profile indicates summary it’s not an issue. Any questions on that? OK, back to you Jean then.

Jean Derrig: OK, moving on to our next agenda item, which is the WCCC update, and there also will be CTE update, I have both Jamey and Kevin on the line, filling in for Kevin – I mean filling in for Nik, so I’ll start with Kevin first for WCCC. Kevin Curran: Thank you Jean. Everything appears to be working successfully today and there was a notification that was sent out last Tuesday, I believe there was follow up call held on Friday and right now we’re, you know, all the system seems to be up, working functionally, and no urgent issues on the plate right now. Questions, concerns? Mike Clancy: Jean, this is Mike Clancy. Would this be the appropriate time to bring up the issue I’ve been emailing you about? Jean Derrig: No because my SMEs are not on the line yet. Mike Clancy: OK. Jean Derrig: As soon as they tell me they are on the line, Mike, I’m going to bring them in at a logical point. Mike Clancy: OK, great. Jean Derrig: Hopefully they free up after 10:30. That’s my hope then. Jamey Rawls: OK, thanks Kevin. This is Jamey for CTE update. We are in the last week of testing. As you are aware the release, the October release will roll into production this weekend. We have approximately 10 to 15% of our CLEC testing still outstanding so we are well on track to completing that this week. One note on the WCCC; there will be a note forthcoming from the WCCC for a post release call for the October release and that will come out some time this week from the WCCC. Are there any questions for CT or again for WCCC? Gloria Velez: Jamey this is Gloria Velez. Jamey Rawls: Yes? Gloria Velez: My question is on the Verizon West CTE environment. When we were testing for the October release we ran into an issue associated with invalid ISOC combinations, and we had the same issue the last go around, so the previous release, and in discussing the issue we learned that it appeared to me, based upon the information I learned, that the overall environment within CTE did not match production. In this particular case we were – I don’t

remember if they were platform orders or resale orders, where we were using a set of ISOCs in production and they were working fine, and when we went to go use these same set of ISOCs in the test environment we had gotten these system rejects. Originally we were told that there was a problem and then we were told yes, there is a problem and it’s not going to function like that in the production environment and we will fix it. So my question is it seems to me that there are certain things that are not identical between CTE and production, and I’d like to know how we can go ahead and talk further on this. Sometimes during testing we’re all very busy trying to get the orders through; now that we are past that maybe it’s time to try to focus on that a little bit. Jamey Rawls: Gloria, I know that your testing is done through Joanne and I’m not aware of a situation where CT is out of synch with production or an issue similar. Do you have a trouble ticket? I’m assuming you have a trouble ticket when you opened in CTE. Gloria Velez: Yes we can go back, I can get the emails that we had with Elizabeth, yes. Jamey Rawls: OK. If, maybe we can chat. If you can send me that trouble ticket number I’ll look at it and try to get some details. I know you mentioned it was in the West environment and with that meeting coming up next week I can probably have some information for that call. Gloria Velez: OK, all right, thank you. Jamey Rawls: OK, any other questions for CT? Jean Derrig: OK thanks Jamey, thanks Kevin. Jamey Rawls: Great, thanks Jean. Jean Derrig: All right, moving on to training and web enhancements, Stephen: Stephen Cuttle: Thanks Jean. Good morning everyone. Just to start out there are a few training workshops scheduled for the remainder of October, one that takes place this Wednesday for local ordering. That is a combined East and West ordering workshop on October 12th and you can register for that on the events calendar. There is also an LSI trouble administration workshop scheduled on October 18th from 10 to 12 Eastern, and that’s also on the events calendar for you to register. I just want to bring your attention, yesterday the notification went out through change management for the enhancements that have taken place since last month on the website and I would just encourage you

to take a look at those. I wasn’t going to go through in detail some of the updates but just bring your attention to that notification. The other item, I just wanted to give an update on the web redesign project that I talked about last month. It’s on track and again that will be - the redesigned homepage will go into production on Monday, October 17th. A notification did go out through change management on the 7th giving some highlights of the updates and also a series of web tours that Verizon will be conducting that same week. The dates of those workshops are in the notification. They are also on the events calendar but the dates again are October 17th, October 18th and October 19th. In addition the following week we will also launch a new video. It should be about 8 to 10 minutes long, which will actually be a video to highlight the updates that have taken place on the Verizon website and will basically be an online tour that you can access at any time 24/7, and that video we do plan to launch that, it would be the week of the 24th. And just a reminder what’s happening with the web redesign project, you will see a very dynamic homepage that will have links to the ordering and trouble admin applications, the applications you are using to do business with, as well as solutions for products and services. Also with this project the product and services section has been redesigned and the new name will be Solutions. That is just to point out the one URL that will change so if your teams have bookmarked Products & Services, on October 17th if they click on that URL they will get a message that pops up indicating that the section has been redesigned. It will actually provide links, direct links that they can click on to the new Solutions section. In addition our search engine has been enhanced as well as the Glossary section, and that will all take place, again, on Monday, October 17th. Are there any questions? Jean Derrig: OK. Stephen Cuttle: OK, thanks. Jean Derrig: Thanks Stephen. I’m going to move on to the items by release and Mike, hopefully my SMEs will be on soon. They promised me at 10:30. Anyway, so the items by release, currently we are showing all the October’s items. There really has been no change since last month. We will be adding the February release items for November materials, we just weren’t quite ready to get anything out there for the February release for this meeting but we will have it definitely for the November meeting and we will go over those items then. Any questions; anyone still out there?

Speakers: Yes. Mike Clancy: Yes, we’re still here. Elliott Goldberg: We’re just listening quietly. Jean Derrig: OK, that’s good, thank you. Gloria Velez: Jean, this is Gloria. I know you have it on – well actually maybe I’m ahead of your agenda. You have an item here on two CRs that were deferred from last month. Jean Derrig: Right, they’re coming up. Gloria Velez: You’re coming up on that one, OK. Jean Derrig: Yes. OK I have one of my SMEs that just joined the call, Raphael Mingo (sp?) so Mike from - Mike Clancy has brought to our attention a concern over an ASR processing. So Mike I’m going to ask you to summarize your issue and then we will go from there as to our SME responding or if you want to put out there if any CLECs are seeing the same thing or not. Mike Clancy: Yes, I would like the other CLECs to just be attentive to this concern and it’s a concern related to high cap services that are ordered via ASR in Verizon East, which could be transport services or UNE loops that are high capacity UNE loops, P1s or P3s. Verizon sent out an industry letter back in July and it related to the TRO, TRRO, and implementation of self certification methodology related to that, and Verizon had previously sent out a list of central offices that were, in Verizon’s opinion, not impaired, for particular types of service which could be either transport or UNE, or both and CLECs have an ability to do a reasonable due diligence on that and work with Verizon to clarify that list if they feel that list is incorrect. And if the CLECs were to believe that one or many of the central offices on that list were still impaired they could signify via, during the order processing by self certifying, and there’s a field on the ASR, I believe it’s the NCO field, where Verizon indicated that CLECs should put in a C in the second character - it did not indicate what should go in the first character - and a Y if it was a commingled service. So Covad started processing orders on September 26th as indicated in the industry letter, putting a C in the second character, and the orders were getting rejected. Upon follow up we’ve gotten different directions, people in different CATCs, that you should put a Y and a C, that the Y doesn’t necessarily indicate commingled service, that a YS indicates commingled service (YS was never on the industry letter) and in the State of Massachusetts

everything should be YC. So basically we’re getting different directions than those that were expressed on the industry letter and we are still having problems processing ASRs. Some are going through, some are being rejected, and it seems to be dependent upon which CATC is processing the order. So what I would like is that Verizon clarify via industry letter what we should be doing, and if its state specific that the indicate which state requires a different ordering scenario than another state, so that I can share that with my provisioning team and they can provision orders as we get them in. So that’s the issue. Is any other CLEC having problems? Dok Matthews: Mike. Mike Clancy: Yes? Dok Matthews: This is Dok from Penn Telecom. Have you seen any invoicing back on, as a result of this work? I mean I know it’s a real recent change but have you seen how they are billing it for us? Mike Clancy: No. Dok Matthews: Because remember, if you’re putting a Y in, you’re saying yes, bill me for special access on a transport and only unbundled access, or unbundled charges on the end loop. Mike Clancy: Right, and what we are – we’re being told to put the YC in on loop so that, you know, that’s a good question Dok. Dok Matthews: And it’s not non-commissioned officers case number, it’s CNO. Mike Clancy: CNO – sorry, thank you. Jean Derrig: Raphael, can you address some of their concerns or some of the reasons behind some of the actions? Raphael Mingo: Yes and what I’ll do is I’ll take some things a little bit further back in history. What the CNO field, what Verizon did with the implementation of the Y, and I’ll speak about the Y first because that’s actually the first thing that we sent out and use that as the method in order to differentiate between CLECs who were placing orders pursuant to the TRO rules versus UNE orders pursuant to the pre TRO rules. We sent out an industry letter back in 2004, on February 20th 2004, announcing the CNO equals using a Y in the first position for CLECs who were ordering UNEs pursuant to the TRO rules. This is our way of being able to differentiate those that were ordering pursuant to the rules and

those that were not, and all of that was based upon whether or not a user CLEC and Verizon had negotiated an amendment when one was required or if there was tariff provisions that were changed. So that’s what the Y is for. The Y is not just for commingling and I kind of want to, I guess how to phrase this correctly. The Y is for ordering pursuant to the TRO, period. So anything out of the TRO for a particular agreement or tariff, you would use that Y in the first position. Mike Clancy: Wait, Raphael. This is Mike again. Raphael Mingo: OK. Mike Clancy: In our IA, in our contract with Verizon we have a change of law provision. Raphael Mingo: Correct. Mike Clancy: That requires negotiation. It doesn’t – it’s unresponsive to mandated demand by one party or another. You know, there is no mandate. If the law changes then there is a process to negotiate the change of law, so industry letters with a Y pursuant to TRO means nothing to Covad. Raphael Mingo: It would mean something to you, to Covad, when Covad and Verizon sign an agreement, a negotiated agreement, or go through an arbitration, which is exactly the case in Massachusetts. Mike Clancy: All right, well hang on. This is not only Massachusetts. Raphael Mingo: OK, what other states are you getting rejections for using a Y, or not using a Y I guess I should say (inaudible). Mike Clancy: All across Verizon East, as of September 26, when we started to place the C in the CNO field, the second character. Then we were told to put the Y in, even though we don’t have an agreement. Nancy Donovan: Mike, this is Nancy Donovan from Verizon. Mike Clancy: Yes. Nancy Donovan: Was that mostly in the South that you were getting that at the Y? Mike Clancy: I would have to get you the exact examples and send them to you. Nancy Donovan: OK.

Mike Clancy: But the problem is we followed the July industry letter that said put a C in. Nancy Donovan: Right, in the second position. Mike Clancy: In the second position, nothing in the first position. Nancy Donovan: OK. Mike Clancy: We got rejections. Then we tried putting an underscore in the first position and a C in the second position to see if that would work – rejected. So when we followed up we were told put a Y in the first position and a C in the second position and Massachusetts has the requirement across the board. Nancy Donovan: Right. Mike Clancy: Y and C, OK, so – but the problem wasn’t only Massachusetts. Nancy Donovan: All right, did – there was an internal system issue that I did find in the South, and that’s getting fixed today. Mike Clancy: OK. Nancy Donovan: So you should be able to put a blank C in there, and it’s also been fixed in the North except for obviously Massachusetts. Mike Clancy: Right. Nancy Donovan: So, because if you did put the YC in the South – I know you were getting other reject errors and I did fix that. Mike Clancy: OK so going forward, blank C should work everywhere but Massachusetts, and Massachusetts requires YC. Nancy Donovan: Yes. Mike Clancy: OK. Jean Derrig: Now can I just confirm the Massachusetts YC? I mean that’s very specific to Covad. Raphael, is every CLEC supposed to have Y in that first category in Massachusetts or only the ones that have signed an amendment and/or were part of the Massachusetts arbitration?

Raphael Mingo: The latter, so it would be those that have signed an amendment, those with contracts who have either signed an amendment or were a part of the arbitration where there was an order by the Mass GTE making it effective their ruling on July the 14th, and then if anyone that’s ordering directly out of the tariffs that does not have an agreement with us, would also put that Y. Mike Clancy: All right, so if we signed an amendment, we’re part of Massachusetts arbitration, we would use YC. If we order directly out of the tariff we would use YC anyway. Raphael Mingo: Right, if you order directly out of that, basically you would be those that do not have an agreement in Massachusetts with Verizon at all and have the capability of ordering directly out of the Mass tariffs. And I did want to, before we get too far away, I wanted to make one, you know, clarify a statement that was stated earlier. I can’t remember the gentleman’s name but saying that if you populated a Y that means that you’re going to be billed special access rates for a portion of your circuit, and that’s not correct. Just populating the Y will not direct Verizon to bill you special access for a portion of the circuit that you’re ordering. It’s when you populate the S in the second field. Dok Matthews: I’m sorry Raphael, you’re right. Mike Clancy: OK so the C is a way for Verizon to manage what services are being ordered that way, so when eventually there is some reconciliation, some kind of contract or whatever, the billing can be reconciled at that time, right? Raphael Mingo: You mean for? Mike Clancy: Well the difference between a UNE and, you know, if it’s not an add versus impaired and I’m saying. Raphael Mingo: Right. Mike Clancy: It’s still not impaired and Verizon believes it is impaired – I mean it is not impaired and I believe it is impaired. Raphael Mingo: Correct. Mike Clancy: It’s a way to reconcile later on. Raphael Mingo: You are correct, yes.

Mike Clancy: OK. All right, and the system issues Nancy are going to be fixed by when? Nancy Donovan: Hopefully tomorrow morning. Mike Clancy: OK. Nancy Donovan: If you have any ASRs that are stuck. Mike Clancy: Yes. Nancy Donovan: I can do a work around for you. If you want to send them to Jean and she can forward them to me. Mike Clancy: OK. Nancy Donovan: I might have to add some stuff to your ASR that – no impact to billing, no impact to anything, I can get them flowing for you. Mike Clancy: OK, I’ll let the provisioning team know that. Nancy Donovan: OK. Mike Clancy: All right, thank you. Nancy Donovan: You’re welcome. And then like I think Raphael mentioned before, if you just put in every state except Massachusetts, and this is all CLECs if you’ve not signed a TRO or gone to arbitration or whatever, if you just put a C, a blank C on all your ASRs, you won’t get those queried, those auto queries back from us saying, you know, certification required. Mike Clancy: OK. Nancy Donovan: So if you just have that on there, you know, that will stop all those other queries from coming back. Mike Clancy: Right. Dok Matthews: Are you… Mike Clancy: Go ahead Dok. Dok Matthews: Clarification. Are you saying that in all cases placing a C in the second field for unbundled product is the standard in which we’re supposed to go?

Nancy Donovan: Well, I mean you could. You can do it you know, if you can put it on there and if it’s in an impaired office we will ignore it, OK. Dok Matthews: But the second note says specifically not to have it there. Jean Derrig: You’re right. Yes, the letter says not to put anything in if it’s an impaired office, only to use it when it’s non-impaired. Nancy Donovan: Right. Jean Derrig: That we disagree with. Mike Clancy: Well wait, right. If it’s impaired it should just process normally, right? Nancy Donovan: Yes, I’m sorry, on all your non-impaired, excuse me. On all the stations that are not impaired, put the C on up front and then you won’t get the query back from us. Mike Clancy: OK. Nancy Donovan: All right. Mike Clancy: And then whenever the legal issues are resolved, the billing issues would be resolved after that. Nancy Donovan: Uh huh. Jean Derrig: And that’s how those particular orders are going to be identified, because they had that C in them, right. Raphael Mingo: Correct. Jean Derrig: OK, so Mike did we address your concerns? Mike Clancy: Yes I think this addresses my concern. It seems like it was a system edit that didn’t populate correctly so once that’s resolved I think we should have no issue, but Jean I will let you know after tomorrow if we still do. I’ll contact the provisioning people to see if they want to wait a day or if they want to forward the ASRs through you to Nancy. Jean Derrig: OK. Nancy Donovan: Yes, if you want to reset them all tomorrow with the blank space.

Mike Clancy: OK. Nancy Donovan: Don’t go (inaudible) them. Mike Clancy: OK great. Thank you very much. Dok Matthews: Jean. Jean Derrig: Yes? Dok Matthews: While we have Raphael here may I indulge you for one quick clarification question? Jean Derrig: OK. Dok Matthews: Raphael, if a CLEC has an unbundled DS3 that terminates in an office that they are non-collocated in, under the TRO can we now place special access orders off of that unbundled DS3 or is it still out of bounds? Raphael Mingo: Under the TRO? Dok Matthews: TRRO, yes. Raphael Mingo: Well the, I mean the TRO talks about commingling and depending on what type of services you’re trying, I mean what you’re trying to connect to that. Like for example if you’re creating a, essentially what would become a loop transport combination, or what the TRO calls a commingled EEL, you would be able to place the special access loops on there except that your DS3, which is, which you said is still EEL, so that would still have to qualify under the TRO EEL eligibility rules. Dok Matthews: OK. Raphael Mingo: So you would have to, you can still certify those circuits that they meet the rules and so on. I think the one – of course there’s always, this all follows with the same things we were talking about with the CNO field, meaning that the agreement issues, as far as those, Verizon having negotiating one with you guys. The one place where I think everyone knows that we do commingling as well but outside of the TRO and that’s in New York, part of the New York tariff rules which are slightly different, but you can do some commingling there as well. Dok Matthews: So without an amendment you can’t commingle in a non New York.

Raphael Mingo: In a non New York state, that’s correct. Dok Matthews: Thank you very much; thank you Jean. Jean Derrig: All right, thank you. Thank you, both Nancy and Raphael, for (inaudible). Nancy Donovan: You’re welcome. (Inaudible) Jean Derrig: All right, moving on to the PWG portion of the agenda, we have two deferred CRs from, actually the last several months. The first one being the phrase codes from Covad. Mike are we ready to either (inaudible) this or do anything with it yet? Mike Clancy: No, no keep it in suspended animation. Jean Derrig: OK. Has any other CLEC – I mean I know Mike last month at both the CUF and change management meetings discussed the Y57 – am I close? Mike Clancy: Yes, that’s it. Jean Derrig: Phrase set. I didn’t know if any other CLECs were seeing this. He had asked if anybody else was seeing this. OK, we will keep this going or on hold. Mike Clancy: OK and as soon as I have details I will get them to you Jean. Jean Derrig: OK, or if you have, you know, if you want us to eventually withdraw it, let me know that too. Mike Clancy: Yes, I’ll let you know that too. Jean Derrig: OK. The next one was a Verizon Type 4, C05-0956. This was to implement the maximum line/PON number restrictions. We had initially presented this, I think back in August. The CLECs had asked us to do some further investigation and we are still in that process, so I’m actually going to recommend that we take this off for now, basically defer it indefinitely until we are actually ready to come back in and represent it, if ever, so I just wanted to let everybody know that that’s kind of where its going to go after this meeting, is we’re kind of just going to defer it indefinitely and not continue to carry it on the agenda until we are ready to bring it back.

Well good, so that brings us to our one new Type 5 for the month. That was sent in by Sprint, it’s C05-2161 and it’s to return the listed name LNFN and LNLN fields in the case that is required on the LSR. I believe Carol, you’re on for Sprint. Carol Frike: Yes. What we are running into is these fields are returned on the CSR in all caps and our systems are either pre-poping them or our provisioners are copying and pasting them over that way and we’re getting rejected from Verizon because they won’t allow you to send them in all caps, and so we’re asking if you’re going to put a business rule on the way you want them to come to you (inaudible) LSR that they get returned on the CSR that way. Jean Derrig: Any questions; do you have any comments on this? Mike Clancy: So the issue is that the way the information is presented on a CSR would create a reject if you just cut and paste it? Carol Frike: Right. Mike Clancy: Now would this apply to all fields or just these? Carol Frike: These are the two we’re hitting. I don’t know if there are others that we are not but these are the two that are causing us a ton of rejects. Sue Pistacchio: Yes. I know Jean, we checked. The directory listing query has things in the appropriate case but the CSR which is the billing repository, the backend systems are either all upper case or - I believe it’s just the North that’s all upper case. The directory listing query would have it in the appropriate upper or lower case. Lisa Provenzo: This is Lisa with MCI. I always thought that however you wanted to see it listed in the directory listing on the LSR, that’s how you should populate it. Sue Pistacchio: That’s true, but when it goes to the CRIS database that just puts it all – I believe it’s a database constraint, everything is in upper case, so in the North that database is not, it doesn’t recognize cases so the downstream systems do recognize the appropriate case that its in, as does the directory listing query, but the CSR is, it doesn’t have any formatting information. Jean Derrig: Sue what’s the – I mean Carol mentioned there’s business rules on the case.

Sue Pistacchio: You’re supposed to put the listing in the way that you want it to appear. Lisa Provenzo: Right, this is Lisa. I mean that’s how we always worked it from day one. Carol Frike: But even if you want it in all caps you can’t, because there are business rules saying that it can’t be that way. Sue Pistacchio: No, if you want something in all caps you can do it. There are – I don’t know if you put the asterisk but there are listings that are in all caps. There is a way to do it, but as I said, I don’t know how. Carol Frike: But it’s still different than just placing it in those fields in all caps, right? Sue Pistacchio: I believe so. I would have to look to see. That’s something that would be covered in a workshop. It wouldn’t be in a business rules. I know that there are ways that you can put something in all caps if that’s exactly what you want to do, but the way that you put it on the LSR is supposed to be how you want it to appear, so I know like they have something like triple A would be AAA all in upper caps and there is a way to do that. Gloria Velez: This is Gloria Velez from AT & T. I’m assuming that this issue does not surface if you keep your listings as is when you migrate the customer. Carol Frike: That’s correct. Gloria Velez: OK, thanks. Carol Frike: Right and that’s what I was going to say. We don’t generally pull a directory listing enquiry when you’re porting a number, generally you pull the CSR. Sue Pistacchio: So are you making changes to these listings? Carol Frike: Yes and what they’re doing is re-poping as much information off the CSR onto the order and the (inaudible) needs to be changed. Lisa Provenzo: So they’re not validating anything as far as a directory listing enquiry? Carol Frike: Right. Lisa Provenzo: To see how the existing listing looks for the customer.

Carol Frike: Well that’s on the CSR. Lisa Provenzo: No, I mean the directory listing enquiry, the preorder transaction. It gives you a better snapshot. Carol Frike: The same information is on the CSR. Sue Pistacchio: Not necessarily. Lisa Provenzo: No. Sue Pistacchio: It’s not. The CSR is a billing record; it’s not a directory listing record. How your listings appear in the book is in the directory listing query and there are cases, I believe it’s an MDVW, where we provide you what we call a stub listing, which does not even remotely resemble what’s in your directory. You need to look at the directory listing query if you want to see how your listing would look like in the directory. I know I’ve seen listings like, you know, when I think of the all upper caps, for instance I do think it has something to do with asterisk and they’ll actually show that’s how the order came in but you wouldn’t, you know, that’s not how your listing appears in the book. That’s the directory listing query. So to me Jean, it’s kind of like apples and oranges. I mean CRIS, or the CSR was never created to provide, you know, this is exactly what your listings look like and that’s why the directory listing query was put into place. I’m being told if you want to cap something you put an asterisk before. Jean Derrig: For each letter that you want to cap (inaudible) Sue Pistacchio: Right. Carol Frike: If we can’t rely on the information from the CSR at all though, then why are those fields even appearing? What’s the purpose of having them on? Sue Pistacchio: We return all of the information from the CSR. Are you talking on the parsed CSR? Carol Frike: Right. Sue Pistacchio: Well we’re following the OBN standard to return that but in addition to that we were asked to provide the directory listing query because folks wanted a more accurate way to have a representation of what was being published, so you really need to utilize both.

Carol Frike: Well – and we do but I’m just thinking it’s, there’s no guarantee that anything is accurate on the CSR so I don’t understand the purpose of having those fields on there. Sue Pistacchio: Having been a rep I know that you can’t utilize just one system to provide an accurate order to submit a service request. In many cases you need to utilize multiple preorder transactions prior to having all the information that you need to successfully submit an LSR. That’s both on the internal side, you know, and also external. You really need to utilize all the tools that are available and utilize them in conjunction with one another. Jean Derrig: And Carol, you know, when you say there’s not accurate information, I believe the information is accurate. I’m not going to say 100% of the time but it’s accurate in the fact that this is the listing. It may not be the actual same cases, but it’s saying here you have a listing for John Smith for this number, or you have no listing for John, you know, it’s a non-pub or whatever. That’s what the billing record - it’s used for billing. Carol Frike: Right. Sue Pistacchio: And I mean we get into this debate a lot with the CSR because it does have virtually all the information but it is not considered what we call the golden source on all information. So a lot of the other databases are considered the golden source, or some more authoritative place to go to to get that type of information, and in most cases we do provide those applications via preorder. Carol Frike: OK, I will go back and see if we can make some modifications. Thank you. Jean Derrig: OK, and we will follow back up with you Carol whether this is just going to be deferred, but it sounds like there’s really nothing from a CSR standpoint that we’re going to be able to fix. And in the meantime I’ll hunt around into some of the training modules and see if there’s any places where I could point you to, to help you with some of this. Carol Frike: All right, thank you. Jean Derrig: OK, so I guess we’re not rating anything today. That is our meeting for today. Hopefully the phone call, full phone call worked alright for everything. I was a little concerned in the fact that yesterday I had a more limited voice than I do today but thank God this morning I woke up and it was a little better. So our next meeting is a face to face meeting in New York in our normal room, I think its 1501. Normal time, the second Tuesday of

the month, which is November 8th, early in the month and I believe a CUF meeting is scheduled for the following day, on Wednesday the 9th. That’s all I have, and thanks everybody for joining. Mike Clancy: Thank you Jean. Speakers: Thank you. Gloria Velez: This is Gloria Velez. I just have a question. I know I ask this question every month. Jean Derrig: No, we don’t have a date for LSOG 6; still doing planning stuff. Gloria Velez: OK. Jean Derrig: Gloria we will let you know well in advance. Gloria Velez: I know. I know we’re the first one on the list. Thank you. Jean Derrig: All right, thank you. Bye.