Multi-Provider MigrationDiscussion Group

Proposal for Change

February 12, 2003

2

Multi-Provider Migrations

The migration of end-users from a CLEC is complex due to the number of different ways that the CLECs may provide local service to their end user, i.e. service configuration

These migrations will usually involve more than two companies, each with specific migration responsibilities based on migration scenario

When process steps are not followed the end user may be negatively impacted

3

History of Discussion group OBF 77- Group established to discuss the issues

associated with migrations and conversions Group to encourage open dialog on migrations that

would include information sharing and identification of common issues and concerns

Group established not to work issues, but identify gaps in migration where OBF issues are needed.

Issues worked in LSOP committee Group recognized need for CLEC participation

OBF 79 – CLEC invitation extend through ILEC change mgmt… 27 CLECs came… but did not come back…

4

Vision Statement of the Multi-Provider Migration Discussion Group Design an industry-wide “standard”

for migrating end users to ensure companies have one process that benefits all companies, with minimal regulatory intervention

5

What ATIS has done Established “Multi-Provider Discussion Group” website to

inform the industry of CLEC migration issues being worked and resolved in OBF: http://www.atis.org/atis/clc/obf/LSOP/multi_migration.

htm Established “Regulatory Activities” website to inform the

industry of Federal and State proceedings involving processes defined in OBF: http://www.atis.org/atis/clc/obf/regulatory.htm

Maintains an exploder list for and informs the industry of regulatory issues affecting the OBF

Filed comments on behalf of the OBF and initiated discussions with various state commissions

6

Industry Challenges

Six state commissions have initiated proceedings to address CLEC migrations: New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, New

Hampshire, Oregon Minimal CLEC participation in development

of the LSOG defining CLEC migration processes

No effective national forum where CLECs can work collaboratively to address common local ordering concerns

7

Industry Challenges Danger that each state PUC could develop its

own requirements State guidelines developed includes process flows

and data usage requirements Additional cost to the industry to develop and

maintain state specific processes Each state is in varying phases of

modification to the NY Guidelines, effective 6/02 NY State Guidelines were based on Verizon’s LSOG

4 business rules with CLECs

8

CLEC Challenges No industry forum where common concerns are

discussed and resolved Lack of CLEC participation in definition of LSOG

CLEC local order interfaces are coded to ILEC specifications, CLECs perceive little value in the LSOG

CLEC migration business needs are not adequately understood and addressed by LSOP committee, which is mostly comprised of ILEC representatives

Common CLEC misconceptions about the LSOG Have to be OBF funding member to use forms and

processes LSOG is only applicable to mechanized processes

9

Challenge for OBF Rather than have different processes state

to state, as an industry, we are capable of coming up with a guideline that accommodates all parties involved – end users, ILECs and CLECs

We need to establish a viable plan to accomplish our objective

10

Opportunities for OBF Facilitate a national forum for CLEC Migration

Process that State PUCs may rely on: Need endorsement & support of various state

commission to be effective Need CLEC participation in development of a

National CLEC Migration Process To gain buy-in on the migration processes being defined at

OBF, more CLECs need to be involved and heard in processes that affect the way they do business

Migration process needs to integrate with local product ordering processes (e.g. UNE-L, UNE-P & other resold services)

11

Can We Meet Our Challenges Is the concept of a CLEC Migration

workshop viable? Can we get & keep CLEC participation?

Can this group be used as the forum to clearly define the CLEC migration process?

How do we get the various state commissions to recognized the CLEC Migration defined here at OBF What are the critical success factors for this to

be effective?

12

Work Group Concept Evolve Multi-Provider Discussion Group

into a Working Group, which would address Multi-Provider Migration process definition and other CLEC specific issues Group to craft solutions, and develop

contributions(?) to be integrated within the LSOG.

Similar to Wireless and DSL Workshop CLEC participation is critical for the success of

this approach… Need to bring & keep CLECs involved

13

Proposed Next Steps

Identify steps to evolve this forum to an effective work group

Set up conference call prior to OBF 82 to socialize and gain buy-in from CLECs How do we effectively communicate with the

CLECs to attract their involvement? Identify steps to gain State commission

awareness of the Migration defined here Other?