INTRODUCTION TO OUR PPT TEMPLATE

1
(No Transcript)
2
.

• Standard Contract Forum 3 November
  200513.30Customer Suite, BT Centre, London

3
Standard Contract Forum Thursday 3 November
2005

• AGENDA
• Introduction and Notes of Previous Meeting
• Consult 21
• Lead Times
• Review of New and Amended Schedules
• Geographic VOIP Ranges
• TMP Update
• Any Other Business

4
Consult21New Working Groups

• The Groups
• The People
• The Objectives
• 28th October 2005

Nigel Scott Consult21
4
5
Update Commentary

• The scope and interactions of the WGs have been
  modified based on feedback and internal Buddy
  war gaming, in particular
• The work of the Legacy Working Group is subsumed
  into the appropriate Product Working Group
• A new WG Management group is formed
• The WG scopes have been fleshed out

6
Consult21 Working Group Structure
WG Managemenet Co-Chair Co-ordination
Steering Board To be a co-ordination and
escalation point
Communications To keep end users informed

• Implementation Migration
• To make tomorrow happen
• Operational Planning
• Implementation

Architecture Framework Groups Providing the
underpinning Systems Processes Network
Structure, Network Hooks
7
Top Level Themes
Product Groups
What do we do with what we've got
What (new) do we want and when
Legacy
21CN New
Contract Commercial
How we do business
The Product WGs address both legacy transition
and 21CN products
8
Consult21 Themes Contacts Industry Co-Chair Consult21 Buddy Key Player/s
Commercial Group tba Chris Evans tba
Contract tba n/a Keith Mitchinson
Communications Claire Wallace (Energis) Andy Rudman Joe Kelly
Implementation Migration Chris Danzelman (CW) Liz Walsh Mike Cook
Broadband Gavin Young (Bulldog) Tom Saville  
- LLU     Paul Barratt (O)
- Datastream / FAS     Bill Jones
- IPStream     Andy Jugg
Line Access Justin Orde (Spitfire) Tom Saville  
- WLR (legacy migration)     "Colin Reith" (O)
- MSAN Voice Access product(s)     Mike Ward
Interconnect Portfolio Paul Griffin (Energis) Chris Evans Mike Ward
Point to Point John Lee (Energis) Tom Saville  
- PCs PPCs     Rob Thomas
- Ethernet (WES)     Peter Newton (O)
- Backhaul (BES)     tba
 Systems Processes Nancy Saunders (Kingston)  Tim Short Graham Crane Mark Gray
Network Structure Paul Rosbotham (CW) Chris Evans Tim Wright
Network Hooks Antony Millington (Energis) Tim Short Andy Fielden
WG Management   Bill Du Cann Guy Bradshaw
      tba (O)
8
Key Players C0-Chairs to be re-confirmed
9
Consult 21
Working Groups Proposed Scopes (Updated)
9
10
WG Management Group Scope

• Objective / Purpose
• To own and manage the obligatory products
  transformation plan (with clear understandings of
  what constitutes no change, transfer engineering
  and equivalent 21CN products and where these will
  apply and impact migration plans)
• To manage the cross-WG Issues and Requirements
  register(s) to facilitate the WGs to achieve
  their objectives
• To monitor and report on the critical delivery
  path for the Plan, instigating appropriate
  actions to resolve any problems.
• To monitor the Consult21 process, proposing
  improvements where necessary

11
Product Working Group ScopesBroadband, Point to
Point, Interconnect Portfolio and Line Access

• Objective / Purpose
• To provide the detailed trajectory and critical
  path plans for those products contained within
  the obligatory products transformation plan, in
  particular addressing withdrawal and
  transformation issues.
• To agree the
• outline requirements / product descriptions for
• new products/services
• transformation products e.g. VIECs
• commercial and service wrap for the above
  products
• introduction timeframes for the new products
• Scope
• Obligatory products during the transformation
  phase to BTs 21CN

12
Architecture Framework Scope Systems
Processes, Network Hooks and Network Structure
(e.g. MSAN) Working Groups

• Objective / Purpose
• To adopt interface standards, rules,
  functionality, principles, frameworks etc that
  govern the development and implementation of
  networks and systems.
• To ensure that as far as is practicable
  individual product needs are catered for in a
  consistent way with a minimum of re-invention
• Application of standards, inherent resilience,
  impairment standards, planning rules, firewalls
  etc
• Scope
• Builds on UK standards from NICC etc.

13
Implementation Migration Scope

• Objective / Purpose
• To create an assured environment that enables the
  migration of voice and non-voice products off
  affected BT switches and platforms
• To minimise any potential negative impact of
  migration on end users
• To capture learning from the migration processes
  for application to BAU.
• To introduce new products as defined by the
  Product WGs.
• Scope
• All obligatory products and those non-obligatory
  products within the remit of Consult21 to achieve
  the above objectives

14
Legacy vs New Products
Legacy
21CN New
Working Group
M
Interconnect Portfolio
C
M
C
Broadband
M
Line Access
C
M
C
Point to Point
Point to Point includes all TDM and Ethernet type
services All Product Working Groups have both
legacy new product opportunities. Many of the
same people will be involved in Legacy New
discussions Legacy work will conclude before New
concludes, but they will overlap
15

• Thank you
• This is an evolving Consultation
• Your feedback on the structure and operation is
  very much appreciated

16
MIGRATION PROPOSALCONSULTATION FRAMEWORK

• Nigel Scott
• This presentation provides an overview of the
  National Migration Proposal and its associated
  Consultation

17
PRE- CONSULTATION FEEDBACKSUMMARY

• 8 responses were received
• Feedback fell into 3 categories
• The data set
• Additional information relating to DLE closure or
  clarifications has been incorporated into the
  revised proposal
• Clear methodology around document control
  included
• Consultation Framework
• Feedback received is consistent with Consultation
  Framework
• Adjudication process defined for Consultation
  Phase only
• Additional Information required to enable
  planning
• Voice Migration Methodology Strawman confirmed
  to facilitate Bi-lateral discussion
• Development of a Roadmap identifying when
  additional information will be available

18
MIGRATION PROPOSAL DATASETISSUE 2

• Audience
• Communications Providers with whom BT has direct
  interconnect or LLU relationship
• Objectives
• Provides details of the 21CN locations and
  high-level site-based details of how the existing
  infrastructure will be mapped on to the 21CN
  infrastructure enabling these Communications
  Providers to understand the implications for
  their existing network infrastructure
• To be viewed as a statement of BTs current
  likely sequencing of migration activity, subject
  to successful resolution of a series of complex
  commercial and technical issues
• Reflects regional workforce constraints in
  scheduling work
• Smoother ramp up of migration activities to
  reflect training and realistic productivity
  performance improvements
• Outlines the consultation process which will
  operate from issue to 16 Dec 2005
• Dataset disclosure
• Through NIPP or other appropriate closed user
  portal
• Subset of locational information available
  through NISCC only

19
MIGRATION PROPOSALCONSULTATION SCOPE

• Aim is
• Production of a Plan of Record for business
  planning purposes (Jan 06)
• BT seeks views on the most appropriate and timely
  approach to
• reach acceptable solution to all parties
  recognising the schedule will be fine tuned to
  reflect operational needs as migration proceeds
• effective change control management
• minimising anticipating the impact on customers

20
MIGRATION PROPOSALCONSULTATION FRAMEWORK
TIMETABLE
CONSULTATION (22/10 16/12)

• 05/12 16/12
• BT/Industry Board reviews/agrees Migration
  Proposal Change Requests
• Expert Groups on Migration methodology
• Communicate outcome of Change Requests to CPs
• IMWG 16/12/05

• 02/11-02/12
• Bi-laterals
• Interconnect CPs
• Service Provider CPs
• Multi-lateral consultation through IMWG expert
  groups

• (21/10 02/11)
• CP Impact Analysis

21
MIGRATION PROPOSALBI-LATERAL TOPICS

• Technical Operations focus on three broad
  areas
• Implementation Considerations and Impacts
• sequencing, timing, freeze periods, sensitive
  customer impacts
• asset and operational optimisation, NGN business
  plan considerations
• Migration Plan Change Requests
• recording of Changes Required
• recording of impacts rationale
• Migration Methodology
• transfer engineering methodologies to be used to
  support Migration
• minimising end user negative impact and
  operational resource optimisation

22
CONSULTATION PHASECHANGE CONTROL ADJUDICATION

• Change Requests documented at Bi-laterals
• Change Requests circulated to industry
• anonymous basis excluding rationale
• other CPs identify impacts if such a change were
  to be accepted by BT
• enables the acceptance or rejection to be done in
  light of impacts across industry
• BT Impact Analysis undertaken
• W/C 12/12/05, BT and Industry convene a pre
  agreed Adjudication Board
• Accepts or rejects each Change Request
• Membership is 3 from BT and 3 Industry nominees,
  under BT chairmanship
• Chair has casting vote

23
 STANDARD CONTRACTS FORUM3 November
2005Geoff Wills Interconnect Links Lead Times

24
Standard Contract Forum Thursday 3rd November
2005
Order Original timescale New or proposed timescale Comments
Traffic route through new point of connection 6 months 6 months No Change
New traffic route through an existing POC 65 days 45 days New orders from date to be briefed
New traffic route through an existing POC with IEC 75 days 65 days Agreed at General Contact Review
Route augmentation 25 days 25 days No change
Route augmentation with IEC 35 days 25 days Agreed at General Contract Review
25
Standard Lead Time Reduction from 65 to 45
working days

• Annex A
• 11.1.3 New Traffic Routes between Switch
  Connections through an established Point of
  Connection using the same technology, including
  the provision of new Traffic Routes by way of
  additional Customer Sited Interconnect from a
  particular Operator site
• 11.1.5 New Traffic Routes over IECs at a Switch
  Connection using the same technology
• 11.1.7 Capacity Re-arrangements involving the
  provision of new Traffic Routes using the same
  technology or a new technology already in service
  at the relevant Switch Connection
• 11.1.9 Capacity Re-arrangements involving the
  provision of new Traffic Routes requiring IECs
  using the same technology or a new technology
  already in service at the relevant Switch
  Connection
• .

26
Standard Contract Forum Thursday 3 November
2005

Keith Mitchinson 3 November 05
27
Standard Contract Forum Thursday 3 November 2005

REVISED SCHEDULE Schedule 143 Carrier Pre
Selection WITHDRAWN SCHEDULE Schedule
153/153A Supply of Operator Branded
Telephone
Directories
28
Standard Contract ReviewBriefing onBT and
Operator Geographic NVS (New Voice Service
Calls)3rd November 2005Les Stevens Product
Manager BT Core Network Services - Interconnect
29
Contents

• Product overview BT / Operator NVS Services
• Ofcom Description summary
• Current position Operator BT NVS
• BT Service update.
• Applicable Contact Schedules BT Proposal
• Customer Feedback?
• Next Steps?

30
Schematic Diagram of Operator NVS Geo Call
Termination

• Diagram below shows a typical application (may
  also be VOiP Originated?)

Customer Originates a Call to Operator Geo NVS
number.
TDM Interconnect
Operator PSTN
(TDM to IP conversion)
BT TDM Network
IP Cloud
Delivery of IP Geo NVS call
31
Schematic Diagram of BT Geo NVS Call Termination

• Diagram below shows a typical application (May
  also be VOiP originated).

CP Customer Originates a Call to BT Geo NVS
number.
TDM Interconnect
(TDM to IP conversion)
CP TDM Network
BT PSTN
IP Cloud
Delivery of IP Geo NVS call
32
Ofcom Description - Extract from Ofcom statement
of the 6/9/04 Numbering Arrangements for New
Voice Services

• Location Independent Electronic Communications
  Services (LIECS) Calls.
• The Ofcom description of the characteristic of a
  Location Independent Electronic Communications
  Services as defined in their statement of the
  6/9/04 Numbering Arrangements for New Voice
  Services can be summarised as follows-
• The numbering plan of the Communications Provider
  offering the service has no geographic
  significance.
• The location of the customers apparatus
  identified by a given telephone number at the
  time of use is not permanently associated with a
  particular network termination point.
• No revenue sharing with end users is allowed.
• Number translation to a geographic number is not
  involved and the service is not a mobile service.
• Service does not have to offer PATS.

33
Current position Operator BT NVS.

• Increase in Operator Geo code builds believed
  to be NVS driven.
• BT Issued Interconnect Notification 05073
  (12/08/05)
• BT Notification of opening on Geo ranges
  associated with NVS (19/08/05).
• Draft Geo NVS schedule offered for discussion.
• Debate unfortunately deferred to Nov Meeting.

34
Update on BT Launch Of Geo NVS.

• Originally notified on 19th August.
• Original service ready date 4th October 2005.
• Some 10K allocations but mainly at Ofcom request
  sub allocations _at_ 1K.
• Problems encountered building _at_ 1K using
  automated systems.
• Manual build progressing.
• Upgrade to automated required funding now
  agreed.
• New target completion by end April 2006.
• BT NVS Platform connected to 10 Trunk Switches
  (as per notification)
• Interconnection at these POI Single Tandem
  rates.
• BT to issue revised timescale notice.

35
Contract Schedule for Geographic NVS ?

• ?

• Are Operators trading Geo NVS with BT under
  existing Geo Schedules?
• If so is this a sustainable position?
• Feedback to BT Proposed Schedule?
• Next steps to regularise this anomaly?

36
(No Transcript)
37
Standard Contract ForumBriefing
onTechnical Master Plan3rd November
2005Kevin Young BT Interconnect Numbering
Services
38
Contents

• The Definition
• BTs view of the TMP content
• TMP Information ownership retention

39
The Definition

• Contract (Annex D) Definition
• Current
• Technical Master Plan a document recording
  details of the Points of Connection and the plans
  for development of further Points of Connection
• Proposed
• Technical Master Plan a document, retained and
  owned by both Parties, recording details of the
  Points of Connection and the plans for
  development of further Points of Connection

40
BTs view of the TMP content

• There are three aspects of information that
  should be recorded within the TMP, these are
• The details of the interconnect between the
  Parties Systems and the plans for future
  developments relating to interconnect. Typically,
  but not solely, exchanged through the Capacity
  Profile/ACO process.
• The physical arrangements and Number Ranges, or
  part thereof, for each of the Traffic Routes on
  an Interconnect Link. Information shall be
  provided in accordance with the Provisioning
  Manual. Typically, but not solely, exchanged
  through the Routing Plan process.
• The allocation of Interconnect Capacity to
  transmission capacity by means of Tributary
  allocation charts as set out in the Provisioning
  Manual.
• The information relating to these three areas
  are, in the main, exchanged within documentation
  set out within the Provisioning Manual.

41
TMP Information ownership retention

• The information that forms the TMP should be held
  by both BT and the CP in order for both to manage
  the interconnection between the two networks.
  Therefore, both BT and the CP are responsible for
  ownership and retention of this information.
• Whilst the information between BT and the CP is
  for the most part exchanged within documentation
  set out within the Provisioning Manual, it is for
  each to identify the means with which such
  information is recorded within their own systems.
• It is recognised by both BT and the CP that, from
  time to time, information may be lost or its
  accuracy be questioned. Therefore, it is accepted
  by both BT and the CP that requests for
  information exchange over and above the normal
  flow may occur. These requests are on an
  occasional basis and the scope is kept to a
  minimum in order to ensure that any such requests
  are reasonable. In such circumstances both BT and
  the CP would generally comply with requests of
  this nature.

42
 AOB3 November 2005