Intersting cover letter included with SBC's FCC Outage report on Friday's frame-relay problems in California and Nevada. "Attached please find an Initial Service Disruption Report by SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc (SBC-ASI) This report is submitted on an informational basis, and without admission that the provisions of 47 CFR 63.100 are appliaable to SBC-ASI or to the services provided by SBC-ASI." http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Filings/Network_Outage/200... I note that both Worldcom and AT&T filed FCC initial outage reports about their frame-relay and ATM network problems, and final outage reports without such words in their cover letter.
Date: 29 May 2001 09:53:13 -0700 From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Intersting cover letter included with SBC's FCC Outage report on Friday's frame-relay problems in California and Nevada.
"Attached please find an Initial Service Disruption Report by SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc (SBC-ASI) This report is submitted on an informational basis, and without admission that the provisions of 47 CFR 63.100 are appliaable to SBC-ASI or to the services provided by SBC-ASI."
[ snip hairy URL ]
I note that both Worldcom and AT&T filed FCC initial outage reports about their frame-relay and ATM network problems, and final outage reports without such words in their cover letter.
I recently read a tariff filing by SWBT that did something similar. I'd have to dig up the filing for the exact wording, but it was something to the effect of "we're just doing this because we're nice, not because we think it applies." Yeah, right. Is this "we don't agree with the PUC, but we're just doing it because we're so nice" thing something that SBC does now? Eddy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. EverQuick Internet Division Phone: (316) 794-8922 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
(Not sure if your email address is spam-trapped or not) Also sprach E.B. Dreger
I recently read a tariff filing by SWBT that did something similar. I'd have to dig up the filing for the exact wording, but it was something to the effect of "we're just doing this because we're nice, not because we think it applies." Yeah, right.
Is this "we don't agree with the PUC, but we're just doing it because we're so nice" thing something that SBC does now?
BellSouth is certainly trying that line with the Kentucky PSC in our case regarding their DSL tariff. That issue may end up coming to a head pretty soon now...should be interesting to watch. Case number 1999-484 at the KY PSC, http://www.psc.state.ky.us. Not all filings are available online with the case, but recent (past 4 months) rulings from the PSC are. Seriously though...anyone interested in DSL deployment issues is encouraged to check this case out. -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456
participants (3)
-
E.B. Dreger -
Jeff Mcadams -
Sean Donelan