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/2001/reports/01-065.pdf
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
(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.