Re: Frame-relay outage: Nolo Contendere

["E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam () noc everquick net>]

> 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.