|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 339 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Re: Merry Christmas
Re: Merry Christmas
====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
Date: 27 Dec 2009 12:58:47 -0500
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Message-ID: <hh878n$7ot$1@panix2.panix.com>
Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
> I got a call from AT&T with the company line, I guess they forgot to
> tell the person who called me that I have over 40 years of telephone
> experience.
> I talked to the PUC yesterday and follwed it up with a Formal
> written complaint today. It is not just the U-verse; it is also
> problems with DSL as well a voice. I also contacted the city because
> I believe they have a franchise agreement. All they have to do is
> replace about 900 feet of old lead cable and make sure that there
> are no more bridge taps; for you that do not know what a bridge tap
> is, it is a splice where the cable goes in two directions, so that
> it can be used at 2 points.
DSL is not a tariffed service. I believe the U-Verse is also not a
tariffed service, which is part of why it is being pushed so
aggressively.
Because these are not tariffed services, the PUC basically has no
control over the telco. And if their contract is anything like the
contract Verizon uses, you basically signed away all your rights to
complain about anything when you purchased the service.
So, basically, it doesn't work, and the telco has no motivation to
make it work. Welcome to the New Telecom Era.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:32:11 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Message-ID: <%7SZm.69883$DC2.34811@newsfe02.iad>
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> DSL is not a tariffed service. I believe the U-Verse is also not a
> tariffed service, which is part of why it is being pushed so
> aggressively.
> Because these are not tariffed services, the PUC basically has no
> control over the telco. And if their contract is anything like the
> contract Verizon uses, you basically signed away all your rights to
> complain about anything when you purchased the service.
Well, the fact such services aren't tariffed means the CPUC has no
jurisdiction over their rates. But, even on tariffed services an
individual cannot file a complaint about rates in any case. (takes a
minimum of 25 subscribers or a governmental entity.)
But, AT&T operates within California because of a franchise granted by
the CPUC. So, will they entertain a service complaint on a
non-tariffed offering. It depends; they very well may on DSL and any
component of U-Verse not regulated by a municipality.
This "it depends" minefield can only be navigated by legal counsel
expert in public utility matters, thus the individual has no effective
recourse even though he may technically have legal recourse.
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:41:32 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Message-ID: <hh8rbf$63a$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
>
>> I got a call from AT&T with the company line, I guess they forgot to
>> tell the person who called me that I have over 40 years of telephone
>> experience.
>
>> I talked to the PUC yesterday and follwed it up with a Formal
>> written complaint today. It is not just the U-verse; it is also
>> problems with DSL as well a voice. I also contacted the city because
>> I believe they have a franchise agreement. All they have to do is
>> replace about 900 feet of old lead cable and make sure that there
>> are no more bridge taps; for you that do not know what a bridge tap
>> is, it is a splice where the cable goes in two directions, so that
>> it can be used at 2 points.
>
> DSL is not a tariffed service. I believe the U-Verse is also not a
> tariffed service, which is part of why it is being pushed so
> aggressively.
>
> Because these are not tariffed services, the PUC basically has no
> control over the telco. And if their contract is anything like the
> contract Verizon uses, you basically signed away all your rights to
> complain about anything when you purchased the service.
>
> So, basically, it doesn't work, and the telco has no motivation to
> make it work. Welcome to the New Telecom Era.
Well the problem I'm having with the DSL is directly related to the
condition of the cable from their cross connect box. It is over 30
years old and has all kinds of problems because of bad splices and
other problems, like leaks; the cable is regulated and the voice
service for my regular telephone has suffered with noise. AT&T has a
Franchise agreement with the city and if the PUC can't do anything
then the city should be able to since they agreed to supply the
service to the whole city.
I'm well aware of how the communications business has changed; I have
spent more then 40 years in it, 30 with GTE.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:03:18 GMT
From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
Message-ID: <hh4n12$v6f$3@news.eternal-september.org>
"Fred Atkinson, WB4AEJ" <fred@remove-this.remove-this.wb4aej.com> wrote:
> Merry Christmas, Bill,
It's good when people take the time to think about and care about the people
who matter in their lives. Sometimes people forget that all we really have
are relationships. The material trappings can come and go, but as long as we
have each other we'll be fine.
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:17:42 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
Message-ID: <o-OdnY4O1JnbiKXWnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <20091225052109.GA4583@telecom.csail.mit.edu>,
Telecom digest moderator <redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> If you celebrate the holiday, I wish you a Merry Christmas. Whether
> or not you do, I also wish you the gifts of love and courage.
Seen in a local store window:
Merry Thanksgivoween!
(Sept.1 - Jan. 1)
Admittedly, this was from a cynical newspaper op-ed cartoon, blown up
to poster size, that the store owner had placed in his window. :)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of The Telecom digest (5 messages)
|
or 