37 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Copyright © 2018 E. William Horne. All Rights Reserved.

The Telecom Digest for Tue, 25 Sep 2018
Volume 37 : Issue 229 : "text" format

Table of contents
Omaha Public Library waits to connect to state network after CenturyLink increases service bidBill Horne
Re: Universal Service FundHAncock4
Re: [Telecom] Cannot Get Answer from VerizonFred Atkinson

Please send posts to telecom-digest.org, with userid set to telecomdigestsubmissions, or via Usenet to comp.dcom.telecom
The Telecom Digest is made possible by generous supporters like John Lewandowski

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <20180922170419.GA7654@telecom.csail.mit.edu> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 13:04:19 -0400 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> Subject: Omaha Public Library waits to connect to state network after CenturyLink increases service bid CenturyLink won the bid for the project, but the library's executive director, Laura Marlane, said the company admitted it can't do the work for the agreed upon price. By Taylor Barth OMAHA, Neb. - The Omaha Public Library is stuck waiting to connect to a statewide network. CenturyLink won the bid for the project, but the library's executive director, Laura Marlane, said the company admitted it can't do the work for the agreed upon price. Marlane updated the Omaha Public Library Board of Trustees on the news at Wednesday afternoon's meeting. In her September director's report, she wrote, "Apparently CenturyLink makes a practice of bidding on projects they are incapable of doing, or unable to do at the set price." https://www.ketv.com/article/omaha-public-library-waits-to-connect-to-state-network-after-centurylink-increases-service-bid/23327608 -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly) ------------------------------ Message-ID: <efc0fd23-9e02-4d10-8c38-e8d6447f47a0@googlegroups.com> Date: 22 Sep 2018 12:33:09 -0700 From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> Subject: Re: Universal Service Fund On Saturday, September 22, 2018 at 1:47:44 PM UTC-4, Naveen Albert wrote: > The phone companies also lost from divestiture. The previous > relationship between BOCs and AT&T was very synergistic. > It was very efficient at restoring service quickly and operating > efficiently. After the MFJ, it was pure disarray everywhere. > A phone network is better when unified, not fractured into a million > pieces as it was. And the whole LATA scheme is about the most bizarre > and convoluted structure ever dreamt up. Back then, long-distance was > charged by distance. Now, calling your neighbor can be considered > long distance because of dumb LATA rules. What the heck?? > Back then, consumers could just call the "phone company" for > service, which was prompt, quick, and hassle-free. After > Divestiture: which phone company? The local phone company? The > interstate phone company? AT&T? MCI? Some other competitor? To enlarge on the above: My employer at the time of Divestiture was implementing a large scale data communications network. Before Divestiture we had an efficient single point of contact with the local telephone company. After Divestiture we had to deal with the local telephone company and various long distance companies. If there was a problem, there was finger pointing between the LD carriers and the local company. It meant a delay in fixing trouble which meant business lines were down and operations disrupted. Very frustrating. Yes, there were some rate savings. However, these were more than eaten up by the fact we had to now hire our own staff to do the stuff the phone company used to do for us, and handle the finger- pointing issues. The LATA scheme was particularly frustrating and expensive. We had a branch office that occupied two buildings across the street from each other. The street happened to be a LATA boundary. Previously, we used local lines connect the two buildings, easy, no problem. After Divestiture it was a big expensive mess. Back then, we also had problems with MCI and Sprint trying to muscle in to get business. MCI threatened to sue us (they did a lot of that to build up their business). (There was a good book that described the early days of MCI. It was pro-MCI, and actually felt that MCI was entitled to force their way onto customers by litigation, as if MCI was entitled to business instead of earning it by offering superior service at a lower price.) In terms of telephone sets and local switchgear, I think Avaya is pretty good, and they're the descendant of Western Electric. But the old Western Electric gear was extremely reliable and durable, and of course made in the USA. Ironically, we've now come full circle in that MCI is gone and a local carrier can now handle long distance. I think the bulk of the telephone industry today is only AT&T and Verizon, with others (e.g. Frontier, Century) occupying a relatively small niche. Given that we're back to where we started, what was the point of Divestiture? ------------------------------ Message-ID: <14634A88-94EB-4E24-B4CF-2ECB9E2DC40E@mishmash.com> Date: 21 Sep 2018 11:31:45 -0700 From: "Fred Atkinson" <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com> Subject: Re: [Telecom] Cannot Get Answer from Verizon On Sep 10, 2018, at 10:09 PM, Fred Atkinson <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this- too.mishmash.com> wrote: >> Folks, >> >> I have an issue I need to get an answer from Verizon Wireless on. >> >> When I spoke to their customer service, they told me to write >> their support team at the following address and they would get it to >> the right person so I could get an answer: >> >> Verizon Wireless >> Correspondence Team >> Attn: Customer Service / Carrier Network Department >> P. O. Box 660108 >> Dallas, TX 75266-0108 >> >> I sent my first request to them on July 4th. I never got a reply >> either by mail, email, or phone. >> >> I sent a second request [for the same information] to them on >> August 7th. Still no reply of any kind. >> >> So on August 28th, I wrote them again and this time I copied the >> Verizon Corporate Headquarters with copies of my current and previous >> correspondences asking that they respond to my inquiry. >> >> This is the Corporate address that I used: >> >> Verizon Corporate Offices >> 1095 Avenue of the Americas >> New York, NY 10013-6797 >> >> It has been ten days and still no phone call, email, or reply. >> >> I consider this totally unacceptable. The very least I expect is >> a reply. >> >> Anyone have a suggestion as to how to get a response to my >> inquiry? >> >> I would never have believed this out of Verizon Wireless. >> >> Fred > > Folks, > > I am sitting here laughing because the letter I sent to Verizon > Corporate Headquarters (the address above as I copied it exactly > off of their Web site) was returned to me today as having an > 'insufficient address'. > > If I can't rely on their address information on their Web site, how > do they expect customers and business contacts to reach them? > > Very, very, sad for them! But I am ROTFL! > > What does this say about Verizon? > > > Fred Well, I finally got an answer. A very nice CSR from the executive offices called. He told me he'd thoroughly researched my request but could not find a way to do it. Sad that I had to go through all that to get a reply. Fred ***** Moderator's Note ***** Last week, I contacted the press office at Verizon, and asked for comment on the address issue. Bill Horne Moderator ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Tue, 25 Sep 2018

Telecom Digest Archives