TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: SBC New Low Price

Re: SBC New Low Price

Tim@Backhome.org
Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:47:07 -0700

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As I read the original thread here, I
> was of the impression it was not the wire pair(s) in question, it
> was getting dial tone on that pair which telco would not supply
> because of a billing dispute with a previous tenant. Telco could care
> less about the wire pair; run as many of them as you wish, but then
> get telco to interconnect. Was I wrong on this assumption? PAT]

Perhaps the thread was bifurcated, but I didn't see the discussion
about a billing dispute. The message I responded to was the debate
about whether dial tone is required for a rental unit, as opposed to a
good pair that is capable of working. And, to what extent the
landlord is responsible.

As to a billing dispute, in California, all the landlord would have to
do is certify to the LEC that the deadbeat tenant has moved out. If
the LEC refused to provide service to the new tenant at that point the
California PUC could resolve that in short order.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The part of the thread we got here from
AES discussed how the original tenant skipped owing money, and that
although the landlord (apparently, I do not recall reading it) did
in fact tell telco he had _new_ tenants, telco did not accept that as
the complete story _in the proper context_ and said they wanted their
money. And, if telco's version was correct, then the PUC would back
them up. PAT]

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: T. Sean Weintz: "Re: Why There Are Questions About GoDaddy"
Go to Previous message: jon@earthlink.net: "Re: Can You Disable Text Messaging?"
May be in reply to: AES: "SBC New Low Price"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page