Return to "After the Formal Complaint" Main Page ||| Previous Document ||| Next Document


LMOS COSMOS. ALTERED RECORDS and Violations to law

LMOS: Loop Maintenance Operations System (Maintenance department)

COSMOS: Computer System for Main Frame Operations

Cable pair 1118, had been placed on the log of defective cable pairs in 1992, and it provided service to my residential phone number 462-5093. While providing service to me, cable pair 1118 was found defective on at least six separate occasions and never repaired (See: Cable Pair 1118: History of Failures, and no history of Repair). This proved that Pacific Bell had committed a series of frauds to conceal a never ending problem on my phone line. In the Formal Complaint, Pacific Bell (Now the "New AT&T") committed perjury, by denying that cable pair 1118 provided service to my phone number 462-5093.

The pattern of concealing problems and committing frauds (including perjury) also occurred on my two business phone lines from 1996 through 2009.

The "TH" (Trouble History) key on trouble tickets provides evidence that problems on my phone lines were not properly logged into the LMOS. The LMOS is the database that phone companies rely upon for maintaining the phone lines.

LMOS (Loop Maintenance Operations System)

According to the Qwest Communication website, after a trouble report is closed, the records must be properly recorded in the LMOS. The law requires the records to be accurate, and open to public record.

The Qwest Communications document titled, "LMOS Disposition and Cause Codes," states:


Code definition: Disposition and Cause codes identify the reason for service problems. Disposition Codes indicate the action taken to clear the reported trouble, while Cause Codes indicate why.
Code Analysis: Coding analysis provides information that enables each organization to identify trouble areas and provide direction to focus improvement efforts. Therefore, miscoding of trouble reports can lead to misallocation of corporate resources. For example, this data is the underpinning of many PIDs and inaccurate reporting can lead to inappropriate QPAP liability. Additionally, should external reviews determine disposition codes are inaccurately reported, Qwest may be subject to additional PIDs, QPAP liability, fines from the FCC's Enforcement Bureau…

Narratives are a matter of PUBLIC record... When a trouble report has been closed out the narrative is stored in Loop Maintenance Operation System (LMOS). This database stores the customer of records line record and trouble history. This history can then be accessed at a later date, either by Qwest employees or upon request, provided to customers (including alternate providers), PUC data gathering request, etc. Thus it is critical that all narratives remain clear and concise, describing exactly what was done to resolve trouble…"

The Qwest document goes on to explain that even if no trouble is found, a narrative is required. The fact that Pacific Bell records provided in Testimony for the date of 01/30/01 did not match other documents, indicates that Pacific Bell purposely violated laws that require trouble reports to be properly recorded for PUC data gathering (and for Stock Holders).

The only logical reason to repeatedly falsify and/or improperly record the disposition and cause codes in the LMOS, is to conceal problems. The following documentation confirms that AT&T has improperly recorded problems found on my phone lines from 1996 through 2009.

 

 

no such date in testimony

The document shown above has the "TH" (trouble history) for the phone number 846-3642 and the date of 10/29/96.

In Testimony, Pacific Bell provided its documentation for the repair work on my phone lines dating back to August 1996. Not only were records altered to conceal problems, there were dates missing from the records. The date of 10/29/96, that is noted above, was missing from the Testimony.

This provides evidence that after Pacific Bell offered me $500 on October 17, 1996, Pacific Bell had received a trouble report on my business phone lines on 10/29/97, and later, purposely concealed the trouble report. It is important to understand the service problems could have been prevented, but the evidence indicates the legal department ordered management to do nothing unless I signed a release of liability document created by the legal department. The evidence that the legal department ordered management to do nothing is based on the fact that the legal department denied that cable pair 1118 provided service to me.

The fact that Pacific Bell records had been altered, indicates that Pacific Bell purposely violated laws that require trouble reports to be properly recorded for PUC data gathering. The fact that the phone company Attorney created a fictional phone number corroborates that many of the frauds can be linked to the legal department.

links attorneys to cover-up

TAMPERING WITH THE EVIDENCE, AND MISSING DATES

The TH key shows the dates 06/04/97, 09/04/97, and 03/02/97. These dates are suppose to be put into the the LMOS (Loop Maintenance Operations System) when trouble is reported. Pacific Bell stated it provided repair records in its Testimony dating back to 1996. Even if no problems were found on my phone lines, all of the dates shown above should have been in the repair history that Pacific Bell provided in Testimony-- the law requires it.

The dates for 06/04/97 and 09/04/97 are missing from the records Pacific Bell provided in Testimony. This is evidence that the LMOS was not properly maintained, as required by law, and/or that Pacific Bell attorneys had intentionally concealed the dates from Testimony.

The fact that the attorney who provided the above document erased the trouble code 98 from the above document corroborates that the legal department was responsible for the altered records.

 

AFTER THE FORMAL COMPLAINT: RECURRING SERVICE PROBLEMS, MISSING RECORDS, AND A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR.

After the Formal Complaint, service problems on my business phone lines continued. Prior to the Formal Complaint, I had no real evidence that AT&T was at my premises for many service calls. consequently, AT&T denied there were problems. After the Formal Complaint, the pattern of denying any records of service calls continued.

After the Formal Complaint, when I had service problems, I photographed the documents the technicians carried in their vehicles and/or that they carried on their person.

 

For example, on May 19, 2006, I photographed the following work order. The technician told me tht cable pair 1103 was defective, and he told me he switched my business phone line to cable pair 1118, which he stated was , "designated" for my premises:

:

AT&T denied there are any records of reported problems on my business phone line for this date and/or that cable pair 1103 was found to be defective.

 

 

As another example of missing records, on October 5, 2006, I photographed the following work order and time sheet

AT&T denied there are any records of reported problems on my business phone line for this date.

 

 

And in yet another example, on July 9, 2007, I photographed the following work order.

The above document establishes that a trouble report was issued on July 5, 2007 at 6:37 PM. According to the document, Supervisor D. Haynes found static on my business phone line on July 7, 2007. AT&T denied there are any records of reported problems on my business phone line for this date. The above document confirms that cable pair 1103 was providing service to my business phone line.

A document I photographed, dated dated March 16, 2009, provides proof that cable pair 1103 is on the log of defective cable pairs.

Based on the fact that AT&T has stated it has no record of service problems and/or repair work occuring on my business phone line from 2003 to 2008, and on the fact that cable pair 1103 is on the log of defective cable pairs, according to the AT&T document dated March 16, 2009, it appears that cable pair 1103 was on page one of the log of defective cable pairs when I photographed page two of the Log of Defective Cable Pairs on September 4, 2001.

 

In November 2009, I provided this information to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and received the following response: SEC Response

 

last edited 11/10/09

 

Questions and Comments to JTR Publishing. (JTR@JagsThatRun.com)

You are welcome to visit my business website, JTR Publishing, for V-8 engine swap manuals and parts

Web Site Designed and Created by One Source Graphics, Limited
http://www.GrafxSource.com
info@GrafxSource.com