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

CPUC April 6, 2009


This is the response to my informal complaint I filed on Feb. 2, 2009.

Notice that there is no name or signature on the letter. It is as if the CPUC is now behaving like AT&T (see March 16, 1999) So far, nobody at the CPUC is willing to tell me who responded to the Complaint.

The CPUC has sidestepped the issue of whether or not there were recurring service problems on business phone lines, or if any credits were issued.

It is interesting to note that prior to filing the Formal Complaint, the Commission was able to get AT&T to admit to service problems found on my phone lines, and get credits to my account. However, because of the Formal Complaint, in which AT&T claimed to have never found a service problem on my phone lines, AT&T will no longer admit to problems, or provide credits to my account.


I filed a Request to Consider New Evidence which required that I provide the name of the person who responded below. My request was denied -- Was it denied because I didn't provide the name of the person who wrote the letter below?


last edited 05/27/09


Questions and Comments to JTR Publishing. (

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