Return to "After the Formal Complaint" Main Page ||| Previous Document ||| Next Document
Protected services and Supervisor Escort
On July 9, 2007, a Supervisor Escort (and the document he was carrying), establish a pattern of behavior to conceal problems, that has gone on for over eleven years.
The document that caused Rule 11 to be imposed upon me in April 1997, mentioned that a Supervisor Escort was sent for the protection of phone company technicians. It was a fraud that was virtually unprovable, and the documents created to claim I was a safety issue could have been used to wrongfully send me to prison.
Since Rule 11 was imposed upon me, Pacific Bell/SBC technicians have been to my premises at least ten times without supervisor escorts. Documents I have obtained from technicians (and a supervisor), have no indications, whatsoever, that I am considered a "safety issue."
The pattern of behavior provides evidence that supervisors are sent to conceal recurring problems, and ordering technicians to lie me to to conceal known problems on the phone lines. Since 1996, I only know of three occasions that supervisor escorts were sent with a technician, and the last time a supervisor escort was sent, he was nowhere near my premises when the technician showed up.
The document that caused Rule 11 to be imposed upon me claims that a supervisor was at my premises on Feb. 13, 1997, and that no problems were found on my phone lines. The documents I photographed on Sept. 4, 2001, proved that at least one of my phone lines (cable pair 1118) was known to be defective since 1996, and there is evidence that my two business phone lines were also defective on Feb. 13, 1997 with a trouble code of "98." According to Pacific Bell, on the date of Feb. 13, 1997, "the supervisor escort" found no problems.
On March 7, 1998 a "supervisor escort" was at my premises, and an outside contractor (hired by AT&T) noted the behavior of the supervisor as "very unprofessional." On this date, there is overwhelming evidence that three out of four of my phone lines were defective: cable pair 1118 was on the log of defective cable pairs, and MLT tests around that time period showed both of my business phone lines had a trouble code "98," an indication of multiple troubles. According to Pacific Bell Testimony, the "supervisor escort" found no problems. The fact is, on March 7, 1998, the supervisor and the technician did not perform any testing. The supervisor told me that because I was a Resale Customer, I should complain to the company reselling the service.
In July, 2007, Pacific Bell (now the New AT&T), contacted me as a result of a magazine editor (Don McCarty) contacting AT&T about recurring problems on my business phone lines. On July 5, and July 6, a manager named Grant Trail repeatedly told me there was nothing wrong with my phone lines, but he refused to provide any test results.
The Supervisor Escort that took place on July 9, 2007, combined with the "protected service" and no "HIST LST CLRD" is the final piece of the puzzle, that establishes a pattern of behavior that proves the phone company sent Supervisor Escorts to conceal recurring problems, the "safety" of technicians was not an issue, and the trouble history of recurring service problems had been removed from the records.
According to Don McCarty's column dated March 2007, a wet cable will cause static on the phone line. The only acceptable repair of a wet cable is replacement of the wet cable. According to Don McCarty, phone companies will provide, "unacceptable service for three to five years before they finally replace the wet section" In my case, the phone companies have provided unacceptable service for over 11 years.
During the month of June 2007, I met a long-time phone company employee who had knowledge of my service problems. He told me that management could conceal problems by flagging a phone number with "protected service" and "sensitive customer":
The technician told me that years ago, my phone line had "protected service." This explains why inexperienced technicians could not repair my phone line when it was not capable of transmitting faxes or running a credit card machine November 16 , 2000. It should be noted that the Judge ruled it was ok if my business phone line could not be used to send faxes or run credit card transactions, unless I could prove there was something wrong with the phone lines. The "protected services" insured that there would never be any paper trail of MLT test results which showed problems.
The technician told me to talk to Don McCarty, an expert in telephone diagnostics and repairs. Don McCarty writes a monthly column for OSP magazine (OutSide Plant Magazine), describing many aspects of phone company infrastructure problems, diagnoses, repair, and maintenance. Read article written by Don McCarty.
JULY 2, 2007
On July 2, 2007, at 10:12 am, I sent an email to Don McCarty, with a photograph of the log of defective cable pairs (www.MikeAndMaBell.com/364.html). I asked if the problems he described in his March 2007 column, Electro-Osmosis, was the cause of the problems I experienced.
16 minutes later, at 10:28 am, Don McCarty called me. He told me that he already forwarded my email to a high-level AT&T official, John Stankey.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007. 6:48 pm
I received a message on my answering machine from Grant Trail, General Manager of Operations for AT&T. He is in the San Ramon office. It should be noted that I did not contact AT&T, AT&T contacted me.
Mr. Trail left his phone number, (925-815-3966), as well as his cell phone (925-323-8989).
An "email string" indicates that several people forwarded the email to different people at AT&T.
On the morning of July 5, 2007, I returned a call to Mr. Trail. I told Mr. Trail that for the past several weeks, I was not able to receive faxes on my business fax line. I also told Mr. Trail that this was the third time my fax line had failed since October 2006, and that I had already gone through one Formal Complaint.
Mr. Trail told me the line tested OK. I asked for a copy of the test results. Mr.Trail told me he was not permitted to provide the document to me. He told me I just had to "trust" him.
I asked Mr. Trail to take the appropriate steps to repair my phone line, and to prevent the problems from recurring. He said he would send technicians to look at the cable.
I knew Mr. Trail was lying to me to cover up recurring problems, so I contacted the FBI on July 5, 2007, at about 10:45 am. I had hoped, among other things, that the FBI would order Mr. Grant to provide me with the MLT tests.
Listen to voicemail response from FBI.
Friday, July 6, 2007, 7:09 pm
On Friday, July 6, 2007, at 7:09 pm, Grant Trail called me to discuss my phone situation. Mr. Trail told me technicians had tested my phone lines, and they tested ok.
I asked if the technicians tested the lines at my premises. He told me they did not.
At the end of our conversation, Mr. Trail told me he was going on vacation the following week, and that he would send a technician to my premises to test the phone lines.
Monday, July 9, 2007. Document #1
On July 9, 2007, at about 8:30 am, a "cable slicing" technician showed up at my front door. He was alone. This was the first time a "cable-splicing" technician showed up to my premises since November 1996.
He stated he was there because of my complaint about static on my phone line. I told the technician I did not report static — I reported I was not receiving faxes. I asked the technician if the MLT test showed any problems, and the technician told me it did not. The technician asked for access to my backyard to test my phone lines, and he refused to provide me with any paperwork. The technician listened to my phone lines with a speaker phone. There was loud static. The technician told me he would repair the phone line.
I walked to his truck and photographed the above document inside the cab. The document has my phone number and address.
AT&T SUPERVISOR TRUCK, 07/09/07
An AT&T truck was parked about two blocks from my premises, across the street from 4728 Mohr. It was Michael Paden, Manager (Supervisor), Service Operations North. He was nowhere in sight.
Mr. Paden did not want me to know he was involved in the repair work, otherwise, he would have met me at my premises with the cable splicing technician.
Mr. Paden's business card is shown below.
INSIDE THE SUPERVISOR'S TRUCK
The work order shown above was in Mr. Paden's truck. Near the bottom of the document, is the wording "TEST OK" — an indication of a phone line that tested "OK." This was for a trouble ticket on Westridge Ave in Danville, on Friday, July 6, 2007.
The story behind this trouble ticket is a typical waste of time for salespeople and the customer. Using door-to-door salespeople, AT&T sold television service to this person. Afterwards, AT&T technicians determined AT&T could not provide service to the customer, and had to void the contract.
This type of problem could have been prevented if AT&T would follow the recommendations of Don McCarty's article dated October 2006. The above document indicates that the loop length of 2900 feet is too long. According to Don McCarty, the cable pair should be able to provide service beyond 4000 feet. This is evidence that Mr. Paden conceals documents so technicians and customers are not aware of the poor condition of the facilities.
SUPERVISOR DOCUMENT, "PROTECTED SERVICE"
I found the Supervisor Escort at the B-box at 4490 Mohr Ave. He told me he was there to fix the ndt (no dial tone) complaint. I told him, "I did not report an ndt, let me see the work order." When he produced the work order, I took it inside my vehicle, and photographed it.
When comparing the above document, to the document on the previous page, there is no indication my phone line tested "OK." This is evidence that my phone line had "protected service," which prevents operators and technicians from knowing the MLT test results of my phone lines. The "COMMENTS" on the above document confirms that technicians found static on my phone line, which, according to Don McCarty, is an indication that the cable is wet. This means that Grant Trail lied to me when he said technicians tested my phone lines, and found no problems.
Also notice that there is no "HIST LST CLRD." The document below shows a date that should have been on the above document, another indication of a cover-up to conceal recurring problems.
The document I photographed on May 19, 2006 had MLT test results for my business phone line, before management became aware of the recurring problems. This corroborates that when management became aware of the recurring problem, management placed "protected services" on my account. There was no "Supervisor Escort" on May 19, 2006.
last edited 06/04/08
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