Return to First PB Page ||| Previous PB Document ||| Next PB Document

Aha! Now it was the buried service wire (2-pair buried drop) that was intermittently faulty, potentially cauting the DAML problems. Right! So who was supposed to pay for their removal as faulty Pacific Bell property? The customer, you say? (e.g., 11-22-96 and 3-4-97. At the time this took place, Pacific Bell was most definitely responsible for all lines and equipment up to the demarcation point on the outside of a customer's house.)

According to the signee, M. Murchison (secretary), these answers were given by Linda Standen.

But wait just a minute! Is someone lying? First Resnick said there was no problem with the two pair buried drop. Then he says it was the problem, and, in her letter of 3-4-97 and in the questionnaire below, Standen confirms that the 2-pair buried drop was at fault and causing problems with the DAML. But when it was tested by AT&T the 2-pair buried drop tested "okay", i.e., it was NOT faulty after all! What is the story? Was Pacific Bell trying to divert attention from their faulty cables under the street? They would certainly be much more expensive to replace!

Last note: apparently, my calls to Linda Standen concerning the number of times I lost service due to cable failure were "harassment."

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