Return to First PUC Page ||| Previous PUC Letter ||| Next PUC Letter

Return to Mike and Ma Bell Page,
Back to Pacific Bell Page

It was my web site that finally got the CPUC to even acknowledge my question. Not that their answers are adequate. See my response to this letter.

Again, they do not seem to have much ability or desire to get to the bottom of things. They only report what the phone companies tell them, without questioning it or comparing it to my account of events, which I give below. But I guess it's better than being completely ignored!

A. 1. What I asked for was the dates and reasons my listings keep becoming incorrect or unlisted, e.g. 7-8-99 and 7-12-99. Also, although AT&T said I'd have to subpoena the putchase order numbers (PONs), Pac Bell wrote in September saying they got a PON from AT&T requesting a change. It shows the address AT&T gave was WRONG!

A.2.What about all the other times my service has been shut off? Once they disconnected it 3 times in 6 weeks! A recent time was 2-2-99, when I talked with an operatore who restored service and said it was strange it had been cut off, "because the bill is not far enough past due for us in a normal scenario to do that."

They do not mention the fact that I was chronically overbilled for services not delivered (e.g. 1-30-98), and no one corrected the problem even when they promised to.

A.3. Why is Pac Bell still researching this issue, rather than providing police reports? Because I never threatened anyone and no report was filed! I reiterate the circumstances surrounding this.

See copy of Pacific Bell tariff, Rule 11, below.

A.4. I do have evidence that they changed their story.

I think this is very interesting. If you look at section 10a you will see why Pac Bell had to characterize my calls as threatening (they could not use 10b, as I never hid my identity).

I never used obscene language in my communications with Pacific Bell, nor did I threaten harm to anyone.

They probably did find my calls annoying, but that was not my intent. My intent was to get the phone service I paid for, which they were not deliverng.

I have yet to receive a copy of AT&T's tariff, but I suspect it is the same, and that they also decided to use it to put me off, rather than to provide the service I was paying for.

AT&T also began to insist I only write to them or fax them. Later they changed this to insisting I should have always called their 800 numbers.

Again, it was not my intent to annoy and I am sure they understood that—but they did not want to answer my questions.

back to the top

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