Through this webpage, I am asking the FBI to:

determine if the trouble code 98 was an indication that problems were found on my phone lines on August 31, 2001.

determine if Pacific Bell lied about the meaning of the trouble code 98.

determine if Pacific Bell erased the trouble code 98 from a document to conceal that both of my business phone lines were known to be defective for years.

It took over five years to find the meaning of the trouble code "98." In a nutshell, it means there are multiple problems on a phone line. I learned this on July 2, 2007 when an expert on phone repair, Don McCarty, called to discuss an email I had sent to him. Prior to that, phone company Attorneys and managers lied to me, and the State of California about the true meaning, claiming it was not an indication of trouble.

On July 5, 2007, after determining the fraud was within FBI jurisdiction, I contacted the FBI. The FBI webpage on Corporate Frauds states:

• "Corporate Fraud investigations involve the following activities:

• ( 1) Falsification of financial information, including:
  (a) False accounting entries [which includes altering repair records to conceal problems in the infrastructure]
  

• Obstruction of justice designed to conceal any of the above-noted types of criminal conduct, particularly when the obstruction impedes the inquiries of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), other regulatory agencies [such as the CPUC], and/or law enforcement agencies."

According to the Judge's Decision: http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/Comment_decision/24455-04.htm#TopOfPage

• Service quality issues are obvious, and Complainant reported problems with his service to Defendants. Increased knowledge of why service quality problems existed, in and of itself, is insufficient to toll the statute of limitations. Instead, Complainant must discover a negligent cause of service quality problems that violated our rules and regulations.

If the FBI determines the trouble code 98 was an indication of trouble (or multiple troubles), it will provide a negligent cause of the service quality problems, and this will toll the Statute of Limitations

The trouble code "98"

On August 31, 2001, the day that Pacific Bell Answered the Formal Complaint, Pacific Bell documents proved that both of my business phone lines had trouble code of "98."

Cable pair 1103 provided service to my business fax line 846-3642.

Cable pair 1141 provided service to my business voice line 462-3619.

TWO CHRONICALLY DEFECTIVE BUSINESS PHONE LINES

Phone company documents show that both of my business phone lines had problems that resulted in the trouble code "98" 3-1/2 years earlier (in February and March 1998). Unfortuneatly, the phone company attorney altered a document to conceal the trouble code "98", and she provided an incorrect definition for the trouble code "98."

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

During Discovery, Pacific Bell Attorney, Michelle Galbraith, (http://michellegalbraith.com/aboutus.html) provided the following definition (MKPB 54) for the trouble code "98":

98: If code 98 it is set on the test as a default, it indicates that the detailed test results should be examined to identify the particular condition existing on the line. However, Pacific Bell is unable to determine today whether this is the reason the number "98" appears on the referenced document

Sadly, Michelle Galbraith obstructed justice, and provided an incorrect definition. Furthermore, she erased the trouble code "98" from a maintenance document she provided during Discovery. This shows criminal intent, and proves she purposely provided an incorrect definition.
The true definition was obtained on Qwest Communication's website: www.qwest.com/wholesale/systems/WebHelp/MLT_Verification_Codes_Link.htm:

98, NEED FULL RESULTS ANALYSIS:
This VER code [98] is set when no faults are found on the line, but the test ok VER code is not set. As a default VER code, VER 98 is set. It indicates that the detailed test results should be examined to identify the particular condition [problems] that exists on the line. This condition can occur on lines with uncataloged AC or multiparty termination.

During the Formal Complaint, Pacific Bell told the Commission the code "98" is not a an indication of trouble.
In Pacific Bell's Reply Brief, dated 07/26/02, page 4, Pacific Bell Attorney, Stephanie Krapf stated:

…there is no evidence whatsoever that code "98" is a trouble code (which it is not).

On page 6 of Testimony, Pacific Bell Witness, Bob Alex, testified that testing on August 2001:

...verified there was no trouble affecting the cable that provides Complainant's service.

Sadly, Stephanie Krapf and Bob Alex committed perjury to conceal the trouble code "98" was an indication of troubles on my phone line.

The document shown above is from the website www.rric.net/mlt2.htm. It shows the details of an MLT test that tests "OK."

According to Qwests definition of MLT trouble codes:

TEST OK: No obvious trouble was detected on the line. However, there may still be a problem with parts of the loop that were not tested. For example, there might be a problem in the station set, on a crossbar line, or in the Central Office (CO). When the system tests ok you will see that the DC resistances and voltages will not indicate a problem. The AC signature will be valid, the line ckt will be ok and the system can draw and break dial tone. Balance should be good.

It is important to understand that according to the above definition, even if the MLT test shows "OK", there could still be problems. Technicians told me, that in many cases, they have to do testing with other equipment to find problems.

Because Pacific Bell indicated the trouble code may be a "default" code for my phone numbers, I asked what trouble codes were currently on my phone lines in order to determine if the trouble code "98" was actually a "default" code. Pacific Bell would not respond.

Through a Discovery Request I sent to the (old) AT&T, I asked what trouble codes were on my phone lines.

The (old) AT&T called in a trouble report, claiming I had no dial tone. When the technician showed up at my premises, I had no knowledge that AT&T called in a trouble report.

I told the technician there was nothing wrong with my phone lines, but that I had filed a Discovery request to find what the trouble code was on my phone line. The technician provided me with the above document. In Testimony, Pacific Bell stated I called in a phoney trouble report to bolster my Complaint, and "snatched" the document from the technician. Sadly, this was another act of perjury by Pacific Bell.

The Pacific Bell document shown above, dated May 21, 2002, shows the trouble code "98" was cleared on Sept. 6, 2001, proving the trouble code "98" was not the "default" code for my business phone line. This document proved that trouble was found on my business fax line on August 31, 2001, and that the problem was fixed on Sept. 6, 2001.

In my Ammendment, filed on January, 29, 2002, I mentioned the repair work that took place on Sept. 6, 2001 The above document confirms that repair work took place on Sept. 6, 2001.
The document was so damaging to Pacific Bell, that even the (old) AT&T attorney asked me how I got it.

Because this document was not "altered" by the Pacific Bell/SBC legal department, the information on this document can be trusted.

This document proved that Pacific Bell lied in the Answer to the Complaint, in Discovery, in Testimony (when it stated no troubles were found on August 31, 2001), and in its Briefs, when it claimed the trouble code "98" was not an indication of trouble.

The Commission would not comment on this document.

A document for my business voice line was obtained from a Pacific Bell technician who was on my premises on 07/16/03.

The document proves that the default code for my business phone line (925-462-3619) is "0C" which is "OK" according to Qwest's (as well as Verizon's) MLT codes published on their website:

0C, CPE or HIGH RESISTANCE OPEN: VER 0C (zero C) is used when no obvious trouble is detected on the line, however, it did find either a CPE [customer premise equipment] termination or a high resistance open on the line. In most cases this will indicate that it is a CPE termination. The remote possibility exists however, that it could be a high resistance open problem.

The "0C" code indicates that my phone line tested "OK" because my phone equipment (CPE) has a low ringer equivalence. The standard ringer equivalence is 1, and the phone equipment on 462-3619 has a ringer equivalence of less than 1.

The document proves that the trouble code "98" that was on my business phone line 462-3619 on August 31, 2001, was an indication of trouble because the trouble code "98" is not a "default" code for that phone number.

The above document provides additional proof that Pacific Bell/SBC committed perjury in Testimony when it stated my phone lines were tested on August 31, 2001, and no troubles were found. Because this document was obtained directly from a technician, and was not "altered" by a Pacific Bell/SBC Attorney, the information in the document can be trusted.

I provided the above document, dated July 16, 2003, in my Application for a Rehearing. September 29, 2003. The Commission ignored this document.

In my Application for a Rehearing. September 29, 2003 , I provided the above Pacific Bell document which proved that "98" is an indication of a "cable failure" for my business fax line (846-3642). The Commission ignored the document.

Recently, after finding the rric.net website, and discovering testing details for the trouble code "98," I discovered that Pacific Bell erased the trouble code "98" from a document showing a cable failure on my business voice line (462-3619) for the date of March 2, 1998.

According to www.rric.net/mlt2.htm, page 2,

"The AC signature results are inadequately documented by Qwest. We speculated that they represent impedence (rather than resistance) at some frequency. Qwest has confirmed that it is an impedence measurement at 24 HZ. We suspected the units are kilohms, and Qwest confirms this."

Code "98" is an indication of trouble found when measurements are taken at 24 HZ. As shown above, on Feb. 10, 1998, my business phone line (846-3642) was identified as having a cable failure with the narrative "NAR 504AHCABFAIL E24K." The same narrative was on my business voice line (925-462-3619) for March 2, 1998, but the trouble code "98" had been erased.

The 24HZ frequency is similar to the frequency of the ringer, and this could mean the cable pair could not trigger the ringer, causing customers to get a "ring, no answer." This could explain why we did not receive calls.

TAMPERING WITH THE EVIDENCE. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

The information from the website, www.rric.net/mlt2.htm provides evidence that Pacific Bell erased the trouble code "98" from the above document, deliberately concealing that my business voice line had been defective for over 3-1/2 years with a trouble code "98."

As shown above, on March 2, 1998, my business phone line (462-3619) was identified as having a cable failure with the narrative "NAR 504AHCABFAIL E24K".

When comparing the above document to the document on the previous page, it can be proven that Pacific Bell erased the trouble code "98" in three places, before providing it to me during Discovery. This shows consciousness of guilt and criminal intent. The legal department would not have erased the numbers "98" from the above document unless the code was an indication of problems, and the legal department was trying to hide the evidence.

Pacific Bell Attorney, Michelle Galbraith, obstructed justice by altering the document. She provided the above document on March 15, 2002. The document on the previous page was provided to me on January 29, 2002, before I began asking questions about the trouble code "98."

According to Don McCarty, an expert on phone repair, the trouble code "98" is an indication of multiple troubles. In other words, my business phone line 925-462-3619, was known to have multiple troubles from March 2, 1998 through August 31, 2001.

Pacific Bell Testimony, Exhibit 2, For phone number 846-3642, cropped to fit this page

Pacific Bell Testimony, for the date of 02/12/98, shows "No Trouble Found." This is a typical lie told by phone company employees to conceal problems. Currently, there is virtually nothing a consumer can do when a phone company employee claims "No Trouble Found."
The trouble ticket for the date of 02/12/98 shown on the previous pages prove the cable pair was defective, with the trouble code of "98."

Checking for "dial tone" is not an adequate test. Performing an MLT test is necessary, and if the MLT test does not find problems, the TDR meter, a decibel meter, and other equipment should be used. (See Don McCarty article, OSP, May 2001).

A telecommunications consumer's bill of rights that would allow consumers to test the phone line over the internet, would prevent the phone service problems I have experienced for the last 11 years.

JULY 2, 2007, an Email Question about wet cable.

During the month of June 2007, I met a long-time phone company employee who was familiar with my service problems.

The technician told me to talk to Don McCarty, an expert in telephone diagnostics and repairs. He writes a monthly column for OSP magazine (OutSide Plant Magazine), describing many aspects of phone company infrastructure problems, diagnoses, repair, and maintenance. Many of the articles describe the problems I experienced.

Don McCarty's column on electro-osmosis dated March 2007 describes problems caused by water on the line. According to Don McCarty, the proper repair is to replace the wet section. I think Don McCarty looks like Scotty, in the original Star Trek.

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. After speaking to Mr. McCarty about the ongoing troubles, I asked if he knew what the trouble code "98" meant. He told me he was an expert on MLT codes. He read the definition to me, and then he told me what it meant.

According to Don McCarty, the trouble code "98" is an indication of multiple troubles, and it requires full testing to start the repair work. The solution to a trouble code "98" is to find one problem, fix it, do more testing to find another problem, fix it, and repeat, until the line is fixed. This explains why it took cable splicing technicians three days (Sept. 4. 2001 through Sept. 6, 2001) to fix the cable pairs providing service to my premises.

Don McCarty's explanation of the meaning of the trouble code "98" proves that Pacific Bell committed perjury to conceal that problems were found on my phone lines on the day it Answered the Complaint.

After speaking to Don McCarty, I found four trouble codes that could be related to the "undefined ac signature"

Documentation from the Qwest Communications website supports the trouble code "98" could be multiple faults related to AC signature, including ground faults, short faults, and swinging resistance, all of which can be caused by water. The following verification codes reference "AC signature":

VER Code 0 - Test OK. No obvious trouble... the AC signature will be valid...

Code 21 - Ground Fault. The system will not display the AC signature with DC resistance-to-ground less than 50 K ohms. With this fault condition, VER 21 will be displaced with either an open or a termination.

Code 22 - Short Fault. A short fault may be caused when the copper pair's insulation is worn down and the wires come very close or actually touch each other. The system will not display the AC signature with short less than 50 K ohms. With this DC fault condition, VER 22 will be displayed with either an open or termination.

VER Code 23 - Swinging Resistance. If the largest value is >2000 ohms, the fault is said to be "Dried out." The system will not display the AC signature with DC faults less than 50 K ohms (This trouble code showed up on my business fax line (846-3642, cable pair 1103) on May 19, 2006. The technician then switched my business fax line to cable pair 1118, telling me it was designated for my premises. The technician also told me that he cleared out water in some of the terminals).

VER Code 25 - Short and Ground Faults. The system will not display the AC signature with DC faults less than 50 K ohms.

The VER Codes 21, 22, 23, and 25 can be caused by water on the lines, worn insulation, or corrosion (which is caused by long periods of water on the line). The VER code 23 uses the term "Dried out," an indication the problem is caused by water. On Sept. 6, 2001, Pacific Bell cable splicing technician, David Gilliam, told me the trouble on my phone lines was caused by water.
The fact is, a trouble code of "98" is an indication of some kind of trouble found on the line, and according to Don McCarty, an MLT expert, a trouble code "98" is an indication of multiple troubles

MANAGER DOCUMENT, July 9, 2007. Static on the line. Water on the line.

As a result of my contacting Don McCarty on July 2, 2007, AT&T contacted me on July 3, 2007, leaving a voice mail on may answering machine, asking me to call back. On July 6, 2007. AT&T manager Grant Trail, told me that he had sent technicians to test my phone lines, and they found no problems. Grant Trail is typical of most of the managers I have dealt with — he lied to me — the photograph shown above proves that fact.

The document above was obtained from a manager hiding about four blocks from my premises. He had sent a technician to my premises, and ordered the technician to deny that there were problems on my phone lines. The manager was very angry that I was able to photograph the above document.

The "COMMENTS" on the above document confirms that on July 6, 2007, "D. Haynes" found static on my phone line, which, according to Don McCarty's article on electro-osmosis, is an indication that the cable is wet. This also proved that Grant Trail lied to me when he said employees tested my phone lines, and found no problems.

This is another example of AT&T management taking the "extra" step to conceal recurring problems to avoid the expense of replacing the wet cable.

This practice of concealing problems caused by a wet cable has gone on for over 11 years. The following pages show more examples of phone company documents showing recurring water-related problems found on my business fax line in May 2006, and October 2006.

MAY 19, 2006. The return of cable pair 1118

During the months of April and May, 2006, faxes being sent to me did not go through. I reported the problem through the (new) AT&T website. AT&T's automated testing found trouble on my phone line.

The technician (Jeff Holman) told me the trouble was a "Hard Ground," and he verbally confirmed it was cable pair 1103. He told me he switched to Cable Pair 1118, which he said was "designated" to my premises.

The note on the above document "SWINGING TROUBLE-DRIED OUT" is an indication water on the phone line -- a problem that has gone on for over 11 years.

OCTOBER 5, 2006

This is another trouble ticket I photographed after contacting AT&T over the internet about problems with receiving faxes. AT&T's automated testing found trouble on my phone line which was now receiving service through Cable Pair 1118.
On October 5, 2006 an AT&T technician showed up at my premises. He told me my business fax line had "water on the line."

I took photographs of the MLT document that he left inside his van, most of the document was hidden under the seat.

The document shows my business fax line, 925-846-3642 was found to be defective, although the trouble code cannot be seen. Through this webpage, I hope the FBI will get the MLT document for this date.

While the technician was "drying" my phone line (or switching cable pairs), I photographed the time sheet. My phone number 846-3642 is noted on the time sheet, and the trouble ticket for my phone number 846-3642 can be partially seen on the right side of the photograph.

According to Don McCarty's column dated March 2007, static is caused by water on the line, and phone companies don't fix wet lines for three to five years. According to the column:

"The first complaint from the customer is, I have static on the line...

…I had static on my line, someone came out here and fixed it, and now it is back…

…telcos will drive customers into a black martini rage with unacceptable service for three to five years before they finally replace the wet section. A proactive approach must be used and the wet section of the cable replaced as soon as possible."

In my case, the phone companies (Pacific Bell, SBC, and AT&T), have refused to fix the wet section for over 11 years.

last edited, 04/17/10