The letter below is a gem. Mr. Resnick minimizes my problems and implies that Pacific Bell had done me some sort of favor by replacing its own equipment that was later said to be faulty. But it is also my point that in this letter Resnick insists the 2-pair buried drop was not faulty at any time. On 11-14-96, when it suited him, he said, "...I am confident that your business telephone service will not suffer additional outages."

The telephone outages on my line are documented. They are nothing to do with the wiring inside my house, and are therefore not my fault or responsibility. Come on, Mr. Resnick! (Interestingly, I later found a tag on my door informing me that Pacific Bell contractors were going to do some maintenance work on their facilities that could involve digging on my private property, saying they would just do it. I guess if they instigate the digging they can do what they please, but if I ask for reliable service, they want to charge me to repair their equipment!)

Next, unable to get even the documented facts straight, he contradicts himself in paragraphs 5 and 6. First he says no problems were found on certain dates, then he says repairs were made on the same days. According to my notes and other documents, these are the events surrounding the dates he says no problems were found:

1. Sept. 16, 1996: Pac Bell cable splicer M. Norwood came to work on my lines, following my conversation earlier that day with her supervisor, Luigi Asuncion, in which he asserted the problem was in the cables. Ms. Norwood later told me she found the problem in the cable and repaired it. She and another Tecnician, K. Hart, explained that good cable is necessary for DAMLs to work properly, and said Pacific Bells's cable from my house to the street ought to be replaced and the DAML removed.
   
   
2. Aug. 2, 1996: This relates to the cable failure (according to the automatic diagnostics at 611) that caused my business line to fail on July 26. It took several days for a repair person to come, and when one did (July 29) she was not qualified to repair the line. On the 31st, a recorded message told me the line was working again, but on August it was still bad. August 2 (a Friday), repairman R. Macklin appeared. He determined that the lines going to the DAML had problems but, again, was not qualified to repair the lines. It would have been left until Monday except that I insisted, talking with two supervisors, that my business line be fixed sooner. Saturday, August 3, repair person M. Norwood again returned, found an intermittent grounding problem, and fixed it. She and another Pacific Bell employee again told me DAMLs cause problems with old cables. (Resnick's own supervisor confirmed the August 3 repair, but only after I faxed my protest and a copy of M. Norwood's business card, given to me that day.)
   
   
3. Oct. 29, 1996: According to my notes, I called 611 to have the line checked, as business had again been unusually slow. The Operator (#466) tested and confirmed a " short and ground", and said a repair person would be dispatched. M. Norwood showed up and told me she would be working on my line. She found the problem and repaired it, saying it had something to do with a junction box and a grounding problem. Later that day, R. Macklin arrived to fix phone, apparently in a duplicated dispatch. I said Norwood had fixed the problem, and Macklin contacted her to confirm that.

Notice that, not only did repairs take place on the dates Resnick asserts nothing was found, but the August 3 repair took nine working days to happen — there were no natural disasters; it wasn't even raining that week!

In paragraph three he clearly states that Pacific Bell cable was never found to be at fault. But Standon asserts the 2 pair drop serving the DAML was intermittently faulty. And Resnick himself told me it was faulty too in February 1997. But when I told him I wanted to record him saying that, he hung up on me. As for cable, Pac Bell technicians told me, and I have notes, that my outages were caused by cable failures; and I have been able to document quite a few more since then.

Last point: Resnick goes on to to offer me $2000 in compensation. He again offered $2000 on 2-26-97, and again, in a voice message on 3-17-97. After I complained to the PUC, Pac Bell went on to try a different approach instead: accusing me of threatening their employees with bodily harm, and withdrawing the $2000 offer.