TelLAWCom Labs Inc.
Special Investigation of AT&T and the Texas Public Utility Commission
Continued from Previous Page:
It was not supposed to be this way. Read these direct quotes from the FCC document that approved
AT&T's 271 application in 2000, based on the recommendation of the Texas PUC:
“Because the Performance Remedy Plan rests
entirely on SWBT’s performance as captured by the measurements, the credibility of the performance data should be above suspicion.”
- Statement of SWBT PM Expert Randy Dysart from Attachment H at 1.0 quoted in FCC Docket 00-238, Application of SBC Communications
to Provide In-Region, Inter-LATA Services in Texas, June 30, 2000 at 429.
The FCC noted in its approval of SBC ‘s Texas Section
271 application: “the grant of this application merely closes a chapter. It does not end the story. SWBT must continue
to comply with the checklist obligations set forth in section 271, and the separate affiliate requirements of section 272. As
noted throughout this Order, should the evidence demonstrate that SWBT ceases to comply with the requirements of the Act, enforcement
action may be appropriate. Most notably, section 271 (d)(6) authorizes the Commission to suspend or revoke the authorization
granted herein. " Memorandum Opinion and Order in FCC Docket No. 00-65, Application by SBC Communications to Provide In-Region
InterLATA Services in Texas, June 30, 2000, Introduction, at 7.
The FCC noted in its approval of SBC’s 271 application: “Working in concert with the Texas Commission, we intend to monitor closely SWBT’s post-approval compliance….. We are confident that
cooperative state and federal oversight and enforcement can address any backsliding that may arise with respect to SWBT’s entry into
the Texas long distance market”. – Memorandum Opinion and Order in FCC Docket No. 00-238, Application by SBC Communications to Provide
In-Region InterLATA Services in Texas, June 30, 2000, at 436.
The FCC addressed Data Validation and Audit Procedures in
FCC Docket No. 00-238, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Application of SBC to Provide InterLATA Services in Texas, at 428 where it affirms: “The Department of Justice states, and we agree, that the reliability of reported data is critical, and that properly validated metrics
must be meaningful, accurate and reproducible. In particular, the raw data underlying a performance measurement must be stored
in a secure, stable, and auditable file if we are to accord a remedy plan significant weight.”
In order to meet these
objectives, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) conducted two audits of a limited subset of "Performance Measurements" (PMs)
for AT&T in 2003 and 2006. The first audit was rife with controversy, including allegations that AT&T received
copies of the final audit report (by the Hewlett Packard Corporation) before any competitor was allowed to see it. The first
audit report was highly critical of AT&T, to the point where the PUCT was considering hundreds of millions of dollars in retroactive
damages. Insted, the PUCT fined AT&T $1.5 million (payable to the State of Texas), ordered millions in additional
payment to AT&T competitors, and ordered a second follow up audit. So what happened?
Well for starters, AT&T
did not even pay the fine ordered until after the principals of TelLAWCom Labs complained, eight months after the Order.
And even then it was only a fraction of the amount owed. The principals of TelLAWCom Labs filed several PUCT complaints
challenging AT&T's computations and asking for "raw data" to confirm them. Without exception, they all sat at the PUCT without
action. In one case, we actually recused the PUCT judges assigned for many of the reasons contained on this site.
Bottom line, there was no action on the complaints at the PUCT until after our previous company (See record of
Premiere Network Services Inc. at PUCT, and U.S. Federal Court Case No. 04-33402-HDH-7) was deliberately forced out of business,
ending with AT&T paying the bankruptcy trustee $1.6 million in case and release of claims after they THOUGHT we were finished.
But that's another story.
So what happened on the follow up audit? Nothing. For two years. That
is until we filed the PIA requests that are the subject of this investigation. In that request we asked for all the information
on enforcement of the FCC provisions above that we could think to ask for - including the email communications between AT&T /
SBC and Commission staff. The results blew us away. By all indications AT&T has been manipulating its PUCT audits
in a manner completely out of the public eye. Everything the FCC stated above is null and void, an elaborate sham.
Unbelievable? Read on and see it in the PUCT and AT&T's own words.
Click NEXT PAGE below and draw your own conclusions.