🚀 go-pugleaf

>Has anyone got a data circuit ordered through MFS where they subcontracted
>the local loop to Pacbell working in reasonable time? Fed up with
>Pacific Bell we decided to deal with MFS. However, it turns out you
>have to deal with Pacific Bell for all technical questions anyway.
>Can anyone shed some light on how well does this (fcc mandated?)
>cooperation between competitors work in reality?

When we had our MFS circuit installed, it was PacBell who did all the
work as far as we could tell.  I only spoke to one MFS person and that was
to inquire about the status of the (late) job.  I did learn from the
folks at PacBell that MFS has a higher priority than regular PacBell
customers. So jumping on MFS should result in them jumping on PacBell
and this should speed up your install.  Yelling at PacBell will do
little good because you are just a normal-priority customer.  

In article <5abth2$mk4@worf.tcs.com>, Jerry Carlin <jerry@worf.tcs.com> wrote:
>UUNet has messed up an order of ours for months. They failed to process it
>in a timely way and represented that there would be no problems with the
>circuit. They told us there would be installations several times and we
>had people standing by. Pacbell just said "no way to bring in a circuit".
>This bungling on UUNet's part (and Pacbell's?) has put our company at a
>business risk and we are now exploring all legal ways of getting redress.

My _guess_ is this could be an MFS vs. Pacbell issue (I know this doesn't
help you).
 
Has anyone got a data circuit ordered through MFS where they subcontracted
the local loop to Pacbell working in reasonable time? Fed up with
Pacific Bell we decided to deal with MFS. However, it turns out you
have to deal with Pacific Bell for all technical questions anyway.
Can anyone shed some light on how well does this (fcc mandated?)
cooperation between competitors work in reality?

Sanjay.

In article <5abth2$mk4@worf.tcs.com>, jerry@worf.tcs.com says...
>
>UUNet has messed up an order of ours for months. They failed to process it
>in a timely way and represented that there would be no problems with the
>circuit. They told us there would be installations several times and we
>had people standing by. Pacbell just said "no way to bring in a circuit".
>This bungling on UUNet's part (and Pacbell's?) has put our company at a
>business risk and we are now exploring all legal ways of getting redress.
>
>If by some chance they manage to get their act together before it's too
>late, that would be helpful but we can't rely on them any more. Even
>their statements about escalation internally and to Pacbell is only hot
>air - no useful action happened. The only result was a phone call from
>someone at Pacbell saying 'no way to do it'. 
>
>So my advise is not to trust any promise of service from UUNet if there
>is a critical business issue involved. I'm not sure who to advise you to
>go to but that's another matter.

This is not UUNet's problem. They need PB to install the circuit,
actually they call on MFS (UUNet's parent) which puts in an order with
PacBell.

In the past, I've had PB tell me it was a go, then not show up or
rescind the installation. Many times, their sales rep will tell you one
thing, while the techs tell another. Common problem. The left hand doesn't
know what the right is doing. Circuit installations (and repairs) are
always a mess with PacBell.

UUNet is a great provider and bends over backwards to help. Unfortunately,
they rely on the local telco for installations.