SBC/Southwestern Bell asked Tex. PUC for 911 rule authorizing it ...
SBC/Southwestern Bell asked Tex. PUC for 911 rule authorizing it to provide E-911 answering points with number and location identification data on CLEC customers and unlisted-number customers for database verification purposes without CLECs’ or customers’ consent. SBC’s request (Case…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
25717) arose from request made by Tarrant County to SBC last fall, seeking number and location data on all SBC and CLEC customers in county so it could verify accuracy of its E-911 databases. SBC said it couldn’t supply complete list county wanted because its interconnection agreements with CLECs didnt allow it to share CLEC numbers with 3rd parties without CLECs’ consent and some CLECs objected. SBC also said Tex. rules prohibited it from releasing unlisted numbers to E-911 answering points unless customer had placed 911 call. In another Tex. matter, AT&T offered regulators settlement of slamming and cramming complaints. Under agreement (Case 23371) between AT&T and PUC’s consumer protection staff, which must be approved by PUC, AT&T would pay $500,000 fine plus $250,000 in victim restitution on more than 600 complaints filed with PUC between Oct. 1998 and last month. AT&T also would conduct customer education campaign on how to cancel AT&T’s services and halt billing. Settlement is far below $3.8 million fine PUC consumer staff proposed last Sept.