Journal heliocentric's Journal: Verizon DSL outage phone log 22

Well, in a recent JE I was reading about how a certain someone has been stuck working tech support call lines and they listed their commandments. In the list they at least hinted that the problem is always with the end user and that the caller is always techno-illiterate.

Well, I beg to differ. Maybe I'm the 00.000001% of the population, but nonetheless the extreme that we are all dumb and wrong is untrue. A while ago my Dad's DSL line went down and I was called in to help him. I then handled the majority of the phone calls and all the technical discussions.

My father and I then wrote up the following list of what we went through to get the problem fixed. My father added the preamble about how to run a company and that stuff, I mostly just provided input on the how and when for the phone calls from my notes at the time, he did a lot of the leg work in getting the words down on paper (it was written in his POV after all).

I'll present the ending first: We got things fixed, it had nothing to do with us, it was entirely a Verizon misconfiguration, AND we ended up getting a nice "refund" for the Verizon mistakes. (This was not listed at the end as what you see was the entire communication [minus a few edits to protect the innocent] and has no updates following the mailing of this.

I have put what used to be footnotes into []'s so you still get the info, but it isn't as nice as when it was on paper, and well tabbed and bolded and in red and such.

***********************************************************

Dear C. R. Lee,

  Is this any way to run a company?

Is this any way to treat a customer?

Verizon disconnected my DSL service on 11/198/01and it was almost impossible for me to convince Verizon that the problem was not mine.

To convince Verizon that the problem was theirs I had to do the following (over a course of 8 days):
1. Talk with 21 different people
2. Make 13 phone calls to Verizon
3. Spend over 17 ½ hours of my time on the phone with Verizon
4. Spend over 12 ½ hours of my son's time on the phone with Verizon
5. Total of more than 30 hours of my time and my son's time on the phone
6. Purchase a 50 foot telephone cable (additional 4 hours of time to purchase and install and test the cable)
7. Spend 4 hours of my time and my son's time to take my complete computer to a friend's house who has Verizon DSL to prove that the problem was NOT my computer - After doing this, it still took 12 phone calls, involving 13 hours of my time and 8 hours of my son's time to convince Verizon that the problem was theirs.

The really sad and aggravating part is that if my son, who is presently completing his Master's Degree in computer science, was not here to discuss the problem over and over again with Verizon's 21 Personnel, I would still have no DSL service and Verizon would still be saying that the problem is my computer and not Verizon's.

For all of my troubles and time, Verizon has decided to give me 6 free days of service (worth about ~$7.88), but I was told that I won't even get credit for it until the next 1 or 2 billing cycles have passed.

Verizon disconnected my DSL service when they put too many addresses into their bridge group. Getting the DSL service corrected was further complicated by all of the Verizon technicians incorrectly checking my line (At least 4 different time) from a half-way-point (central office) to my house and NOT checking all of the line from end-to-end.

I had to tell Verizon DSL service personnel my ~25 computer setting 11 different times!

Thank you,

Calvin H Zimmerman
[address withheld]

PS - Details of this unhappy transaction are attached.

Hello, I am a Verizon customer for several months and I have recommended Verizon to several people during this time. My son is a former IBM tier 3 PC support and UNIX support specialist and is now a Computer Science graduate student at Penn State. Following is a listing of the transactions I had to undertake involving a system outage that began on Sunday November 18, 2001.

Summary:
To convince Verizon that the problem was theirs I had to do the following:
1 Talk with 21 different people
2 Make 13 phone calls to Verizon
3. Spend over 17 ½ hours of my time on the phone with Verizon
4. Spend over 12 ½ hours of my son's time on the phone with Verizon
5. Total of more than 30 hours of my time and my son's time on the phone
6. Purchase a 50 foot telephone cable (additional 4 hours of time to purchase and install and test the cable)
7. Spend 4 hours of my time and my sons time to take my complete computer to a friends house who has Verizon DSL to prove that the problem was my computer - After doing this, it still took 12 phone calls, involving 13 hours of my time and 8 hours of my son's time to convince Verizon to realize that the problem was theirs.

Sunday November 18, 2001:
DSL goes out in the evening while I was using the DSL service. No phone calls made as my son's friend's DSL was also was having trouble this evening. Error code at login is "Error 629."

Monday November 19, 2001:
(Call Number 1)
Call to Verizon, automated service reports that Verizon is having DSL problems in the East and Verizon is aware of the problem and it should be fixed within 2 hours, did not speak to any techs. This information seemed to only support my initial suspicion that Verizon was experiencing a system wide technical problem.

Tuesday November 20, 2001:
I called Verizon twice and questions were asked by Verizon assuming the problem exists in my computer configuration and Verizon incorrectly assumed that there is some sort of network involving a router between my and the Verizon DSL network. These incorrect assumptions served as impediments to success in latter phone calls.

Earlier Call: (Call Number 2)
I supplied all of the computer configuration information items (over 25 items) to the tech and Issue number 2002-771252 was created about the 629 Error at login.

Later Call: (Call Number 3)
Female tech (at this point things just seemed routine so I was not recording personal info) wanted me to get the Windows ME disk to uninstall all network devices, including dialup support, VPN, and the Ethernet adapter. Called my son at school and he recommended waiting until he came home. I told the Verizon person that I was waiting for my son to come home before uninstalling anything. My son was suspicious of removing any configuration as no changes were made to the system prior to the DSL service outage, the "network" that this tech thought was to blame acts in a completely disjoint set of protocols, and there is nothing wrong with a computer touching a network [Consider a person whose employer issues them a laptop that they also use at home to access Verizon DSL. This computer would be configured for the user's work network and if Verizon was to remove or alter these configurations it would needlessly impact the user's ability to do work.].
NOTE - on the next call I made to Verizon (Wednesday 2 AM call) I was told that this open issue was resolved at the end of this phone call (Call Number 3). This issue should NOT have been closed, as Verizon had not solved the DSL problem at this time!

Wednesday November 21, 2001:

2AM Phone call (call ends after 3AM): (Call Number 4)
I decided to call Verizon now with my son home and at an hour of the day when the wait time would hopefully be decreased to talk to a non-first level tech.

Before I called my son and I removed the network components as was requested by Verizon in my last phone call. I did this to reduce jumping through these hoops during my phone call. I called and since I am now very familiar repeating all of the computer configuration information (over 25 pieces of information including brand of Ethernet card, MAC address, TCP/IP settings, existence of VPN and Dialup Adapter, etc) to the first level person I was connected to the next level (networking group). Person I talked with stated his name was Andrew. Andrew first asked for all of the computer information (brand of Ethernet card, MAC address, TCP/IP settings, existence of VPN and Dialup Adapter, etc) and when my son told Andrew that this information was taken by the first level tech Andrew seemed surprised that a first level tech was even asking that sort of information. Andrew said the original Issue number (2002-771252) was listed as resolved. Apparently Verizon incorrectly thinks I have a network. He said it sounded like a problem on Verizon's end, not my end, and was going to send a trouble ticket to the CO for line tests. Asked for additional information Andrew said it was some sort of central CO not my local CO where the DSL circuit for my line is. I were also told that I would be contacted within 48 hours, but that this group starts at 11AM and would probably fix the problem even before their official start time. Andrew also said a first level tech should NEVER tell a customer to unload software. He also said that my "network" being ICS has no impact on PPPOE. Because I uninstalled the Verizon software I could no longer get error codes to report to assist in diagnosing the problem.

After reinstalling the Verizon DSL software, the error message I got was that my DSL line was inactive and I was instructed to call Verizon technical support. The only information provided during the installation of the Verizon software was that my DSL Line was inactive and I was instructed to call the Verizon technical support line.

I was assigned a new issue number at this point - 2002-777557.

Afternoon Phone Call: (Call Number 5)
With the DSL service having been out for several days I called Verizon to get a phone number to use with 56K modem in the interim. The tech, Randy, gave me the number of 610-736-9929, which is a toll number for me. I was also given the issue number of 2002-781033 to insure that there would be no charges for using the Verizon modem. I was told that since I was a customer before July that there was no limit to the number of hours of usage. Customers after July have a limit of 100 hours per month using this type of connection.

Thursday November 22, 2001 (Thanksgiving):

(Call Number 6)
I made one phone call to Verizon in the evening to check on the status of the latest Issue and was told nothing new and that Verizon was working on the problem.

Friday November 23, 2001:
Very productive day of discovering whose equipment is at fault, however three phone calls to Verizon were required taking up several hours before anyone at Verizon would say that it might be a problem on their end.

First Phone Call Of This Day: 10AM to Noon (Call Number 7)
First level person: I asked Stephanie why I was not called within the 48 hours as I was previously told. Stephanie told me that I was not called because I called to ask about a problem. I reviewed this concept (I called you, you had nothing to tell me, so you didn't call me when you had something to tell me?) step by step 3 times as this was very illogical to me and was told the same story. I then asked to speak with Stephanie's "lead" (possibly some sort of supervisor) and I talked with Michelle. Michelle was nice and actually apologized for Verizon not getting back to me within the 48 hours and transferred me back to Stephanie. Again all of the 25+ computer information questions (including brand of Ethernet card, MAC address, TCP/IP settings, existence of VPN and Dialup Adapter, etc...) had to again be given to Stephanie that was previously given and listed in the notes of all of the earlier calls. It should not have been necessary to give Verizon all of this information again as I was already given an issue number for this problem.

Second level person, Steve of the network team, again had my son go through the over 25 system configuration pieces of information (brand of Ethernet card, MAC address, TCP/IP settings, existence of VPN and Dialup Adapter, etc...) however this time these questions were complicated by Steve's misuse of computer terminology [Example: Steve asked what was in my "Network Stack" which technically is an item outlined by the IEEE 802.3 standards for Ethernet and accessing the TCP/IP stack for a system is difficult, but what Steve meant was "Network Components Installed" listed in the Networking Properties]. Steve insisted that my system resource level of 65% free was insufficient. My son told Steve that my computer has 768 MEGs of RAM, but Steve still wanted it to have over 75% of resources free. My son got the computer to 91% system resources free and PPPOE still did not work. Steve decided that a line test was needed and brought Sandy, a system person, onto the phone with Steve also on the line. Sandy performed a reboot of the DSL port (the green lights on the DSL modem blinked) and said that the line was fine. Steve suggested that I hang up and go on the Internet via dialup and obtain the Verizon PPPOE (WinPoET) software from the website and try that. Steve listed the complete URL for this download.

I had to use another Internet provider (Verizon's dial in telephone number is long distance for me) to download the software that Verizon requested I get and load on my computer to solve the DSL problem. Time was taken to download the PPPOE software and install on my computer. This was another time wasting step in a long process of time wasting steps.

Trip to Neighbor
I went online via my son's Penn State dialup access (since the Verizon dial-up telephone number is long distance) and downloaded the Verizon software. After hanging up and installing the software I now had a login screen for the Verizon Online DSL network (apparently the download version does not test the line prior to installation of components like the software on the installation CDROM). However I was back to where I started on Sunday with error 629. Frustrated with the idea of calling back and running through the computer configuration AGAIN I decided to take steps to prove that it was not my system configuration. I decided to take my computer system to another location with Verizon DSL and see if the system would work. I took the entire system: computer, keyboard, mouse, monitor, power cords, Verizon DSL modem, Ethernet cable, and Ethernet card (internal but I seemed to get asked about it a lot so I'm stating it here to be sure) to a friend's house (he is a neighbor and his telephone line uses the same local CO) and I hooked up to his telephone line and immediately I was connected using my login name and password. I not only connected, I did so with less than 65% of system resources free, while running a firewall program and while running anti-virus software (these are things previous techs asked that I take out). This proves that there was NEVER any problem with my computer hardware, software, or configuration. I took my computer back home and set it up again. I booted the computer and this time at the Verizon DSL login screen I got the error 629 again. The only difference between my house and my friend's house is the telephone line and the access to the Verizon network therein.

This test proved once and for all that there was nothing wrong with my computer configuration, Ethernet car, DSL modem, and cabling. Now I was sure that Verizon would recognize that the problem was theirs and fix it. I mistakenly thought that now I would not have to make 6 additional phone calls talking with 12 more people to get this whole situation resolved. Boy, was I mistaken!!!!!!!!

Second Phone Call of This Day: 2:00 PM to 3:30 PM (Call Number 8)
Since I now had positive proof that there was nothing wrong with my computer configuration (my computer worked on my friends Verizon DSL line as stated above) I thought that now I won't have to repeat all of the computer information and its over 25 items (which was now memorized since my son and I have repeated the exact same information to so many people) I made an additional call to Verizon. Verizon needed to know that this problem was not on my end and they needed to start to work on their system problem.

Level 1: I talked with a person named Deanna. Deanna wanted my computer information and I kept telling her that it is the same as the last call, the call before that, and even the call before that. I told Deanna that my computer worked fine at my friend's house and that checking my computer configuration was not necessary. Deanna refused to pass my call to any level or do anything without this system information. I asked to talk with Michelle (supervisor person who I talked with on the last phone call). Deanna said that there were many people named Michelle and that I could not talk to Michelle. After explaining how I took my complete computer to a friend's house and that it worked just fine there, Deanna said I would have to give her all of the computer information again. I became loud at this point, but was not disrespectful (no personal attacks) to Deanna; I did state that this procedure of jumping through the same hoops over and over was bullshit. I then asked to talk to her supervisor. I informed the supervisor that my computer worked fine at my friend's house and her reply was that sometimes things change when computers are moved. The supervisor said that in order for her to help me I would have to give all of the computer information to Deanna because Deanna was working on my (now somehow different) error 629 (I already had an issue for this Error but Verizon closed it) and was transferred back to Deanna. After all of the computer information was given to Deanna, she would finally escalate the issue to the next level (network). Deanna said that indeed all of this information was listed in the notes from previous calls but that Verizon has 4 different calling areas and that the format differs . Deanna did try to move quickly through the questions and asked only the specific numbers and did not waste more of my time about where to click to tell her the information. During the wait for escalation Deanna had my son try the login names "install2" and "install1" (even though I was not getting incorrect login errors) and these resulted in the same error 629. Deanna also asked that I was no longer running with a router. My son and I informed Deanna that this computer NEVER touched any sort of router EVER (other than Verizon equipment). I found out the problem with transferring my call to the next level was because earlier in this phone call I was asked if I wished to participate in a satisfaction survey. Apparently my request to participate in this survey was preventing Deanna from transferring my call and I had the option of doing the survey and calling back, or canceling the survey and being forwarded. Concerned that a future call back would result in another round of supplying the 25+ computer information items, but wanting to tell someone of this poor service my son asked that Deanna list in the notes in BIG BOLD RED letters (along with the escalation code needed by the tech encountered in the next call) that the next call would be immediately escalated. With this information added to the notes about the issue I proceeded with the survey.

The person taking survey was very nice - Judy Clayton. She quickly noticed that I was very upset and asked if I wanted to talk with her supervisor. Jackie Cike (QA supervisor) listened to my tale of woe and could not believe that I was treated so badly and was going to check into the matter. She also apologized for the way I was treated and even said things like "That's Crazy!" about how many times my son and I had to supply the same information. She stated that I would get some information in the mail to be returned to them. Jackie suggested that in subsequent phone calls I obtain the techs' first and last names as well as Employee Number.

Third Phone Call of This Day: 4:31 PM (Call Number 9)
First level: person identified himself as Rob. When asked for his last name and employee number, Rob said he was not allowed to give out that information. I asked that I be forwarded quickly to the second level and Rob had to check with his lead that this was ok. Rob was gone briefly and returned saying he was going to forward me now. I asked again for his employee number and when told that he was not allowed to tell me I asked to speak with his lead. Rob said that his lead was not available and was hard to track down (didn't the lead just tell Rob I was to be escalated?). After much discussion and telling Rob that the QA supervisor Jackie Cike (I did supply her name and position to Rob) said I was to ask for this information, Rob left the phone for several minuets and then gave me his employee number (70205). I gave Rob the issue number and was transferred to the next level without having to repeat all of the computer information. However, Rob could not send the call to the next level (I assume because I asked to take the satisfaction survey again) and Rob said that he needed to logout of the system and that he would call me back. I voiced concern about a call back since Verizon had never called me before and Rob promised he would call me back in 30 seconds. Two minutes later Rob indeed did call me and proceeded to forward me to the next level.

Second Level: Person at this level was Jason who, when asked, gave me his employee number without problem (70222). Jason was very cooperative and understood that the problem was not mine when I explained that I took my complete computer to a friend's house that also had Verizon DSL and my computer worked fine there. Jason had a person run a check on the line and following this successful test I was told that this was the third time that this test was done regarding the issue. It was an end-to-end ping at the network level and they were able to send a ping (I assume ICMP) to the MAC address of my Ethernet card. Jason decided that he would escalate the issue to a "Special Internal Department that handles persistent 629 errors and certain email problems" so they could check out the problem from the ISP level. Jason left for a few minutes to obtain permission to send the issue to that level. He returned saying that the issue met all the criteria and it would be escalated to this level where they would try to ping my modem from the ISP level, not the network level. Jason said that I should expect a phone call within 24 hours and that I should continue to try to login about every one and a half hours. Jason said that if I did not hear from Verizon within 24 hours that when I called back I should ask to talk to the "Resolution Group" and that would bring me to the proper level.

Phone Call From Verizon
A few hours after I spoke to Jason someone from Verizon called to tell me that Verizon was working on my problem and I should hear back from them now within 48 hours. My son asked the caller to confirm that work was no longer being done at the network team level and the woman calling said that the issue had already left the network team and was being addressed by someone else.

Saturday November 24, 2001:
Since I received that last mysterious phone call from Verizon I did not doing anything today. Instead my son read up on TCP/IP communications and planned the next phone call.

Sunday November 25, 2001:
First Call of This Day: 12:20 AM (Call number 10)

Person who answered identified himself as Jason Hines (no employee number that is why he supplied his last name) and he explained a little more about the first issue that Verizon closed. He explained that this means that they are not actively working on this issue. I am a little confused how I could call and tell them my service was out but they decided they were not actively working on it. Anyway, at this point I was very fed up with the poor service I was receiving, and since it appeared to be a problem with the Verizon network I put my son on the telephone to talk to Jason. My son writes the following:

I began asking Jason about the Network system of Verizon and he told me that all Network Team tickets had been closed. He said that they checked the card, router, network hardware, and negativity tests and things were all in limits. He now wanted to trouble-shoot the system. I said that we were not going to be doing this again and I proceeded to ask about this group that I was told would be looking at our issue from the ISP level. Jason explained that I was probably referring to the OSC or SAMC group. He explained that there are three levels of the network group:
1. Network Resolution - Trouble Shooting
2. MCO (Main Central Office) - checking bindings, etc...
3. OSC or SAMC - deals with bridge tables and routing

Jason stated that at some point (he did not have the date or time) a test was run and Verizon could see two NICs. I told them again about the taking the entire computer to the neighbor and Jason began to suspect maybe there was a problem with the telephone NID (the little gray box on the outside of the home) but this was confusing since the connection had sync (the little green ready light on our modem stayed solidly light). Jason went on to explain what the MCO did:
1. An end-to-end ping to the modem (note: earlier I was told this ping went to the NIC in the computer)
2. Throughput/Loss Calculation to the NIC
3. At some point they saw multiple NIC MACs and decided it was a local (i.e. my end) configuration problem.
Following this decision the trouble ticket was closed. Jason had no information on the time this ticket was closed. Jason did have information that this issue was referred to the OSC on the 23rd at 5:30AM. Jason said that at this point it would be "fruitless" to uninstall/reinstall the Verizon software (yes, he did say it like he might have suggested uninstalling software) and he suggested that I get another computer and try the software there. Jason then told me that he was in Dallas, Texas and told me to call 1-888-676-4736 option 1 and then option 2 to reach his call center for the next call. My father then got on the line to again go over with Jason that we took this computer to another location and it worked there and that we were not going to continue to waste our time jumping through these hoops. Jason then got a network tech person at Dallas on the line.

I was now speaking with Ezra Braswell (employee number 34569) and he told me the line was tested on the 21st at 4:20AM and that it went to the OSC on the 24th at 10AM EST. Ezra asked about the modem dropping sync and but my modem was fine in that regard. He said that my connection tested fine in the High Relative Occupation Capacity test (Ezra says this is a test of how hard the modem must fight to send data up and down stream) and that this test was done on the 21st at 3:47AM. I then asked Ezra if we could just get Verizon to replace their hardware for the DSL circuit since I've encountered networking gear that responds to ping and checks out ok, but has some sort of hardware failure. Ezra told me that I was connected to a 4 Port LT card and that these are not cheap to replace so this idea was probably not going a good one. Ezra then asked Jason to put us all on hold while Ezra went off to request some tests be done. I sat on hold for a while and Jason came back and asked me for the MAC address of the computer we were using to try to connect. I told him the address 00-A0-CC-7C-87-3F (note: I've personally supplied this number at least 3 times to different Verizon techs) and I went back on hold for a while again. While on hold, at 1:34AM I saw three blinks of the activity light on the DSL modem and I suspect that these represent 3 ICMP ping packets. Jason came back on the line then and asked that I reboot the modem and try logging in again. I did this and again got the Error 629. When I told this info to Jason I went back on hold again. Following this hold Ezra and Jason were back on the line and Ezra told me that he contacted a person at the CO (I assume the MCO) named JR and he ran basic tests and extra tests that Ezra personally recommended and nothing was wrong. At this point Ezra again asked about the computer setup and I reminded him that this computer went to a neighbor's house and it worked fine there. Ezra then asked about the internal wiring and I explained how from the NID outside we have a single connection where two sets of wires are hooked up: one directly to the DSL modem, the other to a DSL filter and intern to the handset telephones of the house. Ezra suggested a direct run from the NID to the DSL modem as a means to test the internal wiring as well as that our DSL filter for the phones didn't go bad and is somehow bleeding over to the DSL modem side (again, Verizon suspecting there's a problem with my setup/configuration). Ezra then said that he saw two MAC addresses listed in the router table and the one he had never seen anything like that before. Ezra asked if I knew what this MAC address was 00-F0-DA-C8-78-26 and I had never dealt with any device with this sort of MAC address. Ezra then began to suspect that maybe there was something wrong with the system, possibly a registry key that was causing windows to spoof that weird MAC address. [In the subsequent phone call the proper MAC address was read to me and apparently Ezra misread that one and it's indeed the MAC address of another computer that was used to connect to Verizon at one time. A mistake on Ezra's part caused additional suspicion of an improper configuration.]

Then the conversation shifted to Ezra suggesting that we get another network person (a daytime person) to check that Verizon could see the DSL modem go out of and back into sync. This would be a test that someone wasn't tapping into the phone line. Ezra felt there was a possibility that the line was cross-wired. I was told that we should call back in the morning and that their location's network people start at 6AM (7AM my time zone) and to get this additional testing completed. Ezra also stated that at this point in the morning he had already been working late for over an hour since Jason stopped him on his way out and I thanked Ezra for his extra time that night in reviewing some of the Verizon things with me.

I handed the phone back to my father at this point for the end of the call.

I expressed concern about who called me the previous night (Friday night) and what that was regarding. Ezra did not know why I was called then and he did not know who or what prompted the phone call. I asked Ezra if this issue could be involving cross talk capacitance but he really didn't seem to know what I was getting at.

Trip to Wal-Mart
With yet another phone call completed without Verizon fixing their problem and my frustration with the suggestion of running more wiring just to keep proving that things are fine on my end, I set off to Wal-Mart to buy a 50 foot telephone cord to hook my DSL modem up to my NID so the next phone call I wouldn't be asked again and again about my internal wiring. Now I could just say that I took my entire computer to a friend's house and I've also tried a totally different phone cord directly from my NID. I left at 3AM and when I returned and ran the wire in my basement window I still got Error 629, but at least I shouldn't continue to get grief about my internal wiring, right?

Second Call of This Day: 11:30 AM (Call number 11)
I attempted to use the phone number I was recently given to direct dial to Dallas, Texas. The person who answered the phone identified himself as Branden and he could not give his last name but he told me his employee number is 70594. Branden also told me that he was not in Dallas but that he was in London, Ontario and he did not know why I got his call center. At this point I turned the phone over to my son who is a lot more familiar with networks than I do. My son writes the following:

I began asking about the end-to-end ping that Verizon was relying on to show that their side of the DSL network was supposedly correct. Branden did not know for sure where the Verizon side of the ping was situated. He said it was at a CO, but he didn't know if it was my local CO or the MCO. He did say that the person who initiates this ping is at the MCO in Maryland, but Branden didn't know if this MCO person sends the ping from there of if they connect to my local CO to start the ping from there. I then asked about where the server is that I login to is located. Branden told me that I connect to the "logon server" when I try to login, but he didn't know where that was or how that related to the end-to-end ping. Branden also did not know if there was one "logon server" or if there were many. He "guessed" there is a couple. Branden assured me that Verizon has many qualified techs and that they know what they are doing. I then informed Branden about our recent effort with the 50-foot phone cord and he laughed and said that that was our problem, that we needed a cord no longer than 16-feet in length. After much argument about this topic I asked Branden about how long he was with Verizon and he indicated it had been a long time, years even (he later said that it was 2 years) and that his educational background in Geology and Biology was also helpful and that it is a fact that you have to have a shorter than 16' phone cord. (My father even argued with Branden and asked where this fact was written down, Branden said he was sure it was, but didn't know where; and my father even asked to talk to Branden's supervisor and my father talked to Jason 70802 and got the same story about the short cord). Seeing that this was a futile argument I had Branden forward my call to the network person and eventually I was speaking with Steve (70919).

I proceeded to ask Steve for information about this end-to-end ping since Branden did not seem to understand. I got some slightly more intelligent information from Steve. Steve told me that the person who does this test sits in Maryland but remotely connects to a machine at my local CO. Steve told me that 32 packets are sent from the switch located in the local CO to my DSL modem and then a ping is directed to the 6400 router [The pings I am familiar with send 3 or 4 sets of 32 bytes in an ICMP packet. I assume Steve didn't mean to say 32 packets, rather 32 byte packets.]. I asked Steve if he knew if these pings were the standard ICMP type ping but Steve did not know. Steve told me that I connect both to and through this 6400 router. [I assume Steve was referring to a Cisco 6400 router.] When Steve told me that I log into the 6400 I asked if I supplied a completely incorrect username/password would the 6400 care and Steve told me that it would not. I asked if my understanding that only a sub portion of the Verizon system was being tested and that Verizon was relying on only this information to say that all things on their end checked out fine. I was told that there probably is not a problem with my computer and that a 629 error usually implies that there is a problem with the 6400. I was placed on hold and when Steve came back and told me that there were two MAC addresses in the routing table, the two he read to me corresponded to the computer we were trying to use to connect and that other computer (recall Ezra's misread of the proper 00-50-DA-C8-78-26 address). Steve told me that that information was as of 7:40AM and then Steve had me ping my own Ethernet card (again, a check of my system configuration) and it checked out fine. Steve and I then had a few rounds about the internal wiring and the (apparently) too long phone cable. Eventually Steve put me on hold for a while and then came back telling me he spoke to someone named Garreth at the MCO and apparently there were too many entries in the Bridge table/group. This means that there was a configuration problem on the Verizon side of the connection and Steve said that he would submit a trouble ticket to have this problem repaired the next day.

At this point I turned the phone back to my father.

I told Steve how I felt about the poor service I have gotten from Verizon and asked him to put information into their records to minimize any problems when I talk to billing about getting credit for the downtime. I was referring to the fact that my first Issue number was wrongly closed and that I was on line for 40 seconds using my computer at my friend's house. I feared using my login name during the system outage would result in someone at Verizon assuming that my connection was working at that they might not properly reimburse me.

Monday November 26, 2001:

Approximately 12 Noon - Phone message from Verizon to call 1-866-876-4375 and use code number 2434.

I called around 1PM and got employee number 70215, Brent Johnson. Brent said this phone call is from the operation resolution group. He said this phone number was started about a week ago to eliminate customers who are experiencing difficulties from having to go through the first level technicians. WHY WASN'T I GIVEN THIS NUMBER BEFORE? Unfortunately I didn't ask him this question. Brent looked at my records and said the problem was a bridge group overload. THE PROBLEM WITH MY DSL SERVICE WAS NEVER MINE, IT WAS ALWAYS VERIZON'S PROBLEM.

Brent was very nice and stated that I shouldn't have had to make more than 2 phone calls to remedy the problem with my DSL.

Around 3 PM I called Verizon's billing department (I was on hold for 30 minutes before I got connected to a live person). I gave Carl Reares (who didn't have an employee number, but his extension was X2180) both Issue numbers and told him I was down for 8 days and he gave me credit for 2 weeks ($18.64) and confirmation #2782707. Carl stated that it would take 2 or 3 billings for me to get credit for the 2 weeks of downtime.