[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As I read the original thread here, I
> was of the impression it was not the wire pair(s) in question, it
> was getting dial tone on that pair which telco would not supply
> because of a billing dispute with a previous tenant. Telco could care
> less about the wire pair; run as many of them as you wish, but then
> get telco to interconnect. Was I wrong on this assumption? PAT]
Perhaps the thread was bifurcated, but I didn't see the discussion about a billing dispute. The message I responded to was the debate about whether dial tone is required for a rental unit, as opposed to a good pair that is capable of working. And, to what extent the landlord is responsible.
As to a billing dispute, in California, all the landlord would have to do is certify to the LEC that the deadbeat tenant has moved out. If the LEC refused to provide service to the new tenant at that point the California PUC could resolve that in short order.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The part of the thread we got here from AES discussed how the original tenant skipped owing money, and that although the landlord (apparently, I do not recall reading it) did in fact tell telco he had _new_ tenants, telco did not accept that as the complete story _in the proper context_ and said they wanted their money. And, if telco's version was correct, then the PUC would back them up. PAT]