sldnoreply

Ever notice how if you "Submit a Question" at the SLD, the email response comes with an email address of sldnoreply@sl.universalservice.org? It's a common practice for companies to have an email address like that when they want to avoid replies, but in this case I find it exceptionally apt, since the notes that I get are usually no reply at all to my question.

This used to get me burned, until I realized that the folks at the SLD don't have the answers to most of my questions, since they have not been given the answer by the FCC. So in a way, it is more honest for them to quote back some rule that I know than to try to actually answer my question.

Today's example was really bad, though. I asked about co-location and maintenance of co-located servers. My questions were specific yes/no questions. The response?

"Thank you for your inquiry. Here is a direct link to the Eligible Services List: http://www.universalservice.org/_res/documents/sl/pdf/els_archive/2007-eligible-services-list.pdf."

That's it. And that response took 24 days to deliver. It took several deep breaths before the urge to send a snitty reply passed.

It would be much better for the SLD to say: "We have no specific guidance from the FCC on co-location. In the past we have denied funding requests for co-location, but none of those denials has been appealed to the FCC. If you apply for funding for co-location, your request will be denied, but we cannot predict what would happen if you appeal that decision to the FCC." That explains the situation much more clearly, and avoids the applicant sending more and more emails seeking clarification that the SLD cannot provide.