The evolving jurisprudence defines “adequate service” and not necessarily “perfect service”.
What did the court say with regard to the common carrier obligations? It is my understanding that they've established that these obligations are not necessarily absolute either but that they're situational or circumstantial, if you will. I guess that's the effect service level agreements have on the network.
That would strike, I presume, at the heart of why we can't be prescriptive with respect to prejudging potential penalties or damages, because individual breaches would have to be investigated and penalties or damages would have to be determined considering the situation and conditions including network operation.
Thanks.