dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5763
share rss forum feed

rizzo2dial
Premium
join:2004-08-05

2 edits

Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine!

Chronology of events:

1) Back in July, 2007, after SR went bust, I signed up w/ Teleblend almost immediately after they put up a sign-up page. Their initial sign-up page listed a 30 day money back guarantee and accepted bogus payment information (which is exactly what I supplied). I did this to reserve the option of signing up w/ them had an LNP away from SR/Teleblend taken a long time.

2) At the same time, signed up w/ a "real" VoIP provider, provided "real" payment info, and initiated an LNP away from SR/Teleblend.

3) The LNP completed in less than 2 weeks, so upon completion, I logged into my TB account, created a ticket stating to "cancel my service" (which took place well before the 30 day money back period), mentioned the 30 day money back guarantee in the ticket, and left it at that. I didn't care whether TB actually read the ticket for they weren't going to be able to charge my account. Furthermore, at that time it was impossible to get through to them by phone for they were brand new and overwhelmed w/ taking orders from existing SR customers.

4) A month or two ago TB sent me several e-mails that my account was overdue and was threatening to cutoff my service. I ignored those e-mails for I'm not their customer.

5) Tonight (January 29, 2008), incoming calls to my # which I ported to the "real" VoIP provider back in July 2007 no longer ring on my ATA. Instead they go straight to Voicemail, where the voicemails are then being forwarded to e-mail. Those e-mailed voicemails are coming from none other than NoReply@sunrocket.com using the same pair of messages SR used to send. (My "real" VoIP provider only sends a single message). One message is a "voicemail notification," the 2nd message is the voicemail "attachment."

Thus, Teleblend has slammed my number. Now comes the fun of trying to get my number back w/o having to sign up for yet a new VoIP provider.

BTW, I am not using any SR equipment, haven't contacted TB, and my Teleblend user account which I created way back when doesn't even exist in their on-line system at this point.

My priority is to get my number back. Am going to deal w/ my current VoIP provider on this, but if anybody has suggestions, I'm all ears.

ChuckIL9

join:2005-11-07
Peoria, IL
From »www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/sl ··· ing.html

What to Do if You’ve Been Slammed

Call the slamming company and tell it that you want the problem fixed. If you have not paid, tell the slamming company that you will not pay for the first 30 days of service. Call your preferred telephone company to inform it of the slam, and tell it that you want to be reinstated to the same calling plan you had before the slam. Also tell your preferred telephone company that you want all “change of carrier charges” (charges for switching companies) removed from your bill.

You can call the following toll-free numbers to verify your preferred telephone company or companies:

1-700-555-4141 for long distance and international services and

1+your area code+700-4141 for local toll services.

You can also file a complaint. If you live in a state that accepts slamming complaints, you can file your complaint with your state public service commission. You can find a list of states that accept slamming complaints at www.fcc.gov/slamming. You can find contact information for your state public service commission at www.naruc.org or in the blue pages or government section of your local telephone directory. Contact your state public service commission to determine the precise filing procedures.

If you don’t live in a state that accepts slamming complaints, file your complaint with the FCC. You can file your complaint using our on-line complaint Form 501 found at www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.html; e-mailing slamming@fcc.gov; faxing 202-418-0035; or writing to:

Federal Communications Commission
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
ATTN: SLAM TEAM, Room CY-A257
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554.


TBSupport1

join:2007-09-11
Leesburg, VA
Actually, that would not be slamming. Teleblend does not accept emails as methods of cancellations.

Quoted from TOS (under Service Term):

"You may cancel the Service at any time by contacting TeleBlend according to the procedure described on the TeleBlend website. If you cancel Service prior to the end of a monthly term, you will not receive a prorated refund for the remainder of that month. "

Quoted from Website (»www.teleblendsupport.net/support ··· pport/):

"For security reasons you cannot cancel your account using this form. You must call Customer Service at 877-488-5519 to cancel your account. Cancellation requests submitted using this form or email will be deleted."

If you never canceled your account, no one would know that you moved your number to someone else. Many people have talked about on this forum that all the VOIP companies do not own their numbers, so they do not get any information when a customer ports aways. It is not like a Wireless or Wireline Carrier (Verizon, Qwest,etc).

ChuckIL9

join:2005-11-07
Peoria, IL

1 edit
Actually, I don't see that it matters whether his account was cancelled or not. He authorized a preffered provider to port his phone number away from Teleblend. Teleblend later ported his number back without his consent. This still would appear to be slamming, but...let the attorney general in your state decide.

rizzo2dial
Premium
join:2004-08-05

1 edit
reply to TBSupport1
When your company first came into existence, there was no detailed TOS listing what you state now. Additionally, as explained in the OP, there was no means of getting through to you by phone as your lines were perpetually busy since your CSR's were overwhelmed w/ signing up SR refugees. At least posters at this site claimed that that's what they were told when they got through. I was never able to get through to you by phone.

I never "e-mailed" you to cancel my account, I used your provided "ticketing system." That was the only functional means of communication I had available. If your company failed to read the ticket and/or failed to act on what was listed, that's your issue, not mine.

You were never able to charge me for service in the first place, so you should have automatically cancelled out my account for presumed "nonpayment" a long time ago.

My number was anyway ported well within 30 days of associating myself w/ TB, yet now in January 2008 it has been mysteriously ported back to you. This is SLAMMING plain and simple.

I have already found out when the port order on your end was submitted, and coincidentally it was around the same time you sent out e-mail notifications that my account was "overdue." Others in this forum received similar e-mails, so they may be in for a similar rude awakening.

Your company's tactics are reprehensible, and slamming is illegal. For now my priority is to get my number back and out of your company's grips.

EDIT: Corrected "January 2009" to read "January 2008."

jay_rm

join:2002-04-12
Netville
reply to TBSupport1
said by TBSupport1:

blah
blah
blah

I don't normally jump into this kind of thing, but...

You guys were spamming MY email account concerning overdue billing AND I NEVER EVEN SIGNED UP. I had Sunrocket service but I couldn't be suckered into your clutches...

I'm anxiously awaiting a slam on my old SR numbers - bring it on, I got all the right people lined up

jay_rm

join:2002-04-12
Netville
reply to rizzo2dial
Rizzo - WHERE EXACTLY did the number Teleblend slammed come from ? Was it a number you PORTED INTO Sunrocket or was it a number SUNROCKET gave you when you signed with them ?

This may shed some light on exactly WHICH numbers Teleblend can slam.
--
3500/512 5.7 GHz Motorola Canopy Wireless; FoxValley.net
"Peace through superior firepower"


burris
Premium
join:2000-08-22
Miami, FL
said by jay_rm:

Rizzo - WHERE EXACTLY did the number Teleblend slammed come from ? Was it a number you PORTED INTO Sunrocket or was it a number SUNROCKET gave you when you signed with them ?

This may shed some light on exactly WHICH numbers Teleblend can slam.
This site may offer an explanation of slamming...

»www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/sl ··· ing.html

rizzo2dial
Premium
join:2004-08-05

3 edits
reply to jay_rm
said by jay_rm:

Rizzo - WHERE EXACTLY did the number Teleblend slammed come from ? Was it a number you PORTED INTO Sunrocket or was it a number SUNROCKET gave you when you signed with them ?

This may shed some light on exactly WHICH numbers Teleblend can slam.
It was a number I PORTED IN to SunRocket. Prior to SunRocket, it was ported to other VoIP providers. (Originally, way back when, it started out as a Verizon Land Line).


dmolavi
Premium
join:2005-04-11
Sewell, NJ
reply to jay_rm
said by jay_rm:

I'm anxiously awaiting a slam on my old SR numbers - bring it on, I got all the right people lined up
ditto. my number originated as a verizon landline number, ported to SR, then immediately to viatalk the day SR went under. go ahead, TB, try it....

BRING IT ON!!!!
--
Get your Gizmo Admin Passwords, Unlock Instructions, and How To use your Gizmo with other providers at Sunrocket Gizmo Administrator Passwords.
NukedGallery.net

jay_rm

join:2002-04-12
Netville
reply to rizzo2dial
said by rizzo2dial:

It was a number I PORTED IN to SunRocket. Prior to SunRocket, it was ported to other VoIP providers. (Originally, way back when, it started out as a Verizon Land Line).
OK - I was curious if it had been a SR supplied number. Thanks.
--
3500/512 5.7 GHz Motorola Canopy Wireless; FoxValley.net
"Peace through superior firepower"


TeleblendGuy
Premium
join:2007-08-10
Leesburg, VA
reply to rizzo2dial
Wait.... Slamming would be if you just took your number away with out any form of authorization. You clearly state the problem here...

1. Number was with sunrocket
2. Sunrocket dies
3. Signup with Teleblend
4. Signup with another provider
5. Claim Teleblend Slammed you...

Ok, so since Sunrocket has died the account is not listed with anyone and would need to be ported to Teleblend. Since you signed up with our service you AUTHORIZED us to port your number to us. You actually state that you committed FRAUD anyway in your post in signing up with Teleblend, but that is besides the point. So, now later you signup for another provider and authorize them to port your number. Now you have TWO authorizations out there. Now this other company MAY have completed the port sooner then ours completed. Once we completed your port it would have come back to us since you signed up with us. As you can see we did not SLAM you, but rather you created a issue where you had two companies trying to get control of the number, and the port request complete won. The carriers could care less, as they saw two ports and completed them and routed the call based on the last completed port.

As for canceling, I still find it amazing that people cannot cancel their cell phone, cable, landline, Vonage, Packet8, Bank Account with a simple email but they expect that they can just do it with Teleblend because that is what THEY want to do.

Ok, I am off my soapbox
--
Only TRUE Teleblend Support People are:
TeleblendGuy & TBSupport1
Support 877-252-4548 or Billing 877-488-5519
»teleblendsupport.net/support

jay_rm

join:2002-04-12
Netville
said by TeleblendGuy:

Now this other company MAY have completed the port sooner then ours completed. Once we completed your port it would have come back to us since you signed up with us.
So, it takes Teleblend SIX MONTHS to complete a port ???!!!?!?!?

Please.......
--
3500/512 5.7 GHz Motorola Canopy Wireless; FoxValley.net
"Peace through superior firepower"


dmolavi
Premium
join:2005-04-11
Sewell, NJ
TB inherited SR's equipment, at least that was the company line back in July. so technically, they already had your number in their systems. no port was needed, if they truly took over the hardware from SR.

just keep filing those FCC complaints, folks. eventually, TB will get the message that slamming is illegal.

viatalk has had over 50 complaints of TB slamming numbers, and i'm sure vonage would report similar numbers.
--
Get your Gizmo Admin Passwords, Unlock Instructions, and How To use your Gizmo with other providers at Sunrocket Gizmo Administrator Passwords.
NukedGallery.net

ChuckIL9

join:2005-11-07
Peoria, IL

4 edits
reply to TeleblendGuy
said by TeleblendGuy:

Ok, so since Sunrocket has died the account is not listed with anyone and would need to be ported to Teleblend. Since you signed up with our service you AUTHORIZED us to port your number to us.
Maybe you should jump back on the soapbox, according to your own faq:

»www.teleblendsupport.net/?View=e ··· tryID=37

and again in another portion of the faq:

»www.teleblendsupport.net/?View=e ··· tryID=38

No porting is required to keep your number when switching to Teleblend.

This is the way it was presented by Lisa Bickford on this forum, and is still clearly stated in your faq.

Please help rizzo get his number back.

rizzo2dial
Premium
join:2004-08-05

1 edit
reply to TeleblendGuy
said by TeleblendGuy:

Ok, so since Sunrocket has died the account is not listed with anyone and would need to be ported to Teleblend. Since you signed up with our service you AUTHORIZED us to port your number to us.
False! Your company clearly stated that NO PORTING was necessary for existing SR customers. At the time I populated the sign-up form, I was still a SunRocket customer/refugee.

said by TeleblendGuy:

You actually state that you committed FRAUD anyway in your post in signing up with Teleblend, but that is besides the point.
Your "fraud" assertion is fairly weak for it would have been fraud only had you been entitled to collect and keep revenue from me. Since I made a good faith effort to notify you of my service cancellation within the 30 money back guarantee period via the only practical means I could communicate w/ your company, no fraud had occurred. Had I needed to continue my SR/TB service longer, valid payment information would have been provided.

said by TeleblendGuy:

So, now later you signup for another provider and authorize them to port your number. Now you have TWO authorizations out there. Now this other company MAY have completed the port sooner then ours completed. Once we completed your port it would have come back to us since you signed up with us.
Going back to your company's original claim that NO PORTING WAS NECESSARY, you were never authorized to port my number. I never filled out an LOA authorizing TB to port my number, be it an electronic one or a paper one. You need an LOA to be authorized to perform an LNP and you did not have one.

said by TeleblendGuy:

As you can see we did not SLAM you, but rather you created a issue where you had two companies trying to get control of the number, and the port request complete won.
Sure. For over 6 months you didn't collect a dime from me, then a month or so ago you sent me threatening e-mail that you were going to disconnect my service -- service which I didn't even have, but to correct that situation, you decided to slam my number back to your service. And you have the audacity to tell me you didn't slam my number.

said by TeleblendGuy:

The carriers could care less, as they saw two ports and completed them and routed the call based on the last completed port.
I haven't placed any blame on my VoIP provider, my losing CLEC, or your gaining CLEC. All of those providers acted accordingly after you initiated the unauthorized LNP. Your CLEC received an LNP request from you, which they assumed was legit, so they proceeded with the port.

said by TeleblendGuy:

As for canceling, I still find it amazing that people cannot cancel their cell phone, cable, landline, Vonage, Packet8, Bank Account with a simple email but they expect that they can just do it with Teleblend because that is what THEY want to do.
And I find it amazing that you can't comprehend the fact that it was impossible at that time to reach your company by phone. For that matter, I tried getting through to your company TODAY by phone (at your CLEC's request), and after sitting on hold for almost an hour, I finally had to hang up as I had work to do for my real job. Thus, it's still impossible to get through to your company by phone! But please jump on your soap box anytime you like.

said by TeleblendGuy:

Ok, I am off my soapbox
Nice to see you take ANY responsibility and accountability for your company's egregious shortcomings and misdeeds in this situation.

rizzo2dial
Premium
join:2004-08-05
reply to ChuckIL9
said by ChuckIL9:

Please help rizzo get his number back.
At this point I'm not sure if directly enlisting TB's support is in my best interest. The responses from TB in this thread don't give me any indication that they're interested helping resolve this "situation."

jay_rm

join:2002-04-12
Netville
reply to rizzo2dial
VT customers have received help from VT in yanking their numbers back from these guys - call your provider right away and explain the situation. Odds are they've seen this happen before and can assist you.

Good Luck & don't forget to file a complaint with the FCC.
--
3500/512 5.7 GHz Motorola Canopy Wireless; FoxValley.net
"Peace through superior firepower"

rizzo2dial
Premium
join:2004-08-05
said by jay_rm:

call your provider right away and explain the situation.
My provider was contacted the moment I discovered the issue. I'm not sure if they have 24/7 tech support, but they're open late.

said by jay_rm:

Odds are they've seen this happen before and can assist you.
The initial tech support rep I spoke w/ has never seen this happen before, but others in the company may have.

said by jay_rm:

Good Luck & don't forget to file a complaint with the FCC.
Complaining to the FCC is a double edged sword. It's probably inevitable that they'll eventually regular VoIP, but I'd rather not act as a catalyst to that process. That's not to say TB deserves a pass, for they don't. I'm just not sure having the FCC's involvement is a good thing.

rizzo2dial
Premium
join:2004-08-05
reply to jay_rm
said by jay_rm:

VT customers have received help from VT in yanking their numbers back from these guys
Thanks for mentioning this part. Here's a cross post of the VT thread:
»Number slammed and taken away from ViaTalk! HELP!

The slamming in that thread is from none other than Teleblend. Big surprise.

dipswich
Premium
join:2003-06-27
Raleigh, NC
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
reply to rizzo2dial
Teleblend has weak legs in this without that LoA... and relying on current Terms of Service rather than Terms of Service that were in effect when "cancellation" occurred.

Anyway, rather than deleting improper cancellation requests, good customer service practices dictate responding to educate customers on the proper procedure. Perhaps the support site line, "Cancellation requests submitted using this form or email will be deleted," indicates the level of customer service a subscriber will get with Teleblend? TBSupport1's reply is a good example of why companies *shouldn't* respond to attacks in public forums and why many go apes* when reps try to provide unofficial support in forums.

Given the apparent call-center mess at the time, Teleblend had no reasonable and effective way to cancel. Teleblend should have known that rizzo2dial had cancelled or made a better effort to follow up.

But, rizzo2dial, signing up with bogus payment info was a bad idea. That the sign-up form accepted it is no excuse. "Money back guarantee" indicates that Teleblend was entitled to charge on day 1. Thus, you did commit fraud (my opinion) by denying them the payment through deception, and it may technically affect any porting claims you have. Your account was not in good standing when you ported out within those 30 days.

jay_rm

join:2002-04-12
Netville
reply to rizzo2dial
said by rizzo2dial:

Complaining to the FCC is a double edged sword. It's probably inevitable that they'll eventually regular VoIP, but I'd rather not act as a catalyst to that process. That's not to say TB deserves a pass, for they don't. I'm just not sure having the FCC's involvement is a good thing.
Usually, I would agree. But, this is a case of slamming - something already illegal. It's doubtful slamming complaints would catalyze any additional VoIP scrutiny, unless by some weird twist, slamming ISN'T illegal for VoIP providers...
--
3500/512 5.7 GHz Motorola Canopy Wireless; FoxValley.net
"Peace through superior firepower"

rizzo2dial
Premium
join:2004-08-05

3 edits
reply to dipswich
said by dipswich:

But, rizzo2dial, signing up with bogus payment info was a bad idea. That the sign-up form accepted it is no excuse. "Money back guarantee" indicates that Teleblend was entitled to charge on day 1. Thus, you did commit fraud (my opinion) by denying them the payment through deception, and it may technically affect any porting claims you have.
I have updated information regarding this matter, but until my number is back in my control, I'm not going to comment any further on it except to say that I am fully confident that no fraud was comitted on my part.

said by dipswich:

Your account was not in good standing when you ported out within those 30 days.
It actually was in good standing. The TB billing system at that time showed a payment amount due (for one month's worth of service) by a due date which hadn't yet occurred. The LNP completed prior to that due date. Once I contacted TB to cancel my account within 30 days, they were no longer entitled to any revenue. (BTW, in further researching this matter, I learned that they actually offered a 31 day money back guarantee, not 30 day). Regardless, it's my understanding that FCC rules intentionally prevent carriers from blocking an LNP due to non-payment issues.

dipswich
Premium
join:2003-06-27
Raleigh, NC
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

1 edit
said by rizzo2dial:

Regardless, it's my understanding that FCC rules intentionally prevent carriers from blocking an LNP due to non-payment issues.
At the time the number ported away, that clarification had not been made. LNP can still be blocked by non-payment issues, though. They just can't be trivial "net 30" outstanding balances. The fact that your invoice had a future due date mitigates it, anyway.

I'm not defending Teleblend in any way over this. Given the other stories, I have no doubt that they slammed you. I was just calling the bogus card number, since it was brought up and already called out, like I see it-- no matter how inconsiderable, it technically fits my understanding of the term.

rizzo2dial
Premium
join:2004-08-05
said by dipswich:

At the time the number ported away, that clarification had not been made.
Come to think of it, at the time my number ported away, SunRocket still existed as a legal entity, and I was a pre-paid SR customer in good standing.

said by dipswich:

LNP can still be blocked by non-payment issues, though. They just can't be trivial "net 30" outstanding balances. The fact that your invoice had a future due date mitigates it, anyway.
I found the following document:
FCC Consumer Facts - VoIP

which has the following hyperlink:
»www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/nu ··· ort.html

In the hyperlink above it states:
quote:
... your old company may not refuse to port your number, even if you owe money for an outstanding balance or termination fee.
Thus, it appears as though LNP can't be blocked for non-payment issues.

said by dipswich:

I'm not defending Teleblend in any way over this. Given the other stories, I have no doubt that they slammed you.
I never provided them w/ an LOA (i.e Letter of Authorization). To claim that a sign-up from 6+ months ago, for which they never received a dime of revenue, is (implicit?) "authorization" for an LNP is absurd. That they actually proceeded with it 6+ months later is dumbfounding.

said by dipswich:

I was just calling the bogus card number, since it was brought up and already called out, like I see it-- no matter how inconsiderable, it technically fits my understanding of the term.
Like I said in my last post, I will clarify this situation (i.e. correct the record) when the time is right.

said by dipswich:

[rant]Actually, I'm rather against the practice of "borrowing by money back guarantee." It's nice when those are offered for people who have a legitimate interest in a product. I understand that SunRocket left people in tough situations, but causing a company to spend money on one's behalf (processing a sign-up/check-out, paying costs associated with a service or depreciating an item as used, handling a return) is the equivalent of stealing in my book.[/rant]
That's admirable of you.

dipswich
Premium
join:2003-06-27
Raleigh, NC
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
said by rizzo2dial:

Come to think of it, at the time my number ported away, SunRocket still existed as a legal entity, and I was a pre-paid SR customer in good standing.
At the time you ported away, you had already contracted with Teleblend. Your relationship with SunRocket was irrelevent. What is it Teleblend says? "We are not SunRocket!"

I found the following document:
FCC Consumer Facts - VoIP

which has the following hyperlink:
»www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/nu ··· ort.html

In the hyperlink above it states:
quote:
... your old company may not refuse to port your number, even if you owe money for an outstanding balance or termination fee.
Thus, it appears as though LNP can't be blocked for non-payment issues.
"Non-payment" is not the same as "outstanding balance." It is an "outstanding balance" if there's reasonable expectation that the balance will be paid. It's "non-payment" if payment was outright refused (as opposed to disputed where it should be assumed that the parties are working towards a zero balance).

Actually, the "may not refuse to port your number, even if you owe money" part isn't covered that way in the R&O (FCC 07-188) itself. It makes some reference to termination fees and contract disputes, but not so clearly as the associated fact sheet and press release cite.

To claim that a sign-up from 6+ months ago, for which they never received a dime of revenue, is (implicit?) "authorization" for an LNP is absurd.
Agreed. Teleblend bought SunRocket's equipment and the right to solicit its customers. If it had bought the entire business including the customer base, it would have also acquired your original LoA to that business. But, you were supposedly already with them making the situation more complex than advertised...

That they actually proceeded with it 6+ months later is dumbfounding.
...Yes, a subscriber port would reasonably be considered stale by that timeframe. But, because you signed up and Teleblend did not properly close your account since telephone notice was near impossible, one viable explanation is that Teleblend was attempting to transparently "unslam" you. Or perhaps Teleblend was moving blocks DIDs from Carrier A to Carrier B as a normal course of business. Teleblend obviously wasn't ready for all the possibilities-- including "customer signs-up but ports before our affairs are in order." The claimed "slams" I've seen seem to come from that scenario. Personally, I'd call it a bad and unfortunate mistake but not a rash slam.

On the other matter,
Like I said in my last post, I will clarify this situation (i.e. correct the record) when the time is right.
there's no need. It's evident that you were protecting your number and your wallet in a stressful time. It didn't help that there were so many questions about Teleblend's origins and also speculation that Teleblend was just SunRocket reinvented to, in essence, keep your old money and try to take it again. I doubt you were the only one who did it, too.

In fact, if I recall, as long as you knew a SunRocket customer's phone number you could initially "sign them up" with Teleblend. Certainly not the same security standard that they hold for cancellations!


Link8

join:2001-12-16
Davis, CA
reply to TeleblendGuy
said by TeleblendGuy:

Ok, so since Sunrocket has died the account is not listed with anyone and would need to be ported to Teleblend. Since you signed up with our service you AUTHORIZED us to port your number to us.
Helloooo there Lisa Hook!

hvnbnd4vr

join:2008-01-11
Leesburg, VA
reply to rizzo2dial
As much as I hate to agree with David.....he's right. The customer made the error by registering with two companies. TB may have actually completed a port first, but when audits came through they saw a number they did not have the records for cancellation with and could easily ask for the carrier to port it back. This is why LOAs become all so important. And, of course, the support team isn't going to help you much. They get paid an hourly rate. Their time is money, literally. So, why would they spend time helping take money away from the company rather than spend that same time working with someone to keep money with the company? Come on, people, a little bit of common sense! Also, there really isn't anything they could do here. What? You think they can just pick up the phone, call the carrier, and say--port this number to company xyz please?!? No.

Here is what you do.....

Go to your preferred provider, tell them what happened and explain you what an LOA placed on the number. They should request this anyhow, but remember, VoIP is "poor man's phone."

There is no FCC complaint here, because you did make the error of allowing multiple authorizations on the port. No one wants to see TB get its just desserts more than us, but throwing false flames isn't going to help.
Expand your moderator at work

rizzo2dial
Premium
join:2004-08-05
reply to hvnbnd4vr

Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine!

said by hvnbnd4vr:

As much as I hate to agree with David.....he's right. The customer made the error by registering with two companies. TB may have actually completed a port first,
TB didn't complete a port "first" because TB advertised that no porting was necessary for SunRocket customers. They took over SR's existing network and phone connections, which at the time was where my number was at.

but when audits came through they saw a number they did not have the records for cancellation with and could easily ask for the carrier to port it back.
I never gave TB an LOA to port my number, but I did give my other carrier an LOA. As soon as my other carrier completed the port, any audits TB performed thereafter w/ their carrier would have shown that my number had been legitimately ported away -- a whopping 6 months earlier. What carrier, in their right mind, ports a customer's number back 6 months later without first confirming with the customer that it should be ported back? (i.e. by receiving explicit authorization, or from TB's perspective re-authorization since they seem to be claiming that they had received authorization 6 months earlier, even though I never gave it to them.)

This is why LOAs become all so important.
Precisely! Without an LOA, the port TB conducted was unauthorized, thus SLAMMING.

And, of course, the support team isn't going to help you much. They get paid an hourly rate. Their time is money, literally. So, why would they spend time helping take money away from the company rather than spend that same time working with someone to keep money with the company?
If the CSR realizes that their company (i.e. their employer) slammed a number, their company could be held liable, as in financially liable. It then becomes the CSR's responsibility to act in the company's best interest by minimizing the damages caused by their company/employer.

Come on, people, a little bit of common sense! Also, there really isn't anything they could do here. What? You think they can just pick up the phone, call the carrier, and say--port this number to company xyz please?!? No.
Even after I reported my number as having been slammed, TB informed their carrier that the number port was legitimate. Thus, their carrier was unwilling to take any corrective action. Had TB informed their carrier that the number port was an error, their carrier would have immediately released it back to the losing carrier (as in my real VoIP provider's carrier).

Here is what you do.....

Go to your preferred provider, tell them what happened and explain you what an LOA placed on the number. They should request this anyhow, but remember, VoIP is "poor man's phone."
Due to privacy laws, the losing carrier (i.e. my current carrier) has limited access to what can be requested.

There is no FCC complaint here, because you did make the error of allowing multiple authorizations on the port.
I never, EVER, authorized TB to "port" my number, so I'm well within my rights to file a slamming complaint to the FCC. But as I already stated in this thread, complaining to the FCC about anything VoIP related is a double edged sword.

No one wants to see TB get its just desserts more than us, but throwing false flames isn't going to help.
Now that you hopefully have a better understanding of the FACTS, this thread is not a FLAME. It's a WARNING to anybody who's ever associated themselves with this company.