how-to block ads
|
dipswich
Premium
join:2003-06-27
Raleigh, NC
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VoicePulse for Bus..
·ViaTalk
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to rizzo2dial
Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine!
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
 ·Fox Valley Internet
·ViaTalk
| 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
·AT&T U-Verse
·VoicePulse for Bus..
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner 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/numbport.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
·AT&T U-Verse
·VoicePulse for Bus..
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner 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 - VoIPwhich has the following hyperlink: » www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/numbport.htmlIn 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.
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! | |
JoeG4
join:2001-12-16
945941
 ·AT&T DSL Service
·Comcast
·Clearwire Wireless
·Vonage
| 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. | |
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. | |
hvnbnd4vr
join:2008-01-11
Leesburg, VA
| I ahte to say this, but you seem a bit lost here. Did you sign up with your preferred provider or did you give them an LOA. If there was an LOA, the carrier should have never permitted the port back--but, if it was a simple sgn up, this is NOT the same as an LOA. You stated yourself you signe dup with two carriers--now you're saying you never gave TB permission--which is it? The port was legitmate by your own statement. If you current provider has an LOA, as you now suggest they do--why are you going through this anyhow, your preferred provider should be handling all this for you. If, on the other hand, no LOA was signed which you initial statements indicate, we're right back where we were before. There is NO privacy law that prevents ANY carrier from reuqeesting you to fill out an LOA. If that's what they're telling you, get away from them AND tb. And, finally, please get your FACTS straight. You signed up--that gave TB permission. If you didn't sign up, that'd be a whole different story, but your original post states that you did. You say in this last post you did an LOA, but also that "privacy laws" prevent this?!? This isn't a flame or a warning, but a poorly contrived story. Law it out, as it is, and we will try to help you, but if your story keeps changing, no one can help you. | |
rizzo2dial
Premium
join:2004-08-05
2 edits | said by hvnbnd4vr :I ahte to say this, but you seem a bit lost here. Did you sign up with your preferred provider or did you give them an LOA. I'm not the least bit lost, can't say the same for you. Let me simplify this for you since you didn't seem to comprehend what was stated in the OP:
1) When SR went poof (out of business), e-mails sent by the Assignee of SR (i.e. Sherwood Partners) stated that service would be cut off by sometime around July 23, 2007.
2) TB appeared out of thin air as a preferred SR "takeover provider" and advertised an option for existing SR customers to keep their existing service. As part of their advertised offer, they stated that no porting was necessary. Because they were taking over already existing service, they had nothing to port, so they had no reason to ask for an LOA. Thus, none was requested, and none was given.
3) At about the same time, I signed up w/ my preferred VoIP provider, furnished them w/ an LOA to port my # away from SR/TB, and it ported within 2 weeks.
4) Contacted TB via the only means I could get through to them at that time (their ticketing system) to inform them that my number had ported to another carrier and to immediately cancel my service. I further stated in the ticket that I was within the 31 day money back guarantee period they had advertised (and which was listed on my sign-up invoice), so if any funds were charged, they were to be refunded. (No funds were ever charged).
said by hvnbnd4vr :If there was an LOA, the carrier should have never permitted the port back--but, if it was a simple sgn up, this is NOT the same as an LOA. Which carrier, TB or my preferred provider? At what point, 6 months ago or recently? Who's LOA, TB's or my preferred provider's?
said by hvnbnd4vr :You stated yourself you signe dup with two carriers--now you're saying you never gave TB permission--which is it? I've signed up for service w/ several VoIP providers over the last 5 years. Until TB, never has a past (or current) VoIP provider of mine ever ported a number without requiring a completed LOA. None ever assumed implicit authorization just because I was their customer. Even SR required an LOA when I ported my number to them!
said by hvnbnd4vr :The port was legitmate by your own statement. If the answer in the previous paragraph doesn't explain this one to you, there's no point in continuing this discussion w/ you.
said by hvnbnd4vr :If you current provider has an LOA, as you now suggest they do--why are you going through this anyhow, your preferred provider should be handling all this for you. My preferred provider had an LOA to port my number when I first signed up with them. The number ported and was with them for 6 months. Last week, without any forewarning, my number got slammed back to TB by TB.
said by hvnbnd4vr :If, on the other hand, no LOA was signed which you initial statements indicate, we're right back where we were before. Not sure where you got the indication that my preferred provider never had an LOA. They most certinaly had one, but TB did not (and to this day does not).
said by hvnbnd4vr :There is NO privacy law that prevents ANY carrier from reuqeesting you to fill out an LOA. The privacy laws I was referring to limit what information my preferred provider is able to obtain regarding any LOA TB may have used when slamming my number back to TB. 
said by hvnbnd4vr :If that's what they're telling you, get away from them AND tb. I already thought I had severed all ties w/ TB 6+ months ago -- guess they thought differently.
said by hvnbnd4vr :And, finally, please get your FACTS straight. You signed up--that gave TB permission. No, it did NOT give TB permission. They advertised that no porting was necessary, and you even answered this one yourself when you said "if it was a simple sgn up, this is NOT the same as an LOA."
said by hvnbnd4vr :If you didn't sign up, that'd be a whole different story, but your original post states that you did. You say in this last post you did an LOA, but also that "privacy laws" prevent this?!? This isn't a flame or a warning, but a poorly contrived story. Law it out, as it is, and we will try to help you, but if your story keeps changing, no one can help you. My story hasn't changed, but yeah, I must be making this whole thing up.
EDIT: Removed unnecessary personal attack regarding hvnbnd4vr's former employment w/ TB. | |
hvnbnd4vr
join:2008-01-11
Leesburg, VA
| Okay, we're not going to sit here and argue particulars with you, but it helps if you provide all of the information up front and not some here, some there, some later on, assuming it had been communicated when in fact it had not. Most providers do NOT require a completed LOA unless there is a past slamming issue, btw. If you preferred provider had a signed and dated LOA properly filed with the carrier, the port would not have gone back to TB. If they did not have it properly filed, however, this would cause the exact issue that you're having. This is not absolving Tb's error on the port, but it does indicate that there is more than just their issue here. However, since you state there is a signed and dated document with your current provider and TB obviously has none, there should be no issue whatsoever with that provider grabbing the number back. Your issue is definitely unique, as LOAs are very hard and fast, and it's actually quite difficult to slam a number that has one on it. For those who find themselves in a similar situation, signing up with more than one provider and never having supplied an actual LOA--your warning bears some knowledge in that they should hurry up and get one of those before the same thing happens. | |
rizzo2dial
Premium
join:2004-08-05
| said by hvnbnd4vr :Most providers do NOT require a completed LOA unless there is a past slamming issue, btw. Care to back the claim above with evidence? I've LNP'd my number 4 times to 4 different VoIP providers (not counting TB's slamming, which I guess makes it a 5th unauthorized LNP), and in all 4 authorized cases, I was required to submit a properly completed, signed and dated LOA before each carrier would submit the LNP. Here's a list (off the top of my head) of a few of the more common VoIP providers who all require LOA's prior to processing LNP requests: AT&T CallVantage, Packet8, SunRocket (pre-TB takeover), VoicePulse, VoiceWing.
said by hvnbnd4vr :as such If you preferred provider had a signed and dated LOA properly filed with the carrier, the port would not have gone back to TB. They did indeed have a signed, dated, properly filled out LOA, yet TB still slammed my number. TB never had an LOA from me to port my number. Hence the purpose of this thread.
said by hvnbnd4vr :If they did not have it properly filed, however, this would cause the exact issue that you're having. What do you consider to be an "improperly filled" LOA? It's not like there's many fields on an LOA. You list your name, phone number, service address, the carrier you're authorizing to take over your service for [LOCAL, TOLL LOCAL, LONG DISTANCE] service, the losing carrier, and then sign & date the form.
said by hvnbnd4vr :This is not absolving Tb's error on the port, but it does indicate that there is more than just their issue here. Given that TB was never authorized to port my number, I consider TB 100% at fault here.
said by hvnbnd4vr :However, since you state there is a signed and dated document with your current provider and TB obviously has none, there should be no issue whatsoever with that provider grabbing the number back. The issue is the length of time needed to regain control of my number. I now have to wait for the normal LNP process to complete (which can be a 30+ day process) since TB is refusing to acknowledge to their carrier that the LNP they [TB] conducted was invalid.
said by hvnbnd4vr :Your issue is definitely unique, as LOAs are very hard and fast, and it's actually quite difficult to slam a number that has one on it. If you look at the ViaTalk thread I linked earlier in this thread, you'll learn that the same thing happened to numerous ViaTalk customers. ViaTalk requires a signed, dated, properly filled out LOA to conduct an LNP. Thus, I'm certain all of their other customers who got slammed by TB also had properly filled out LOA's. TB is very unethical.
said by hvnbnd4vr :For those who find themselves in a similar situation, signing up with more than one provider and never having supplied an actual LOA--your warning bears some knowledge in that they should hurry up and get one of those before the same thing happens. Since I've never heard of a VoIP provider before conducting an LNP w/o an LOA, I doubt there are many (if any) in the hypothetical situation you described above. | |
rizzo2dial
Premium
join:2004-08-05
4 edits | reply to hvnbnd4vr
said by hvnbnd4vr :Who does NOT require an LOA right off the bat? Vonage, ATT, BellSouth (of course, now part of ATT, but not fully), Packet8, Voip.com, SunRocket, TB, and more--both in having worked for and/or been a customer of these and other I can say without a doubt the ONLY time I have ever been required to fill out an LOA is after I have been slammed, which has been once in all those years. SunRocket (pre-TB) had an electronic LOA process on their web-site. You couldn't even request an LNP from SR w/o populating the electronic LOA and approving it. Vonage may now have electronic LOA's as well. Packet8 certainly used to require PAPER LOA's prior to conduting an LNP, perhaps they now have electronic LOA's in place. ViaTalk still requires PAPER LOA's before they'll submit an LNP. Can't comment on Bell South or Voip.com as haven't had any experience w/ either.
said by hvnbnd4vr :Like I said, if the LOA was properly filed with the carrier, the port to TB would not have taken place. You can assume they did--or, they can tell you they did--but, the fact remains, if it was true, what happened to you would not have happened. The port to TB took place yet my real carrier had a properly filled, signed, and dated paper LOA.
said by hvnbnd4vr :As you stated, it can take 30 or more days, if TB does not respond. However, with a LOA, it is not to take more than 3 business days--any provider who has an LOA can simply point that out to the carrier and there is a mandatory 3 day turnaround. Could you post a link to an official site (such as the FCC's) proving the above? I'll gladly show that to my provider to try and speed up the LNP process.
said by hvnbnd4vr :HOwever, the fact still remains that the port on TB's side was not invalid as you did sign up with them (why is this so hard to understand?). We're going in circles on this one. I never authorized TB to port my number. Signing up with a carrier is NOT an LOA, and in my opinion an LOA is required to legally perform an LNP.
EDIT: You're also overlooking the fact that I cancelled my TB service within 31 days of sign-up, yet 6+ months later, after I was no longer their customer, they slammed my number back.
said by hvnbnd4vr :I can't argue that TB is unethical. What I can state is that a number of these VoIP companies out there today are getting the LOAs and keeping them on file. They are not filing them with the carrier, as they should be. Clearly carriers can conduct LNP's w/o an LOA as TB was able to do so, but whether or not those LNP's are legal is another story.
said by hvnbnd4vr :I've already pointed out that there are in fact many that do not require an LOA, but you've had some extremely unique situations and cannot be swayed. I can also advise, having previously dealt with a number of customer who had done just what you did while we were still with TB, I can say 90% of them had never heard of an LOA, let alone completed one. Interestingly enough, these users too had also been with VoIP for years, moving through different companies and never filling out an LOA, hmmmm.... I find the above hard to believe, but I have no way to disprove your claim above. | |
jay_rm
join:2002-04-12
Netville
1 edit | reply to rizzo2dial
IMO, the fact that it took over SIX MONTHS to "complete your port" just screams fraud... | |
rizzo2dial
Premium
join:2004-08-05
| reply to hvnbnd4vr
said by hvnbnd4vr :LOAs are NOT required to do an LNP. Let's take a non-scientific sampling:
For those reading this thread, if you've LNP'd your number to a VoIP provider (other than TB), please post whether you were required to submit an LOA prior to the LNP being processed or whether your provider processed the LNP simply because you asked for it to be done.
said by hvnbnd4vr :Electronic LOAs are worthless, fyi. They're not a legal document, which the signed and dated paper LOA is. I agree that a PAPER LOA is far more concrete than an electronic LOA; however, I disagree than an electronic LOA is worthless. They are legally permitted.
said by hvnbnd4vr :As for providing you a link to a website where the FCC regulations are--there isn't one. All of that information is provided in hard copy format--the FCC claims to be trying to speed up the website for all of their documents, but they've been saying that for years (kind of strange that such an entity would have a problem updating technologies...but, that's another story). That's a shame (but not much of a surprise).
said by hvnbnd4vr :Finally, we are going in circles. You state that you don't feel you authorized TB to port handle your number, but the legal fact is that you did, since legally an LNP does not require an LOA and "legally" (although this part is questionable, since TB never originally posted these terms, but proving that is one thing and teh all-encompassing "right to change without notice" to the terms and conditions) you did not follow their cancellation procedures. You're overlooking the fact that those that initially signed up w/ TB were clearly told "no porting was necessary!" If no porting was necessary, it stands to reason that the customer never requested their number be ported let alone never authorized it. Even w/o an LOA, if a number is to be ported, the customer has to at least request that the number be ported. Signing up w/ a carrier where the advertised offer is "no porting is necessary" means the customer never asked to have their number ported as there was no expectation that it was necessary.
said by hvnbnd4vr :So, while you *feel* you are right and they are wrong, the law leans toward their side on this one. Until and unless a judge/jury rules on the matter, what side the law leans on is mere conjecture. For what it's worth, I believe that the law would be in my favor especially since TB conducted an unauthorized LNP 6+ months later.
said by hvnbnd4vr :Mind you, as a consumer and as an employee, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Sadly, opinions don't amount to enough nowadays. This is the first statement you made I 100% agree with. | |
jay_rm
join:2002-04-12
Netville
·Fox Valley Internet
·ViaTalk
| said by rizzo2dial :said by hvnbnd4vr :LOAs are NOT required to do an LNP. Let's take a non-scientific sampling: For those reading this thread, if you've LNP'd your number to a VoIP provider (other than TB), please post whether you were required to submit an LOA prior to the LNP being processed or whether your provider processed the LNP simply because you asked for it to be done. Not only did I have to provide a WRITTEN & SIGNED LOA the several times (4 times, I think - 2 numbers ported 2 different time) I LNP'ed, the last time, when using a PDF version of a LOA, the provider would NOT accept a electronically signed document. I had to download the PDF, print it, sign it, scan it and email it. I raised hell and the provider simply stated that they must follow porting rules VERY CAREFULLY to be assured of success.
IMO, Teleblend playing fast and loose with LOA/LNP is another example of their unworthiness.
--
3500/512 5.7 GHz Motorola Canopy Wireless; FoxValley.net
"Peace through superior firepower" | |
hvnbnd4vr
join:2008-01-11
Leesburg, VA
| reply to rizzo2dial
Your last statement and one of your first in this last post pretty much says it all. You may find it hard to believe, but it is true--and, you're experience is limited. That's not a dig, but a simple fact. You are stating your points off of experience and opinion where as we are merely trying to explain to you--from both an experienced and educated standpoint--how it does actually work. LOAs are NOT required to do an LNP. Electronic LOAs are worthless, fyi. They're not a legal document, which the signed and dated paper LOA is. As for providing you a link to a website where the FCC regulations are--there isn't one. All of that information is provided in hard copy format--the FCC claims to be trying to speed up the website for all of their documents, but they've been saying that for years (kind of strange that such an entity would have a problem updating technologies...but, that's another story). Finally, we are going in circles. You state that you don't feel you authorized TB to port handle your number, but the legal fact is that you did, since legally an LNP does not require an LOA and "legally" (although this part is questionable, since TB never originally posted these terms, but proving that is one thing and teh all-encompassing "right to change without notice" to the terms and conditions) you did not follow their cancellation procedures. So, while you *feel* you are right and they are wrong, the law leans toward their side on this one. Mind you, as a consumer and as an employee, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Sadly, opinions don't amount to enough nowadays. | |
hvnbnd4vr
join:2008-01-11
Leesburg, VA
| reply to rizzo2dial
We'll answer your statements one at a time.
Who does NOT require an LOA right off the bat? Vonage, ATT, BellSouth (of course, now part of ATT, but not fully), Packet8, Voip.com, SunRocket, TB, and more--both in having worked for and/or been a customer of these and other I can say without a doubt the ONLY time I have ever been required to fill out an LOA is after I have been slammed, which has been once in all those years.
Like I said, if the LOA was properly filed with the carrier, the port to TB would not have taken place. You can assume they did--or, they can tell you they did--but, the fact remains, if it was true, what happened to you would not have happened.
As you stated, it can take 30 or more days, if TB does not respond. However, with a LOA, it is not to take more than 3 business days--any provider who has an LOA can simply point that out to the carrier and there is a mandatory 3 day turnaround. HOwever, the fact still remains that the port on TB's side was not invalid as you did sign up with them (why is this so hard to understand?).
I can't argue that TB is unethical. What I can state is that a number of these VoIP companies out there today are getting the LOAs and keeping them on file. They are not filing them with the carrier, as they should be.
I've already pointed out that there are in fact many that do not require an LOA, but you've had some extremely unique situations and cannot be swayed. I can also advise, having previously dealt with a number of customer who had done just what you did while we were still with TB, I can say 90% of them had never heard of an LOA, let alone completed one. Interestingly enough, these users too had also been with VoIP for years, moving through different companies and never filling out an LOA, hmmmm..... | |
|
