Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! in Teleblend http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19900265 en Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:46:38 EDT Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:46:38 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20204001 N9MD :
said by iLive4Apple See Profile :

I ported my SR number away to AT&T/Bellsouth landline put a freeze on my account. Not sure if you can do that with VOIP though.
Yes you can! Once your number was re-directed to the PSTN account, you can put a PIC freeze with BellSouth. In the future, if you want to port that number elsewhere, you will have to ask BellSouth to remove the freeze.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20204001 Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:06:04 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20203643 iLive4Apple : I ported my SR number away to AT&T/Bellsouth landline put a freeze on my account. Not sure if you can do that with VOIP though.
--
I get 29 MPG in my Toyota Highlander Hybrid!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20203643 Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:59:48 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20181425 voiplover : I just read this thread and it helps validate my guess. Of course it's just a guess unless they plan to pull this stunt again. ;)
»Credit card charges continue despite cancellation]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20181425 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:28:36 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20181341 voiplover : Must read

Having some knowledge of Telebends and Rizzo2dials reputation from posts around here, I'm going to take an educated guess at what happened here.
Having been involved in SR's demise and doing and educated risk assessment of sliding over to Teleblends offer to SR subs, I went through everything available from Teleblend.

As some of you may recall, Sunrocket had a displeasing reputation for sliding in unexplainable CC charges on accounts that had been canceled months+++ prior to the charges slipping through. This is all past history on BBR.

When TB first set up there site; their big claim to fame was an easy transition to their voip service for SR subscribers. No LNP require to retain your number!
Sounded simple. :huh: Other may disagree.

So my guess is simply that TB in dire need for $, accidental attempted to charge the CC on this closed account.
Not being able to collect any ill gotten funds :mad: they pulled a slam on Rizzo2dial's old SR #, ;) Then sent a threatening email to the last contact email address.

This is from TB's TOS that didn't exist at the change over:
"...This authorization remains valid until 90 days after TeleBlend receives your notice to terminate TeleBlend's authority to charge your card, whereupon TeleBlend will charge you for any outstanding charges and terminate the Service..." NOT 6 MONTHS LATTER!

The reason for this guess is simple. Porting #'s costs time and $ and since TB doesn't have any to spare...

TB isn't allowing non paying subscribers accounts to stay active for 6 months +, so they must have already canceled the account prior to the slamming!

There have been several other reports on BBR of TB slamming #'s

So, the only guess that can be made is that TB is either very sloppy with their business or is still SLAMMING #'s in an attempt to profit.

I recommend that consumers think twice before giving this company any CC info.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20181341 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:15:11 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19944580 hvnbnd4vr : 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.....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19944580 Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:16:13 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19945077 hvnbnd4vr : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19945077 Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:15:56 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19945382 jay_rm :
said by rizzo2dial See Profile :

said by hvnbnd4vr See Profile :

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"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19945382 Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:01:37 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19945305 rizzo2dial :
said by hvnbnd4vr See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19945305 Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:48:32 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19944771 jay_rm : IMO, the fact that it took over SIX MONTHS to "complete your port" just screams fraud...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19944771 Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:13:55 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19944743 rizzo2dial :
said by hvnbnd4vr See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19944743 Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:10:30 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19944396 rizzo2dial :
said by hvnbnd4vr See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19944396 Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:07:56 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19943273 hvnbnd4vr : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19943273 Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:16:41 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19943170 rizzo2dial :
said by hvnbnd4vr See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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. :uhh:

said by hvnbnd4vr See Profile :

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. :uhh:

said by hvnbnd4vr See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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. :uhh:

EDIT: Removed unnecessary personal attack regarding hvnbnd4vr's former employment w/ TB.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19943170 Wed, 06 Feb 2008 02:18:43 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19943090 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. 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19943090 Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:37:59 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19943073 rizzo2dial :
said by hvnbnd4vr See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19943073 Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:29:30 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19942566 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, 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19942566 Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:25:02 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19938726 JoeG4 :
said by TeleblendGuy See Profile :

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!
:p]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19938726 Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:50:06 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19922169 dipswich :
said by rizzo2dial See Profile :

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/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.
"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!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19922169 Sat, 02 Feb 2008 15:44:36 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19910019 rizzo2dial :
said by dipswich See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

[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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19910019 Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:43:03 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19909897 dipswich :
said by rizzo2dial See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19909897 Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:24:34 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19909586 rizzo2dial :
said by dipswich See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19909586 Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:40:41 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19908573 jay_rm :
said by rizzo2dial See Profile :

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"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19908573 Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:59:26 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19908176 dipswich : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19908176 Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:36:58 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19906843 rizzo2dial :
said by jay_rm See Profile :

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. :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19906843 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:27:11 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19906763 rizzo2dial :
said by jay_rm See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19906763 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:12:57 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19906626 jay_rm : 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"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19906626 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:50:59 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19905411 rizzo2dial :
said by ChuckIL9 See Profile :

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." :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19905411 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:35:39 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19905318 rizzo2dial :
said by TeleblendGuy See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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. :uhh:

said by TeleblendGuy See Profile :

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. :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19905318 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:19:01 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19904673 ChuckIL9 :
said by TeleblendGuy See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19904673 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:31:49 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19904670 dmolavi : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19904670 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:31:33 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19904589 jay_rm :
said by TeleblendGuy See Profile :

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"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19904589 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:16:09 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19904538 TeleblendGuy : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19904538 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:07:06 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19904054 jay_rm :
said by rizzo2dial See Profile :

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"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19904054 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:53:49 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19903510 dmolavi :
said by jay_rm See Profile :

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
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19903510 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:25:33 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19903036 rizzo2dial :
said by jay_rm See Profile :

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).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19903036 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:19:05 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19902796 burris :
said by jay_rm See Profile :

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/slamming.html ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19902796 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:44:53 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19902681 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.
--
3500/512 5.7 GHz Motorola Canopy Wireless; FoxValley.net
"Peace through superior firepower"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19902681 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:28:21 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19902650 jay_rm :
said by TBSupport1 See Profile :

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 ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19902650 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:23:28 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19902344 rizzo2dial : 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. :uhh:

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."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19902344 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:29:06 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19902217 ChuckIL9 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19902217 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:06:39 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19901790 TBSupport1 : 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/):

"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). ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19901790 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:57:10 EDT Re: Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19901240 ChuckIL9 : From »www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/slamming.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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19901240 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:19:33 EDT Teleblend still slamming numbers -- they slammed mine! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19900265 rizzo2dial : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19900265 Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:34:15 EDT