AT&T DSL → Re: [Southeast] Keep ATT DSL and port phone #

DSL services are always stand alone. It is actually frequently illegal to tying a classic phone line services with DSL services (one of this services can “live” without the other one).
I,m sure that, if you ask an AT&T representative for the name of the package that includes DSL service and classic land line phone service as one service, they will be unable tell you that name, simply, because such package will be illegal and it does not exist. By experience I know they will try to trick you and probably name something else but if you are aware and verify it you will know the truth.
The fact that you receive the charges for the services in one bill does not make it a package.

BS (they're free to package any group of services they want. Unlawful tying would be requiring POTS to have DSL, or v.v. which is not the case.)

Your phone number is your account number. (aka Billing Account Number) When you port that number, your account gets closed and every service attached to it is deactivated. Even a "dry-loop" DSL line has a phone number (and, btw, dialtone -- 'tho you cannot make calls from it. Depending on your local laws, 911 may work)

Porting the number without disrupting DSL is, ahem, tricky. The odds are you'll lose your DSL (probably forever, esp where uverse is available, even if it's not available to *you*.)

Cram er, do you work for AT&T? I don’t care if AT&T make the “stupid” accounting mistake of using the phone number as an account number. Of course that is very convenient for them and they use it to come up with all sort of tricks.

“they're free to package any group of services they want”. No, they are not. AT&T is not above the law.

“porting the number without disrupting DSL is, ahem, tricky”. False, I just did it. And true, it is artificially tricky because AT&T fabricated all kind of difficulties; but, in reality, technically, very very easy.

I understand that providers try to keep their customers, but kidnapping (or killing) their e-mail addresses to punishing them just because they cancel a naturally unrelated service or port an phone number is criminal.

While that is technically true (DSL service doesn't require voice service) I would like a citation of code, section, and paragraph making it illegal to require phone service and DSL service in a line shared fashion.

Please consult with your lawyer(s) and local state AG's office before invoking RICO ("unlawful tying"). You are calling "tying" what is simply a billing association. It may seem stupid today, but 50+ years ago when these systems were designed, it made perfect sense. (Many of those systems are still in perfect operation today. For example, the telco I worked for a decade ago (not AT&T) had (and still has in operation today) AT&t 5ESS switches built and installed in 1974 -- and they still out performed *every* modern attempt at replacement.)

It is tricky. And you just said so. It's not as simple as porting away the number and that's it. It has been very well hashed out on many blogs, forums, and lists. Steps must be taken before porting your number to keep any additional services associated with that BILLING ACCOUNT NUMBER.

“Please consult with your lawyer(s) and local state AG's office before invoking RICO ("unlawful tying")"

What for? That sounds like a threat.
Does the terms Freedom of speech and Freedom of expression means something to you? This is a forum.

Quoting you: “You are calling "tying" what is simply a billing association.”

Me?; No. It is AT&T the one tying (in practice) the services by an artificial billing association. It is a fact. I’m just calling the things by its real name.
I know AT&T is not stupid (and too old to have the wrong accounting system). I bet they have a unique customer ID number not associated to any product or service name (or number). They just do not show it to customer that way because it is convenient for them and their bag of tricks.
They make us to believe that (now quoting you ) “Your phone number is your account number. (aka Billing Account Number) When you port that number,your account gets closed and every service attached to it is deactivated”.
And that it is wrong.

“It is tricky” I did not said that. I was quoting you.

Any ways, it is a problem (for consumers) that AT&T and other do not want to fix. My point is that this companies have had enough time to find an elegant solution to the problem but they just keep ignoring it.

I do some emphasis on AT&T because they are becoming famous for consumer abuse, lying, antitrust violations and other illegal stuff. Every one knows that. It is not a secret.

»www.corp.att.com/history ··· ry3.html

50+ years ago was 50+ years ago. Today is today.

Last thing; You keep avoiding my very first question to you: Do you work for AT&T?

hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.pdf

" 10. Florida. The Florida Public Service Commission (Florida Commission) has made determinations
in two separate interconnection arbitration proceedings. First, in a section 252 interconnection agreement
arbitration between BellSouth and Florida Digital Network (FDN), the Florida Commission ordered
BellSouth to continue to provide FastAccess (BellSouth’s retail DSL Internet access service) to existing
customers that subsequently chose another company to provide their voice service over UNE loops.25

“Please consult with your lawyer(s) and local state AG's office before invoking RICO ("unlawful tying")"

What for? That sounds like a threat.
Does the terms Freedom of speech and Freedom of expression means something to you? This is a forum.

Quoting you: “You are calling "tying" what is simply a billing association.”

Me?; No. It is AT&T the one tying (in practice) the services by an artificial billing association. It is a fact. I’m just calling the things by its real name.
I know AT&T is not stupid (and too old to have the wrong accounting system). I bet they have a unique customer ID number not associated to any product or service name (or number). They just do not show it to customer that way because it is convenient for them and their bag of tricks.
They make us to believe that (now quoting you ) “Your phone number is your account number. (aka Billing Account Number) When you port that number,your account gets closed and every service attached to it is deactivated”.
And that it is wrong.

“It is tricky” I did not said that. I was quoting you.

Any ways, it is a problem (for consumers) that AT&T and other do not want to fix. My point is that this companies have had enough time to find an elegant solution to the problem but they just keep ignoring it.

I do some emphasis on AT&T because they are becoming famous for consumer abuse, lying, antitrust violations and other illegal stuff. Every one knows that. It is not a secret.

»www.corp.att.com/history ··· ry3.html

50+ years ago was 50+ years ago. Today is today.

Last thing; You keep avoiding my very first question to you: Do you work for AT&T?

Negative. That's talk to a lawyer about what's legal vs. illegal before painting yourself as a ranting fool on the internet. You insist they're doing something illegal, when they're not. You're calling something "tying" when it's not.

No, I am not, nor have I ever been an AT&T employee. (read: I am not a shill for AT&T.)

Yes, in Florida Bellsouth was forced to allow people to keep their DSL after moving their phone service to a different provider. In other words, they have to allow DSL and CLEC voice services over the same line, the same way Bellsouth does. (that has little to do with what we're talking about here... porting the number completely away and having no landline voice.)

»www.google.com/url?sa=t& ··· 69,d.b2I

Okay. One state, out of twenty-two. Good to know for Florida residents, but how does it affect those of us not in Florida?

OK, I like the “ranting fool” part, a lot.

I came to this forum looking for information, not for a fight. I would like to found the proper way to port a phone number without loosing the DSL service (and the e-mail address, and the content on the inbox of that e-mail address).

I’m a technician (computer and networks, no telephony) and too many clients ask me for help to port their phone numbers to majicJack. I don’t not why they choose me, but they do.
After the porting request (following the FCC guidelines) this people always receive an e-mail from majicJack with a text as follow:

“Unfortunately, we are unable to port your telephone number because your account also contains DSL service.

If you prefer to disconnect your DSL, please click here and resubmit your order. Please be advised that clicking this link and resubmitting your order acknowledges that your DSL service could be disconnected by your current carrier.

Otherwise, please contact AT&T directly and request to have the number you want to transfer set up on an account of its own. Once you have confirmation that your telephone number is no longer attached to an account containing DSL, please log into your magicJack account and initiate a new request by clicking on the Phone Numbers tab, Transfer sub-tab, and then clicking Transfer my Number.

We hope you tell all of your friends and family about the savings you enjoy using your magicJack!

Sincerely,

magicJack Customer Care”

Tell me that is not (in practice) tying.
Of course, when AT&T sell you the services they do not do it as a “tying good” but,AT&T behave like it is when, unlawful, refuse to give up the number claiming that it is attached to an account containing DSL.

My main question is: Does someone knows how to port a phone number without loosing the DSL service (and the e-mail address, and the content on the inbox of that e-mail address)? Cramer,do you know?

I outlined one method which should work, assuming the local service still offers legacy ADSL. The problem with that method is whether one can still order dry loop ADSL service from AT&T, or does AT&T only offer IPDSL. If AT&T only offers IPDSL, I don't know if it would work.

As for losing e-mail: In April, 2011, I switched voice and DSL to a local CLEC. I can still access the old '@pacbell.net' accounts. I lost neither e-mail accounts, nor the contents of those accounts.

That is not legally "tying": you are free to buy DSL, phone, or both. One service does not require the other. Having a single account with a company is not tying. Like I said, if you want to understand the law, talk to a lawyer. (or judge if you know any) Or read the wiki... [»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ty ··· mmerce)]

How to separate your DSL and POTS is not cast in stone. (i.e. it depends on who you talk to at AT&T, and what they a) know how to do, and b) are willing to do) You have to call AT&T and get your DSL service converted to dry-loop, with it's own billing-account-number. Another method would be to put both services under a new billing-account-number so the porting process will not close your account -- once ported, you'll be a defacto dry-loop.

Historically ISPs didn't maintain any value-add services once you were no longer a customer, but with the many free email services available today, abundance of out-sourcing, and the general cheapness of running email, most of the major players won't touch your email once you cancel services.

AT&T/Bellsouth specifically outsourced their email to Yahoo! years ago, so your email account can remain after termination of all other services.

Eleven and one half years ago, to be more precise; well before SBC bought AT&T. Furthermore, AT&T began allowing free Web Mail services through Yahoo! some time in 2009/2010; no AT&T account necessary to sign up.

it may or may not sound as tying or for what other reason you may call it but for sure AT&T's actions when you do this tends to reflect that they are tied together.

even before when I called them to port my number when I still had dsl, the csr and tier 2 tech specifically said that they are tied together. I didn't want to lose my number but I could sacrifice my internet connection so, I had to go around it, cancel my dsl and go with Comcast and then ported my number to Google Voice.

others may have a different experience and you will have yours too depending on how your csr knows the loops.

csr's are like a box of chocolates, you'll never know what you'll get.

have you tried calling and asking if you can order dry loop dsl? if you can, go ahead and order this.

when this dry loop gets installed and you find it working to your satisfaction then you can go and port your phone number to another provider which will effectively kill your legacy dsl also.

IF you can not order dry loop dsl, then you're best bet is to call in and find a csr or tech that knows and understands your dilemma.

As for the email address, I've never used an ISP's email service for this very reason. What I would do is slowly migrate your email to say yahoo or gmail, making sure you are replying by default using your new yahoo or gmail address.

As for the older messages, I would download them or use an email client to download them so you'll have them locally on your pc.

good luck!

That is not legally "tying”.
True, it is not legally "tying”.It is a tying practice; but how do we call the AT&T practices then? incredible dishonest?, criminal behavior?, consumer abuse?, abuse of monopoly?
Propose a name to describe it. I will use if it is accurate.

Editing a little bit your words:
How to separate your DSL and POTS is not cast in stone. It depends on who you talk to at AT&T, and if he/she know how to do it, and is willing to do it.

Well, lets go pray. God help us!

“You have to call AT&T and get your DSL service converted to dry-loop, with it's own billing-account-number.”

According to the FCC portability guide you only have to contact the new company, which will start the process of porting your number by contacting your current company. And at least, in Florida Bellsouth (now AT&T), was forced to allow people to keep their DSL after moving their phone service to a different provider.
AT&T should know what to do and do not expect that all consumers know what is needed to accomplish from the technical point of view or what a dry-loop is.
As long as you and AT&T insist in having the services “technically associated” (I mean tied) because a billing account, we (consumers) are having a problem. There is not a reasonable need to do that.
»www.fcc.gov/guides/porta ··· roviders

“Another method would be to put both services under a new billing-account-number so the porting process will not close your account -- once ported, you'll be a defacto dry-loop.”

It was not, having both services in the same billing account number the fundamental problem here; and the main reason people are getting their DSL service disconnected when they port a number?

I’m starting to feel a bit of confusion.

Incorrect. The issue is the century old practice of your phone number being your account number. If your account number is a different number (corp account, different landline, cellphone, dry-loop DSL "number", etc.), then you'll have no problems.

The task one must do prior to porting is ensure that number isn't their account number. Getting AT&T to do that, as it isn't part of the usual CSR Q&A list, will take some effort.

Thank you for answering. You are fast!

“The issue is the century old practice of your phone number being your account number.”

I agree and that is exactly what I believe is wrong. When databases are well designed the best practice is to generate a unique ID number to identify (for example: the customer account or citizenship ). This number will never be the (for example: the phone number or SSN). The only propose of this number is to identify and is never (for example: a driver license number or serial number, etc). Accounting systems are database systems.
Big corporations invest big money on their accounting systems. It is crucial for them.
I ,honestly, do not believe that AT&T is using a century old accounting system . It, simply, would not work for the AT&T corporation size in XXI century.
It is the century old practice, but it is the today wrong practice.

You already answer the question:
How do we avoid having the phone number as an account number if it is the AT&T way?

by writing

“The task one must do prior to porting is ensure that number isn't their account number. Getting AT&T to do that, as it isn't part of the usual CSR Q&A list, will take some effort.”

Yes, it will take some unnecessary effort.

You hit the nail, and I think that this “century old practice” is the one generating the consumers “problems”. I also think that AT&T is not getting rid of the practice because it is generating a “ solution” for them.

Any ways , nothing is perfect, life is not fair and TheJanitor is probably right.

No, they aren't literally using a 100 year old system. (they didn't have computers then.) The systems evolve (rot, whatever) over time, but is never wholesale replaced. AT&T (and the RBOCs that split out and rejoined) have way too many customers for a complete replacement of how everything is done; you can create new systems, but you will never be able to 100% flawlessly transfer the data from the old system to the new one. (i've seen it tried many times.) This is why, even today, your account number is still a 10 digit phone number -- and why "dry loop" DSL has dialtone, and a phone number. It's silly, but it's the way their systems work.

(Uverse *might* be the only system that's distanced itself from this.)

100 year ago an honest mistake, today is not acceptable to keep carrying it when having the 10 digits phone number as and account number is huge problem. There will always be flaws an errors and this flaws and errors will always have solutions or workarounds. It will take time and effort and money, yes. Not easy but not impossible.The only real need is the will to do it.

you think AT&T is the only one doing this?

I work in manufacturing and order a lot of materials to make the implants that we manufacture.

I have to deal with a bunch of suppliers who doesn't even have or know how to assign part numbers to stuff that they carry and we order.

I've seen old school ordering system in place still being used now and even my boss is so old school, he relies on paper information rather than digital information that we can keep in our ERP.

Ahh, but it's not a "huge problem". Out of AT&T's MILLIONS of customers, this comes up so infrequently there's no procedure, script, etc. on how it should be handled. It's a problem, but not one AT&T is going to invest resources in fixing. They're certainly not going to retool their entire accounting system(s) because you think it's stupid to use a phone number.

you think AT&T is the only one doing this?

No.
_________________________________________

Relaying on paper is an old school excellent thing. Paper have prove to hold information for thousands of years. We don’t know yet if digital systems will do the same.

Hard to believe this problem comes up infrequently (and is not a "huge problem") having MILLIONS of customers (accounts).

“It's a problem, but not one AT&T is going to invest resources in fixing.”

Well, that is a shoot in the foot for the company. Eventually they will have to do it (fixing or re-tooling).
I don’t think they have another 100 years to deal with competitors.

What I think does not matter.