Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22
  1. #1
    PDA Man
    Guest
    Well here's a shocking piece of news:

    WLNP problems mount; FCC questions AT&T Wireless
    Just as many analysts predicted (including us), subscribers across the
    country are experiencing difficulties porting their numbers through the new
    FCC wireless portability mandate. It seems the carriers were under-prepared
    for the process. While some users have been able to switch smoothly, others
    have their phone numbers trapped in limbo between carriers. According to
    some, AT&T Wireless has been the worst offender in terms of moving
    subscribers off its network and on to other service providers. The FCC has
    given AT&T Wireless until Wednesday of next week to come up with an adequate
    explanation for its poor WLNP performance. Many speculate that the FCC may
    take action against AT&T Wireless if its explanation is not deemed adequate.
    --
    Visit Wireless World at http://wirelessway.blogspot.com for the latest in
    Wireless Technology News and Info! Free Drawing for Aluminum Palm /Clie
    case!!





    See More: NEWS: WLNP Problems Mount; FCC Questions AT&T Wireless




  2. #2
    James Tullin
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: WLNP Problems Mount; FCC Questions AT&T Wireless

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Well here's a shocking piece of news:
    >
    > WLNP problems mount; FCC questions AT&T Wireless
    > Just as many analysts predicted (including us), subscribers across the
    > country are experiencing difficulties porting their numbers through the new
    > FCC wireless portability mandate. It seems the carriers were under-prepared
    > for the process. While some users have been able to switch smoothly, others
    > have their phone numbers trapped in limbo between carriers. According to
    > some, AT&T Wireless has been the worst offender in terms of moving
    > subscribers off its network and on to other service providers. The FCC has
    > given AT&T Wireless until Wednesday of next week to come up with an adequate
    > explanation for its poor WLNP performance. Many speculate that the FCC may
    > take action against AT&T Wireless if its explanation is not deemed adequate.


    Given that today's Washington Post says:


    "Many consumers appear bewildered and unsure whom to blame. Chris and
    Kathy Brady, an Arlington couple who have been trying to switch their
    phones from AT&T to Verizon Wireless for 11 days, are at odds about
    what's really happening.

    "Verizon can't get the job done," said Kathy Brady.

    "No, it's AT&T's problem," said her husband.

    Initially, Chris Brady was told there was a software problem. Five days
    later, Verizon Wireless told Brady the order was missing his middle
    initial, L., and the last four digits of his Zip code, 22204-1663. Later
    the same day, an AT&T representative told him his order couldn't be
    processed because his $253 check for his previous bill hadn't cleared."


    That is a clear Violation of FCC Guidelines which say Port first,
    collect any monies owed later.



  3. #3
    The Roadkill
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: WLNP Problems Mount; FCC Questions AT&T Wireless

    PDA Man wrote:
    > Well here's a shocking piece of news:
    >
    > WLNP problems mount; FCC questions AT&T Wireless
    > Just as many analysts predicted (including us), subscribers across the
    > country are experiencing difficulties porting their numbers through the new
    > FCC wireless portability mandate. It seems the carriers were under-prepared
    > for the process. While some users have been able to switch smoothly, others
    > have their phone numbers trapped in limbo between carriers. According to
    > some, AT&T Wireless has been the worst offender in terms of moving
    > subscribers off its network and on to other service providers. The FCC has
    > given AT&T Wireless until Wednesday of next week to come up with an adequate
    > explanation for its poor WLNP performance. Many speculate that the FCC may
    > take action against AT&T Wireless if its explanation is not deemed adequate.


    Here's a Reuters link on the story..
    http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=3941305


    --
    The Roadkill
    [email protected] to send email simply remove cafe...
    www.theroadkill.us



  4. #4
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: WLNP Problems Mount; FCC Questions AT&T Wireless


    "James Tullin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > Given that today's Washington Post says:
    >
    >
    > "Many consumers appear bewildered and unsure whom to blame. Chris and
    > Kathy Brady, an Arlington couple who have been trying to switch their
    > phones from AT&T to Verizon Wireless for 11 days, are at odds about
    > what's really happening.
    >
    > "Verizon can't get the job done," said Kathy Brady.
    >
    > "No, it's AT&T's problem," said her husband.
    >
    > Initially, Chris Brady was told there was a software problem. Five days
    > later, Verizon Wireless told Brady the order was missing his middle
    > initial, L., and the last four digits of his Zip code, 22204-1663. Later
    > the same day, an AT&T representative told him his order couldn't be
    > processed because his $253 check for his previous bill hadn't cleared."
    >
    >
    > That is a clear Violation of FCC Guidelines which say Port first,
    > collect any monies owed later.


    When are you going to port your phone out of here Phillip? Steven? Patrick
    Bosley? Whatever. Please, go to AT&T and leave Sprint PCS alone.

    Tom Veldhouse





  5. #5
    Bill Roland
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: WLNP Problems Mount; FCC Questions AT&T Wireless

    Who said anything about Sprint PCS?


    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "James Tullin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > Given that today's Washington Post says:
    > >
    > >
    > > "Many consumers appear bewildered and unsure whom to blame. Chris and
    > > Kathy Brady, an Arlington couple who have been trying to switch their
    > > phones from AT&T to Verizon Wireless for 11 days, are at odds about
    > > what's really happening.
    > >
    > > "Verizon can't get the job done," said Kathy Brady.
    > >
    > > "No, it's AT&T's problem," said her husband.
    > >
    > > Initially, Chris Brady was told there was a software problem. Five days
    > > later, Verizon Wireless told Brady the order was missing his middle
    > > initial, L., and the last four digits of his Zip code, 22204-1663. Later
    > > the same day, an AT&T representative told him his order couldn't be
    > > processed because his $253 check for his previous bill hadn't cleared."
    > >
    > >
    > > That is a clear Violation of FCC Guidelines which say Port first,
    > > collect any monies owed later.

    >
    > When are you going to port your phone out of here Phillip? Steven?

    Patrick
    > Bosley? Whatever. Please, go to AT&T and leave Sprint PCS alone.
    >
    > Tom Veldhouse
    >
    >






  6. #6
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: WLNP Problems Mount; FCC Questions AT&T Wireless


    "Bill Roland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Who said anything about Sprint PCS?
    >


    Sorry, a long history with this guy in alt.cellular.sprintpcs. I did not
    notice that he (and therefore I) crossposted.

    Tom Veldhouse





  7. #7
    Steven J Sobol
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: WLNP Problems Mount; FCC Questions AT&T Wireless

    In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Bill Roland <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Who said anything about Sprint PCS?


    Oh, "James" is a guy who trolls the Sprint newsgroup trying to drive
    everyone away from Sprint. That was why Sprint was mentioned. He's recently
    started showing up in the other newsgroups.

    Those of us who are in a.c.spcs have noted almost 40 screenname/id changes
    in the few months since he started his little game.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]



  8. #8
    Bill Roland
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: WLNP Problems Mount; FCC Questions AT&T Wireless

    Ahhh, I see, makes sense now. Thanks.


    "Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Bill Roland <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > Who said anything about Sprint PCS?

    >
    > Oh, "James" is a guy who trolls the Sprint newsgroup trying to drive
    > everyone away from Sprint. That was why Sprint was mentioned. He's

    recently
    > started showing up in the other newsgroups.
    >
    > Those of us who are in a.c.spcs have noted almost 40 screenname/id changes
    > in the few months since he started his little game.
    >
    > --
    > JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    > 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    > Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    > 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]






  9. #9
    Matthew Lindeen
    Guest

    Re: AT&T Wireless

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Tony Clark" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > And when they aren't screwing up number ports they are screwing up accounts
    > like mine by moving my second phone service to someone elses account, who
    > immediately had the service turned off.



    Thats what happens when you Outsource computer work.

    ATTWS billing is so bad, is why they now require automatic debiting of
    your credit card.



  10. #10
    Steve
    Guest

    Re: AT&T Wireless

    Matthew Lindeen <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Tony Clark" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > And when they aren't screwing up number ports they are screwing up accounts
    > > like mine by moving my second phone service to someone elses account, who
    > > immediately had the service turned off.

    >
    >
    > Thats what happens when you Outsource computer work.
    >
    > ATTWS billing is so bad, is why they now require automatic debiting of
    > your credit card.


    What are you talking about? There is no requirement of auto bill
    pay. And i love ignorant blanket statements about things like.... oh
    lets say billing. 9 times out of 10 its something the customer used
    but does not want to pay for, but lets just say for fun that you had
    an actual problem. That doesent mean all 20 million customers are
    having problems, and they dont require auto bill pay. Just like you
    made that up,you are also probably "creating" the problem you had with
    your bill.



  11. #11
    Stewart
    Guest

    Re: AT&T Wireless

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] (Steve) wrote:

    > What are you talking about? There is no requirement of auto bill
    > pay. And i love ignorant blanket statements about things like.... oh
    > lets say billing. 9 times out of 10 its something the customer used
    > but does not want to pay for, but lets just say for fun that you had
    > an actual problem. That doesent mean all 20 million customers are
    > having problems, and they dont require auto bill pay. Just like you
    > made that up,you are also probably "creating" the problem you had with
    > your bill.



    WRONG: Here it is verbatim from the web site:

    Remember, to maintain the benefits and pricing of our exclusive online
    deals, after you receive you phone, you will need to do the following at
    the AT&T Wireless online service center (www.attwireless.com/ocs):

    * Register for online customer service
    * Establish a recurring billing relationship
    * Sign up for paperless billing (after you receive your first paper
    bill)



  12. #12
    Steven J Sobol
    Guest

    Re: AT&T Wireless

    In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:
    > WRONG: Here it is verbatim from the web site:
    >
    > Remember, to maintain the benefits and pricing of our exclusive online
    > deals, after you receive you phone, you will need to do the following at
    > the AT&T Wireless online service center (www.attwireless.com/ocs):
    >
    > * Register for online customer service
    > * Establish a recurring billing relationship
    > * Sign up for paperless billing (after you receive your first paper
    > bill)


    Ah, Phillipe/matthew/stewart... manipulating facts again?

    That says specifically "to maintain the benefits and pricing of our exclusive
    online deals". Has anyone been forced to pay with a credit card when
    activating at a store?


    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]



  13. #13
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: AT&T Wireless


    "Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > WRONG: Here it is verbatim from the web site:
    >
    > Remember, to maintain the benefits and pricing of our exclusive online
    > deals, after you receive you phone, you will need to do the following at
    > the AT&T Wireless online service center (www.attwireless.com/ocs):
    >
    > * Register for online customer service
    > * Establish a recurring billing relationship
    > * Sign up for paperless billing (after you receive your first paper
    > bill)


    Well Phillip, you seem to be desparate to change your ID so that somebody
    will listen to you. Why yet another change? Can you example to all these
    people why are are such a fraud?

    Tom Veldhouse





  14. #14
    Stewart
    Guest

    Re: AT&T Wireless

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Steven J Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Stewart <so[email protected]> wrote:
    > > WRONG: Here it is verbatim from the web site:
    > >
    > > Remember, to maintain the benefits and pricing of our exclusive online
    > > deals, after you receive you phone, you will need to do the following at
    > > the AT&T Wireless online service center (www.attwireless.com/ocs):
    > >
    > > * Register for online customer service
    > > * Establish a recurring billing relationship
    > > * Sign up for paperless billing (after you receive your first paper
    > > bill)

    >
    > Ah,.. manipulating facts again?
    >
    > That says specifically "to maintain the benefits and pricing of our exclusive
    > online deals". Has anyone been forced to pay with a credit card when
    > activating at a store?



    Has anyone not been required when signing up online?



  15. #15
    Peter Pan
    Guest

    Re: AT&T Wireless


    "Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > WRONG: Here it is verbatim from the web site:
    > >
    > > Remember, to maintain the benefits and pricing of our exclusive online
    > > deals, after you receive you phone, you will need to do the following at
    > > the AT&T Wireless online service center (www.attwireless.com/ocs):
    > >
    > > * Register for online customer service
    > > * Establish a recurring billing relationship
    > > * Sign up for paperless billing (after you receive your first paper
    > > bill)

    >
    > Ah, Phillipe/matthew/stewart... manipulating facts again?
    >
    > That says specifically "to maintain the benefits and pricing of our

    exclusive
    > online deals". Has anyone been forced to pay with a credit card when
    > activating at a store?
    >
    >
    > --
    > JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    > 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    > Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    > 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]


    What does a store have to do with it? The statement was made that the
    provider *NEVER* requires a recurring billing relationship. The statement
    wasn't that *ONLY* stores don't require them.





  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast