Dave Levenson <dave@westmark.westmark.com> (09/21/90)
A friend in Morristown, NJ went away for a couple of weeks. His
number was 267-1234 (actual number changed to protect...). He didn't
want a ring-no-answer situation for two weeks, and didn't happen to
have an answering machine at the time. He used call- forwarding.
He forwarded his calls to 263-1234 (note the similarity to his own
number) in nearby Boonton, NJ. That number was not in service at the
time.
Callers who dialed 267-1234 got a SIT followed by "The number you have
dialed, 263-1234, is not in service." This probably gave many callers
the impression that they had mis-dialed the third digit. Someone
called NJ Bell repair service. They investigated, and then canceled
call-forwarding on my friend's line. When he returned home and found
that callers were reaching ring-no-answer, he complained to NJ Bell.
In the end, they wrote him a letter appologizing for having cancelled
his call-forwarding, and promising never to do it again! They never
claimed that he was not within his rights in forwarding his calls to a
non-working number. He has since forwarded his calls to
permanently-busy test numbers on such occasions.
Dave Levenson Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857
Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA Internet: dave@westmark.com
AT&T Mail: !westmark!davedattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) (09/23/90)
Dave Levenson wrote in Volume 10, Issue 668: | A friend in Morristown, NJ went away for a couple of weeks. His | number was 267-1234. | He forwarded his calls to 263-1234 in nearby Boonton, NJ. That number | was not in service at the time. | Callers who dialed 267-1234 got a SIT followed by "The number you have | dialed, 263-1234, is not in service." Someone | called NJ Bell repair service. They investigated, and then canceled | call-forwarding on my friend's line. | In the end, they wrote him a letter appologizing for having cancelled | his call-forwarding, and promising never to do it again! To say that NJ Bell "canceled" your friend's call forwarding is ambiguous. Dave, do you mean that they did a 73# equivalent on his line to shut Call Forwarding off or do you mean that they removed the Call Forwarding feature from his account? I'm not trying to be picky here; I want to know just how far the telco went in stepping on a customer's own decisions. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com
dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) (09/26/90)
In article <12533@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) writes: > Dave Levenson wrote in Volume 10, Issue 668: [ regarding my friend in Morristown NJ who forwarded his calls to a telco-provided SIT and recording ] > To say that NJ Bell "canceled" your friend's call forwarding is > ambiguous. Dave, do you mean that they did a 73# equivalent on his > line to shut Call Forwarding off or do you mean that they removed the > Call Forwarding feature from his account? Sorry! I didn't mean to be ambiguous here. NJ Bell performed the 73# equivalent, and un-forwarded my friend's line until he was able to return home. Call forwarding service was never removed from his account. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857