marc@ttc.info.com (Marc O'Krent) (06/01/90)
We are having an argument with Pac*Bell and can't seem to get the same answer out of them twice. No great suprise there. Here's the background: for some unknown reason, PB has decided that if you want Centrex you *must* change your phone number. They have been refusing to grandfather in existing phone numbers for several months now. To console the destroyed business, they filed a provisional tarriff called "Number Retention Service." This turns out to be RCF with no usage charge. This allows the customer to "keep" their existing number. In fact the NRS (aks RCF) service forwards the calls to the new (possibly hidden) Centrex number assigned to the customer. The NRS service costs $50 install for 1-10 paths on the initial order, $50.00 per path install after initial order, plus $7.00/month/path and no usage charges (kind gift, wouldn't you say!?). Now this NRS can get quite expensive if the customer has say 10-20 existing lines and is in a CO where the switch doesn't do multi pathing on Call Forwarding. The conversation goes something like, "You can have Centrex, Mr. Customer, but it will cost you $70-$140 per month to keep your existing number (#lines X cost/path)." Some older ESS switches will multipath by default. I thought it was the 1A and the 1. I have been told that it is the 1A, 1E and/or the 1. I have a real customer in a 1E office where it does not work, but telco is insisting that it does work. Does anybody out there who might be reading this really know? I would certainly appreciate hearing from you. Trials with DMS and 5ESS show that multipathing does not exist. (As a side note, the NRS tarriff is outrageous as far as I'm concerned, and I would love to get some kind of protest going to force PB to either revert back to number preservation, or if NRS is required because of switch technical reasons, or planning, or whatever then PB should be *required* to charge one monthly fee and give multipathing as part of the service. This type of tariff really hurts small business the most ( <100 lines) ). MOK
Ken Abrams <kabra437@pallas.athenanet.com> (06/04/90)
In article <8529@accuvax.nwu.edu> Marc O'Krent <marc@ttc.info.com> writes: >We are having an argument with Pac*Bell and can't seem to get the same >answer out of them twice. No great suprise there. >Here's the background: for some unknown reason, PB has decided that if >you want Centrex you *must* change your phone number. They have been >refusing to grandfather in existing phone numbers for several months >now. >To console the destroyed business, they filed a provisional tarriff >called "Number Retention Service." This turns out to be RCF with no >usage charge. [More good details deleted] Although I personally don't agree with a lot of things that PacBell comes up with, I think their basic decision in this matter was correct. The exact way that they implemented the whole package may cast some doubt as to the underlying motives, however. From both the Telco's and the customer's perspective, the only situation that lends itself well to "grandfathering of numbers" is a conversion from PBX or DID where the customer already has a sufficient number of contiguous numbers to accomodate the Centrex. Creating a Centrex with numbers scattered all over a prefix (or worse, over several prefixs) does EVERYONE a disservice in the long run. It causes an administrative nightmare for Telco and customer alike. I wish I could convince my company that it is bad policy; so far, no cigar. On the other side of the coin, it appears that PB has chosen a method of dealing with the old number that maximizes income rather than customer satisfaction. The system you mentioned should be ONE option for the customer but not the only one. Other options should be made available; if this hasn't been done (have you asked?) then that is most unfortunate. Rest assured that a properly implemented RCF service DOES allow for multiple paths in any variety of electronic switch that is in common use by the BOCs today (1E,1A,5E,DMS,Siemens and I expect others, too). Note, however, that variable call forwarding (the kind you establish and remove yourself) does not offer multiple paths in many of the switches under certain conditions. Also keep in mind that the whole situation should not result in a permanent expense to the company. I would think that most should be able to change their advertising, stationery, business cards, etc. over a period of 12 - 24 months and migrate to the new numbers and eliminate the additional expense. With a little planning and forethought, I would think this interval could be shortened to 6 months or less. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965
Jim Gottlieb <jimmy@icjapan.info.com> (06/09/90)
In article <8682@accuvax.nwu.edu> Ken Abrams <pallas!kabra437@ uunet.uu.net> writes: >In article <8529@accuvax.nwu.edu> Marc O'Krent <marc@ttc.info.com> >writes: >>for some unknown reason, PB has decided that if >>you want Centrex you *must* change your phone number. >Although I personally don't agree with a lot of things that PacBell >comes up with, I think their basic decision in this matter was >correct. I disagree. We're not talking about some huge corporation that wants thousands of lines of Centrex. This even applies to a small business with two or three lines that wants them converted to Centrex (i.e. so that they can transfer calls to an off-site voice mail box). I know it can be done. I converted my two voice lines to Centrex for this very reason, and GTE had no problem with letting me keep my same two numbers. In fact, if a number change had been required I would not have signed up for the service. And though I am not in the habit of complimenting GTE, I must say that their Centrex is a pretty good deal. For $6 per month per line I get most every feature one could want, including a DISA number. Other packages are cheaper. By the way, this is on a 1AESS. I wouldn't trust a GTD-5 with my calls.