TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Service Providers Recycling Phone Numbers

Re: Service Providers Recycling Phone Numbers

hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
23 Feb 2006 06:55:42 -0800

George Berger wrote:

> Anyway, a couple of months after signing up with AT&T, we received a
> significant bill for "incoming calls" that we never received, as we
> still don't know how to use the Nokia except to call out ... It took
> over four months, and a lawyer, to get AT&T to admit that the phone
> number we had been assigned was earlier used by a lobbyist.

I'm afraid I don't understand this, could someone explain it? On my
cell phone, I'm only charged for incoming calls when I answer the
phone. If it the phone is turned off, obviously I can't answer it and
I am not charged. But even if the phone is turned on, if I don't
answer it I still am not charged.

I know this because from time to time I test my cell phone (I don't use
it very often) and I call it during prime time. It rings but I don't
answer and I'm not charged.

Is there some new policy that even unanswering incoming calls are now
charged?

[public replies please]

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not think there is any such
policy. It was more likely a clerical error by AT&T (even though the
company in its bureaucratic stubborness refused to correct it or
look into the problem until they were forced to do so.) I am not
charged on my no-answers inbound either (Cingular Wireless). PAT]

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: George Berger: "Re: Service Providers Recycling Phone Numbers"
Go to Previous message: cellular-news: "Cellular-News for Thursday 23rd February 2006"
May be in reply to: David Lazarus: "Service Providers Recycling Phone Numbers"
Next in thread: George Berger: "Re: Service Providers Recycling Phone Numbers"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page