Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: Ken Abrams Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: 1A/1E Call Forwarding and Multi-pathing Message-ID: <8682@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 4 Jun 90 14:20:50 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: Ken Abrams Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois Lines: 60 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 415, Message 1 of 8 In article <8529@accuvax.nwu.edu> Marc O'Krent 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