Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!apple!bionet!hayes.fai.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Answering Machine OGM = Telco Message?
Message-ID: <12533@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 23 Sep 90 16:15:06 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 28
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 674, Message 1 of 11


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