Explorer
•
18 Messages
Non-published numbers
We have two voice lines from U-verse. Both were supposed to be non-published numbers and I have been paying for this on both lines for several years now. Actually, the second line was changed to unlisted some time ago and it was several months before I noticed the price reduction from $4.95/mo to $2.50/mo. I did not consent to this change and only noticed it when we began receiving unwanted marketing calls. I called AT&T and was assured the line would be placed back in non-published status. My next bill so reflected.
However, my latest bill did not include the $4.95 charge so I again called AT&T. On this call, I was informed that I could not have two non-published numbers and that the second number could only be unlisted.
This evening, I received a call from AT&T informing me that the second line could not even be unlisted, that AT&T's policy requires a second line be a listed number, and that the second line was already published in directory listings. A check of listings revealed that to be true and it explains the garbage calls we have been receiving on the second line. (Don't even suggest the Do-Not-Call list---it has become totally useless because the Feds make no effort to enforce it.)
What possible logic causes AT&T to insist a second line be listed? We will probably give up the second line---its usefulness has become exceded by its nuisance calls.
I can understand why so many people are giving up land lines altogether and we are certainly considering so doing. Our Verizon WIreless is infinitely more responsive to customer requests than AT&T and it's U-verse step-child.
I did ask for a call from someone high enough on the totem pole to explain the listed number requirement but I will be overwhelming surprised to receive it.
Anonymous
New Member
•
25.7K Messages
10 years ago
I believe there might be some confusion on the AT&T reps side that you talked to. You cannot have two different outbound caller id names. In other words, line 1 and line 2 have to have the same name on outbound calls. I know this because when my daughter was living at home I had a line for her and our house hold line. She wanted hers to say her name and of course we wanted ours to say ours.
We eventually just changed our outbound caller id to her name as she was the one on the phone 99% of the time.
As for unlisted, both can have unlisted status. I don't know why they said you couldn't. As for your marketing calls you can try nomorobo here: https://www.nomorobo.com/. I as well as several others have signed up for this and it works quite well. You will get one ring at home before the call is blocked. It does block the dreaded "Unavaliable 1" too. Give it a try and I'm sure you will like it.
Edit: I forgot to say that the nomorobo is free!!
0
0
BillTX
Explorer
•
18 Messages
10 years ago
Thanks for your reply. There is always the possibility of miscommunication when speaking with off-shore representatives. I think that is especially true in this situation because in the same call I complained that my caller ID blocking was repeatedly turned off no matter how many times I turned it back on. So far, it appears that issue has been resolved.
I am still hoping (faint hope) that some AT&T representative will call me about the non-published matter, It simply makes no sense that one number has to be published when the subscriber has two lines. The tech who called me yesterday evening suggested I just change the number of the second line every time a directory update was made. She had no idea how often those updates will take place, whether it is annually, daily, hourly or constantly.
I'll advise of any further activity.
0
0
BillTX
Explorer
•
18 Messages
10 years ago
The saga continues.
The TSR I first spoke with called me mid-week to say she had received an answer to her internal email query and that it assured her it is not possible to have two non-published numbers and that one could be non-pub but the other had to be listed---could not even be unlisted, much less non-pub.
That was so illogical that the following day I called the 800 number and selected the option to add new service. (There was hardly any wait time at all for that option.) The representative who took the call assured me that both numbers could, of course, be non-pub if I was willing to pay the monthly charge for them. She then proceeded to enter the order but it was rejected with the explanation that only one number could be non-pub but the other could indeed be unlisted. I agreed to that arrangement even though the second number has already been published, in print and on-line.
I know that is true because I have checked both directories and also because we have been receiving calls from Chase Bank about a delinquent account. I never knew my name was so common, but Chase Bank appears to be calling every person in the country who shares my first and last name. When I tell them I have no account with them they want to know my middle name, SSN, etc., which I of course refuse to give them. I told the most recent Chase bill collector that one of the happiest days of my entire life was thirty-five years ago when I severed my last business connection with his bank---from which I never borrowed a cent during our short relationship.
Anyway, we have also been having trouble with Caller ID blocking. I turn it on using the on-line Phone Features menu and, after a day or so, it gets turned off. The TSRs turn it on from their end and a day, or even a few hours, later it gets turned off.
I was told by one TSR that AT&T has a new policy which forbids direct communication between a customer and Level Two Support---that all contact with Level Two must now be passed back and forth through whatever AT&T employee happens to pick up the call. Something is very, very amiss with some AT&T computer somewhere and every TSR gets a different result from his or her computer screen or whomever they consult with while I hold and hold and hold. The right hand hasn't a clue what the left hand is doing or which answer to give out on which day. I should think AT&T might give some thought to the problems GM has had becuse of this "silo mentality" and its faulty ignition switches.
So that's where it stands for now and on Monday a line tech is supposed to appear at our front door. Really, people, the problems aren't in two little wires. It's in your computers.
I know all this effort to protect out privacy and anonymity makes us sound like hermits who should be living in a cave somewhere. That isn't true but we are very senior citizens with somewhat compromised mobility and it's difficult for us to be hopping up to answer junk calls.
0
0