***, Cal.net has implemented a solutin to this problemAs of today 02/10/Cal.net has finishedporting the number ###-###-#### to our phone systems, and has forwarded allincoming calls to the number ###-###-####I have tested the forwarding and itis working perfectly! The number will now stay operational throughout theporting processYou can now have [redacted] try to port the number from us andsee if they have more success than when trying to port the number from Sonic.If you or [redacted] need any additional information, or have any questions please donot hesitate to call our support staffThank you, and have a wonderful day
I am rejecting this response because: I don't care who Cal.net subcontracts to, ultimately it is Cal.net's responsibility for porting my number, because I had a contract with Cal.net Cal.net provided my service, and it is inconsequential to me who they do business with They chose ***; I did not and had no say in who they use to port their customer's phone numbers Cal.net is quick to place blame elsewhere, but they are ultimately responsible since the phone number has yet to transferred from their chosen subcontractor They have not acknowledged any of the mistakes/intention misleading and runaround on their part:a Gave me misinformation on four occasions when I verified my account number (twice with ***, once with [redacted] and [redacted] each).b Runaround At one point several weeks after the first port attempt, [redacted] from Cal.net emphatically denied that their subcontractor still had my number in their system, resulting in weeks of attempted ports and failures with [redacted] , with no movement forward or investigation by Cal.net When they did finally admit they still had the number, [redacted] lied about having a three-way conversation with [redacted] and [redacted] to resolve the issue, resulting in another two-week delay as I waited for resolution [redacted] later admitted he had only talked to [redacted] and had never contacted [redacted] .c [redacted] cannot verify the data that [redacted] has with my phone number On my last four-way conversation with [redacted] , Cal.net, [redacted] and myself on Wednesday, January 24th, [redacted] had no idea why the latest port had failed and casually suggested trying my name with their address How is it possible Cal.net's subcontract cannot verify the information?d Customer service [redacted] especially and Cal.net in general, has been poor with folland requires constant reminders to address the issue [redacted] has been better, but still had to be contacted to respond today (Monday), even though he had promised to call with an update last Thursday When I try to let them handle it and don't contact them for days, no investigation is done They require constant prodding
In this complaint by [redacted] she states that Cal.net "carries her land line"Cal.net does not own or carry the land line telephone number, but actually another DSL company Sonic has control of the number [redacted] is trying to have the number ported to a company called TracFone and the port keeps failingSince Cal.net is a reseller of Sonics service [redacted] is under the assumption Cal.net owns the number, but Cal.net in fact has no control over this numberWith that said Cal.net is still working closely with [redacted] to try and figure out why the number cannot be Ported by TracFoneThe number is not locked and marked as waiting for port by Sonic so it seems to be something to do with Tracfones porting process that keeps failingCal.net will continue to help [redacted] as long as it takes to complete this port
***, Cal.net has implemented a solutin to this problemAs of today 02/10/Cal.net has finishedporting the number ###-###-#### to our phone systems, and has forwarded allincoming calls to the number ###-###-####I have tested the forwarding and itis working perfectly! The number will now stay operational throughout theporting processYou can now have [redacted] try to port the number from us andsee if they have more success than when trying to port the number from Sonic.If you or [redacted] need any additional information, or have any questions please donot hesitate to call our support staffThank you, and have a wonderful day
I am rejecting this response because: I don't care who Cal.net subcontracts to, ultimately it is Cal.net's responsibility for porting my number, because I had a contract with Cal.net Cal.net provided my service, and it is inconsequential to me who they do business with They chose ***; I did not and had no say in who they use to port their customer's phone numbers Cal.net is quick to place blame elsewhere, but they are ultimately responsible since the phone number has yet to transferred from their chosen subcontractor They have not acknowledged any of the mistakes/intention misleading and runaround on their part:a Gave me misinformation on four occasions when I verified my account number (twice with ***, once with [redacted] and [redacted] each).b Runaround At one point several weeks after the first port attempt, [redacted] from Cal.net emphatically denied that their subcontractor still had my number in their system, resulting in weeks of attempted ports and failures with [redacted] , with no movement forward or investigation by Cal.net When they did finally admit they still had the number, [redacted] lied about having a three-way conversation with [redacted] and [redacted] to resolve the issue, resulting in another two-week delay as I waited for resolution [redacted] later admitted he had only talked to [redacted] and had never contacted [redacted] .c [redacted] cannot verify the data that [redacted] has with my phone number On my last four-way conversation with [redacted] , Cal.net, [redacted] and myself on Wednesday, January 24th, [redacted] had no idea why the latest port had failed and casually suggested trying my name with their address How is it possible Cal.net's subcontract cannot verify the information?d Customer service [redacted] especially and Cal.net in general, has been poor with folland requires constant reminders to address the issue [redacted] has been better, but still had to be contacted to respond today (Monday), even though he had promised to call with an update last Thursday When I try to let them handle it and don't contact them for days, no investigation is done They require constant prodding
In this complaint by [redacted] she states that Cal.net "carries her land line"Cal.net does not own or carry the land line telephone number, but actually another DSL company Sonic has control of the number [redacted] is trying to have the number ported to a company called TracFone and the port keeps failingSince Cal.net is a reseller of Sonics service [redacted] is under the assumption Cal.net owns the number, but Cal.net in fact has no control over this numberWith that said Cal.net is still working closely with [redacted] to try and figure out why the number cannot be Ported by TracFoneThe number is not locked and marked as waiting for port by Sonic so it seems to be something to do with Tracfones porting process that keeps failingCal.net will continue to help [redacted] as long as it takes to complete this port