X O Communications

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

From: M[redacted], Ester Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 3:46 PMTo: Regulatory Grievances <[email protected]>Subject: Revdex.com Complaint #[redacted]
 
XO Communications ("XO") hereby responds to Complaint ID # [redacted] filed by [redacted] on behalf of [redacted]...

[redacted] ("Complainant") regarding their service issue.
 
XO provides MPLS service to multiple sites for the Complainant via underlying circuits leased from XO’s vendor [redacted], which maintains the physical circuit. Complainant reported an issue with their service to XO on 11/27/2017. XO promptly opened trouble ticket # [redacted]  to address the service issue.
 
XO dispatched a technician to the site and after the circuit was moved to a new port on 12/5/2017, the service was restored.  After the technician dispatched out on 12/6/2017 for the router replacement, service was again confirmed restored, however; Complainant reported another issue with their service on today (12/7/2017) found to be associated with a network outage.  
 
XO strives to provide our customers a positive experience with each interaction; we'll continue to reach out to the Complainant until the service is confirmed restored by the LEC. 
 
Sincerely,
 
Regulatory Grievances Team
XO Communications
###-###-####

From: M[redacted], Ester
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 12:17 PM
To: Regulatory Grievances
Subject: Revdex.com Complaint #[redacted]
XO Communications (“XO”) hereby responds to Complaint ID #[redacted] filed by [redacted] on behalf of Second Street Media (“Complainant”) and advises...

this matter has been resolved amicably and XO considers this issue to be resolved.
Sincerely,
Ester M[redacted]
XO Communications, Inc.

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:While the cancellation for May was sent in April, as per XOs cancellation requirements, I am disappointed with the response.  However, I will accept the terms as long as XO DOES NOT FURTHER CHARGE nor TAKE FUNDS FROM OUT account.  I did return the phone message -- and left messages on XOs account.  I, frankly, just want to be done with them.  Thank you for finalizing this.  
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.  I think I now understand how the problem originated.  I requested the cancellation of my  [redacted] account  with XO on 3/10/2015 and transferred both domains in that account ([redacted] and [redacted])  to [redacted] on that day, as [redacted] records indicate.I may have told the XO rep that I was not cancelling my second XO account, which was for the domain [redacted], at that time. I cancelled the [redacted] account effective 4/30/215.The XO rep must have confused p[redacted] with [redacted].
Regards,
[redacted]

XO Communications (“XO”) hereby responds to Complaint ID # [redacted] filed by [redacted] on behalf of [redacted] (“Complainant”).
 
XO and Complainant have agreed to resolve this matter amicably and consider this matter to be closed.
 
Sincerely,
 
Kiwanna...

K[redacted]
XO Communications
###-###-####

XO Communications (“XO”) hereby responds to Complaint ID # [redacted] filed by [redacted] on behalf of [redacted] (“Complainant”).
 
Complainant contracted for a bundled services package via the Service Order Agreement (“SOA”) effective 7-27-2012 for 3 year renewable terms...

and per terms and conditions.
 
Complainant and XO agreed to resolve this matter amicably.
 
Sincerely,
 
Kiwanna K[redacted]
XO Communications
###-###-####

XO hereby responds to the clarification request for Case ID # [redacted] and attached the  current Service Order Agreement ("SOA").
In addition, XO has spoken with [redacted], today, and agreed to resolve this matter amicably with disconnection of the remaining services and consider the account balance as settled in full.
Sincerely,
Kiwanna K[redacted]
XO Communications
###-###-####

XO Communications (“XO”) hereby responds to Complaint ID# [redacted] filed by [redacted] (“Complainant”).
 
XO reports this matter to be resolved amicably and confirmed by [redacted].
 
Sincerely,
 
Kiwanna K[redacted]
XO Communications
866-217-1394

From: M[redacted], Ester Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 3:21 PMTo: Regulatory GrievancesSubject: Revdex.com complaint #[redacted]
 
XO Communications (“XO”) hereby responds to Complaint ID # [redacted] filed [redacted] on behalf of [redacted]...

(“Complainant”).
 
Complainant contracted Bundled 1.5 meg services with XO effective 12/18/2013 on a 3 year renewable term.
 
XO worked with the Complainant from October 2014 to November 2014 in the effort to upgrade the service to 3.0 meg to increase speed. Complainant decided not to upgrade, but advised he was interested in downgrading to voice only. XO explained this change could be requested at the halfway point of their term and advised to reach out to XO in June 2015. XO was not contacted again by the Complainant until 11/10/2015 when they inquired about their contract end date. XO provided the Complainant with the end date of 12/18/2016 per the signed Service Order Agreement (SOA).
 
In the effort to resolve this matter, Complainant was contacted and advised XO would agree to waive 50% of the Early Termination Liability fees that would bill out once disconnect completes, contingent upon them paying 50% and keeping the account current throughout the port and disconnect process.
 
Sincerely,
 
 
Ester M[redacted]
XO Communications, Inc.

From: M[redacted], Ester
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 2:26 PM
To: Regulatory Grievances
Subject: Revdex.com complaint #[redacted]
 
XO
Communications (“XO”) hereby responds to Complaint ID #[redacted] filed [redacted] on behalf of [redacted] (“Complainant”). Complaint requests...

release from
contractual obligations for account # [redacted].
 
Complainant
contracted Bundled service with XO effective 7/27/2011 and 08/12/2014 on 3 year
auto renewable terms. When XO received the request on  11/21/2015 for
release from their contract, the issue was review and discussed.
 
In
the effort to resolve this matter, XO has agreed to waive all Early Termination
Liability fees to release the Complainant without penalty. Complainant advised.
 
Sincerely,
 
Ester
M[redacted]
XO
Communications, Inc.

I am resending the previous response that was provided to the Customer on 12/10/2015 to clarify and confirm all early termination liability fees were being waived.
From: M[redacted] Ester
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 11:43 AM
To: Regulatory Grievances
Subject: Revdex.com Rebuttal Complaint #[redacted]
XO
Communications (“XO”) hereby responds to the Rebuttal Complaint ID # [redacted]
filed [redacted] on behalf of [redacted] (“Complainant”).
XO
has provided Complainant with a proposal for increased bandwidth to 3Meg. Complainant declined the offer.
In
consideration of Complainant’s good standing as a customer, XO has now agreed
to waive the full Early Termination Liability (ETL) amount of $5,662.00 to
allow disconnect of service without penalty. Complainant advised.
Sincerely,
Ester
M[redacted] XO
Communications, Inc.

XO Communications (“XO”) hereby responds to Complaint ID # [redacted] filed by [redacted] on behalf of [redacted] (“Complainant”).
 
XO and Complainant have reached a mutual agreement to resolve this matter amicably and consider this matter to be closed....


 
Sincerely,
 
Kiwanna K[redacted]
XO Communications
###-###-####

From: M[redacted], Ester Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 3:52 PMTo: Regulatory GrievancesSubject: MA Revdex.com Complaint # [redacted]
XO Communications ("XO") received complaint # [redacted] filed by [redacted] on his behalf (Complainant"). Dispute is regarding text messages sent and...

received on his cellular telephone from telephone number ###-###-####.
XO takes all such matters very seriously, though actions on an IP Address or telephone number are limited according to our Company’s established protocol, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations, and or State Public Utilities Commission (PUC) rules in place for Telecommunications Carriers.
It is XO Communication's practice to provide any and all possible assistance/information to the law enforcement agency directly responsible for the investigation of suspected/alleged fraudulent solicitations and/or harassing calls:
·         Subpoena Required For XO’s Release of Call Records/Contents For Issues Other Than an Immediate Life Threatening Issue
XO Legal Compliance Emergency Life and Death, 24x7 On-Call Support for Law Enforcement:
·         Primary:    ###-###-####
·         Backup 1:  ###-###-####
·         Backup 2:  ###-###-####
Contact information for subpoenas: 
Fax:  ###-###-####
XO Communications Services, LLC
Legal Compliance Team
[redacted] Nashville, TN [redacted]
All information above was provided to the Complainant in the effort to resolve this matter, but he advised he would work with his cell phone company.
Sincerely,
Ester M[redacted]
XO Communications, Inc.

XO Communications (“XO”) hereby responds to Complaint ID # [redacted]  filed by [redacted] on behalf of [redacted] Graphics (“Complainant”). Complainant contracted for bundled services with XO via a service order agreement (“SOA”) signed 6-9-2009 for 3 year renewable terms....

 XO processed partial port out request in December 2015, January and February 2016 to transfer multiple telephone numbers (“TNs”) to a new service provider.  Due to an outstanding balance the remaining services were disconnected for nonpayment in April 2016.   Complainant contacted XO in October 2016 requesting Toll Free number ###-###-#### be reactivated to allow porting to a new carrier.  According to XO records, XO is no longer the carrier for the toll free number.  It was explained that the number disconnected back in April 2016.  Per industry standards, XO holds the toll free number for 90 days, after the 90 day period the toll free number is available to any carrier.  As of August 2016; the toll free number is being serviced by Comet Media Inc.   XO has communicated the above information to the Complainant.       Sincerely, Teresa M[redacted]XO Communications###-###-####  Tell us why here...

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

From: M[redacted], Ester Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 2:04 PMTo: Regulatory Grievances <[email protected]>Subject: Revdex.com Complaint #[redacted]- [redacted]
 
XO Communications (“XO”) hereby responds to Complaint # [redacted] filed by [redacted] on behalf of [redacted]...

[redacted] (“Complainant”) disputing Early Termination Liability (ETL) fees.
 
Complainant signed a 3 year renewable termed Service Order Agreement for 1.5M DIA that was effective 2/9/2015 and billed on account # [redacted].
 
Complainant reported their service down on 3/3/2015. XO generated trouble ticket # [redacted] to investigate the issue, but found no trouble. XO offered a billable dispatch to prove out the issue, but the offer was declined by the Complainant and trouble ticket was closed on 3/4/2015. XO received another call from the Complainant on 5/18/2015, but was quickly advised the wrong carrier was called. No ticket opened at that time and no other trouble reports found for this company.
 
XO reached out to the Complainant regarding payment for the 2/10/2015, 3/10/2015 and 4/10/2015 invoices.  Complainant paid full amount due on 5/6/2015.
 
When Complainant contacted XO on 7/23/2015 to inquire about disconnecting service prior to the end of their current SOA terms, XO advised ETL charges would be assessed and made. Order (PSR # [redacted]) was generated for the disconnect request that completed effective 9/7/2015 leaving 29 months in term.
 
After unsuccessful attempts to obtain full payment of $989.98 from Complainant for services rendered on the 5/10/2015, 6/10/2015,7/10/2015 and 8/10/2015 invoices, this amount remains outstanding. ETL charges in the amount of $5,384.69 were assessed per terms and conditions of the current SOA found at www.terms.xo.com and XO deems to be valid.
 
To ensure the Complainant is aware of the due amount, XO reached out to advise. XO agrees to review any additional information provided from the Complainant, but at this time, the full amount of $6,374.67 is validly due.
 
Sincerely,
 
 
Ester M[redacted]
XO Communications, Inc.

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

From: Ester M[redacted] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 10:24 AMTo: Regulatory GrievancesSubject: Revdex.com Complaint # [redacted] Inc
XO Communications ("XO") received complaint # [redacted] filed by [redacted] on behalf of [redacted] Inc. (Complainant"). Complaint is disputing billing for a...

circuit that should no longer be invoiced on account # [redacted].
Complainant acquired the circuit in dispute from Fusion Storm Inc. and transferred it to XO via change of ownership. The Dedicated Internet Access (DIA) circuit began billing with XO effective 11/21/2013 on account # [redacted].  Complainant advised XO that another transfer of ownership for this circuit was needed. Complainant signed the required Change of Ownership request form on 6/20/2014 to transfer the DIA circuit to the new assuming party, however; that party did not sign the form until 7/24/2014. Once XO received the countersigned forms, orders (PSR #[redacted] and [redacted]) were entered to complete the ownership change from [redacted] to the assuming party for the DIA. The orders completed in billing effective 10/6/2014, showing the transfer date of 8/29/2014.  Backdated credit was reflected on the 11/1/2014 invoice. After further discussion with the Complainant, XO was made aware the requested due date for the transfer was 8/1/2014.
In the effort to resolve this matter fully, XO has entered an adjustment to credit account # [redacted] from 8/1/2014 to 8/29/2014.  This credit should reflect on the 1/1/2015 invoice. XO will continue to work with the Complainant until this matter is fully resolved. Complainant contacted and made aware.
Sincerely,
Ester M[redacted]
XO Communications, Inc.