Cingular Reps
Ok any Cingular reps reading this, I would like your input on the situation that happened to me yesterday in a Cingular corporate store.
I went in because I wanted to port a number from an account in my name with another carrier, to an account with Cingular that is not in my name. Basically I was trying to do an add a line to an existing family plan, and it happened to be a port in.
My question is this: Is getting an activation with a higher MRC so much more valuable than an add a sub in terms of commission that it justifies blatant lying to a customer?
When I explained to the girl working there what I wanted to do, she informed me that since I was trying to port with different names, that it was not possible to bring my number di...
(continues)
I went in because I wanted to port a number from an account in my name with another carrier, to an account with Cingular that is not in my name. Basically I was trying to do an add a line to an existing family plan, and it happened to be a port in.
My question is this: Is getting an activation with a higher MRC so much more valuable than an add a sub in terms of commission that it justifies blatant lying to a customer?
When I explained to the girl working there what I wanted to do, she informed me that since I was trying to port with different names, that it was not possible to bring my number di...
(continues)
...
Well,
Based on your information the goal was not to raise the MRC, therefore your premise of the intent of her actions is inaccurate.
If she would have said 30 days, 60 days, 6 months, etc. I might agree with you but 72 hours wouldn't accomplish the goal you imply.
Sales reps get paid based on rate plans but also get hit on downgrades.
She was probably extremely uneducated. Official port rules say you can't do what you tried, but anyone with experience knows it can be done.
Was she ignorant, yes.
Did she try to mislead based on the goal of what you imply, I doubt it.
Based on your information the goal was not to raise the MRC, therefore your premise of the intent of her actions is inaccurate.
If she would have said 30 days, 60 days, 6 months, etc. I might agree with you but 72 hours wouldn't accomplish the goal you imply.
Sales reps get paid based on rate plans but also get hit on downgrades.
She was probably extremely uneducated. Official port rules say you can't do what you tried, but anyone with experience knows it can be done.
Was she ignorant, yes.
Did she try to mislead based on the goal of what you imply, I doubt it.
...
texaswireless said:
....Was she ignorant, yes.
Did she try to mislead based on the goal of what you imply, I doubt it.
WTF?
Why does she have to be ignorant?
Because she works by the rules? Because she follows the guidelines? I don't think so. Give me a break.
Talking about shady? Well, whoever activated this guy's phone at the second store sure did that!
...
Because he did the port with the account owner present?
That isn't shady. That is ok by the rules. The original issue was the NPAC didn't know how to do them and that has been overcome.
I say she was ignorant because she wasn't aware something could be done.
That isn't shady. That is ok by the rules. The original issue was the NPAC didn't know how to do them and that has been overcome.
I say she was ignorant because she wasn't aware something could be done.
...
You do know policy states that a port cannot be done unless the new account holder name and ss# are the same as the existing info correct? That is considered fraud if you activate break that policy...
...
No, policy states the old and new account owners must be present at the time the port begins. Why do you think opus lets you run credit in one name, while putting a different name where the port information goes??? It's not just there for the cool asthetics...
...
nope, check policy...our system will allow you to bypass as well, but if you check the policy, you will find that you are required to have the exact same info...
...
well even so, you port it in, and then do a tos when the port is complete, which is usually within a few hours max..
...
Show me where that process is detailed that you must port it in on the same name then do a TOS.
Now that you have started to be specific it can't just be interpretation. If you have a process that you state is policy where is it written (port in using same name then TOS)?
Now that you have started to be specific it can't just be interpretation. If you have a process that you state is policy where is it written (port in using same name then TOS)?
...
Did two today, nextel and house phone were in wives name, ported into husbands acct. Both went through almost right away, with no prob.
Both the nextel, and the verizon home phone were in the wives name.
The cinguar acct was in the husbands name.
So thats that. O yea, I looked at port policies today too... it doesn't specify anywhere in the sales ops that both accts have to be in the same name. simply that you must have the correct name in the correct spaces on the computer so it isn't rejected.
Both the nextel, and the verizon home phone were in the wives name.
The cinguar acct was in the husbands name.
So thats that. O yea, I looked at port policies today too... it doesn't specify anywhere in the sales ops that both accts have to be in the same name. simply that you must have the correct name in the correct spaces on the computer so it isn't rejected.
...
It's interesting hearing what people think about Cingular Reps. I work in customer service, and am sorry to say that a lot of times we just have not been informed of "new rules" and ways of doing things. With ATT what I was told was that BOTH accounts had to have the same name on them.
The store rep most likely was not lying, but going with the information she had. I get very frustrated by our customers, but I know that's part of what my job entails. My worst frustration comes with the way the company is run. Rez specialists & managers don't even seem to know how to get things done or what our new policies are, and the customer always ends up suffering.
Not an excuse, just adding my 2 cents and letting you all know that misinform...
(continues)
The store rep most likely was not lying, but going with the information she had. I get very frustrated by our customers, but I know that's part of what my job entails. My worst frustration comes with the way the company is run. Rez specialists & managers don't even seem to know how to get things done or what our new policies are, and the customer always ends up suffering.
Not an excuse, just adding my 2 cents and letting you all know that misinform...
(continues)
...
well in store, we can always use the tos agreement form... get them both to sign it, then just port it right onto the existing acct... just skipped a step with actually creating their own acct.
...
If John Doe comes in a ports his number to his wifes name, Jane Doe, and then she imediately ports that number back to cingular in her name would that be a new activation with cingular? I am asking because it would no longer be in the same name or SS# as the old cingular act and since it was ported to TM in between, it looks like a new activation coming in to cingular.
...
John Doe comes in a ports his number to his wifes name, Jane Doe, and then she imediately ports that number back to cingular in her name would that be a new activation with cingular? I am asking because it would no longer be in the same name or SS# as the old cingular act and since it was ported to TM in between, it looks like a new activation coming in to cingular.
...
not true... if you port your number out, you have to wait 2 months until your number is dropped from the system before you can come back. numbers are tracked, not ss#.
o yea.... ported another today with diff names. came from nextel, from fathers name, to cingular with wifes name... worked fine in just over 20 min.
o yea.... ported another today with diff names. came from nextel, from fathers name, to cingular with wifes name... worked fine in just over 20 min.
...
There is no policy that states that. The FCC requires that account ownership be verified and permission given to request the ported number.
When WLNP was first released there were issues with the NPACs not releasing numbers as info didn't match. Since that time an area for notes was added (so you could enter identifying information) and account info on the port request form could be edited.
If you have some local store policy fine, but neither the FCC nor Cingular state it must go from and to accounts in the same name.
When WLNP was first released there were issues with the NPACs not releasing numbers as info didn't match. Since that time an area for notes was added (so you could enter identifying information) and account info on the port request form could be edited.
If you have some local store policy fine, but neither the FCC nor Cingular state it must go from and to accounts in the same name.
...
My statement is that it IS policy, you have the right to disagree, but I will disagree with your statement everytime, so agree to disagree...
...
So as I have asked in other threads, show me and the others you so easily accuse of being unethical where it is written. YOu can easily access CSP if you are indeed a Cingular rep (or agent rep) and can cite the job aid.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and researched more this morning. I have reviewed every CSP job aid regarding WLNP. There is no restriction you state. Furthermore your argument that it hurt the customer who owned the original number show a lack of comprehension, considering the poster WAS THE ORIGINAL OWNER and HIS WIFE was the account to which the port was being made.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and researched more this morning. I have reviewed every CSP job aid regarding WLNP. There is no restriction you state. Furthermore your argument that it hurt the customer who owned the original number show a lack of comprehension, considering the poster WAS THE ORIGINAL OWNER and HIS WIFE was the account to which the port was being made.
...
#43863
Guidelines for Cingular customers wanting to switch carriers and port their number
This resolution will provide the guidelines for customers who wish to switch to Cingular from another carrier and port their number.
--------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Cingular customers are able to port their number if they meet the following requirements:
Customer information on the port request sent to Cingular from the other carrier must match the information in our billing system.
Cingular verifies against 4 fields on the wireless port request prior to confirming port out requests: mobile number, password (if one is required), SSN/Tax ID and billing account number (requir...
(continues)
Guidelines for Cingular customers wanting to switch carriers and port their number
This resolution will provide the guidelines for customers who wish to switch to Cingular from another carrier and port their number.
--------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Cingular customers are able to port their number if they meet the following requirements:
Customer information on the port request sent to Cingular from the other carrier must match the information in our billing system.
Cingular verifies against 4 fields on the wireless port request prior to confirming port out requests: mobile number, password (if one is required), SSN/Tax ID and billing account number (requir...
(continues)
...
This is in regards to a port request going from Cingular to another carrier AND it does not state identity must be the same. It only states the info must match (which is why they allow info to be edited).
Try again.
Try again.
...
I agree with Tex. That's the policy for other carriers who are requesting to port out of Cingular.
...
I spent an hour this morning researching this to be sure I was doing and teaching the proper policy. If someone is so adamant I am willing to research and make sure I am not wrong.
There is nothing in CSP that explicitly states identification must be the same. There is also nothing that implies identification must be the same. It simply states verbal authorization is required from account owner. When account owner and Cingular account are seperate persons identity and permission must be given by both and is perfectly acceptable.
I have no idea why this guy thinks this is immoral as well. Both customers were there. I don't get it.
There is nothing in CSP that explicitly states identification must be the same. There is also nothing that implies identification must be the same. It simply states verbal authorization is required from account owner. When account owner and Cingular account are seperate persons identity and permission must be given by both and is perfectly acceptable.
I have no idea why this guy thinks this is immoral as well. Both customers were there. I don't get it.
...
That's what I've found this morning as well.
If it's against policy, I still feel it's the right thing to since it saves the customer money. It's also astounding that we're allowed to change the entire OSP account information on a port request, including the name, address, and social security number if this isn't allowed.
If it's against policy, I still feel it's the right thing to since it saves the customer money. It's also astounding that we're allowed to change the entire OSP account information on a port request, including the name, address, and social security number if this isn't allowed.
...
The system allows you to do anything you want to as you are trusted to be responsible, do you or do you not have the ABILITY in the sytstem to violate a policy if you chose to do so? You can't actually tell me that you are blocked from doing anything against the rules?
...
I'm blocked from making an immediate price plan change. I have to call in to have it done, unless I'm going from a single line to a familytalk plan. I can't change an account holders name. I can't view their social. I can't change the name that displays on their caller ID, I can only choose if it displays the account holders name, "wireless caller", or nothing at all.
If we weren't meant to be able to change the name on the OSP field in a port-in request, we wouldn't be able to do so.
If we weren't meant to be able to change the name on the OSP field in a port-in request, we wouldn't be able to do so.
...
My question again to you was if there was anything you COULD do that is against policy? Not "Please name all things you cannot do that are policies". Can you create a family talk rate plan from a standalone and add a new line as the base to get the full commission? Can you activate a standalone as a family talk to avoid the $36 act fee and only get $18 charge (doesn't matter now that fee changed)? These are the types of things you CAN do that are against policy but you have the full ability to do. By the way, company owned associates have much more access...
...
Instead of just saying no to your question, I tried to be detailed. There are ways I could try to trick the system, but I never have and never will. When a box says "Old service provider information", I enter it there. I'm not doing anything sneaky at all. There's also no verification that this is even a policy. If it indeed is a policy you can bet something will change, be that either our POS system or the policy itself.
...
So you are saying that the social security number being the same does not matter? That would constitue the name being the same I believe and it IS Cingular policy as you see. If another carrier does not uphold this it is their decision, you agree that Ciingular states this must happen? You found the guidelines on csp? Still argue?
...
According to the Policy you posted as reference.
If another company sends us a port-out request, the information provided in the request must match what we have on their account.
That's all it applies to. When we send a port-in request, the information we send must match what that company has on their customers account. Where does it say that the port-in request must match the information of the account it's being added to?
If another company sends us a port-out request, the information provided in the request must match what we have on their account.
That's all it applies to. When we send a port-in request, the information we send must match what that company has on their customers account. Where does it say that the port-in request must match the information of the account it's being added to?
...
Hmmmm, where did I say SSN does not matter.
Are you just pulling things out of thin air?
That policy is what Cingular requires to release a number. The SSN, name, account number, etc. must be verified. THE NEW SPRINT, VERIZON, ETC. ACCOUNT INFORMATION IS NOT DISCLOSED TO CINGULAR. When the carrier makes the request they must verify the info. That is it. Cingular does the same thing. When I submit an port request I must tell the NPAC the customer's existing info. I am require by LAW AND ETHICS to obtain legitimate authorization from the account owner.
I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that there was some local or state law causing the requirements that you state but you can't prove it and you insist that not ...
(continues)
Are you just pulling things out of thin air?
That policy is what Cingular requires to release a number. The SSN, name, account number, etc. must be verified. THE NEW SPRINT, VERIZON, ETC. ACCOUNT INFORMATION IS NOT DISCLOSED TO CINGULAR. When the carrier makes the request they must verify the info. That is it. Cingular does the same thing. When I submit an port request I must tell the NPAC the customer's existing info. I am require by LAW AND ETHICS to obtain legitimate authorization from the account owner.
I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that there was some local or state law causing the requirements that you state but you can't prove it and you insist that not ...
(continues)
...
Just curious,
If John Doe comes in a ports his number to his wifes name, Jane Doe, and then she imediately ports that number back to cingular in her name would that be a new activation with cingular? I am asking because it would no longer be in the same name or SS# as the old cingular act and since it was ported to TM in between, it looks like a new activation coming in to cingular.
If John Doe comes in a ports his number to his wifes name, Jane Doe, and then she imediately ports that number back to cingular in her name would that be a new activation with cingular? I am asking because it would no longer be in the same name or SS# as the old cingular act and since it was ported to TM in between, it looks like a new activation coming in to cingular.
...
exactly, like i said in the previous post, this is the reason you can run credit under one name, and change the port information to match the porting customers name.. We do it quite frequently in my store as long as both parties are present. And yes we verify the information of the old account holder before we process the port. Tex, I'm glad someone around here reads the policies 😁
...
Isn't this what you say about every representative for your organization that performs poorly?
Geeze, you sound like a broken record when it comes to making excuses for the poor service and poor quality of representatives for Cingular.
Geeze, you sound like a broken record when it comes to making excuses for the poor service and poor quality of representatives for Cingular.
...
Well, you notoriously quote other posts, I can't believe you didn't on this one.
What exactly are you bloviating about now? That I said she was uneducated? That I said her intent doesn't sound like an attempt to defraud but that of someone ignorant of the policies? Did I apologize for her apparent lack of knowledge? Stop being so vague and get to the point.
Now that you made me re-read my original post I did discover one error. I stated it was against "Official Port Rules". After further investigation the option he wanted done is not against any rules. It has nothing to do with your question but I need to correct myself.
What exactly are you bloviating about now? That I said she was uneducated? That I said her intent doesn't sound like an attempt to defraud but that of someone ignorant of the policies? Did I apologize for her apparent lack of knowledge? Stop being so vague and get to the point.
Now that you made me re-read my original post I did discover one error. I stated it was against "Official Port Rules". After further investigation the option he wanted done is not against any rules. It has nothing to do with your question but I need to correct myself.
...
I've had the porting department tell me the same thing as the first store told you.
Normally I can do everything myself from my point of sale system, but on one day my computers were down and I had to call in to get things done. Our port center said that it could not be done, when I've personally done it more times than I can remember. Instead of arguing, I hung up and called one of my stores whos computers WERE working, and had them put it through. There were no problems.
The only important thing when porting a number into a different name is making sure the original customers social is shown in the port request, and not the new customer's. It's easy peasy.
Normally I can do everything myself from my point of sale system, but on one day my computers were down and I had to call in to get things done. Our port center said that it could not be done, when I've personally done it more times than I can remember. Instead of arguing, I hung up and called one of my stores whos computers WERE working, and had them put it through. There were no problems.
The only important thing when porting a number into a different name is making sure the original customers social is shown in the port request, and not the new customer's. It's easy peasy.
...
ralph_on_me said:
The only important thing when porting a number into a different name is making sure the original customers social is shown in the port request, and not the new customer's. It's easy peasy.
Ok, so whatever happen to credit check? Identity theft maybe? Are you saying that someone can just go to your store, and add a number from X carrier to MY account? Because if you are I sure as hell want to cancel my Cingular line (AND I WORK FOR CINGULAR -in a call center- I really have no idea what you guys are doing in the stores..... but I'm scared now.....)
...
Customer A comes in and says "I want to add my friend, B, on to my account and they're with another carrier." Customer A is a current customer, so I pull up his account and run an evaluation for an extra line. I comes back with no deposit, so I tell customers A and B that we can do it. I ask customer B what their phone number is, what their current account number is, what their current billing address is, what their social security number is, and then I get a copy of their ID. (Any chance for fraud in that? Nope.) I port the number over into Customer A's account, get a photo copy of A's ID since it's a new activation, and then I'm done. Customer A signs the service agreement since it's in their name, and the world is a happier place.
...
(continues)
...
(continues)
...
What you write here is what I had always believed all along -- why should there be a need to setup anything establishing myself for Cingular if my number is going to be under someone else's name/account? If they are present with me to sign the contract and accept liability, then what is the big deal? I can understand over the phone why it would be a bigger issue, but I don't understand why it should be a problem in person.
I think the reason I respond with such anger is that I've seen other exploitations of customers in situations similar to this -- some friends already on Cingular wanting to do a transfer of liability of their lines to someone else's account also with Cingular were told they could not keep their numbers (coincidently t...
(continues)
I think the reason I respond with such anger is that I've seen other exploitations of customers in situations similar to this -- some friends already on Cingular wanting to do a transfer of liability of their lines to someone else's account also with Cingular were told they could not keep their numbers (coincidently t...
(continues)
...
Look guy,
If you have had a bad experience then so be it, but try not to lump everyone into the fraud pool.
You assume it happens and get angry when in actuality it didn't. Yes there are stores across all carriers that cross the line. If you feel like you need to report them. That store will be sanctioned and/or closed so fast (if they are a Cingular agent) you won't need to worry about it.
You'll feel better if you don't dwell on the bad. Less ulcers 😁
If you have had a bad experience then so be it, but try not to lump everyone into the fraud pool.
You assume it happens and get angry when in actuality it didn't. Yes there are stores across all carriers that cross the line. If you feel like you need to report them. That store will be sanctioned and/or closed so fast (if they are a Cingular agent) you won't need to worry about it.
You'll feel better if you don't dwell on the bad. Less ulcers 😁
...
What you were told was wrong, and I'm sorry you had that experience. I don't treat customers like that to make a quick buck. They could've transferred liability into another name and kept their numbers.
There are always situations that can make this into a process instead of a simple step, but I always explain that to my customers. If they want to do a COFR and anything slows it down, I tell them that we can immediately get them a new number on that account, or follow these steps to get the same number onto their account. They usually opt for the slower method, and I'm happy to do it.
There are always situations that can make this into a process instead of a simple step, but I always explain that to my customers. If they want to do a COFR and anything slows it down, I tell them that we can immediately get them a new number on that account, or follow these steps to get the same number onto their account. They usually opt for the slower method, and I'm happy to do it.
...
The key here is that you [b]offer them the choice[/b] you don't jut make the pronouncement that "that's the way it is". That makes a world of difference to everyone involved.
😈
😈
...
There are always ways around policies, but that does not make it right to do it...
...
Ok, where in CSP does it say that? Give me the job aid number or page number or anything.
...
#43863
Guidelines for Cingular customers wanting to switch carriers and port their number
This resolution will provide the guidelines for customers who wish to switch to Cingular from another carrier and port their number.
--------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Cingular customers are able to port their number if they meet the following requirements:
Customer information on the port request sent to Cingular from the other carrier must match the information in our billing system.
Cingular verifies against 4 fields on the wireless port request prior to confirming port out requests: mobile number, password (if one is required), SSN/Tax ID and billing account number (required field...
(continues)
Guidelines for Cingular customers wanting to switch carriers and port their number
This resolution will provide the guidelines for customers who wish to switch to Cingular from another carrier and port their number.
--------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Cingular customers are able to port their number if they meet the following requirements:
Customer information on the port request sent to Cingular from the other carrier must match the information in our billing system.
Cingular verifies against 4 fields on the wireless port request prior to confirming port out requests: mobile number, password (if one is required), SSN/Tax ID and billing account number (required field...
(continues)
...
In all fairness, the quoted article does say "This resolution will provide the guidelines for customers who wish to switch [b]to Cingular[/b] from another carrier and port their number." (emphasis mine)
However, that one line is the only place where it talks about porting IN cingular. Everything else is a cingular customer porting OUT. Looks like a typo in the summary, to me. But then, if you actually READ the article you were posting, you might have seen that.
If anything, I agree this supports the argument that Tex and ralph have been making.
FWIW, when I was working in customer service, there was at least one occasion where I absolutely swore I was reading the procedures, I even copied and pasted the applicable policy; just be...
(continues)
However, that one line is the only place where it talks about porting IN cingular. Everything else is a cingular customer porting OUT. Looks like a typo in the summary, to me. But then, if you actually READ the article you were posting, you might have seen that.
If anything, I agree this supports the argument that Tex and ralph have been making.
FWIW, when I was working in customer service, there was at least one occasion where I absolutely swore I was reading the procedures, I even copied and pasted the applicable policy; just be...
(continues)
...
sorry I keep forgetting that this forum uses >b< not [b] to bold things.... grumble...
😈
😈
...
check it again, it is...could you give 1 valid reason why it isn't or shouldn't be?
...
It's not policy.
One valid reason why it's not is because it creates phantom churn. Another reason is because it creates more paperwork, more fees, and it overpays the agent/rep who wouldn't do the port the right way the first time.
One valid reason why it's not is because it creates phantom churn. Another reason is because it creates more paperwork, more fees, and it overpays the agent/rep who wouldn't do the port the right way the first time.
...
Cingular account is in husbands name, Verizon account is in wife's name, they want to port to the same carrier.
Verizon account is in father's name, daughter needs service in a non-Verizon area and wishes to keep number and switch to Cingular.
Mom has account with Verizon and one of her kids wishes to get a phone with Cingular and put it in her name.
That is 3 reasons. I could go on all day.
In all instances both parties were present and gave permission for transaction to take place. Per FCC WLNP rules (the same rules that require identity of account ownership to be verified during changes of wireless and LD services) identity and permission of account holder was obtained and per Cingular rules identity of new customer was veri...
(continues)
Verizon account is in father's name, daughter needs service in a non-Verizon area and wishes to keep number and switch to Cingular.
Mom has account with Verizon and one of her kids wishes to get a phone with Cingular and put it in her name.
That is 3 reasons. I could go on all day.
In all instances both parties were present and gave permission for transaction to take place. Per FCC WLNP rules (the same rules that require identity of account ownership to be verified during changes of wireless and LD services) identity and permission of account holder was obtained and per Cingular rules identity of new customer was veri...
(continues)
...
When the porting process first began a while back, it would have been neccesary to create an account with the the port-in users information, and then perform a transfer of service/add to master bill with that account into the friends existing account. This was because the cingular side of the information had to match the port-in side.
Now a days the system cares only about the account number and the mobile number matching (for MOST carriers, you can even get around that with Alltel #s).
It is not required that it be ported into an account with the same account holder information, it is only required that you have a verbal authorization by the port account holder. Anyone who took training on the port process should know this by heart...
(continues)
Now a days the system cares only about the account number and the mobile number matching (for MOST carriers, you can even get around that with Alltel #s).
It is not required that it be ported into an account with the same account holder information, it is only required that you have a verbal authorization by the port account holder. Anyone who took training on the port process should know this by heart...
(continues)
...
It IS required that the port-in name and social security number match the new account name...
...
But they would get dropped to the lower commission if they switched within 72 hours. It is highly unlikely she was trying to manipulate the tier system if she said wait 72 hours. It would do no good.
As far as your port explanation, dead on!
As far as your port explanation, dead on!
...
The first associate did not lie to you about the port issue, they followed exactly as required to do by policy. The associate that completed it for you blatantly disregarded the rules that are there for the protection of the customer and the associate. It is just these reps that create customer issues because of their greed for money. And anyone wonders why Cingular is last in customer service? (lack of consistency in what is said/done). Your "anger" (other reply) stated that reps cancelled current accounts and activated new accounts to get activations and that is exactly the shady issue that your rep completed for you.
...
So please explain for us exactly which customer was unprotected by this issue?
...
The customer that held the original account with the other carrier of course. I would be curious to know what policies you follow when in customer service situations to access information. (i.e. authorized users/verification methods/unauthorized customers) We can all "trick" the system in every situation to make money in situations where it is not right. We can all "slam" features on customers, we can all disconnect "no contract" customer to get new adds, but what proceudres/values do YOU uphold to protect YOUR customers (you may get their business now, but they will never return and you will never INCREASE your revenue unless you keep your customer base and BUILD on it). Are you selling for the future or the moment?
...
But, according to the original poster, that customer was HIM! How does HE hurt HIMSELF?
Don't turn this into a values post, you didn't even read the original post or you didn't bother to understand said post.
Don't turn this into a values post, you didn't even read the original post or you didn't bother to understand said post.
...
He said that the other customer was present (actual account holder with other carrier) and he wanted it ported into his name. Calm down.
...
vice-versa sorry, other customer was intended port account holder and was present account holder
...
Sooooooooooo, who was harmed?
Account holder with original account and account holder of current account were both present with desires to complete this process.
WHO WAS HURT?
Account holder with original account and account holder of current account were both present with desires to complete this process.
WHO WAS HURT?
...
Homestar Runner said:
I went in because I wanted to port a number from an account in my name
...
Do you want me to offer suggestions as to what someone could do criminally? It protects all 3 individuals and this is just getting a little too minuscule and detailed to continue...My point is that it IS policy (and written) that you must port using the same customer to protect all parties involved, nothing more.
...
How is it criminal if someone requests that their number be given to another person? Our customer validation policies more than adequately identify the persons involved.
We can't find a "policy" on this anywhere, written or anything. I've contacted my RAE and I'm awaiting a detailed response. It is not written anywhere that the port-in request must match what is on the account. There is no need to run a credit evaluation for a person who never intends to have service under their name, and furthermore charge them fees that they shouldn't have to pay in the first place.
We can't find a "policy" on this anywhere, written or anything. I've contacted my RAE and I'm awaiting a detailed response. It is not written anywhere that the port-in request must match what is on the account. There is no need to run a credit evaluation for a person who never intends to have service under their name, and furthermore charge them fees that they shouldn't have to pay in the first place.
...
Guidelines #43863 on csp (this gudeline is posted as a response in other conversations)
...
THAT DOES NOT STATE WHAT YOU SAY.
It isn't even a policy that covers the topic at hand. It covers porting out to another carrier, not porting in. It says info must be verified, not that the account holder with the old and new carrier must be the same.
You are making an extremely conservative interpretation of a policy for which Cingular management does not agree. IT IS THEIR POLICY.
It isn't even a policy that covers the topic at hand. It covers porting out to another carrier, not porting in. It says info must be verified, not that the account holder with the old and new carrier must be the same.
You are making an extremely conservative interpretation of a policy for which Cingular management does not agree. IT IS THEIR POLICY.
...
and that guideline wasn't applicable! Did you read the response to it? That is Cingular's policy about port-out requests.
...
Anyone can do anything criminally, but you keep failing to acknowledge can both account holders were present and ID verified.
Why the vendetta?
Why the vendetta?
...
Doesn't matter, rules are rules for standardization purpose. There is always a fine line possible in everything situation, you either cross or avoid, each employee makes their decision of interpretation. There could be 50 account holders and it wouldn't change the policy...
...
Rules are rules? Yet you say it is in writing and can't post even a shred of proof.
You posted a policy about what Cingular needs to port out a number, something that didn't even apply to the argument.
Don't throw around the "unethical" and "immoral" statements unless you want to back them up. You mislead customers that way.
Instead of backing it up you are just backing down.
You posted a policy about what Cingular needs to port out a number, something that didn't even apply to the argument.
Don't throw around the "unethical" and "immoral" statements unless you want to back them up. You mislead customers that way.
Instead of backing it up you are just backing down.
...
I have stated my stance and stand behind it, but this will be the last response to this issue as the remarks became reptitive 30 or 40 posts ago and I have been concise and consistent in my responses to all.
...
But unable to back it up. Unable to explain the logic of why your interpretation is the correct one. Unable to justify who is harmed when both account holders are present and ID verified.
I can say the sky is yellow. It doesn't mean I am correct.
I can say the sky is yellow. It doesn't mean I am correct.
...
You have been consistent in an opinion. You have also consistently posted a source which doesn't back up your statement at all. We have consistently run up against a brick wall in trying to get you to back up your opinion.
...
You have absolutely no basis to come at Tex like that, and if you weren't a new member I'd lay into you for it.
There are no tricks going on. There is a field for the original account holders information and the new account holder. It is intended for a port with a COFR.
There are no tricks going on. There is a field for the original account holders information and the new account holder. It is intended for a port with a COFR.
...
Why don't you "lay into me about that"? Should I feel threatened by a forum where any member can act like superman in writing? Don't be childish. I haven't verbally attacked anyone, and have only stated policy as written and interpretation, as you also have the right to do.
...
You're accusing someone you don't know a thing about of having bad business practices and not caring about the long term growth of his company. If you knew anything about Tex you'd know that's a foolish assumption. If you'd been here longer than two weeks, I wouldn't respect you for thinking that. Since you are new and don't know him, I don't think that of you.
What you should do is read posts more carefully so you don't misinterpret things.
What you should do is read posts more carefully so you don't misinterpret things.
...
I have not accused anyone, I have only stated the policies. You are defensive over discussion of policy.
...
innov8ivewireless said:
And anyone wonders why Cingular is last in customer service? (lack of consistency in what is said/done). Your "anger" (other reply) stated that reps cancelled current accounts and activated new accounts to get activations and that is exactly the shady issue that your rep completed for you.
Maybe its becuase we have as many opinions on the issue as we have cingular reps reading this forum?
One says "it's policy"
Another says "it isn't policy"
Another says "it is policy, but you can work around it"
Another says "it isn't Cingular's policy, or the FCC's policy, but it may be a store-level policy"
Frankly, I trust the most the opinion of the one who says it may be...
(continues)
...
Good post.
I definately agree it might be store policy, and even expanded my statements to say maybe even state policy. I am willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt to prove their point. He said he could back it up and I hoped he would. I would rather have it end up being a "hey, nice to learn other stores/states do it different" that it being something where the other guy backs down because he couldn't back up his statement. It makes Cingular look bad as a whole.
I definately agree it might be store policy, and even expanded my statements to say maybe even state policy. I am willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt to prove their point. He said he could back it up and I hoped he would. I would rather have it end up being a "hey, nice to learn other stores/states do it different" that it being something where the other guy backs down because he couldn't back up his statement. It makes Cingular look bad as a whole.
...
innov8ivewireless said:
The associate that completed it for you blatantly disregarded the rules that are there for the protection of the customer and the associate. It is just these reps that create customer issues because of their greed for money.
fact: You get paid more from a single line activation than a familytalk activation.
fact: The activation fees are higher on a single line activation than on a familytalk.
fact: There is a fee for a COFR or $18.
So, if the first employee activated the phone and did a transfer 72 hours later, the salesman would've made more money and the customer would've had to pay more for activation and a transfer fee on top of that.
Who...
(continues)
...
Bottom line: The shady rep was the one who did the port, not the one who wouldn't. Regardless of the fact that it's possible, it's still illegal to do what you (actually, it was mostly the sales rep) did. It's like speeding; You can speed, but that doesn't mean it's legal. Accounts being ported must have the same account info (name, social, etc) on both sides (I.E. Cingular / Verizon). It's clear as day on CSP for any rep who actually takes the time to look it up. It's also on the FCC's website, but it's rather hard to find. Congrats on getting it done this time, but next time try not to be so hot headed, and actually do your homework first, just like with speeding eventually you'll get caught.
TheGreatRep
TheGreatRep
...
actually do my homework first?
The original people I talked with at Cingular told me all I needed was my SSN, billing address, acct #, and phone #. They said it didn't matter what name the account was in. Out of curiosity I checked with the carrier I brought the number from, and they certainly allow numbers to come in to existing accounts when coming from accounts of different names. It's not as if I walked in ignorant or was trying to break rules. It is hard to just follow what I am being told and accept it when I am told something completely different when I walk into the store. Wouldn't you respond out of frustration when you HAVE researched something and then are told something different?
like speeding I will eventually get ca...
(continues)
The original people I talked with at Cingular told me all I needed was my SSN, billing address, acct #, and phone #. They said it didn't matter what name the account was in. Out of curiosity I checked with the carrier I brought the number from, and they certainly allow numbers to come in to existing accounts when coming from accounts of different names. It's not as if I walked in ignorant or was trying to break rules. It is hard to just follow what I am being told and accept it when I am told something completely different when I walk into the store. Wouldn't you respond out of frustration when you HAVE researched something and then are told something different?
like speeding I will eventually get ca...
(continues)
...
You didn't do anything wrong. Don't let the ignorant people get away with foolish statements.
Good luck man.
Good luck man.
...
Homestar Runner said:...
actually do my homework first?
The original people I talked with at Cingular told me all I needed was my SSN, billing address, acct #, and phone #. They said it didn't matter what name the account was in. Out of curiosity I checked with the carrier I brought the number from, and they certainly allow numbers to come in to existing accounts when coming from accounts of different names. It's not as if I walked in ignorant or was trying to break rules. It is hard to just follow what I am being told and accept it when I am told something completely different when I walk into the store. Wouldn't you respond out of frustration when you HAVE researched something and then are told something different?
(continues)
...
Please post what you see on CSP. Or at least post the job aid number or link.
Thanks
Thanks
...
Ok, I just spoke to my RAE about this issue, and his statement to me is that we are not allowed to transfer service from the OSP into Cingular without the account holder's information matching, to include name, address, and SSN. His statement was that we should port the number into Cingular in the account holder's name, and then if someone else wants the account we would do a Transfer of Service (COFR) to that person. And as I understand it, that process takes roughly 72 hours to complete.
Now, I dont know about the rest of you, but when I have questions about what I can and cannot do as a Cingular agent store manager, I don't go to CSP, I don't go to phonescoop, I dont even go to customer service. I go to my RAE. These are the peop...
(continues)
Now, I dont know about the rest of you, but when I have questions about what I can and cannot do as a Cingular agent store manager, I don't go to CSP, I don't go to phonescoop, I dont even go to customer service. I go to my RAE. These are the peop...
(continues)
...
I usually ask mine also (but not on Saturdays), but he usually has to go ask someone else. They're only human too.
...
So the fact that my RAE says different means what?
When in doubt, default to the policy in writing. And in this case identity and permission of original account holder are at issue. In store we verify identity and gain permission, the NPAC verifies account ownership.
That process used to be the correct procedure until they added the ability to edit the Port Request form and add notes.
When in doubt, default to the policy in writing. And in this case identity and permission of original account holder are at issue. In store we verify identity and gain permission, the NPAC verifies account ownership.
That process used to be the correct procedure until they added the ability to edit the Port Request form and add notes.
...
Tex--
If your RAE says different, then I think we as agents have a serious problem. If the people we are supposed to go to for confirmation on policies and procedures can't agree on those policies and procedures, then there is no way we can ever provide a consistent customer service experience, which as we all know is a major issue for Cingular.
I agree with your assessment of the issue at hand; that is, identity and original account holder permission are most important. I did research this issue on CSP prior to my post, and was unable to find evidence to support either my position, or yours. I found an old job aid on WLNP, dated sometime in early 2004, that was vague at best on the issue. So I called my RAE, and he said what I pos...
(continues)
If your RAE says different, then I think we as agents have a serious problem. If the people we are supposed to go to for confirmation on policies and procedures can't agree on those policies and procedures, then there is no way we can ever provide a consistent customer service experience, which as we all know is a major issue for Cingular.
I agree with your assessment of the issue at hand; that is, identity and original account holder permission are most important. I did research this issue on CSP prior to my post, and was unable to find evidence to support either my position, or yours. I found an old job aid on WLNP, dated sometime in early 2004, that was vague at best on the issue. So I called my RAE, and he said what I pos...
(continues)
...
I definitely think our RAEs aren't as informed as they should be. I'm not making a comment about them, but I am about what they're told. I talk to mine a lot and we have a pretty good working relationship going, and I've dug up some pretty obscure things in the past which he was completely left out of the loop on. I don't think Cingular values them as much as we do.
...
I agree with this 100%. The guy I have as RAE is new to me, my store just underwent a change of agent ownership, and we now have this guy as our RAE, and he is miles better than the other two RAE's I've dealt with. I think one of the biggest problems Cingular has, at least on the agent side, is dissemination of information, to include training of front line sales people. This particular issue demonstrates that pretty clearly, in my opinion.
...
What I reference is the rules regarding WLNP, Wireline LNP and LD switching from the FCC. Since the latter two existed far earlier than Wireless LNP the rules were established at an earlier date than November 2003 (original launch of WLNP).
When WLNP launched you could not submit a request with a different name than the account name, but that was a logistical issue, not a legal or permission issue. The online port request form was edited shortly after (sometime between November 03 and May 04) to allow alternate information to be entered should account names be different. Now if Sally comes in and the account is in Daddy's name, whether she has the right info or not I won't do it without speaking to Daddy. That is based on FCC rules re...
(continues)
When WLNP launched you could not submit a request with a different name than the account name, but that was a logistical issue, not a legal or permission issue. The online port request form was edited shortly after (sometime between November 03 and May 04) to allow alternate information to be entered should account names be different. Now if Sally comes in and the account is in Daddy's name, whether she has the right info or not I won't do it without speaking to Daddy. That is based on FCC rules re...
(continues)
...
Good information, and I appreciate all the detail in your posts. I will definitely talk to him and find out why he says it can't be done.
...
Heh...Welcome to commission sales. Been workin in commission sales for 8+ years. Nothin you can do about shiesty salespeople in the commission world. Although your experience is a bit on the extreme side. Wouldn't take it personally. Some people are just greedy =)
Anyway I woulda had ya fixed up in a matter of 5 minutes by callin port request. Depending on the day and provider switching from ports take no longer than 2-10 minutes in most cases.
You'll Survive =)
Mike
Anyway I woulda had ya fixed up in a matter of 5 minutes by callin port request. Depending on the day and provider switching from ports take no longer than 2-10 minutes in most cases.
You'll Survive =)
Mike
...
