Another real-world business porting nightmare — this time involving Goodcall Housecalls, who attempted to move a wireless number from AT&T Wireless to AT&T Office@Hand (powered by RingCentral). Despite being an in-house transfer, the process turned into a multi-month saga of rejected PINs, contradictory instructions, and endless delays. What should have been a simple port became yet another example of how telecom bureaucracy can bring a business to its knees.
Customer’s Original Email
(Number redacted to xxx-xxx-4230)
Good afternoon, Curtis and Robert,
I am writing this email to express my extreme frustration with the process of switching from AT&T wireless to Office@Hand. I have never experienced anything like what I have been going through with this transition process. To say it has been seamless, as implied in our initial discussions, is an extreme understatement. If we did not need to port the number regardless, I would have chosen another company. I need to know what is going to be done from this point forward to get this number ported over!
“We were told our two active account emails were ‘inactive’ and had to create a new one — then wait 30 days to request the PIN.”
I sent an email 2 days ago in response to a PIN, I updated the PIN once I received it and am still being told it is incorrect. I need someone to take responsibility and drive this home.
At the very least, I am asking that we remove any remaining fees owed on the xxx-xxx-4230 number, credit last month’s payment as this should not have taken another 30 days to try and port, as well as remove the onboarding fee of $150 for Office@Hand. I have taught myself and set up the system for use as is with assigned numbers.
Key Failures in the Process
- Unclear PIN requirements – We were never told there was a separate transfer PIN that had to be requested. We wasted a month trying various known account PINs, with four failed attempts, before learning the real requirement.
- Broken automated systems – The *PORT (*7678) shortcut does not work (confirmed by Curtis). Account access loops prevented us from generating the PIN online.
- Email restrictions – AT&T claimed our two active account emails were “inactive” and required creating a new one, then waiting 30 days to request the PIN. This forced us to keep paying for unused service.
- Multiple department runaround – After finally reaching the risk management department, we were told to pay off the account balance before receiving a PIN — a new requirement not mentioned earlier.
- Misleading confirmations – After being told an email was sent with the PIN, nothing arrived. Another rep later admitted no emails were sent the previous week.
- PIN rejection even after confirmation – Once the correct PIN was entered into Office@Hand, the port request was still rejected as “incorrect” two days later. No follow-up response was provided.
“We have been trying to get this going for over a month and have exhausted our resources to port this line.”
Please respond with what actions AT&T will take to remedy this situation and help us get this number ported ASAP.
Regards,
Tanisha Nowak
Chief Technology Officer
Goodcall Housecalls
Timeline of the Porting Attempt
- May 2025: Initial attempts to port the number begin. Customer (Tanisha Nowak) and COO (Cassandra D’Addio) try all known AT&T account PINs without success. AT&T assistance is requested to troubleshoot. The number is temporarily forwarded to Office@Hand, but the goal is to display the main number — still pending.
- June 16–23, 2025: First formal PIN requests fail. Customers told to call *PORT (*7678) — non-functional — or use broken account portal loops.
- June 26–July 3: Same PIN (993310) resubmitted multiple times, repeatedly rejected. AT&T cites “incorrect PIN” despite confirmations from both sides.
- July 7–14: Office@Hand claims they’re “waiting on losing carrier” — which is also AT&T. Multiple escalations yield no progress.
- July 31: Credit request for $232.04 (onboarding fee + two months MRC) submitted; RDS ticket opened. Port still incomplete.
- Early August: Customer still chasing updates — now more than two months after the process began.
Analysis & Commentary
This case shows that even when porting within the same brand — AT&T Wireless to AT&T Office@Hand — the process can be just as slow, error-prone, and inconsistent as moving between competing carriers.
The key problems here were:
- Lack of clear, up-front requirements for transfer PINs.
- System errors and dead-end automation.
- Contradictory instructions across departments.
- Failure to follow through on promised actions.
“We should not be waiting another week!”
For a small business, this meant months of disruption, extra costs, and wasted time — all for something that should have been routine.
Takeaways for Businesses
- Confirm porting requirements before beginning the process.
- Document every interaction — names, departments, and case numbers matter.
- Request fee waivers and credits when delays are the provider’s fault.
- Don’t assume same-company transfers will be easier than switching providers.
- If you’re an AT&T business customer, learn how to get your AT&T Business Transfer PIN before starting a port to save time and avoid rejection.
For another example of how telecom failures impact real businesses, read our Comcast Porting Failure Case Study involving number transfer delays and misleading service practices.