What officials at Cox Communications referred to as a “software glitch” led to 11,400 unlisted numbers being published in the new edition of the phone book. More than 400,000 phone books were sent out before the error was discovered.
But Cox is working to remedy the problem and make sure that it never happens again, said Dan Novak, vice president of programming and communications for Cox.
Although the unlisted numbers appeared in Pacific Bell’s phone books, the problem originated at Cox, which supplied the numbers to Pac Bell. Cox, a communications provider, shares its customer list with Pac Bell.
But the Cox computer system was incompatible with Pac Bell’s network. Cox had to reformat its entire database just to send on the information about its customers, Novak said.
Cox’s database , including whether or not the phone number was unlisted , was correct. However, in converting it to Pacific Bell’s format, the unlisted numbers somehow were included, he said.
After the list was sent to Pacific Bell, Cox still had a chance to catch the errors. But random spot-checking of a representative sample of phone numbers failed to catch the glitch, Novak said.
Cox only found out about it May 4, when customers called to complain, he said.
Cox responded with two offers for its customers. An affected customer can have his or her phone number changed for free, and receive up to two hours of free phone calls to inform family and friends about the change. Another choice is a “privacy package,” which would include caller I.D. and other features, free for one year, Novak said.
Novak noted there are some cases in which publishing an unlisted phone number would severely compromise someone’s safety , for example a woman being stalked by an ex-husband. In these extreme cases, Cox would work with the customers to resolve the situation on a case-by-case basis, he said.
Novak declined to state what special measures Cox would take in these cases, since that might further compromise their customers’ privacy.
Novak did not have figures on how much it would cost to fix the problem. Cox’s primary focus is on resolving the situation, and the question of money “isn’t even on the table,” he said.
Cox has already taken steps to make sure the mistake isn’t repeated, including the purchase of a new software package to handle the data conversion. Also, next year the entire list of numbers will be reviewed, rather than random spot checks, Novak said.
To make sure the problem is solved to everyone’s satisfaction, Cox is working with several consumer organizations, such as the Utility Consumer Action Network and the Better Business Bureau, Novak said.
Charles Carbone, consumer attorney for UCAN, confirmed it has been advising Cox on how to handle the situation. He gave Cox high marks for its quick response.
“They’re attempting to do what no other phone company has done in this situation. And that’s, one, admit they’ve made a massive mistake; two, disclose the mistake in detail; and three, take proactive steps to make sure the harm is mitigated and that it doesn’t happen again,” he said.
