INTEGRETEL VERIZON PHONY BILLING FOR INTEGRETEL NO SERVICES REQUIRED FOR BILLING THROUGH VERIZON ripoff SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA

I had never heard of Integretel previously until I discovered their bill on the back of my last Verizon local phone service bill.

I found that Integretel Inc. had billed me for a recurring monthly charge of $ 19.99 for long-distance service with an unkown company :

" Sky Net360LD Monthly Fee 19.99 Total $ 19.99 " .

Further that Verizon had been good enough to remember to collect
" Federal excise tax at 3.00% .60
911 State Tax .13
Total : $ .73
Integretel Inc. basic charges $ 20.72
Total for Integretel Inc. $ 20.72 " .


I had been "slammed" right?

WRONG!

My long-distance service had always been MCI and a quick phone call verified that MCI continues to be my long distance carrier. So what gives?

Verizon was promptly contacted and I was informed that these charges billed from Integretel are not their responsibility (although these charges appear on Verizon Company letterhead billing along with Verizon's own billing).

I had previoulsy been made aware by MCI customer service that correct procedure (in this case) would have required that Verizon notify MCI of the change in my long-distance carrier preference. MCI had never been notified in this respect because Verizon had never contacted them. My long-distance service had never been changed! State and Federal taxes had been collected but no service had ever been delivered nor had Verizon given any sign that any change had ever been made to justify the collection of these Federal and State "Taxes" .

In fact, it seems that Verizon is well aware that they are billing bogus phony charges from a bogus phony company using Integretel Inc. as a front. Verizon continues to insist that they bear no responsibilty but only collect money (on behalf of impossible billing submitted from dubvious companies who hide behind Integretel Inc. like a protective shield from justice) .

In short, Verizon is billing for non-existant recurring monthly long-distance service allegedly delivered while at the same time admitting that they know that MCI has remained the long-distance carrier at all times.

If any attorney's out there have any advice on how best to procceed, please feel free to lend me a hand.

Manuel
CORCORAN, California
U.S.A.