Phone number 2027954889 area code and prefix assignment information:
| Country | |
|---|---|
| Location | DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA |
| Rate Center | WSHNGTNZN1 |
| Carrier | LOCAL ACCESS LLC - DC |
Caller refused to identify themselves until I did- I refused and then hung up
3 calls in one day, can’t block the number or speak to someone to ask to stop calling. It’s 9pm and just got called. What a joke
Same as Kp
Hang-up call with no message left. Reported to DNC.
Two calls within minutes of each other, no message, early in am
The FTC has logged 13 complaints against 202-795-4889. 30% of complaints identified the call as a robocall or recorded message. The last of these complaints was submitted on November 12, 2018. Complaints came from 7 states, including Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Connecticut, Arizona and New York. The cities with the most complaints were Dubuque, Albuquerque, Aurora, Shelton, Stamford and Glendale.
| No Subject Provided | 8 complaints 62% |
| Dropped call or no message | 4 complaints 31% |
| Other | 1 complaint 8% |
| Call date | Type | Reported from |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 4, 2018 | Dropped call or no message | Albuquerque, New Mexico |
| Nov 3, 2018 | Dropped call or no message | Glendale, Arizona |
| Oct 30, 2018 | Dropped call or no message | Albuquerque, New Mexico |
| Oct 30, 2018 | No Subject Provided | New Mexico |
| Oct 26, 2018 | Other | Madison, Wisconsin |
| Jul 2, 2018 | No Subject Provided | New York |
| May 7, 2018 | No Subject Provided | Stamford, Connecticut |
| May 7, 2018 | Dropped call or no message | Shelton, Connecticut |
| Nov 13, 2017 | No Subject Provided | Aurora, Colorado |
| Nov 10, 2017 | No Subject Provided | Aurora, Colorado |
Based on area code 202, phone number is located in District Of Columbia, United States. The 795 prefix was originally assigned to the WSHNGTNZN1 rate center, serving Washington and its surrounding areas.
Continue search for available information on:
AD
I have received several calls from this number but I don't answer and they don't leave a message. From the other comments, sounds like I should continue to ignore this caller.