1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!

new charge for # portability from Verizon

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by L'l John, Jan 29, 2004.

  1. David S

    David S Guest

    On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:56:04 GMT, "Elector" <elector@my-deja.com> chose to
    add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >And don't just leave out the phone services, take a look at NIMO if
    >your from New York upstate. They charge $$$ for service fees and taxes
    >and the like which far out weigh that actual costs of your energy
    >services (Gas or electric) crazy but true.


    In my city, the city itself runs the electric utility and charges not only
    the same rates as ComEd for the service but also tax on top of it... for
    their own service.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "I'm a lazy fellow. I work up to a certain point, but beyond that point,
    I say the hell with it." - Ronald Reagan



    › See More: new charge for # portability from Verizon
  2. David S

    David S Guest

    On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 23:10:04 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >In article <Y4cSb.3$pk.2@bignews3.bellsouth.net>
    >"L'l John" <je_norrisremove@thishotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >The obvious solution to this would have been to have all that need to
    >port, pay the price up front. That way, it's being paid by the users that
    >need the service. However, by doing it this way, everyone pays and
    >undoubtedly, Verizon has put in a little additional padding so this
    >tariff not only covers the "cost" of this new regulation, but makes a few
    >percent profit at the same time. Wonder how much of this goes into the
    >class action settlement payments we are hearing about?


    It occurs to me that all these various charges utilities add onto bills for
    certain mandated services were originally intended by the government body
    that created them to come out of the company's profit rather than being
    added to customers' bills. But of course big business can't have THAT now,
    can it?

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Newt loves animals. As a child he wanted to be a zookeeper."
    - Newt Gingrich spokesman Mike Shields responding to environmentalists
    upset that Gingrich was named to the board of the Wildlife Conservation
    Society, quoted in the New York Post.
  3. Peter Pan

    Peter Pan Guest

    "David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
    news:lo3o105ll137i4u3jlp191p1kvs5ungul2@4ax.com...
    > On 29 Jan 2004 21:20:08 -0000, lcs Mixmaster Remailer
    > <mix@anon.lcs.mit.edu> chose to add this to the great equation of life,

    the
    > universe, and everything:
    >
    > >In article <v8Cdnf1DU9ua8YTdRVn-jg@comcast.com>
    > >"Bob the Printer" <bdolson@comcast.net> wrote:
    > >
    > >And now, .20 of each dollar goes to pay down the deficit, which will be
    > >around for about another 15 years....at which point, it will probably get
    > >bigger. To think that our Founding Fathers threw tea into a bay because
    > >it had a little tariff attached. They're probably rolling in their
    > >graves......again.

    >
    > A deficit that was virtually non-existent a mere three years ago, at the
    > end of a two-term Democratic administration.
    >
    > (Not that this has anything to do with Verizon cell phones.)
    >
    > --
    > David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    > http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    > Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    > "Mr. Nixon was the thirty-seventh President of the United States. He had
    > been preceded by thirty-six others." - Gerald Ford
    >


    You do realize that the national debt (unlike the current deficit) is close
    to SEVEN trillion, and was 5 trillion when Bush took over. While there was a
    balanced budget (sort of) for a few years, the interest on the national debt
    (about 400 billion a year) was never counted in the budget and increased the
    debt each year.
  4. Andrew

    Andrew Guest

    Peter Pan <Marcs1102NOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
    : You do realize that the national debt (unlike the current deficit) is close
    : to SEVEN trillion, and was 5 trillion when Bush took over. While there was a
    : balanced budget (sort of) for a few years, the interest on the national debt
    : (about 400 billion a year) was never counted in the budget and increased the
    : debt each year.

    No, the OMB lists the interest as an outlay in the budget. See this page:

    http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/pdf/hist.pdf

    For example, in 2000, the interest in table 3.1 (page 55) is given as
    $223 Billion (or perhaps $282.8B - I'm not sure what off-budget means,
    could be interest paid to the SS trust fund). We're nowhere near
    $400B - interest has gone down to $255B ($178B net) in 2002 because, I
    presume, of lower interest rates. But bad enough - I am worried about
    the deficit and the climbing debt, too.

    Andrew
    --
    ----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
    *******************************************************************
    ----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
    ----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
    *******************************************************************
  5. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 23:17:51 -0800, "Peter Pan"
    <Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >You do realize that the national debt (unlike the current deficit) is close
    >to SEVEN trillion, and was 5 trillion when Bush took over.


    Was it Proxmire who said something like, "A few billion here, a few
    billion there and pretty soon you're talking about *real* money"?
  6. David S

    David S Guest

    On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 22:19:51 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> chose to add
    this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 23:17:51 -0800, "Peter Pan"
    ><Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    >>You do realize that the national debt (unlike the current deficit) is close
    >>to SEVEN trillion, and was 5 trillion when Bush took over.

    >
    >Was it Proxmire who said something like, "A few billion here, a few
    >billion there and pretty soon you're talking about *real* money"?


    No, it was Everett Dirksen of Illinois. (He said it without "few".)

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "It is, I think, best to be ignorant of certain elements of Klingon
    psyche." - Jean-Luc Picard
  7. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    In article <0k4o10dun5avk3h113d5rrc1h9icgc4jbl@4ax.com>,=20
    dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net says...
    > It occurs to me that all these various charges utilities add onto bills f=

    or
    > certain mandated services were originally intended by the government body
    > that created them to come out of the company's profit rather than being
    > added to customers' bills. But of course big business can't have THAT now=

    ,
    > can it?
    >=20


    Actually, when companies (like my own) get authorized to institute these=20
    "cost recovery" fees, it's for the exact opposite purpose. =20
    Theoretically, the network belongs to the company (even if the frequency=20
    is only licensed). Somewhat analogous to imminent domain powers, the=20
    government can force changes to it, but it also has an obligation to=20
    renumerate the company for forcing that charge on the company.

    Authorizing these fees keeps you, consumer, from thinking they're doing=20
    this.

    Which is *not* say companies don't take advantage of it, also. They do,=20
    I'm sure.

    --=20
    -+-
    R=D8=DF
    O/Siris
    I work for SprintPCS
    I *don't* speak for them.
  8. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:41:47 GMT, O/Siris <Osiris@sprîntpcs.com> chose to
    add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >In article <0k4o10dun5avk3h113d5rrc1h9icgc4jbl@4ax.com>,
    >dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net says...
    >> It occurs to me that all these various charges utilities add onto bills for
    >> certain mandated services were originally intended by the government body
    >> that created them to come out of the company's profit rather than being
    >> added to customers' bills. But of course big business can't have THAT now,
    >> can it?

    >
    >Actually, when companies (like my own) get authorized to institute these
    >"cost recovery" fees, it's for the exact opposite purpose.
    >Theoretically, the network belongs to the company (even if the frequency
    >is only licensed). Somewhat analogous to imminent domain powers, the
    >government can force changes to it, but it also has an obligation to
    >renumerate the company for forcing that charge on the company.
    >
    >Authorizing these fees keeps you, consumer, from thinking they're doing
    >this.
    >
    >Which is *not* say companies don't take advantage of it, also. They do,
    >I'm sure.


    Okay, yeah, but I was thinking more of the "Franchise fee" on my cable bill
    and things like that.

    Businesses can do it to each other, too. Union Pacific Railroad has started
    charging model train manufacturers a license fee for using their image on
    the models they make. This *does* make sense to me.The UP owns its image.
    The model maker is making a profit using that image, therefore it should
    have to pay something for it. The model makers don't quite see it that way,
    of course, and are charging the consumers more for UP models than for any
    others, and are redirecting the consumers' anger to the big, greedy,
    Borg-like railroad company (just as VZW redirects consumers' anger to the
    FCC). The difference is that the model makers (which operate on fairly low
    profit margins and can't afford to eat the cost) are applying a cost that
    only applies to one segment of their market TO that segment rather than
    raising their prices overall and spreading it out over their entire
    customer base. (I do think, however, that $5 per locomotive is rather
    excessive.)

    And for all the people here saying they'd rather pay a fee if they port,
    there'd be ten times as many bitching if they did it that way. (Plus, the
    whole porting thing actually does have its costs to the wireless companies,
    whereas UP's license fee is going straight to the bottom line.)

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system." - Dan Quayle
  9. mark devoll

    mark devoll Guest

    i think it is a crapy thing to do to charge customers because they have (or
    will have) the right to take there number with them when they switch. what a
    bunch of bull. why punish the customers you have. if they didnt charge this
    stupid charge (and mabye try to provide decent customer service) mabey
    people wouldnt switch. mabey they should try that instead of 2 year
    contracts. if they had good customer service ( most dont) then they could
    keep there customers.
    "David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
    news:gr7k20l6ehdovrsqsp73a7t7q15cg7adu6@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:41:47 GMT, O/Siris <Osiris@sprîntpcs.com> chose to
    > add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
    >
    > >In article <0k4o10dun5avk3h113d5rrc1h9icgc4jbl@4ax.com>,
    > >dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net says...
    > >> It occurs to me that all these various charges utilities add onto bills

    for
    > >> certain mandated services were originally intended by the government

    body
    > >> that created them to come out of the company's profit rather than being
    > >> added to customers' bills. But of course big business can't have THAT

    now,
    > >> can it?

    > >
    > >Actually, when companies (like my own) get authorized to institute these
    > >"cost recovery" fees, it's for the exact opposite purpose.
    > >Theoretically, the network belongs to the company (even if the frequency
    > >is only licensed). Somewhat analogous to imminent domain powers, the
    > >government can force changes to it, but it also has an obligation to
    > >renumerate the company for forcing that charge on the company.
    > >
    > >Authorizing these fees keeps you, consumer, from thinking they're doing
    > >this.
    > >
    > >Which is *not* say companies don't take advantage of it, also. They do,
    > >I'm sure.

    >
    > Okay, yeah, but I was thinking more of the "Franchise fee" on my cable

    bill
    > and things like that.
    >
    > Businesses can do it to each other, too. Union Pacific Railroad has

    started
    > charging model train manufacturers a license fee for using their image on
    > the models they make. This *does* make sense to me.The UP owns its image.
    > The model maker is making a profit using that image, therefore it should
    > have to pay something for it. The model makers don't quite see it that

    way,
    > of course, and are charging the consumers more for UP models than for any
    > others, and are redirecting the consumers' anger to the big, greedy,
    > Borg-like railroad company (just as VZW redirects consumers' anger to the
    > FCC). The difference is that the model makers (which operate on fairly low
    > profit margins and can't afford to eat the cost) are applying a cost that
    > only applies to one segment of their market TO that segment rather than
    > raising their prices overall and spreading it out over their entire
    > customer base. (I do think, however, that $5 per locomotive is rather
    > excessive.)
    >
    > And for all the people here saying they'd rather pay a fee if they port,
    > there'd be ten times as many bitching if they did it that way. (Plus, the
    > whole porting thing actually does have its costs to the wireless

    companies,
    > whereas UP's license fee is going straight to the bottom line.)
    >
    > --
    > David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    > http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    > Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
    > Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    > "[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system." - Dan Quayle
    >
  10. Jesse McGrew

    Jesse McGrew Guest

    mark devoll wrote:
    > i think it is a crapy thing to do to charge customers because they have (or
    > will have) the right to take there number with them when they switch. what a
    > bunch of bull. why punish the customers you have. if they didnt charge this
    > stupid charge (and mabye try to provide decent customer service) mabey
    > people wouldnt switch. mabey they should try that instead of 2 year
    > contracts. if they had good customer service ( most dont) then they could
    > keep there customers.


    1. It costs Verizon (and all the wireless carriers) a lot to provide
    that "right" to take your number with you. The fee helps offset that cost.

    2. *All* the carriers charge for it, and most of them charge a lot more
    than Verizon. If you switch away from VZW because you don't like the 45
    cent portability charge, you're in for a wake-up call when you see your
    bill from whichever carrier you end up with.

    Jesse
  11. Arcy

    Arcy Guest

    "Jesse McGrew" <jmcgrew@hanshorseprestigepelican.com.remove.animals> wrote
    in message news:402f16ae$0$83372$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...
    > 1. It costs Verizon (and all the wireless carriers) a lot to provide
    > that "right" to take your number with you. The fee helps offset that cost.
    >
    > 2. *All* the carriers charge for it, and most of them charge a lot more
    > than Verizon. If you switch away from VZW because you don't like the 45
    > cent portability charge, you're in for a wake-up call when you see your
    > bill from whichever carrier you end up with.
    >
    > Jesse


    I just got a notice from T-Mobile that they will start charging 86 cents.

    Arcy
  12. mark devoll

    mark devoll Guest

    i have never heard how it cost them money, it sounds like the co office
    whould be doing the work not the wireless carrier, this means the lec's. so
    how does it cost them money.
    "Arcy" <lovebasenjis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:v8idnfE34d4_JLLdRVn-jw@comcast.com...
    >
    > "Jesse McGrew" <jmcgrew@hanshorseprestigepelican.com.remove.animals> wrote
    > in message news:402f16ae$0$83372$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...
    > > 1. It costs Verizon (and all the wireless carriers) a lot to provide
    > > that "right" to take your number with you. The fee helps offset that

    cost.
    > >
    > > 2. *All* the carriers charge for it, and most of them charge a lot more
    > > than Verizon. If you switch away from VZW because you don't like the 45
    > > cent portability charge, you're in for a wake-up call when you see your
    > > bill from whichever carrier you end up with.
    > >
    > > Jesse

    >
    > I just got a notice from T-Mobile that they will start charging 86 cents.
    >
    > Arcy
    >
    >
    >
  13. Jesse McGrew

    Jesse McGrew Guest

    mark devoll wrote:
    > i have never heard how it cost them money, it sounds like the co office
    > whould be doing the work not the wireless carrier, this means the lec's. so
    > how does it cost them money.


    Remember, not only can you port a landline number to a cell phone, but
    you can also port a cell phone number to a landline, or from one cell
    company to another.

    Jesse
  14. I joined this discussion mid-thread, so maybe I've misunderstood, but
    VZW is chargning a monthly charge for number portability? If so, it
    seems to me you have the right to cancel your one year contract, as
    this is a change or service.

    Or is VZW is calling this a "tax," as they do with so many other
    charges? A year or so ago, NY State was trying to pass legislation
    making it illegal on a wireless phone bill to call something a tax
    that's not.
  15. "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel@exc.com> wrote in message
    news:Vn3_b.43996$ac.8901002@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
    > I joined this discussion mid-thread, so maybe I've misunderstood, but
    > VZW is chargning a monthly charge for number portability? If so, it
    > seems to me you have the right to cancel your one year contract, as
    > this is a change or service.
    >
    > Or is VZW is calling this a "tax," as they do with so many other
    > charges? A year or so ago, NY State was trying to pass legislation
    > making it illegal on a wireless phone bill to call something a tax
    > that's not.
    >
    >


    I believe they are calling it a 'Regulatory Fee'.
  16. Scott Nelson

    Scott Nelson Guest

    Posted from:
    http://www.interconnection.bellsouth.com/products/wireless/wlnp/faqs.html

    ================================
    Q. How does number portability work?
    A. When a telephone number is dialed, the originating switch, Switch A,
    queries the routing database, an exact image of the National Portability
    Administration Center (NPAC) database. If the query detects a Subscription
    Version, it will send a reply message back to switch A with a Location
    Routing Number (LRN). The LRN identifies the switch where the telephone
    number in question is now working, Switch B. Switch A uses the LRN to route
    the call, moving the dialed number to the generic Address Parameter Field
    and replacing it with the LRN in the SS7 routing message. When the call
    reaches its destination, switch B uses the Generic Address Parameter field
    to terminate the call.
    To determine if a number has been ported, the Wireless Service Provider can
    query an image of the NPAC routing database for information on a particular
    number. If the query results in a Location Routing Number, the number has
    been ported.
    ================================

    That being said, we all pay to maintain database interconnects, the databse
    itself and other costs for this "feature".
    Your "ported" number may have some calling issues in certain cercumstances,
    inbound and/or outbound.
    Lots of moving parts and if one of them breaks, no phone call for you.
    It's one more thing to break during the call setup ( incoming calls mostly )
    process.

    What happens when the system gets really busy?
    Do the people who had their number ported, get dropped when the lookup(s)
    fail?
    If I am on the same switch as where the number is supposed to be, no lookup
    happens so, one less thing to go wrong.

    As a business, I wouldn't do it if you count on telecom in your business
    model, but to each thier own I guess.
    Convienience over functionality.

    Bottom line, it takes money to keep all of this "functionality" up and
    running. Thus the subject line of this thread.

    Scotty


    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:j5udnXLWNuBWRaXdRVn-hQ@adelphia.com...
    >
    > "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel@exc.com> wrote in message
    > news:Vn3_b.43996$ac.8901002@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
    > > I joined this discussion mid-thread, so maybe I've misunderstood, but
    > > VZW is chargning a monthly charge for number portability? If so, it
    > > seems to me you have the right to cancel your one year contract, as
    > > this is a change or service.
    > >
    > > Or is VZW is calling this a "tax," as they do with so many other
    > > charges? A year or so ago, NY State was trying to pass legislation
    > > making it illegal on a wireless phone bill to call something a tax
    > > that's not.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > I believe they are calling it a 'Regulatory Fee'.
    >
    >
    >
  17. "Scott Nelson" <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote in message
    news:UJ5_b.47806$5W3.47528@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

    >
    > Bottom line, it takes money to keep all of this "functionality" up and
    > running. Thus the subject line of this thread.
    >


    Agreed, but I question the $180 million a year that Verizon is collecting
    annually.
  18. Scott Nelson

    Scott Nelson Guest

    I wonder how the "database contactors" are setting the rate(s) for the
    carriers? Is it by subscriber or number pool?
    If it's by number pool and Verizon has a ^&%$loads of pools, the costs/fees
    can mount up.

    I can't imagine Nextel, etc., paying as much as Verizon or Cingular does.

    Scotty


    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:z_KdnfSmJdf5mqTd4p2dnA@adelphia.com...
    >
    > "Scott Nelson" <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote in message
    > news:UJ5_b.47806$5W3.47528@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
    >
    > >
    > > Bottom line, it takes money to keep all of this "functionality" up and
    > > running. Thus the subject line of this thread.
    > >

    >
    > Agreed, but I question the $180 million a year that Verizon is collecting
    > annually.
    >
    >
  19. "Scott Nelson" <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote in message
    news:rqb_b.51389$5W3.9268@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
    > I wonder how the "database contactors" are setting the rate(s) for the
    > carriers? Is it by subscriber or number pool?
    > If it's by number pool and Verizon has a ^&%$loads of pools, the

    costs/fees
    > can mount up.
    >
    > I can't imagine Nextel, etc., paying as much as Verizon or Cingular does.
    >


    They'd be charging as much as they have been charging the landline companies
    for the last couple of years. I have yet to see a portability fee on my
    landline bill.
  20. Scott Nelson

    Scott Nelson Guest

    It's 23cents per physical line on my bills.
    I just checked.

    Interesting.

    I wonder if a filing for a tariff change is in the works for the landline(s)
    as well.

    Scotty



    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:4vidndYlf_Bd8aTdRVn-sA@adelphia.com...
    >
    > "Scott Nelson" <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote in message
    > news:rqb_b.51389$5W3.9268@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
    > > I wonder how the "database contactors" are setting the rate(s) for the
    > > carriers? Is it by subscriber or number pool?
    > > If it's by number pool and Verizon has a ^&%$loads of pools, the

    > costs/fees
    > > can mount up.
    > >
    > > I can't imagine Nextel, etc., paying as much as Verizon or Cingular

    does.
    > >

    >
    > They'd be charging as much as they have been charging the landline

    companies
    > for the last couple of years. I have yet to see a portability fee on my
    > landline bill.
    >
    >

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?