1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  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!
    Dismiss Notice

New FCC rules of WLNP refute Sprint stalling

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Camile Cardenas, Oct 8, 2003.

  1. Sprint's press release last week bragging how it was working "for"
    number portability, said it should only take 4 days to transfer a number.

    The FCC rules, issued Tuesday said they'll have 2 1/2 hour.

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1804&ncid=738&e=8&u=/wash
    post/20031008/tc_washpost/a58844_2003oct7

    "FCC's additional rules state that a carrier cannot hold a customer's
    number hostage because of unpaid bills. Also, wireless carriers must
    pass numbers over to the customer's new carrier within 2 1/2 hours of
    the customer's making a request."


    Makes sense, since Sprint allegedly spent hundreds of millions on new
    computer systems and programs. Verizon had warned Sprint was planning on
    using "Billing issues" as a further excuse to stall.

    Looks like the FCC has seen through Sprint's tricks.

    Poor Sprint, with already the worst churn rate, and the worst rated
    Customer Service, it will likely lose big when portability hits.
     



    › See More: New FCC rules of WLNP refute Sprint stalling
  2. On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 07:12:36 GMT, Camile Cardenas
    <cccardenas@netscape.com> wrote:

    >Sprint's press release last week bragging how it was working "for"
    >number portability, said it should only take 4 days to transfer a number.
    >
    >The FCC rules, issued Tuesday said they'll have 2 1/2 hour.
    >
    >http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1804&ncid=738&e=8&u=/wash
    >post/20031008/tc_washpost/a58844_2003oct7
    >
    >"FCC's additional rules state that a carrier cannot hold a customer's
    >number hostage because of unpaid bills. Also, wireless carriers must
    >pass numbers over to the customer's new carrier within 2 1/2 hours of
    >the customer's making a request."


    Here's what Sprint's statement says:

    (Excerpted from http://tinyurl.com/q5mr )

    Among the areas where the rules are unclear and could cause problems
    for wireless and wireline customers:

    * Landline to Wireless Porting. Many landline customers expect to
    be able to port their numbers to wireless. However, some landline
    carriers seek to impose limitations on the ability of their customers
    to do that. Sprint has called upon the FCC to take action to ensure
    that the marketplace is open to competition, giving customers the
    ability to port from landline to wireless beginning in November.
    * Porting Intervals. Conventionally, landline-to-landline porting
    takes at least four business days. Initially, landline-to-wireless
    porting is likely to take that long, too. Sprint hopes that the FCC
    will help make the porting experience a consistent experience across
    all carriers.
    * Testing Portability. To engage other companies in testing and
    developing agreements, Sprint has sent to wireless and wireline
    carriers roughly 600 "Trading Partner Profiles." Each profile contains
    the Sprint technical information needed to start a port request with
    Sprint. Some wireline and wireless carriers are refusing to test the
    systems that make portability work without a signed agreement. Sprint
    believes it is imperative for testing to take place immediately, with
    or without a completed agreement, if the Nov. 24 deadline for LNP is
    to be met.


    >Makes sense, since Sprint allegedly spent hundreds of millions on new
    >computer systems and programs. Verizon had warned Sprint was planning on
    >using "Billing issues" as a further excuse to stall.
    >
    >Looks like the FCC has seen through Sprint's tricks.


    Sprint's tricks? Looks like the same problem and time interval exist
    in the landline-to-landline porting, too. So, it appears that Sprint
    isn't the only one at fault. It would be interesting to know which
    software the FCC was referring to, so that all the carriers would be
    forced to buy from the same company to implement number portability.
    As the rest of the porting intervals posting says:

    "Sprint hopes that the FCC will help make the porting experience a
    consistent experience across all carriers."

    (SBC hasn't even consented to transfer their landline numbers to
    Cingular Wireless, a company they co-own!)

    >Poor Sprint, with already the worst churn rate, and the worst rated
    >Customer Service, it will likely lose big when portability hits.
     
  3. In article <lb08ov8snlena4kvvhachmanq7as3t8fh1@4ax.com>,
    paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:

    > Sprint's tricks? Looks like the same problem and time interval exist
    > in the landline-to-landline porting, too.


    You don't get it do you? or are you a Sprint apologist. Just because
    Sprint wont transfer a line for 4 days does not mean it must take them 4
    days. The FCC thinks 2 1/2 hours is long enough. There's this new
    invention that should allow it to be done real fast. It's called a
    computer. Sprint has been billing every cell phone line 66 cents a month
    for it for 3 months now, what is that $50 million already.
     
  4. Brandt

    Brandt Guest

    Most carriers right now are working together to deny users that owe
    another company money service. They are more likely to do the same
    thing again at the new company and that is a big issue.

    --
    -Brandt

    I work for SprintPCS,
    I DON'T speak for them.


    Camile Cardenas <cccardenas@netscape.com> wrote in article
    <cccardenas-5B675D.02123608102003@news04.east.earthlink.net>:
    > Sprint's press release last week bragging how it was working "for"
    > number portability, said it should only take 4 days to transfer a number.
    >
    > The FCC rules, issued Tuesday said they'll have 2 1/2 hour.
    >
    > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1804&ncid=738&e=8&u=/wash
    > post/20031008/tc_washpost/a58844_2003oct7
    >
    > "FCC's additional rules state that a carrier cannot hold a customer's
    > number hostage because of unpaid bills. Also, wireless carriers must
    > pass numbers over to the customer's new carrier within 2 1/2 hours of
    > the customer's making a request."
    >
    >
    > Makes sense, since Sprint allegedly spent hundreds of millions on new
    > computer systems and programs. Verizon had warned Sprint was planning on
    > using "Billing issues" as a further excuse to stall.
    >
    > Looks like the FCC has seen through Sprint's tricks.
    >
    > Poor Sprint, with already the worst churn rate, and the worst rated
    > Customer Service, it will likely lose big when portability hits.


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  5. Hopper

    Hopper Guest


    > >Poor Sprint, with already the worst churn rate, and the worst rated
    > >Customer Service, it will likely lose big when portability hits.

    >


    Maybe carriers will take this opportunity to jack early termination fees way
    up and not, as most suspect, lower prices.
     
  6. Justin

    Justin Guest

    "Big Poppa" <yeahright@noemail.com> wrote in message
    news:vo8kiqamhn9423@corp.supernews.com...
    > This is my point of view about it..
    >
    > If a customer has a balance owed that is NOT in dispute, then that
    > balance should be paid before the number is transfered.. That includeds
    > any termination fees.
    >
    > If a balance is in dispute it should be listed as such, and should allow
    > the user to port the number over.
    >
    > I think the carriers should Get rid of ALL charges on the bills for Cost
    > recovery, and only charge a ONE TIME fee at the time of porting. I think
    > a $5 porting fee would be acceptable, if it removed and cost recovery
    > charges from the bill..
    >
    > Thats just my POV..
    >
    > --
    > SAVE YOUR BREATH....
    >
    > You'll need it to blow up your date.



    Who's to mark a balance in dispute? Sprint? Any carrier? And why should we
    trust any carrier to mark their own charges in dispute? We know customer
    claims don't count.
     
  7. Big Poppa

    Big Poppa Guest

    This is my point of view about it..

    If a customer has a balance owed that is NOT in dispute, then that
    balance should be paid before the number is transfered.. That includeds
    any termination fees.

    If a balance is in dispute it should be listed as such, and should allow
    the user to port the number over.

    I think the carriers should Get rid of ALL charges on the bills for Cost
    recovery, and only charge a ONE TIME fee at the time of porting. I think
    a $5 porting fee would be acceptable, if it removed and cost recovery
    charges from the bill..

    Thats just my POV..

    --
    SAVE YOUR BREATH....

    You'll need it to blow up your date.


    wldthng842@yahoo.com (Brandt ) wrote in article
    <vo8gmut608reff@corp.supernews.com>:
    > Most carriers right now are working together to deny users that owe
    > another company money service. They are more likely to do the same
    > thing again at the new company and that is a big issue.
    >
    > --
    > -Brandt
    >
    > I work for SprintPCS,
    > I DON'T speak for them.
    >
    >
    > Camile Cardenas <cccardenas@netscape.com> wrote in article
    > <cccardenas-5B675D.02123608102003@news04.east.earthlink.net>:
    > > Sprint's press release last week bragging how it was working "for"
    > > number portability, said it should only take 4 days to transfer a number.
    > >
    > > The FCC rules, issued Tuesday said they'll have 2 1/2 hour.
    > >
    > > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1804&ncid=738&e=8&u=/wash
    > > post/20031008/tc_washpost/a58844_2003oct7
    > >
    > > "FCC's additional rules state that a carrier cannot hold a customer's
    > > number hostage because of unpaid bills. Also, wireless carriers must
    > > pass numbers over to the customer's new carrier within 2 1/2 hours of
    > > the customer's making a request."
    > >
    > >
    > > Makes sense, since Sprint allegedly spent hundreds of millions on new
    > > computer systems and programs. Verizon had warned Sprint was planning on
    > > using "Billing issues" as a further excuse to stall.
    > >
    > > Looks like the FCC has seen through Sprint's tricks.
    > >
    > > Poor Sprint, with already the worst churn rate, and the worst rated
    > > Customer Service, it will likely lose big when portability hits.

    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  8. Justin

    Justin Guest

    <paul@wren.cc.kux.edu> wrote in message
    news:2vl8ovsp2r8m5clv18rradr4b29ec44oss@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:47:50 GMT, Camile Cardenas
    > <cccardenas@netscape.com> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <lb08ov8snlena4kvvhachmanq7as3t8fh1@4ax.com>,
    > > paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
    > >
    > >> Sprint's tricks? Looks like the same problem and time interval exist
    > >> in the landline-to-landline porting, too.

    > >
    > >You don't get it do you? or are you a Sprint apologist. Just because
    > >Sprint wont transfer a line for 4 days does not mean it must take them 4
    > >days. The FCC thinks 2 1/2 hours is long enough. There's this new
    > >invention that should allow it to be done real fast. It's called a
    > >computer. Sprint has been billing every cell phone line 66 cents a month
    > >for it for 3 months now, what is that $50 million already.

    >
    > It takes two to transfer a line. It takes registration software,
    > compatible databases. Landline is a good place to look for precidents.
    >
    > You've never managed complex systems, have you???
    >
    > That's OK. If labelling people without knowing them makes you feel
    > better, go ahead.


    It certainly makes Rob and Tom V feel better.
     
  9. On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:47:50 GMT, Camile Cardenas
    <cccardenas@netscape.com> wrote:

    >In article <lb08ov8snlena4kvvhachmanq7as3t8fh1@4ax.com>,
    > paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
    >
    >> Sprint's tricks? Looks like the same problem and time interval exist
    >> in the landline-to-landline porting, too.

    >
    >You don't get it do you? or are you a Sprint apologist. Just because
    >Sprint wont transfer a line for 4 days does not mean it must take them 4
    >days. The FCC thinks 2 1/2 hours is long enough. There's this new
    >invention that should allow it to be done real fast. It's called a
    >computer. Sprint has been billing every cell phone line 66 cents a month
    >for it for 3 months now, what is that $50 million already.


    It takes two to transfer a line. It takes registration software,
    compatible databases. Landline is a good place to look for precidents.

    You've never managed complex systems, have you???

    That's OK. If labelling people without knowing them makes you feel
    better, go ahead.
     
  10. On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:07:22 -0000, yeahright@noemail.com (Big Poppa)
    wrote:

    >This is my point of view about it..
    >
    >If a customer has a balance owed that is NOT in dispute, then that
    >balance should be paid before the number is transfered.. That includeds
    >any termination fees.
    >
    >If a balance is in dispute it should be listed as such, and should allow
    >the user to port the number over.
    >
    >I think the carriers should Get rid of ALL charges on the bills for Cost
    >recovery, and only charge a ONE TIME fee at the time of porting. I think
    >a $5 porting fee would be acceptable, if it removed and cost recovery
    >charges from the bill..
    >
    >Thats just my POV..


    That may be your POV, but unfortunately it doesn't jive with what the
    FCC has decreed. Your number cannot be held hostage by a carrier for
    either balance due or contract terms. If you have remaining contract
    and you do not complete the terms of your contract you are liable for
    ETF. If when you apply for service with your new carrier your credit
    is not sterling they will either require a deposit or maybe flat out
    refuse to take you on as a subscriber. If you walk out on charges
    it's not all just forgiven. If you owe charges or fees you will be
    expected to pay those charges. If you do not pay collections will
    come after you and also your credit record will be impacted as well.
    There's no free ride. You do need to be responsible for any charges
    due.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    To send an email reply send to
    GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com
     
  11. Brandt

    Brandt Guest

    Correct. All I said is that right now most of the carriers are
    communicating together to find out whether someone applying for service
    owes another carrier money. Some carriers will deny you service if you
    owe another carrier money in dispute or not. I've seen it happen. I
    have no idea what WLNP will be like, I only what is going on now. Ido
    know that if the other carriers won't give you service WLNP is useless.

    --
    -Brandt

    I work for SprintPCS,
    I DON'T speak for them.


    Group Special Mobile <look@signature_to.reply> wrote in article
    <jmv8ov83n9kcvri4j2nd2mthmbjssfev18@4ax.com>:
    > On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:07:22 -0000, yeahright@noemail.com (Big Poppa)
    > wrote:
    >
    > >This is my point of view about it..
    > >
    > >If a customer has a balance owed that is NOT in dispute, then that
    > >balance should be paid before the number is transfered.. That includeds
    > >any termination fees.
    > >
    > >If a balance is in dispute it should be listed as such, and should allow
    > >the user to port the number over.
    > >
    > >I think the carriers should Get rid of ALL charges on the bills for Cost
    > >recovery, and only charge a ONE TIME fee at the time of porting. I think
    > >a $5 porting fee would be acceptable, if it removed and cost recovery
    > >charges from the bill..
    > >
    > >Thats just my POV..

    >
    > That may be your POV, but unfortunately it doesn't jive with what the
    > FCC has decreed. Your number cannot be held hostage by a carrier for
    > either balance due or contract terms. If you have remaining contract
    > and you do not complete the terms of your contract you are liable for
    > ETF. If when you apply for service with your new carrier your credit
    > is not sterling they will either require a deposit or maybe flat out
    > refuse to take you on as a subscriber. If you walk out on charges
    > it's not all just forgiven. If you owe charges or fees you will be
    > expected to pay those charges. If you do not pay collections will
    > come after you and also your credit record will be impacted as well.
    > There's no free ride. You do need to be responsible for any charges
    > due.
    >
    > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    > To send an email reply send to
    > GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  12. Big Poppa

    Big Poppa Guest

    I know the new rules.. I'm just stating how *I* think it should have
    been done.. everyone has different point of views. But I do like my
    idea about the One time fee. Lets have that for cost recovery instead of
    monthly charges being placed on my bill.. If I want to use the number
    porting service then I should pay for it.. but right now i'm being
    charged for something I will more or likely not use, unless VZW starts
    offering unlimited mobile web and get it now, and unlimited m2m, and
    access to download content from 3rd parties.

    --
    SAVE YOUR BREATH....

    You'll need it to blow up your date.


    Group Special Mobile <look@signature_to.reply> wrote in article
    <jmv8ov83n9kcvri4j2nd2mthmbjssfev18@4ax.com>:
    > On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:07:22 -0000, yeahright@noemail.com (Big Poppa)
    > wrote:
    >
    > >This is my point of view about it..
    > >
    > >If a customer has a balance owed that is NOT in dispute, then that
    > >balance should be paid before the number is transfered.. That includeds
    > >any termination fees.
    > >
    > >If a balance is in dispute it should be listed as such, and should allow
    > >the user to port the number over.
    > >
    > >I think the carriers should Get rid of ALL charges on the bills for Cost
    > >recovery, and only charge a ONE TIME fee at the time of porting. I think
    > >a $5 porting fee would be acceptable, if it removed and cost recovery
    > >charges from the bill..
    > >
    > >Thats just my POV..

    >
    > That may be your POV, but unfortunately it doesn't jive with what the
    > FCC has decreed. Your number cannot be held hostage by a carrier for
    > either balance due or contract terms. If you have remaining contract
    > and you do not complete the terms of your contract you are liable for
    > ETF. If when you apply for service with your new carrier your credit
    > is not sterling they will either require a deposit or maybe flat out
    > refuse to take you on as a subscriber. If you walk out on charges
    > it's not all just forgiven. If you owe charges or fees you will be
    > expected to pay those charges. If you do not pay collections will
    > come after you and also your credit record will be impacted as well.
    > There's no free ride. You do need to be responsible for any charges
    > due.
    >
    > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    > To send an email reply send to
    > GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  13. Brandt

    Brandt Guest

    but then the carriers could charge outrageous fees in order to keep
    customers.

    --
    -Brandt

    I work for SprintPCS,
    I DON'T speak for them.


    yeahright@noemail.com (Big Poppa) wrote in article
    <vo96p0qo3rerb4@corp.supernews.com>:
    > I know the new rules.. I'm just stating how *I* think it should have
    > been done.. everyone has different point of views. But I do like my
    > idea about the One time fee. Lets have that for cost recovery instead of
    > monthly charges being placed on my bill.. If I want to use the number
    > porting service then I should pay for it.. but right now i'm being
    > charged for something I will more or likely not use, unless VZW starts
    > offering unlimited mobile web and get it now, and unlimited m2m, and
    > access to download content from 3rd parties.
    >
    > --
    > SAVE YOUR BREATH....
    >
    > You'll need it to blow up your date.
    >
    >
    > Group Special Mobile <look@signature_to.reply> wrote in article
    > <jmv8ov83n9kcvri4j2nd2mthmbjssfev18@4ax.com>:
    > > On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:07:22 -0000, yeahright@noemail.com (Big Poppa)
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > > >This is my point of view about it..
    > > >
    > > >If a customer has a balance owed that is NOT in dispute, then that
    > > >balance should be paid before the number is transfered.. That includeds
    > > >any termination fees.
    > > >
    > > >If a balance is in dispute it should be listed as such, and should allow
    > > >the user to port the number over.
    > > >
    > > >I think the carriers should Get rid of ALL charges on the bills for Cost
    > > >recovery, and only charge a ONE TIME fee at the time of porting. I think
    > > >a $5 porting fee would be acceptable, if it removed and cost recovery
    > > >charges from the bill..
    > > >
    > > >Thats just my POV..

    > >
    > > That may be your POV, but unfortunately it doesn't jive with what the
    > > FCC has decreed. Your number cannot be held hostage by a carrier for
    > > either balance due or contract terms. If you have remaining contract
    > > and you do not complete the terms of your contract you are liable for
    > > ETF. If when you apply for service with your new carrier your credit
    > > is not sterling they will either require a deposit or maybe flat out
    > > refuse to take you on as a subscriber. If you walk out on charges
    > > it's not all just forgiven. If you owe charges or fees you will be
    > > expected to pay those charges. If you do not pay collections will
    > > come after you and also your credit record will be impacted as well.
    > > There's no free ride. You do need to be responsible for any charges
    > > due.
    > >
    > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    > > To send an email reply send to
    > > GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com

    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  14. Verizon charges what? 1.65? AT&T charges a 1.75. :) Of course its for
    more then just the WLNP mandate, but thats the biggie. :)

    Camile Cardenas <cccardenas@netscape.com> wrote in article
    <cccardenas-44B385.07475008102003@news04.east.earthlink.net>:
    > In article <lb08ov8snlena4kvvhachmanq7as3t8fh1@4ax.com>,
    > paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
    >
    > > Sprint's tricks? Looks like the same problem and time interval exist
    > > in the landline-to-landline porting, too.

    >
    > You don't get it do you? or are you a Sprint apologist. Just because
    > Sprint wont transfer a line for 4 days does not mean it must take them 4
    > days. The FCC thinks 2 1/2 hours is long enough. There's this new
    > invention that should allow it to be done real fast. It's called a
    > computer. Sprint has been billing every cell phone line 66 cents a month
    > for it for 3 months now, what is that $50 million already.


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  15. Big Poppa

    Big Poppa Guest

    Did you read my post.. I said Instead are places so-called "Taxes" or
    "Cost recovery fees" on the bills every month. I think they should only
    charge a one time fee to those customer actually porting there number,
    and that the fee should only be between $5-$10. They will only charge
    the customer that small fee when they actually leave the company and
    take the number with them. Not charge them to BRING the number to their
    company.. You dont wanna charge a NEW customer, only a customer who is
    leaving.

    --
    SAVE YOUR BREATH....

    You'll need it to blow up your date.


    wldthng842NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Brandt ) wrote in article
    <vo97avnntdr5d9@corp.supernews.com>:
    > but then the carriers could charge outrageous fees in order to keep
    > customers.
    >
    > --
    > -Brandt
    >
    > I work for SprintPCS,
    > I DON'T speak for them.
    >
    >
    > yeahright@noemail.com (Big Poppa) wrote in article
    > <vo96p0qo3rerb4@corp.supernews.com>:
    > > I know the new rules.. I'm just stating how *I* think it should have
    > > been done.. everyone has different point of views. But I do like my
    > > idea about the One time fee. Lets have that for cost recovery instead of
    > > monthly charges being placed on my bill.. If I want to use the number
    > > porting service then I should pay for it.. but right now i'm being
    > > charged for something I will more or likely not use, unless VZW starts
    > > offering unlimited mobile web and get it now, and unlimited m2m, and
    > > access to download content from 3rd parties.
    > >
    > > --
    > > SAVE YOUR BREATH....
    > >
    > > You'll need it to blow up your date.
    > >
    > >
    > > Group Special Mobile <look@signature_to.reply> wrote in article
    > > <jmv8ov83n9kcvri4j2nd2mthmbjssfev18@4ax.com>:
    > > > On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:07:22 -0000, yeahright@noemail.com (Big Poppa)
    > > > wrote:
    > > >
    > > > >This is my point of view about it..
    > > > >
    > > > >If a customer has a balance owed that is NOT in dispute, then that
    > > > >balance should be paid before the number is transfered.. That includeds
    > > > >any termination fees.
    > > > >
    > > > >If a balance is in dispute it should be listed as such, and should allow
    > > > >the user to port the number over.
    > > > >
    > > > >I think the carriers should Get rid of ALL charges on the bills for Cost
    > > > >recovery, and only charge a ONE TIME fee at the time of porting. I think
    > > > >a $5 porting fee would be acceptable, if it removed and cost recovery
    > > > >charges from the bill..
    > > > >
    > > > >Thats just my POV..
    > > >
    > > > That may be your POV, but unfortunately it doesn't jive with what the
    > > > FCC has decreed. Your number cannot be held hostage by a carrier for
    > > > either balance due or contract terms. If you have remaining contract
    > > > and you do not complete the terms of your contract you are liable for
    > > > ETF. If when you apply for service with your new carrier your credit
    > > > is not sterling they will either require a deposit or maybe flat out
    > > > refuse to take you on as a subscriber. If you walk out on charges
    > > > it's not all just forgiven. If you owe charges or fees you will be
    > > > expected to pay those charges. If you do not pay collections will
    > > > come after you and also your credit record will be impacted as well.
    > > > There's no free ride. You do need to be responsible for any charges
    > > > due.
    > > >
    > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    > > > To send an email reply send to
    > > > GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com

    > >
    > > [posted via phonescoop.com]

    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  16. Camile Cardenas wrote:

    > Sprint's press release last week bragging how it was working "for"
    > number portability, said it should only take 4 days to transfer a number.
    >
    > The FCC rules, issued Tuesday said they'll have 2 1/2 hour.
    >
    > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1804&ncid=738&e=8&u=/wash
    > post/20031008/tc_washpost/a58844_2003oct7
    >
    > "FCC's additional rules state that a carrier cannot hold a customer's
    > number hostage because of unpaid bills. Also, wireless carriers must
    > pass numbers over to the customer's new carrier within 2 1/2 hours of
    > the customer's making a request."
    >
    >
    > Makes sense, since Sprint allegedly spent hundreds of millions on new
    > computer systems and programs. Verizon had warned Sprint was planning on
    > using "Billing issues" as a further excuse to stall.
    >
    > Looks like the FCC has seen through Sprint's tricks.
    >
    > Poor Sprint, with already the worst churn rate, and the worst rated
    > Customer Service, it will likely lose big when portability hits.



    Interesting, I found a link that refers to these as 'guidlines', not rules.

    http://marketwatch-cnet.com.com/210...e=pt&part=marketwatch-cnet&tag=feed&subj=news

    It goes on to say:

    "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said carriers should let
    defecting customers keep their old number even if their account has an
    unpaid balance. The FCC also found "no technical reason" why switching
    subscribers should have to wait longer than two-and-a-half hours before
    their old number is "ported" to their new dialing plan."

    A lot of 'shoulds' there for something written in stone.

    FWIW, the FCC itself refers to this as 'guidance' in their press release
    (www.fcc.gov), and not a set of regulations. There are no teeth to any of
    this.
     
  17. "Jason Voorhes" <peacekiller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:vo9bfahsfvupc2@corp.supernews.com...
    > Verizon charges what? 1.65? AT&T charges a 1.75. :) Of course its for
    > more then just the WLNP mandate, but thats the biggie. :)


    Verizon Wireless does not charge a supposed WLNP fee, at least not until the
    service is actually available (at which point they *might* charge 10-15
    cents per line).
     
  18. Brandt

    Brandt Guest

    What would stop any company from charging $2000 do transfer your number
    away from their company. This gets more complicated than charging
    everyone a small fee.

    --
    -Brandt

    I work for SprintPCS,
    I DON'T speak for them.


    yeahright@noemail.com (Big Poppa) wrote in article
    <vob1g5303frta1@corp.supernews.com>:
    > Did you read my post.. I said Instead are places so-called "Taxes" or
    > "Cost recovery fees" on the bills every month. I think they should only
    > charge a one time fee to those customer actually porting there number,
    > and that the fee should only be between $5-$10. They will only charge
    > the customer that small fee when they actually leave the company and
    > take the number with them. Not charge them to BRING the number to their
    > company.. You dont wanna charge a NEW customer, only a customer who is
    > leaving.
    >
    > --
    > SAVE YOUR BREATH....
    >
    > You'll need it to blow up your date.
    >
    >
    > wldthng842NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Brandt ) wrote in article
    > <vo97avnntdr5d9@corp.supernews.com>:
    > > but then the carriers could charge outrageous fees in order to keep
    > > customers.
    > >
    > > --
    > > -Brandt
    > >
    > > I work for SprintPCS,
    > > I DON'T speak for them.
    > >
    > >
    > > yeahright@noemail.com (Big Poppa) wrote in article
    > > <vo96p0qo3rerb4@corp.supernews.com>:
    > > > I know the new rules.. I'm just stating how *I* think it should have
    > > > been done.. everyone has different point of views. But I do like my
    > > > idea about the One time fee. Lets have that for cost recovery instead of
    > > > monthly charges being placed on my bill.. If I want to use the number
    > > > porting service then I should pay for it.. but right now i'm being
    > > > charged for something I will more or likely not use, unless VZW starts
    > > > offering unlimited mobile web and get it now, and unlimited m2m, and
    > > > access to download content from 3rd parties.
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > SAVE YOUR BREATH....
    > > >
    > > > You'll need it to blow up your date.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Group Special Mobile <look@signature_to.reply> wrote in article
    > > > <jmv8ov83n9kcvri4j2nd2mthmbjssfev18@4ax.com>:
    > > > > On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:07:22 -0000, yeahright@noemail.com (Big Poppa)
    > > > > wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > >This is my point of view about it..
    > > > > >
    > > > > >If a customer has a balance owed that is NOT in dispute, then that
    > > > > >balance should be paid before the number is transfered.. That includeds
    > > > > >any termination fees.
    > > > > >
    > > > > >If a balance is in dispute it should be listed as such, and should allow
    > > > > >the user to port the number over.
    > > > > >
    > > > > >I think the carriers should Get rid of ALL charges on the bills for Cost
    > > > > >recovery, and only charge a ONE TIME fee at the time of porting. I think
    > > > > >a $5 porting fee would be acceptable, if it removed and cost recovery
    > > > > >charges from the bill..
    > > > > >
    > > > > >Thats just my POV..
    > > > >
    > > > > That may be your POV, but unfortunately it doesn't jive with what the
    > > > > FCC has decreed. Your number cannot be held hostage by a carrier for
    > > > > either balance due or contract terms. If you have remaining contract
    > > > > and you do not complete the terms of your contract you are liable for
    > > > > ETF. If when you apply for service with your new carrier your credit
    > > > > is not sterling they will either require a deposit or maybe flat out
    > > > > refuse to take you on as a subscriber. If you walk out on charges
    > > > > it's not all just forgiven. If you owe charges or fees you will be
    > > > > expected to pay those charges. If you do not pay collections will
    > > > > come after you and also your credit record will be impacted as well.
    > > > > There's no free ride. You do need to be responsible for any charges
    > > > > due.
    > > > >
    > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    > > > > To send an email reply send to
    > > > > GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com
    > > >
    > > > [posted via phonescoop.com]

    > >
    > > [posted via phonescoop.com]

    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  19. p lane

    p lane Guest

    There is some info on the verizon web page about this.

    "Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka000@ameritech.net> wrote in article
    <W3mhb.27038$ev2.7129027@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>:
    > "Jason Voorhes" <peacekiller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:vo9bfahsfvupc2@corp.supernews.com...
    > > Verizon charges what? 1.65? AT&T charges a 1.75. :) Of course its for
    > > more then just the WLNP mandate, but thats the biggie. :)

    >
    > Verizon Wireless does not charge a supposed WLNP fee, at least not until the
    > service is actually available (at which point they *might* charge 10-15
    > cents per line).
    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  20. Big Poppa

    Big Poppa Guest

    Look man which would you rather have charges every month, or a $5-$10
    fee, when you actually decide to USE LNP? FCC could regulate a limit on
    the fee. I know it aint ever gonna happen, but it would be nicer.

    --
    SAVE YOUR BREATH....

    You'll need it to blow up your date.


    wldthng842NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Brandt ) wrote in article
    <voc9qp48269i2b@corp.supernews.com>:
    > What would stop any company from charging $2000 do transfer your number
    > away from their company. This gets more complicated than charging
    > everyone a small fee.
    >
    > --
    > -Brandt
    >
    > I work for SprintPCS,
    > I DON'T speak for them.
    >
    >
    > yeahright@noemail.com (Big Poppa) wrote in article
    > <vob1g5303frta1@corp.supernews.com>:
    > > Did you read my post.. I said Instead are places so-called "Taxes" or
    > > "Cost recovery fees" on the bills every month. I think they should only
    > > charge a one time fee to those customer actually porting there number,
    > > and that the fee should only be between $5-$10. They will only charge
    > > the customer that small fee when they actually leave the company and
    > > take the number with them. Not charge them to BRING the number to their
    > > company.. You dont wanna charge a NEW customer, only a customer who is
    > > leaving.
    > >
    > > --
    > > SAVE YOUR BREATH....
    > >
    > > You'll need it to blow up your date.
    > >
    > >
    > > wldthng842NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Brandt ) wrote in article
    > > <vo97avnntdr5d9@corp.supernews.com>:
    > > > but then the carriers could charge outrageous fees in order to keep
    > > > customers.
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > -Brandt
    > > >
    > > > I work for SprintPCS,
    > > > I DON'T speak for them.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > yeahright@noemail.com (Big Poppa) wrote in article
    > > > <vo96p0qo3rerb4@corp.supernews.com>:
    > > > > I know the new rules.. I'm just stating how *I* think it should have
    > > > > been done.. everyone has different point of views. But I do like my
    > > > > idea about the One time fee. Lets have that for cost recovery instead of
    > > > > monthly charges being placed on my bill.. If I want to use the number
    > > > > porting service then I should pay for it.. but right now i'm being
    > > > > charged for something I will more or likely not use, unless VZW starts
    > > > > offering unlimited mobile web and get it now, and unlimited m2m, and
    > > > > access to download content from 3rd parties.
    > > > >
    > > > > --
    > > > > SAVE YOUR BREATH....
    > > > >
    > > > > You'll need it to blow up your date.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Group Special Mobile <look@signature_to.reply> wrote in article
    > > > > <jmv8ov83n9kcvri4j2nd2mthmbjssfev18@4ax.com>:
    > > > > > On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:07:22 -0000, yeahright@noemail.com (Big Poppa)
    > > > > > wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > >This is my point of view about it..
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >If a customer has a balance owed that is NOT in dispute, then that
    > > > > > >balance should be paid before the number is transfered.. That includeds
    > > > > > >any termination fees.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >If a balance is in dispute it should be listed as such, and should allow
    > > > > > >the user to port the number over.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >I think the carriers should Get rid of ALL charges on the bills for Cost
    > > > > > >recovery, and only charge a ONE TIME fee at the time of porting. I think
    > > > > > >a $5 porting fee would be acceptable, if it removed and cost recovery
    > > > > > >charges from the bill..
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >Thats just my POV..
    > > > > >
    > > > > > That may be your POV, but unfortunately it doesn't jive with what the
    > > > > > FCC has decreed. Your number cannot be held hostage by a carrier for
    > > > > > either balance due or contract terms. If you have remaining contract
    > > > > > and you do not complete the terms of your contract you are liable for
    > > > > > ETF. If when you apply for service with your new carrier your credit
    > > > > > is not sterling they will either require a deposit or maybe flat out
    > > > > > refuse to take you on as a subscriber. If you walk out on charges
    > > > > > it's not all just forgiven. If you owe charges or fees you will be
    > > > > > expected to pay those charges. If you do not pay collections will
    > > > > > come after you and also your credit record will be impacted as well.
    > > > > > There's no free ride. You do need to be responsible for any charges
    > > > > > due.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    > > > > > To send an email reply send to
    > > > > > GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com
    > > > >
    > > > > [posted via phonescoop.com]
    > > >
    > > > [posted via phonescoop.com]

    > >
    > > [posted via phonescoop.com]

    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?