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 Fee's ?

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Kevin Weaver, Feb 6, 2004.

  1. Mike

    Mike Guest

    On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 02:44:49 GMT, "Kevin Weaver"
    <kkweaver@pacbell.net> wrote:

    >Hey asshole, Thats what I was told. Now eat shit and die!


    Wow. Your education and refined upbringing are evident! I think I'll
    eat excrement and croak.

    Hey, look...I normally avoid spelling/grammar flames. But you came in
    here with the writing skills of a 6th grader (there/they're/their,
    "fee's", etc.) and obviously have the attitude of a kid on the
    playground. I'm surprised you are even on a VZW postpaid account...I
    didn't think they billed people under 18.

    Or maybe our educational system in America is truly, truly screwed,
    and we have adults walking around who can't figure out the most basic
    of English language rules.

    The VZW LNP charge is 45 cents a month. They originally said they
    weren't going to charge, but they are. Deal with it...you signed a
    contract, and it appears it's within their right to do it.

    Go to another carrier? Sure. Most of them charge even more for this
    very same item. If you're price sensitive, you'll probably still save
    money if you're able to get out of your contract and go elsewhere
    (T-Mobile is probably your best bet in that regard, they're the "low
    price leader" carrier). You won't get the service or coverage you get
    with VZW, but it's an option.

    Mike



    › See More: New Fee's ?
  2. Kevin Weaver <kkweaver@pacbell.net> wrote:
    > Verizon told me the FCC Gets It.


    Then Verizon lied, or maybe the CSR was misinformed. Either way, it's
    not a federally mandated charge. Generally, with stuff like this VZW will
    let you out of your contract early with no early term fee if you don't agree
    to pay the charge, and they ought to let you do that here.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED
  3. Bob <bayward@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
    >
    > Did I get the only VZW bill in the country to explain the new fee ?
    >
    > From page 4 of my most recent bill:
    >
    > Increase in regulatory charge
    > Beginning March 1, 2004 our Regulatory Charge, which helps defray
    > Verizon Wireless' ongoing costs of complying with various regulatory
    > mandates, will increase from $0.05 to $0.45 per month to help defray the
    > costs of complying with the FCC's local number portability requirements.
    > The Regulatory Charge is not a tax; it is our charge and is subject to
    > change from time to time. For more information please refer to your
    > Customer Agreement regarding this change.


    There you go. So it wasn't Verizon corporate, it was a stupid and/or
    misinformed CSR.

    To the OP: Call Verizon. As I mentioned earlier, they *should* let you out
    of contract early with no ETF. They've done it before when initiating other
    charges...


    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED
  4. Z Man

    Z Man Guest

    I'm a little late entering this thread, but I am correct that the amount
    involved is forty five cents per month? That's enough to generate over a
    dozen messages, complete with ample invective?
  5. "Z Man" <z1z@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:aLeVb.20385$WY4.5077442@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
    > I'm a little late entering this thread, but I am correct that the amount
    > involved is forty five cents per month? That's enough to generate over a
    > dozen messages, complete with ample invective?
    >
    >


    The way I look at it is 45 cents per subscriber per month. Based on 30
    million plus subscribers, we're talking between 15 and 20 million dollars a
    month. Do you honestly think they spend that much on this?
  6. Opentoe

    Opentoe Guest

    It's just an already profiting company trying to suck more money out of you,
    that's %100 it. It's for the portability of phone numbers. I'm a little
    baffled though. Verizon I heard is gaining a lot more business due to this
    FCC law where you can carry your number around...so why the hell are they
    charging customer's more money???????????????????? It's just another
    corporate slime ball move to make even more money for their fat stomachs and
    ugly caked on make-up wives. Will there ever be an end to sucking people dry
    to only profit in their personal best interests? How about extra hours
    during the week for long time customer's? Where the hell is that? How about
    extended weekends every other? Why the hell not? For some reason I am the
    only one who expects great service and better service. Are all of you that
    stupid to NOT want better service and features? Who the hell doesn't want a
    better service for what you pay???? My god man...WAKE UP! If you are happy
    not getting all these extra's that other cellular services provide (like
    roll over minutes) then you are lying out of your bung hole. You are just a
    DUMBASS to say that you don't care and don't need better features or
    service. Damn followers...get away from me.

    Shit, forgot my prozac....must be why.


    "Kevin Weaver" <kkweaver@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    news:qNVUb.21027$AV5.6150@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
    > I got my bill and there going to add a fee for this wireless phone

    transfer
    > thing. Whats this about ? Called C.S. And they said there is nothing I can
    > do about It. Cant get out of contract becuse Of It. Does this sound right

    ?
    >
    > TIA
    >
    >
  7. Jim Dawson

    Jim Dawson Guest

    No, but you're one of the few that read their bill.

    Jim

    "Bob" <bayward@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:lvm8205vglggntp9ugmfkkttd0vah1qefh@4ax.com...
    >
    > Did I get the only VZW bill in the country to explain the new fee ?
    >
    > From page 4 of my most recent bill:
    >
    > Increase in regulatory charge
    > Beginning March 1, 2004 our Regulatory Charge, which helps defray
    > Verizon Wireless' ongoing costs of complying with various regulatory
    > mandates, will increase from $0.05 to $0.45 per month to help defray the
    > costs of complying with the FCC's local number portability requirements.
    > The Regulatory Charge is not a tax; it is our charge and is subject to
    > change from time to time. For more information please refer to your
    > Customer Agreement regarding this change.
  8. Z Man

    Z Man Guest

    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:DtKdnTt1qd-kGbjd4p2dnA@adelphia.com...
    >
    > "Z Man" <z1z@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:aLeVb.20385$WY4.5077442@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
    > > I'm a little late entering this thread, but I am correct that the amount
    > > involved is forty five cents per month? That's enough to generate over a
    > > dozen messages, complete with ample invective?
    > >
    > >

    >
    > The way I look at it is 45 cents per subscriber per month. Based on 30
    > million plus subscribers, we're talking between 15 and 20 million dollars

    a
    > month. Do you honestly think they spend that much on this?


    Who cares? If forty five cents fell out of my pocket, I wouldn't notice. I
    have bigger fish to filet. Sorry if I'm not sufficiently enraged. EOT.
  9. Eric

    Eric Guest

    <<The FCC doesn't get a penny of it. This is Verizon's way of recovering
    the cost of portability. They originally said they weren't going to
    charge for it, and then changed their minds. Most (if not all) of the
    other carriers are charging a fee, too. >>

    At least Verizon wasn't charging for it way back last summer like Sprint
    has been.
  10. Eric

    Eric Guest

    Kevin wrote:
    <<Verizon told me the FCC Gets It. 2 more months I'm pulling the plug
    with them. I've been with them 8 years and get tired of there increases
    everytime I get a bill. Enough. >>

    Verizon lied to you then. The FCC gets gets none of that charge as it
    covers Verizon's costs of portability. The FCC only allows them to
    charge it, I beieve.

    Be careful when switching providers. All of them have a similar fee --
    some are lowers than others so you may want to ask and confirm their
    fees before signing with them.

    Eric
  11. "Eric" <caperenewal@webtv.net> wrote in message
    news:5521-4025A246-100@storefull-3231.bay.webtv.net...

    > Be careful when switching providers. All of them have a similar fee --
    > some are lowers than others so you may want to ask and confirm their
    > fees before signing with them.
    >


    I'd even take this a step further-if you fairly happy with service, I
    wouldn't let the 45 cents be a deal breaker. Remember- you may be able to
    get away from Verizon because of this, but anyplace else you go will charge
    a similar fee as part of your new service agreement.
  12. "Eric" <caperenewal@webtv.net> wrote in message
    news:5523-4025A19F-6@storefull-3231.bay.webtv.net...
    > <<The FCC doesn't get a penny of it. This is Verizon's way of recovering
    > the cost of portability. They originally said they weren't going to
    > charge for it, and then changed their minds. Most (if not all) of the
    > other carriers are charging a fee, too. >>
    >
    > At least Verizon wasn't charging for it way back last summer like Sprint
    > has been.
    >


    True, but look at the big picture- with a much larger subscriber base than
    Sprint, how long will it take them to catch up to Sprint in money collected?
    At 45 cents per subscriber, they are collecting more than $15 million a
    month from this fee. And you can bet that this is now a permanent fixture
    on your bill. A nice chunk of change- $180 million a year (and growing).

    A question for anybody that looked at 4th quarter financials- how much did
    Customer Acquisition Cost move? I haven't been bored enough yet to look.
  13. Eric

    Eric Guest

    Scott wrote:
    <<True, but look at the big picture- with a much larger subscriber base
    than Sprint, how long will it take them to catch up to Sprint in money
    collected? At 45 cents per subscriber, they are collecting more than $15
    million a month from this fee. And you can bet that this is now a
    permanent fixture on your bill.>>

    Yeah, you are right. But from Joe Blow's viewpoint... Sprint has been
    charging this fee since last summer whereas Verizon just now started,
    and is charging less. To Average Joe, this looks like Sprint is making
    a profit hand over fist.

    With Verizon's larger customer base, they will make their money back
    much faster than Sprint will, but the average customer will not take
    that into consideration, nor should he/she be expected to. :) I
    personally don't like the fee since I am helping pay for something I
    probably will never ever use.

    Eric
  14. tgw

    tgw Guest

    Not to mention that VZW made a big deal earlier about the fact that they
    were NOT charging customers!!!

    "Eric" <caperenewal@webtv.net> wrote in message
    news:21690-4026688E-273@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net...
    > Scott wrote:
    > <<True, but look at the big picture- with a much larger subscriber base
    > than Sprint, how long will it take them to catch up to Sprint in money
    > collected? At 45 cents per subscriber, they are collecting more than $15
    > million a month from this fee. And you can bet that this is now a
    > permanent fixture on your bill.>>
    >
    > Yeah, you are right. But from Joe Blow's viewpoint... Sprint has been
    > charging this fee since last summer whereas Verizon just now started,
    > and is charging less. To Average Joe, this looks like Sprint is making
    > a profit hand over fist.
    >
    > With Verizon's larger customer base, they will make their money back
    > much faster than Sprint will, but the average customer will not take
    > that into consideration, nor should he/she be expected to. :) I
    > personally don't like the fee since I am helping pay for something I
    > probably will never ever use.
    >
    > Eric
    >
  15. "tgw" </dev/null@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:H2uVb.18518$GO6.16558@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > Not to mention that VZW made a big deal earlier about the fact that they
    > were NOT charging customers!!!
    >
    > "Eric" <caperenewal@webtv.net> wrote in message
    > news:21690-4026688E-273@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net...
    > > Scott wrote:
    > > <<True, but look at the big picture- with a much larger subscriber base
    > > than Sprint, how long will it take them to catch up to Sprint in money
    > > collected? At 45 cents per subscriber, they are collecting more than $15
    > > million a month from this fee. And you can bet that this is now a
    > > permanent fixture on your bill.>>
    > >
    > > Yeah, you are right. But from Joe Blow's viewpoint... Sprint has been
    > > charging this fee since last summer whereas Verizon just now started,
    > > and is charging less. To Average Joe, this looks like Sprint is making
    > > a profit hand over fist.
    > >
    > > With Verizon's larger customer base, they will make their money back
    > > much faster than Sprint will, but the average customer will not take
    > > that into consideration, nor should he/she be expected to. :) I
    > > personally don't like the fee since I am helping pay for something I
    > > probably will never ever use.
    > >


    Both excellent points. I just looked at some of the financial information-
    it appears that the cost of customer acquisition was either falt or lower
    than the third quarter. This makes one ask the question- if acquisition
    costs didn't rise, why do they need this money?
  16. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 04:58:56 -0500, Mike <inundated9@yahoo.com> posted
    in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >Hey, look...I normally avoid spelling/grammar flames. But you came in
    >here with the writing skills of a 6th grader (there/they're/their,
    >"fee's", etc.)


    That's an insult to 12-year-olds. :)
  17. Roger Binns

    Roger Binns Guest

    > personally don't like the fee since I am helping pay for something I
    > probably will never ever use.


    Are they allowed to waive the fee if you waive your right to port the
    number?

    Roger
  18. On 2004-02-08 20:38:52 -0800, "Roger Binns" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com>
    said:

    > Are they allowed to waive the fee if you waive your right to port the
    > number?


    They're allowed to do whatever they want, since it's them that collects
    the fee... but I doubt it. After all, when you port, they're losing you
    as a customer anyway - why should they need to keep you happy in that
    case?

    Also, I would guess WLNP is a number of large fixed costs, not an
    actual cost to them of ~45 cents per individual number.
  19. Roger Binns

    Roger Binns Guest

    Michael Kincaid wrote:
    > On 2004-02-08 20:38:52 -0800, "Roger Binns" <rogerb@rogerbinns.com>
    > said:
    >
    > > Are they allowed to waive the fee if you waive your right to port the
    > > number?

    >
    > They're allowed to do whatever they want, since it's them that collects
    > the fee... but I doubt it.


    I didn't know if you could waive the right to port your number. I suspect
    the actual regulations say something about it. If the scenario is allowed,
    then they could up the monthly charge to $5 as a big incentive to people
    to take numbers they can't port.

    > Also, I would guess WLNP is a number of large fixed costs, not an
    > actual cost to them of ~45 cents per individual number.


    In that case why doesn't the fee come down as the number of subscribers
    goes up?

    Personally I think this is just "another add several hundred million" to
    the bottom line scam.

    It isn't quite as bad as my landline which has 10 (yes ten) taxes and
    charges which are 122% of my actual charge for service. I don't even
    use the stupid service and only have it for DSL. (Service is $5.70 per
    month, taxes and charges are another $7).

    For the curious, this is what SBC California puts on your landline bill:

    Federal subscriber line charge
    Number portability service charge
    911 emergency service
    CA high cost fund surcharge A
    CA high cost fund surcharge A
    Universal lifeline telephone service surcharge
    Rate surcharge
    State regulatory fee
    Federal universal service fee
    Federal tax

    Roger
  20. David S

    David S Guest

    On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:44:06 GMT, "Z Man" <z1z@hotmail.com> chose to add
    this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >I'm a little late entering this thread, but I am correct that the amount
    >involved is forty five cents per month? That's enough to generate over a
    >dozen messages, complete with ample invective?


    Actually, it's forty cents. they were already charging five.

    I seem to remember reading somewhere that these fees are reviewed every 3
    months.

    --
    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 a shame, this male tendency toward aggression, which has caused so
    many horrible problems, such as war and ice hockey." - Dave Barry

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?