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!

Verizon Portability- Landlines to Cell Phone

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by TriModeMan, Sep 23, 2003.

  1. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 01:04:09 -0000, planenospam@usa.com (p lane)
    wrote:

    >ARe you saying that a landline number can be exchanged for cell number
    >and the other way too? more details please.
    >

    Hell, why not. Verizon Wireless is NOT the center of the switching
    universe.....IT'S THE EDGE! ATT Long Lines, what's left of
    MCI/Worldcom (or whatever they're calling that company to hide from
    the investors lawyers this week), in any event the LONG LINES CARRIERS
    are the ones that do the switching to determine if 202-212-1234 should
    be ROUTED to Verizon Wireless, Farmer's Telephone Cooperative,
    Bell$outh or PacBell......not some rinky-dink wireless carrier with a
    terminal... The calls, except for M2M, are routed on the LANDLINES,
    where number portability is ALREADY a reality!

    We're not talking about stringing wires here.....it's all just DATA in
    a DATABASE! However, the SIZE of the database will grow exponentially
    when all the number from 843-696-0000 to 843-696-9999, one of
    Verizon's BLOCKS of numbers here in Charleston is BROKEN UP into
    smaller chunks as people flee to other carriers, landline or
    otherwise. There won't be a routing from just those first 6 digits
    843696 to Verizon Wireless's Charleston Switch (or however they route
    it inside the company). Other carriers will have numbers in that
    block.......

    This is going to be a database disaster, like I'm sure it was on
    landline until the database was corrected and the database management
    software upgraded to the new reality.....

    There, now I can get slammed by the company "engineers" who will tell
    me I'm full of shit for the rest of the thread......



    Larry W4CSC

    3600 planes with transponders are burning 8-10 million
    gallons of kerosene per hour over the USA. R-12 car air
    conditioners are responsible for the ozone hole, right?



    › See More: Verizon Portability- Landlines to Cell Phone
  2. Think about it.....what does Verizon stand to gain? Customers. Would
    you be opposed to having a open-arm policy when it comes to LNP?

    Verizon is only in a position to GAIN from LNP not lose. Try to
    understand this from a business perspective. Make it easy for people to
    take their numbers if they want them who cares?

    Just wait though you haven't seen anything yet for competition between
    Wireless Providers.

    http://news.vzw.com/news/2003/09/pr2003-09-10f.html

    Hmmm....guess Verizon isn't embracing LNP? You are fighting an uphill
    battle.

    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  3. Last month, Verizon Wireless urged the FCC to establish firm guidelines
    for wireless number portability implementation, and to reject the
    position advanced by the “Wireless Carrier Group” (WCG), consisting of
    ALLTEL, AT&T Wireless, Cingular, Nextel and Sprint PCS, that would, if
    allowed, create new barriers to wireless customers who want to change
    service providers while keeping their mobile numbers with them. This was
    after the WCG told the FCC that their understanding of number
    portability will allow them to impose new barriers to switching that do
    not exist today, effectively derailing number portability. More
    recently, several carriers filed a lawsuit challenging the FCC’s
    authority to require WLNP.

    In June, Verizon Wireless president and chief executive officer Denny
    Strigl detailed the Verizon Wireless plan for implementing number
    portability: no up-front costs to current customers; no special barriers
    to switching from one service provider to another; fast service; and no
    hassle. Strigl said, “We will not charge any ‘special fees’ for
    customers who want to take their numbers with them. Our plan at Verizon
    Wireless is to treat porting customers the same way we treat any
    customer today. No change from today.”

    http://news.vzw.com/news/2003/09/pr2003-09-10f.html

    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  4. David Domanski wrote:

    >
    > Think about it.....what does Verizon stand to gain? Customers. Would
    > you be opposed to having a open-arm policy when it comes to LNP?
    >
    > Verizon is only in a position to GAIN from LNP not lose. Try to
    > understand this from a business perspective. Make it easy for people to
    > take their numbers if they want them who cares?
    >
    > Just wait though you haven't seen anything yet for competition between
    > Wireless Providers.
    >
    > http://news.vzw.com/news/2003/09/pr2003-09-10f.html
    >
    > Hmmm....guess Verizon isn't embracing LNP? You are fighting an uphill
    > battle.
    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]



    Yeah- I hear they had to issue neck braces for upper management. Such
    sudden changes of course always lead to whiplash. And I really appreciate
    the unbiased news article- you need to do a little better than that.
  5. David Domanski wrote:

    > Last month, Verizon Wireless urged the FCC to establish firm guidelines
    > for wireless number portability implementation, and to reject the
    > position advanced by the “Wireless Carrier Group” (WCG), consisting of
    > ALLTEL, AT&T Wireless, Cingular, Nextel and Sprint PCS, that would, if
    > allowed, create new barriers to wireless customers who want to change
    > service providers while keeping their mobile numbers with them. This was
    > after the WCG told the FCC that their understanding of number
    > portability will allow them to impose new barriers to switching that do
    > not exist today, effectively derailing number portability. More
    > recently, several carriers filed a lawsuit challenging the FCC’s
    > authority to require WLNP.
    >
    > In June, Verizon Wireless president and chief executive officer Denny
    > Strigl detailed the Verizon Wireless plan for implementing number
    > portability: no up-front costs to current customers; no special barriers
    > to switching from one service provider to another; fast service; and no
    > hassle. Strigl said, “We will not charge any ‘special fees’ for
    > customers who want to take their numbers with them. Our plan at Verizon
    > Wireless is to treat porting customers the same way we treat any
    > customer today. No change from today.”
    >
    > http://news.vzw.com/news/2003/09/pr2003-09-10f.html
    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]



    Wow- they've been on board for a whole month. Take a look a little further
    back than that- they have been the most vocal opponent in the past. The
    only reaso nthey did the 180 degree turn was becasue they found a way to
    make a buck. It has nothing to do with the customer.
  6. Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in article
    <YvPdb.3169$qK1.3236631@news2.news.adelphia.net>:

    >
    > Wow- they've been on board for a whole month. Take a look a little further
    > back than that- they have been the most vocal opponent in the past. The
    > only reaso nthey did the 180 degree turn was becasue they found a way to
    > make a buck. It has nothing to do with the customer.
    >


    Scott, seriously your reaching for things you have no idea about. I can
    guarantee Verizon has been a vocal pro-ponent for LNP for MUCH longer
    than a month.

    Especially since September doesn't come after June.

    It goes June, July, August, September.

    Verizon has urged the FCC and other providers to be more compliant or
    cooperative with LNP and thats been for nearly 8-10 months now.

    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  7. David Domanski wrote:

    >
    >
    > Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in article
    > <YvPdb.3169$qK1.3236631@news2.news.adelphia.net>:
    >
    >>
    >> Wow- they've been on board for a whole month. Take a look a little
    >> further
    >> back than that- they have been the most vocal opponent in the past. The
    >> only reaso nthey did the 180 degree turn was becasue they found a way to
    >> make a buck. It has nothing to do with the customer.
    >>

    >
    > Scott, seriously your reaching for things you have no idea about. I can
    > guarantee Verizon has been a vocal pro-ponent for LNP for MUCH longer
    > than a month.
    >
    > Especially since September doesn't come after June.
    >
    > It goes June, July, August, September.
    >
    > Verizon has urged the FCC and other providers to be more compliant or
    > cooperative with LNP and thats been for nearly 8-10 months now.
    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]



    Yeah- they're great. How come they don't have any agreements in place like
    this:

    http://cbs.marketwatch.com/tools/qu...={B70D4A3C-6B21-4F5C-9516-EAEBB43D5549}&symb=


    If they were urging other providers, how come they don't have SLA's in place
    with anyone but themselves? Face it- all of the candy coating and dressing
    up is not going to help you- they only care about themselves, their
    pocketbooks (not yours), and will do anything to look good. Unfortunately,
    they don't do a real good job at it, which is one of the reasons 2003
    earnings have been downgraded.

    Kepp telling me I don't know about the things I talk about. Your whole line
    here is a classic example of throwing up the Verizon smokescreen- looks
    good on paper until people get the bill, or until somebody else takes real
    action.
  8. Well gee whiz...that was posted on CBS marketwatch TODAY. I'm sure as
    WLNP hits closer and closer you'll see more agreements be put into
    effect.

    And so what if Verizon Communications and Verizon Wireless have produced
    and agreement to make porting numbers easy? I'm sure Sprint's landline
    service and Sprint's Wireless Service are in the same process. Not to
    mention At&t as well.

    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  9. David Domanski wrote:

    >
    > Well gee whiz...that was posted on CBS marketwatch TODAY. I'm sure as
    > WLNP hits closer and closer you'll see more agreements be put into
    > effect.
    >
    > And so what if Verizon Communications and Verizon Wireless have produced
    > and agreement to make porting numbers easy? I'm sure Sprint's landline
    > service and Sprint's Wireless Service are in the same process. Not to
    > mention At&t as well.
    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]



    Don't skirt the issue at hand- two competing telecommunications companies,
    who in your mind are being less cooperative than Verizon about WNP, have
    come to agreement on this, and neither one of them is Verizon. I thought
    everyone else was being uncooperative about this, except for the mighty
    Verizon? And this, unlike the 'agreement' between VZ and VZW, deals with
    more than one corporation's subscribers.

    And your right- it was posted today. And if you took the time to read the
    article, you would see that they have working on this for MONTHS. Was the
    point of bringing up the posting date because you want everyone to think
    that they got together last night for beer and pizza and came up with the
    idea? Try to make it less than it is. Once again, while Verizon has been
    making the noise, others have taken action.
  10. Other than that article posted today thats the first info I have seen of
    other companies acting on anything for WLNP.

    I'm sure Verizon isn't far behind.

    Why are you so bitter?

    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  11. Tom J

    Tom J Guest

    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:Hn5eb.3391$qK1.3466743@news2.news.adelphia.net...

    > I'm not bitter- I just don't like seeing half of the story. Verizon may be
    > the biggest, but they have made some questionable business decisions that
    > impact every person who mails a check to them every month (which I do not
    > do).


    We may be close to the reason for your view from what you wrote above. All
    indications point to Verizon being the one to gain the most new customers when
    people can take their number along. Like you said, you are not with Verizon,
    so you are going to be losing your customers! You better jump ship and get
    with a winner. ;-)

    Tom J
  12. Peter Pan

    Peter Pan Guest

    NNTP-Posting-Host: id-cralid-cuda1a-56-203.losaca.adelphia.net (67.22.56.203)
    X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1064893957 10352556 67.22.56.203 (16 [190045])
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
    Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular.verizon:120735


    "David Domanski" <isocom79@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:vnhnrar4gljqea@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    > Other than that article posted today thats the first info I have seen of
    > other companies acting on anything for WLNP.
    >
    > I'm sure Verizon isn't far behind.
    >
    > Why are you so bitter?
    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]


    You may want to check out Verizon ONE. They have been selling it for a
    while. when hooked to a landline and within 300 FT it's a cordless phone,
    further away it becomes a cell phone. Why is it called ONE? Cause it's ONE
    number whether it's a landline phone or cellphone!

    Verizon Avenue focuses on ONE strategy: One phone, one number, one voicemail
    box.

    Check it out at
    http://www.wirelessreview.com/ar/telecom_verizon_integrated_phone/

    Been out since June 19th 2003
  13. Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in article
    <Hn5eb.3391$qK1.3466743@news2.news.adelphia.net>:
    > David Domanski wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > Other than that article posted today thats the first info I have seen of
    > > other companies acting on anything for WLNP.
    > >
    > > I'm sure Verizon isn't far behind.
    > >
    > > Why are you so bitter?
    > >
    > > [posted via phonescoop.com]

    >
    >
    > I'm not bitter- I just don't like seeing half of the story. Verizon may be
    > the biggest, but they have made some questionable business decisions that
    > impact every person who mails a check to them every month (which I do not
    > do). And they always have a way of putting a slant on it to make it appear
    > like they are poised to take over the world. PTT is a classic example, and
    > WNP falls into that category too. I'm still looking for the article I read
    > earlier this summer that named them as the #1 spender in the fight against
    > WNP. Of course they're going to 'embrace' it now- they have no choice. And
    > until they really do something about it, it is only words.
    >
    >
    > And that's not the first article. Sprint rolled out the same type of
    > arrangement that Verizon did, and I feel the same way about that as I do
    > about the Verizon deal. But the articlew that I mentioned earlier is THE
    > FIRST agreement between rivals, and the fact that Verizon is not involved
    > shows who is really dragging their heels.


    Dragging their heels....jeez it hasn't even been 24 hours since that
    agreement was announced between Sprint and Nextel.....give it a few days
    I bet you'll see something by the end of the week from Verizon
    pertaining to WLNP regarding other providers, that is IF those companies
    are even willing to negotiate with Verizon.



    Keep looking for that article...

    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  14. "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> wrote in article
    <blaum4$9rttc$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de>:
    >
    > "David Domanski" <isocom79@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:vnhnrar4gljqea@corp.supernews.com...
    > >
    > > Other than that article posted today thats the first info I have seen of
    > > other companies acting on anything for WLNP.
    > >
    > > I'm sure Verizon isn't far behind.
    > >
    > > Why are you so bitter?
    > >
    > > [posted via phonescoop.com]

    >
    > You may want to check out Verizon ONE. They have been selling it for a
    > while. when hooked to a landline and within 300 FT it's a cordless phone,
    > further away it becomes a cell phone. Why is it called ONE? Cause it's ONE
    > number whether it's a landline phone or cellphone!
    >
    > Verizon Avenue focuses on ONE strategy: One phone, one number, one voicemail
    > box.
    >
    > Check it out at
    > http://www.wirelessreview.com/ar/telecom_verizon_integrated_phone/
    >
    > Been out since June 19th 2003
    >
    >


    I have known about that for a while, but thanks for the info.

    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  15. Peter Pan <Marcs1102nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

    > You may want to check out Verizon ONE. They have been selling it for a
    > while. when hooked to a landline and within 300 FT it's a cordless phone,
    > further away it becomes a cell phone. Why is it called ONE? Cause it's ONE
    > number whether it's a landline phone or cellphone!


    Sounds like the GTE Mobilnet Tele-go service I started out with in 1993.

    It's a good idea, and I wish GTE had never gotten rid of it.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  16. Tom J wrote:

    >
    > "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    > news:Hn5eb.3391$qK1.3466743@news2.news.adelphia.net...
    >
    >> I'm not bitter- I just don't like seeing half of the story. Verizon may
    >> be the biggest, but they have made some questionable business decisions
    >> that impact every person who mails a check to them every month (which I
    >> do not do).

    >
    > We may be close to the reason for your view from what you wrote above.
    > All indications point to Verizon being the one to gain the most new
    > customers when
    > people can take their number along. Like you said, you are not with
    > Verizon, so you are going to be losing your customers! You better jump
    > ship and get with a winner. ;-)
    >
    > Tom J


    I will when one presents itself- Verizon certainly showed their opinion of
    employees during contract talks. I'll pass.
  17. Lines: 29
    Organization: Gnu-Linux
    User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
    Message-ID: <Hn5eb.3391$qK1.3466743@news2.news.adelphia.net>
    Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 01:54:47 GMT
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.71.58.36
    X-Complaints-To: abuse@adelphia.net
    X-Trace: news2.news.adelphia.net 1064886887 68.71.58.36 (Mon, 29 Sep 2003 21:54:47 EDT)
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 21:54:47 EDT
    Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular.verizon:120716

    David Domanski wrote:

    >
    > Other than that article posted today thats the first info I have seen of
    > other companies acting on anything for WLNP.
    >
    > I'm sure Verizon isn't far behind.
    >
    > Why are you so bitter?
    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]



    I'm not bitter- I just don't like seeing half of the story. Verizon may be
    the biggest, but they have made some questionable business decisions that
    impact every person who mails a check to them every month (which I do not
    do). And they always have a way of putting a slant on it to make it appear
    like they are poised to take over the world. PTT is a classic example, and
    WNP falls into that category too. I'm still looking for the article I read
    earlier this summer that named them as the #1 spender in the fight against
    WNP. Of course they're going to 'embrace' it now- they have no choice. And
    until they really do something about it, it is only words.


    And that's not the first article. Sprint rolled out the same type of
    arrangement that Verizon did, and I feel the same way about that as I do
    about the Verizon deal. But the articlew that I mentioned earlier is THE
    FIRST agreement between rivals, and the fact that Verizon is not involved
    shows who is really dragging their heels.

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?