Number portability

This is just around the corner (March 2007)

Any ideas how the companies will react and if it is still on track for March
?

---

› See More: Number portability

ito wrote:
> Any ideas how the companies will react and if it is still on track for March


Longer contracts to make it harder to switch.

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 01:41:19 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> ito wrote:
>> Any ideas how the companies will react and if it is still on track for March
>
>
> Longer contracts to make it harder to switch.

I doubt it. There are already 3 year contracts out there, I don't really
see many people flocking to 5 year (or longer) contracts.

The fact is despite what the providers are saying, I don't think it will
really harm them.

What is worse for a company: an unhappy customer who gets more and more
pissed off because they can't switch because they can't take their number,
telling more and more people how much provider "x" sucks, or an unhappy
customer who just switches?

From an immediate "money" point of view the first customer is preferable,
since they are paying every month.

But think about it for a sec, how much future money is being LOST because
this customer is getting more and more pissed, and telling more and more
people that they are pissed? You really think this customer, when they do
eventually end up switching (and they will) will EVER consider coming back?

Freedom is almost always universally good for everybody involved. At first
yes, some providers may hurt, but in the long run I think they'll make
more money because of this. Certainly the better providers will make more
money.

It's similar to returns at stores. The reason many stores accept returns
is they know it increases business. Yes, some customers will return an
item, some will take advantage of the return process, but on the whole
businesses sell more because of easy returns.

Personally I probably would have spent more money over the years on a cell
service if number portability always existed. As it is, I rarely gave out
my cell number, instead giving out my landline, since that way I'd never
have to worry about who to call when I did switch. I always resisted using
the phone for the same reason. If number portability had existed I would
have long ago switched my landline number over to my cell. Oh well, at
least it's coming now. TTYL

repatch wrote:
> What is worse for a company: an unhappy customer who gets more and more
> pissed off because they can't switch because they can't take their number,
> telling more and more people how much provider "x" sucks, or an unhappy
> customer who just switches?

The large companies do not care about individual customers. Contract
customers generate assured recvenus for the next year and make it much
easier for the large corporations to write their financial reports and
financial predictions. And it lowers churn.

In orther words, it makes those corporation's numbers *appear* better to
the wall street casino analysts.

As long as those large corporations get more customers than they lose, they
don't care about the customers they lose. And their advertising budgets are
huge. If they need to boost internet growth, they just shift advertsing
budgets from another service to mobile.


Fido went to contracts because wall street casino analysts started to
complain about its high churn. Instead of fixing the policies that were
causing customers to leave, they sought customers willing to submit to
contracts and who would lower the churn rate.

In message <[email protected]> JF Mezei
<[email protected]> wrote:

>repatch wrote:
>> What is worse for a company: an unhappy customer who gets more and more
>> pissed off because they can't switch because they can't take their number,
>> telling more and more people how much provider "x" sucks, or an unhappy
>> customer who just switches?
>
>The large companies do not care about individual customers. Contract
>customers generate assured recvenus for the next year and make it much
>easier for the large corporations to write their financial reports and
>financial predictions. And it lowers churn.

Perhaps. However, if I'm not going to save at least $200, jumping to
another provider probably isn't worth the hassle anyway.

--
'Tis far better to have snipped too much than to never have snipped at all.

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:31:41 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> repatch wrote:
>> What is worse for a company: an unhappy customer who gets more and more
>> pissed off because they can't switch because they can't take their number,
>> telling more and more people how much provider "x" sucks, or an unhappy
>> customer who just switches?
>
> The large companies do not care about individual customers. Contract
> customers generate assured recvenus for the next year and make it much
> easier for the large corporations to write their financial reports and
> financial predictions. And it lowers churn.
>
> In orther words, it makes those corporation's numbers *appear* better to
> the wall street casino analysts.
>
> As long as those large corporations get more customers than they lose, they
> don't care about the customers they lose. And their advertising budgets are
> huge. If they need to boost internet growth, they just shift advertsing
> budgets from another service to mobile.

Yes, I know all that, that's not what I was discounting.

My point is whether the companies know it or not, admit it or not, more
freedom for the consumer BENEFITS the companies, in the long run. That was
my point.

They fight against it since the in the short term it may hurt them, but in
the long run everybody wins. That's my point.

repatch wrote:
> My point is whether the companies know it or not, admit it or not, more
> freedom for the consumer BENEFITS the companies, in the long run. That was
> my point.

Depends on the companies. Consider Fido prior to bankupcy without
contracts. Rogers/Bell/Telus could call a Fido subcriber and offer a new
handset for free while Fido wouldn't, and people could then switch really
easily. This would be much worse with number portability. And Fido would
not have an easy task of stealing customers from Rogers and Bell and Telus
since those would all be locked into contracts, so unless Fido called a
Rogers customers just before that customer's contract was to expire, they
wouldn't have much of a chance to win him over.

Now that the vast majority are on contracts, no carrier is at a
disadvantage and you are right that number portability makes it easier for
carrier A to gain a customer from another carrier. And if Carrier A is
better than carrier B, they stand to steal more customers than the lose to
other carriers.

In message <[email protected]> JF Mezei
<[email protected]> wrote:

>repatch wrote:
>> My point is whether the companies know it or not, admit it or not, more
>> freedom for the consumer BENEFITS the companies, in the long run. That was
>> my point.
>
>Depends on the companies. Consider Fido prior to bankupcy without
>contracts. Rogers/Bell/Telus could call a Fido subcriber and offer a new
>handset for free while Fido wouldn't, and people could then switch really
>easily. This would be much worse with number portability. And Fido would
>not have an easy task of stealing customers from Rogers and Bell and Telus
>since those would all be locked into contracts, so unless Fido called a
>Rogers customers just before that customer's contract was to expire, they
>wouldn't have much of a chance to win him over.
>
>Now that the vast majority are on contracts, no carrier is at a
>disadvantage and you are right that number portability makes it easier for
>carrier A to gain a customer from another carrier. And if Carrier A is
>better than carrier B, they stand to steal more customers than the lose to
>other carriers.

However, should a carrier show up with T-Mobile's US rates, per-second
billing, and reasonably priced phones, I bet you'd see people flocking
to them (or the competition actually bothering to compete)

My T-Mobile prepaid service, for example, is $100 good for 1000 minutes,
with a 1 year expiry. There isn't anything in Canada that comes close.

Unlimited data in the US is reasonably priced, but in Canada, the
carriers have phased it out and Rogers has raised the data rates three
times since I purchased my Razr a little over a year ago.

If companies would concentrate on providing value and decent service,
rather then squeezing every last dollar out of every single customer,
they might just find something called "loyalty", which is far more
effective then contracts will ever be.

--
The following was seen at a car dealership,
announcing new seat belt legislation:

"Belt your family. It's the law."