Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 47
  1. #16
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: Sprint charges early for Number Portability -

    The question is ... is Sprint charging more for it than it is costing them,
    thus, making a profit on it? Some believe this is the case. I am undecided
    .... there is simply not enough evidence to make that assumption.

    Tom Veldhouse

    "Rich Brome" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > You're paying for it one way or another no matter who you sign up with.
    > It's just a matter of perception and marketing. Sprint makes it separate
    > on the bill so you can see what you're paying for, while Verizon simply
    > includes it in the overall cost (just one of the reasons they charge
    > more on average for the same type of plan).
    >
    > The FCC mandated it, and it is, in fact, quite expensive. It is costing
    > the industry a billion dollars just to get ready for it. The reason is
    > that it changes the fundamental way calls are routed throughout all of
    > the nation's phone systems.
    >
    > *ALL* of Sprint's and Verizon's call-routing systems have to be replaced
    > or upgraded to be able to handle ported numbers, and it affects nearly
    > all of their other systems as well, from roaming to billing to customer
    > service.
    >
    > All of those upgrades cost serious money. If it's not a separate change,
    > it's built into your monthly charge, because the FCC sure as heck isn't
    > paying for it...
    >
    > As for actually paying for number portability as a service to you -
    > that's different. That comes as a charge when you actually go to have
    > your number ported. Then Sprint or whoever can charge you $30 to port
    > your number. That's not a monthly-charge thing.
    >
    > The monthly charge is simply to cover the costs of upgrading their
    > systems to handle ported numbers, and it's something they've been
    > working on for years. If they waited until all of the upgrades were
    > complete to start recouping the costs from customers, it would just
    > throw them further into to debt, something they're not going to do
    > unnecessarily, especially to satisfy a government mandate.
    >
    > --
    > Rich Brome
    > Phone Scoop
    > http://www.phonescoop.com/
    >
    >
    > Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote in article
    > <[email protected]>:
    > > My July bill has a $2.20 charge for Number Portability.
    > >
    > > Problem is there is no number portability. Maybe in November,
    > > although all the cell phone companies are fighting that.
    > > I understand Verizon will not institute that charge until that
    > > service exists in fact.
    > >
    > > I call Sprint (*2) to enquire why I being charged for a service
    > > I am not receiving, and they say it is a cost recovery.
    > >
    > > I am complain about paying for a service I am not receiving, and they
    > > transfer me to CANCELLATION.
    > >
    > > Luckily my Advantage Agreement long ago expired.
    > >
    > >
    > > Looks like I'm going to Verizon, and then I can get the Kyocera 7135
    > > that Sprint decided not to carry. With my son across the country already
    > > on Verizon (it had far the best coverage in Wahington, D.C.) the free
    > > unlimited Verizon to Verizon is a big plus.
    > >
    > > Who ever even hinted that Sprint is trying to be more customer friendly.
    > >
    > > I didn't experience that today.

    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]






    See More: Sprint charges early for Number Portability -




  2. #17
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: Sprint charges early for Number Portability -


    "Lawrence G. Mayka" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:S%[email protected]...
    > Verizon estimates the cost at 10-15 cents per line. Sprint's $1.10/line

    charge
    > is either absurdly overblown (by a full order of magnitude!), or Sprint is

    only
    > 1/10 as efficient as Verizon.
    >


    Or they are trying to recover the fixed, one-time costs, 10 times more
    quickly. That certainly is their right, however, it is significant enough
    that early contract termination should be allowed. This amounts to more
    than 3.38% of my plan rate.

    Tom Veldhouse





  3. #18
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: Sprint charges early for Number Portability -


    "Phillipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > [email protected] (Rich Brome) wrote:
    >
    >
    > You've been sitting in with the marketing Vice Presidents for both
    > companies, so you know this?
    >
    > I suspect Sprint charges less to get more market share. They lose money
    > on every customer, but they make it up in volume.


    Umm ... losing money on every customer, in volume means losing LOTS OF
    MONEY. Losing money on every customer can NOT be made up in volume.

    Tom Veldhouse






  4. #19
    Phillipe
    Guest

    Re: Sprint charges early for Number Portability -

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Phillipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news[email protected]...
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > [email protected] (Rich Brome) wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > You've been sitting in with the marketing Vice Presidents for both
    > > companies, so you know this?
    > >
    > > I suspect Sprint charges less to get more market share. They lose money
    > > on every customer, but they make it up in volume.

    >
    > Umm ... losing money on every customer, in volume means losing LOTS OF
    > MONEY. Losing money on every customer can NOT be made up in volume.
    >
    > Tom Veldhouse
    >
    >
    >


    Does no one understand sarcasm?



  5. #20
    Phillipe
    Guest

    Re: Sprint charges early for Number Portability -

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > The question is ... is Sprint charging more for it than it is costing them,
    > thus, making a profit on it? Some believe this is the case. I am undecided
    > ... there is simply not enough evidence to make that assumption.
    >
    > Tom Veldhouse



    Let's see, Verizon has said it's gonna cost them 10 to 15 cents a month,
    and they won't charge till its in effect. In California, Sprint and
    Nextel are being sued because of this attempt to backdoor a price
    increase.



  6. #21
    Phillipe
    Guest

    Re: Sprint charges early for Number Portability -

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Or they are trying to recover the fixed, one-time costs, 10 times more
    > quickly. That certainly is their right, however, it is significant enough
    > that early contract termination should be allowed. This amounts to more
    > than 3.38% of my plan rate.



    Sprint never said they are attempting accelerated cost recovery. CSRs
    have refused to let customers out of contracts, and as a result Sprint
    is being sued.



  7. #22
    Rich Brome
    Guest

    Re: Sprint charges early for Number Portability -

    Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > [email protected] (Rich Brome) wrote:
    >
    > > You're paying for it one way or another no matter who you sign up with.
    > > It's just a matter of perception and marketing. Sprint makes it separate
    > > on the bill so you can see what you're paying for, while Verizon simply
    > > includes it in the overall cost

    >
    >
    > You've been sitting in with the marketing Vice Presidents for both
    > companies, so you know this?


    I'm just stating the obvious, which is:

    1. Number portability costs serious money.

    2. That money isn't coming out of thin air.

    Verizon's claim that "we're not going to charge our customers for this"
    is bull****. One way or another, they have been spending the money, and
    like any company, that eventually matches up with revenue they
    collected, which means your money.

    ...unless they're paying for it with the *billions* of dollars they
    defrauded from the state of Pennsylvania:

    http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/30544

    ...but that's a separate issue, and another story for another day.

    --
    Rich Brome
    Phone Scoop
    http://www.phonescoop.com/


    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  8. #23
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: Sprint charges early for Number Portability -


    "Phillipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > >
    > > Umm ... losing money on every customer, in volume means losing LOTS OF
    > > MONEY. Losing money on every customer can NOT be made up in volume.
    > >
    > > Tom Veldhouse
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Does no one understand sarcasm?


    Nice cover ... but I don't think so

    Tom Veldhouse





  9. #24
    Rich Brome
    Guest

    Re: Sprint charges early for Number Portability -

    > > It's just a matter of perception and marketing. Sprint makes it separate
    >
    > Absolutely false. Verizon, and I think some other carriers, are *not*
    > attempting to impose a new charge (a.k.a. rate increase) on customers with a
    > current agreement ("contract"). This is a *fundamental* difference: Other
    > carriers respect existing agreements, whereas Sprint does not. [...]


    I'm not sure I see it that way. You signed an agreement with Sprint,
    which involved Sprint's cost of providing that service at that time. Now
    there are many situations where I would expect Sprint to "suck it up"
    when costs rise on their end.

    But an unfunded government mandate is a bit different, IMHO. Especially
    when (as in this case) the government explicitly told carriers they
    could charge customers extra, for up to 5 years, to pay for it. Sprint
    is simply following the government's advice on how to pay for number
    portability.

    Would it be nice if Sprint "sucked it up" and included it in your
    contract price? Of course. Do they have to? Does it violate the contract
    to charge extra? No.

    > > The FCC mandated it, and it is, in fact, quite expensive. It is costing
    > > the industry a billion dollars just to get ready for it. The reason is

    >
    > Verizon estimates the cost at 10-15 cents per line. Sprint's $1.10/line charge
    > is either absurdly overblown (by a full order of magnitude!), or Sprint is only
    > 1/10 as efficient as Verizon.


    I'm not sure that's comparing apples to apples. There are different
    costs here. First is the charge to get ready for it - upgrading
    switching equipment, etc. Second is the cost going forward to provide
    the service - new call center, etc. I think Verizon might have been
    talking about the second type of cost, while Sprint is charging for the
    first type. Not positive, though.

    --
    Rich Brome
    Phone Scoop
    http://www.phonescoop.com/


    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  10. #25
    norelpref
    Guest

    Re: Sprint charges early for Number Portability -

    Unless it is hidden somewhere in the plans, Verizon does not have
    unlimited mobile to mobile, it is 1000 minutes and if you have a
    "Family Plan" package, it is 1000 for the primary phone and 250 for
    the secondary phone. 1000 is a decent amount but 250 is LAME.
    Another note, if you look at the maps where mobile to mobile can be
    used, it is not as large as you probably think considering the amount
    labeled as "future" area.
    http://tinyurl.com/jpsm

    Again, a big YMMV here depending on where you live, where you travel,
    and how much phone to phone you expect to use.

    My main use of cell phones is mobile to mobile, I was 75% into a
    Verizon contract at a Radio Shack, dude was on phone with Verizon
    activating the 4 new phones when the fine print, maps, and limited
    minutes for phone to phone finally penetrated my skull. I immedately
    stopped the deal, and the salesman and I each took a share of the
    blame for the misunderstanding. No hard feelings on either side and I
    left with no phones.

    I'm getting off topic here, but at the time I signed up with Sprint
    (and maybe still now), shared phones were not under a contract and
    can be cancelled at any time without penalty. Other carriers charge
    $175 PER LINE.

    On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 14:23:57 GMT, "Lawrence G. Mayka"
    <[email protected]> said:

    >"Ralph Patuki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> YOU are going to be at. It doesn't make a difference if your son is on
    >> Verizon and you are on SPCS/AWS/Cingular/Nextel/ and/or T-Mobile. They

    >
    >The original post specifically mentioned that "the free unlimited Verizon to
    >Verizon is a big plus." So for him, moving to his son's carrier is indeed a
    >significant advantage--provided that Verizon meets his needs otherwise.
    >





  11. #26
    norelpref
    Guest

    Re: Sprint charges early for Number Portability -

    On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:42:10 -0000, [email protected] (Rich Brome)
    said:

    >Would it be nice if Sprint "sucked it up" and included it in your
    >contract price? Of course. Do they have to? Does it violate the contract
    >to charge extra? No.
    >

    How does it NOT violate your contract? They raised your fixed non tax
    rate per month? What if OSHA determines a new air conditioner is
    needed in the call center, and they switch to a higher cost health
    care providers for employees. What about a spectrum purchase that was
    $100million more then they budgetted? Should Sprint be allowed to tack
    on a $5 AC recovery fee, a $10 Health Care subsidizing fee, and a $5
    Spectrum Allocation fee to your bill?
    You sign a contract with Sprint for a certain fee per month. That fee
    should not change until the contract is expired.

    Imagine a landlord jacking up your rental fee's 2 months into your 12
    month contract because he was required by law to replace your hot
    water heater and replace a leaking roof? Those things are required by
    law to be fixed in a given time frame.
    Imagine a bank adding 2% to your 5 year car loan after 18 months to
    recover costs because the government has raised the prime rate and
    they have increased fees to deal with some new governmant legislation.

    Those examples are no different.



  12. #27
    Rich Brome
    Guest

    Re: Sprint charges early for Number Portability -

    Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > [email protected] (Rich Brome) wrote:
    >
    > > I'm just stating the obvious, which is:
    > >
    > > 1. Number portability costs serious money.

    >
    > Fine how much?


    I don't know exactly. I do know that the CTIA (a biased organization,
    but nonetheless...) estimates the conversion cost at $1 billion for all
    of the U.S. carriers combined.

    Note that is only for the one-time costs, not the ongoing costs. The
    one-time costs are significant, however, because number portability
    breaks many of the most basic assumptions upon which all
    telephone-related systems in the country were based on. It affects
    everything - from number assignment, to call routing (most important),
    to long distance, to billing, to SMS, to customer service.

    > $1.10 per month per phone forever?


    Given the extent and cost of the changes, I don't think $1.10 per month
    is to out-of-line. Forever? Absolutely not. The government is only
    allowing 5 years for the extra charge, and the $1.10 certainly reflects
    that window.

    And remember, this is only for the one-time costs. For the ongoing costs
    - the call center to process ports, and the staff to process the ports,
    the costs will most likely be assessed in a porting charge, So you'll
    pay $20-30 bucks to port your number, and that will pay the cost of
    doing that port.

    > Show us the proof. Sprint or you.


    I don't even know what that means...

    > Sprint is already backing off, as if you call up and *****
    > they'll waive your fee. (at least offered that to me).


    They're "backing off" because they're being slammed with lawsuits. With
    the way our legal system works, I don't blame them. That doesn't mean
    they aren't racking up those costs and trying to assess customers
    fairly.

    Now, please note that, like I said earlier, I don't know Sprint's actual
    costs for number portability. All I know is that it is very expensive -
    more than most people realize. It is possible that Sprint is
    intentionally overcharging customers for this - I have no way of knowing
    - but I'd certainly like to think that's not the case.

    Also, it's simply my opinion that Sprint is justified in tacking on an
    extra charge to existing contracts to cover an unfunded mandate from the
    government. But that's my opinion... If you disagree, join a
    class-action suit, and let the courts sort it out.

    --
    Rich Brome
    Phone Scoop
    http://www.phonescoop.com/

    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  13. #28
    Rich Brome
    Guest

    Re: Sprint charges early for Number Portability -

    norelpref <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:42:10 -0000, [email protected] (Rich Brome)
    > said:
    >
    > >Would it be nice if Sprint "sucked it up" and included it in your
    > >contract price? Of course. Do they have to? Does it violate the contract
    > >to charge extra? No.
    > >

    > How does it NOT violate your contract? They raised your fixed non tax
    > rate per month? What if OSHA determines a new air conditioner is
    > needed in the call center, and they switch to a higher cost health
    > care providers for employees. What about a spectrum purchase that was
    > $100million more then they budgetted? Should Sprint be allowed to tack
    > on a $5 AC recovery fee, a $10 Health Care subsidizing fee, and a $5
    > Spectrum Allocation fee to your bill?
    > You sign a contract with Sprint for a certain fee per month. That fee
    > should not change until the contract is expired.
    >
    > Imagine a landlord jacking up your rental fee's 2 months into your 12
    > month contract because he was required by law to replace your hot
    > water heater and replace a leaking roof? Those things are required by
    > law to be fixed in a given time frame.
    > Imagine a bank adding 2% to your 5 year car loan after 18 months to
    > recover costs because the government has raised the prime rate and
    > they have increased fees to deal with some new governmant legislation.
    >
    > Those examples are no different.


    Wrong. Those are all very different.

    You're talking about normal costs of doing business.

    This is the government coming in and saying to the carriers: "you have
    to do this thing, that you absolutely don't want to do, it will cost you
    HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars, we will provide zero funding, and it
    needs to be done in less than five years."

    I'm sorry, but I'd say that's pretty damn different from normal
    maintenance costs, budgeting issues, or rising interest rates.

    Also keep in mind that the FCC is *simultaneously* mandating E-911 - the
    ability to locate you with extreme precision. That's another very
    expensive technology that Sprint would not have deployed had it not been
    mandated. This money does not come out of thin air.

    Maybe those of you on contract would prefer that cost be laid entirely
    on new customers, so that the only plans for new customers would be $50
    for 300 minutes... but I'm sure you can imagine what effect that would
    have. Sprint does need to remain a viable company...

    This government mandate has a lot in common with a tax, which is part of
    why Sprint is breaking it out into a separate charge - so that you can
    understand that the government is making them do this - that they would
    never have chosen to do this on their own. If they had a choice in the
    matter, it would be a simple budget issue, and yes, then it should go in
    your monthly charge. But that's not the case.

    --
    Rich Brome
    Phone Scoop
    http://www.phonescoop.com/


    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  14. #29
    boe
    Guest

    Re: Sprint charges early for Number Portability -

    I do believe this is the cost of doing business. You mention HUNDREDS OF
    MILLIONS of dollars for this - where did you get that number from? Who is
    running their operation Dr. Evil? They have been charging us for the 911
    service for years as well.

    As far as covering the cost - how much do you want to bet if I ask to switch
    in November from Sprint to Verizon I'm not tagged at least $15 from each of
    the two? How is this handled when I switch land line carriers without it
    costing them HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Dollars?
    "Rich Brome" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > norelpref <[email protected]> wrote in article
    > <[email protected]>:
    > > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:42:10 -0000, [email protected] (Rich Brome)
    > > said:
    > >
    > > >Would it be nice if Sprint "sucked it up" and included it in your
    > > >contract price? Of course. Do they have to? Does it violate the

    contract
    > > >to charge extra? No.
    > > >

    > > How does it NOT violate your contract? They raised your fixed non tax
    > > rate per month? What if OSHA determines a new air conditioner is
    > > needed in the call center, and they switch to a higher cost health
    > > care providers for employees. What about a spectrum purchase that was
    > > $100million more then they budgetted? Should Sprint be allowed to tack
    > > on a $5 AC recovery fee, a $10 Health Care subsidizing fee, and a $5
    > > Spectrum Allocation fee to your bill?
    > > You sign a contract with Sprint for a certain fee per month. That fee
    > > should not change until the contract is expired.
    > >
    > > Imagine a landlord jacking up your rental fee's 2 months into your 12
    > > month contract because he was required by law to replace your hot
    > > water heater and replace a leaking roof? Those things are required by
    > > law to be fixed in a given time frame.
    > > Imagine a bank adding 2% to your 5 year car loan after 18 months to
    > > recover costs because the government has raised the prime rate and
    > > they have increased fees to deal with some new governmant legislation.
    > >
    > > Those examples are no different.

    >
    > Wrong. Those are all very different.
    >
    > You're talking about normal costs of doing business.
    >
    > This is the government coming in and saying to the carriers: "you have
    > to do this thing, that you absolutely don't want to do, it will cost you
    > HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars, we will provide zero funding, and it
    > needs to be done in less than five years."
    >
    > I'm sorry, but I'd say that's pretty damn different from normal
    > maintenance costs, budgeting issues, or rising interest rates.
    >
    > Also keep in mind that the FCC is *simultaneously* mandating E-911 - the
    > ability to locate you with extreme precision. That's another very
    > expensive technology that Sprint would not have deployed had it not been
    > mandated. This money does not come out of thin air.
    >
    > Maybe those of you on contract would prefer that cost be laid entirely
    > on new customers, so that the only plans for new customers would be $50
    > for 300 minutes... but I'm sure you can imagine what effect that would
    > have. Sprint does need to remain a viable company...
    >
    > This government mandate has a lot in common with a tax, which is part of
    > why Sprint is breaking it out into a separate charge - so that you can
    > understand that the government is making them do this - that they would
    > never have chosen to do this on their own. If they had a choice in the
    > matter, it would be a simple budget issue, and yes, then it should go in
    > your monthly charge. But that's not the case.
    >
    > --
    > Rich Brome
    > Phone Scoop
    > http://www.phonescoop.com/
    >
    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]






  15. #30
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: Sprint charges early for Number Portability -


    "norelpref" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > I'm getting off topic here, but at the time I signed up with Sprint
    > (and maybe still now), shared phones were not under a contract and
    > can be cancelled at any time without penalty. Other carriers charge
    > $175 PER LINE.


    Sprint PCS does, and has for a long time, charged $150 PER LINE.

    Tom Veldhouse





  • Similar Threads




  • Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast