SPCS's reply to my email

This is following up my email, which I copied in a post in the "lawsuit"
thread. Below is the timely reply I received from SPCS ...

Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
Dear Mr. Smith:

Thank you for your loyalty as a Sprint customer and for your interest in
this issue.
You are correct that the $1.10 surcharge introduced in July is being
collected to recoup Sprint's costs for implementing number portability. It
is, in fact, not a WLNP-only surcharge, but a "Federal Wireless Number
Pooling and Portability" fee implemented to recover the costs of both WLNP
and number pooling. Sprint successfully and timely implemented pooling
before the FCC's November 2002 deadline. Pooling is a number conservation
measure, mandated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Sprint
incurred substantial costs in deploying the pooling capability, and it
continues to incur additional costs in operating in a pooling environment.

FCC rules and orders expressly permit carriers to recover their WLNP and
pooling costs; the revenues Sprint is generating by its Pooling and
Portability surcharge will not exceed the costs Sprint incurs in
implementing and operating the two mandated capabilities; and Sprint is
assessing its surcharge now to recover both its number pooling costs and the
significant costs incurred to become WLNP-capable by November. Rather than
hiding these costs in the form of a general price increase, Sprint has made
a concerted effort to apprise customers of this surcharge via detailed bill
messages, and Sprint discloses these types of charges in print advertising
and other promotional material, including service plan brochures.
Again, thank you for your feedback and your support of Sprint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------

---

› See More: SPCS's reply to my email

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This is following up my email, which I copied in a post in the "lawsuit"
> thread. Below is the timely reply I received from SPCS ...
>
> Bob
<snip>

It was a gracious reply. It would be nice if they stated what the actual
cost was, but I can understand why they wouldn't (competition can read a lot
from that). Like I said before, I don't and didn't believe they are up to
no good, however, the numbers and method of collecting them didn't and
doesn't look good. I hope this works its way out in a decent manner with
both the company's (FON) and the customer's best interests in mind.

Tom Veldhouse

Well, they did show their estimates of the costs, with that brief filed with
the FCC. And no Tom, they are still not my numbers ...

Bob


"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > This is following up my email, which I copied in a post in the "lawsuit"
> > thread. Below is the timely reply I received from SPCS ...
> >
> > Bob
> <snip>
>
> It was a gracious reply. It would be nice if they stated what the actual
> cost was, but I can understand why they wouldn't (competition can read a
lot
> from that). Like I said before, I don't and didn't believe they are up to
> no good, however, the numbers and method of collecting them didn't and
> doesn't look good. I hope this works its way out in a decent manner with
> both the company's (FON) and the customer's best interests in mind.
>
> Tom Veldhouse
>
>

so does this mean sprint is offering number portability now or what?

"Carl." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > This is following up my email, which I copied in a post in the "lawsuit"
> > thread. Below is the timely reply I received from SPCS ...
> >
> > Bob
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ----------------------------
> > Dear Mr. Smith:
> >
> > ...Pooling is a number conservation
> > measure, mandated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Sprint
> > incurred substantial costs in deploying the pooling capability, and it
> > continues to incur additional costs in operating in a pooling
environment.
>
> I'm not sure what "a number conversion measure" is.
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/2003
>
>

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This is following up my email, which I copied in a post in the "lawsuit"
> thread. Below is the timely reply I received from SPCS ...
>
> Bob
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----------------------------
> Dear Mr. Smith:
>
> ...Pooling is a number conservation
> measure, mandated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Sprint
> incurred substantial costs in deploying the pooling capability, and it
> continues to incur additional costs in operating in a pooling environment.

I'm not sure what "a number conversion measure" is.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/2003

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 20:46:02 GMT, "Carl." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Dear Mr. Smith:
>>
>> ...Pooling is a number conservation
>> measure, mandated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
>
>I'm not sure what "a number conversion measure" is.

It's a "number conservation measure" - meant to reduce the need for
more area codes by allocating phone numbers in 1,000-number blocks,
instead of 10,000-number blocks.

IIRC, it also provides for reassigning these 1,000-number blocks from
one carrier to another, so that if carrier A has an unused block of
1,000 numbers, those numbers can be reassigned to carrier B, instead
of the FCC assigning a brand new block of 1,000 numbers to carrier B.

I'm no expert, but I believe its conservation of actual phone numbers. Over
the years the number of telephones has multiplied ... leading to a situation
where fewer and fewer unused numbers remain. One reason was large blocks
(10,000s) were assigned to carriers, and many of these numbers to date
remain unused. Two ways of dealing with this ... add a digit and make
everyone's life miserable and/or make more efficient use of the existing
numbers.

So the FCC decided to assign smaller blocks (1,000s) and also require
carriers to install equipment that would permit transfer of these smaller
unused pools from the larger blocks that were initially assigned. The Local
Number Portability is therefore really an offshoot of this attempt.

-Bum

"Carl." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > This is following up my email, which I copied in a post in the "lawsuit"
> > thread. Below is the timely reply I received from SPCS ...
> >
> > Bob
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ----------------------------
> > Dear Mr. Smith:
> >
> > ...Pooling is a number conservation
> > measure, mandated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Sprint
> > incurred substantial costs in deploying the pooling capability, and it
> > continues to incur additional costs in operating in a pooling
environment.
>
> I'm not sure what "a number conversion measure" is.
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/2003
>
>

Thomas T. Veldhouse <[email protected]> wrote:

> It was a gracious reply. It would be nice if they stated what the actual
> cost was, but I can understand why they wouldn't (competition can read a lot
> from that). Like I said before, I don't and didn't believe they are up to
> no good, however, the numbers and method of collecting them didn't and
> doesn't look good. I hope this works its way out in a decent manner with
> both the company's (FON) and the customer's best interests in mind.

I hold the same opinion. I'm not sure Sprint's objective is to screw
each and every one of their customers, but the way this hole WLNP fee has
been handled definitely makes it look that way.

--
JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

WLNP is a one time thing; and there charging us for the expenses of
becomming compatiable. I wonder how long they will continue to bill us
for it in the future long after WLNP has become a reality?

Chris
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:38:20 GMT, "Bob Smith"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>This is following up my email, which I copied in a post in the "lawsuit"
>thread. Below is the timely reply I received from SPCS ...
>
>Bob
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------
>Dear Mr. Smith:
>
>Thank you for your loyalty as a Sprint customer and for your interest in
>this issue.
>You are correct that the $1.10 surcharge introduced in July is being
>collected to recoup Sprint's costs for implementing number portability. It
>is, in fact, not a WLNP-only surcharge, but a "Federal Wireless Number
>Pooling and Portability" fee implemented to recover the costs of both WLNP
>and number pooling. Sprint successfully and timely implemented pooling
>before the FCC's November 2002 deadline. Pooling is a number conservation
>measure, mandated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Sprint
>incurred substantial costs in deploying the pooling capability, and it
>continues to incur additional costs in operating in a pooling environment.
>
>FCC rules and orders expressly permit carriers to recover their WLNP and
>pooling costs; the revenues Sprint is generating by its Pooling and
>Portability surcharge will not exceed the costs Sprint incurs in
>implementing and operating the two mandated capabilities; and Sprint is
>assessing its surcharge now to recover both its number pooling costs and the
>significant costs incurred to become WLNP-capable by November. Rather than
>hiding these costs in the form of a general price increase, Sprint has made
>a concerted effort to apprise customers of this surcharge via detailed bill
>messages, and Sprint discloses these types of charges in print advertising
>and other promotional material, including service plan brochures.
>Again, thank you for your feedback and your support of Sprint.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-------------------------------
>