New FCC rules of WLNP refute Sprint stalling

Sprint's press release last week bragging how it was working "for"
number portability, said it should only take 4 days to transfer a number.

The FCC rules, issued Tuesday said they'll have 2 1/2 hour.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...38&e=8&u=/wash
post/20031008/tc_washpost/a58844_2003oct7

"FCC's additional rules state that a carrier cannot hold a customer's
number hostage because of unpaid bills. Also, wireless carriers must
pass numbers over to the customer's new carrier within 2 1/2 hours of
the customer's making a request."


Makes sense, since Sprint allegedly spent hundreds of millions on new
computer systems and programs. Verizon had warned Sprint was planning on
using "Billing issues" as a further excuse to stall.

Looks like the FCC has seen through Sprint's tricks.

Poor Sprint, with already the worst churn rate, and the worst rated
Customer Service, it will likely lose big when portability hits.

---

› See More: New FCC rules of WLNP refute Sprint stalling

Lauer's quoted on october 1 as saying:

"Porting Intervals. Conventionally, landline-to-landline porting takes at least
four business days. Initially, landline-to-wireless portingis likely to take
that long, too. Sprint hopes that the FCC will help make the porting experience
a consistent experience across all carriers. "

The FCC has now done that, but said "You have 2 1/2 hours" Not 4 days, as
Sprint had wanted to stall things.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 07:12:36 GMT, Camile Cardenas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Sprint's press release last week bragging how it was working "for"
>number portability, said it should only take 4 days to transfer a number.
>
>The FCC rules, issued Tuesday said they'll have 2 1/2 hour.
>
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...38&e=8&u=/wash
>post/20031008/tc_washpost/a58844_2003oct7
>
>"FCC's additional rules state that a carrier cannot hold a customer's
>number hostage because of unpaid bills. Also, wireless carriers must
>pass numbers over to the customer's new carrier within 2 1/2 hours of
>the customer's making a request."

Here's what Sprint's statement says:

(Excerpted from http://tinyurl.com/q5mr )

Among the areas where the rules are unclear and could cause problems
for wireless and wireline customers:

* Landline to Wireless Porting. Many landline customers expect to
be able to port their numbers to wireless. However, some landline
carriers seek to impose limitations on the ability of their customers
to do that. Sprint has called upon the FCC to take action to ensure
that the marketplace is open to competition, giving customers the
ability to port from landline to wireless beginning in November.
* Porting Intervals. Conventionally, landline-to-landline porting
takes at least four business days. Initially, landline-to-wireless
porting is likely to take that long, too. Sprint hopes that the FCC
will help make the porting experience a consistent experience across
all carriers.
* Testing Portability. To engage other companies in testing and
developing agreements, Sprint has sent to wireless and wireline
carriers roughly 600 "Trading Partner Profiles." Each profile contains
the Sprint technical information needed to start a port request with
Sprint. Some wireline and wireless carriers are refusing to test the
systems that make portability work without a signed agreement. Sprint
believes it is imperative for testing to take place immediately, with
or without a completed agreement, if the Nov. 24 deadline for LNP is
to be met.


>Makes sense, since Sprint allegedly spent hundreds of millions on new
>computer systems and programs. Verizon had warned Sprint was planning on
>using "Billing issues" as a further excuse to stall.
>
>Looks like the FCC has seen through Sprint's tricks.

Sprint's tricks? Looks like the same problem and time interval exist
in the landline-to-landline porting, too. So, it appears that Sprint
isn't the only one at fault. It would be interesting to know which
software the FCC was referring to, so that all the carriers would be
forced to buy from the same company to implement number portability.
As the rest of the porting intervals posting says:

"Sprint hopes that the FCC will help make the porting experience a
consistent experience across all carriers."

(SBC hasn't even consented to transfer their landline numbers to
Cingular Wireless, a company they co-own!)

>Poor Sprint, with already the worst churn rate, and the worst rated
>Customer Service, it will likely lose big when portability hits.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> Sprint's tricks? Looks like the same problem and time interval exist
> in the landline-to-landline porting, too.

You don't get it do you? or are you a Sprint apologist. Just because
Sprint wont transfer a line for 4 days does not mean it must take them 4
days. The FCC thinks 2 1/2 hours is long enough. There's this new
invention that should allow it to be done real fast. It's called a
computer. Sprint has been billing every cell phone line 66 cents a month
for it for 3 months now, what is that $50 million already.

Most carriers right now are working together to deny users that owe
another company money service. They are more likely to do the same
thing again at the new company and that is a big issue.

--
-Brandt

I work for SprintPCS,
I DON'T speak for them.


Camile Cardenas <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> Sprint's press release last week bragging how it was working "for"
> number portability, said it should only take 4 days to transfer a number.
>
> The FCC rules, issued Tuesday said they'll have 2 1/2 hour.
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...38&e=8&u=/wash
> post/20031008/tc_washpost/a58844_2003oct7
>
> "FCC's additional rules state that a carrier cannot hold a customer's
> number hostage because of unpaid bills. Also, wireless carriers must
> pass numbers over to the customer's new carrier within 2 1/2 hours of
> the customer's making a request."
>
>
> Makes sense, since Sprint allegedly spent hundreds of millions on new
> computer systems and programs. Verizon had warned Sprint was planning on
> using "Billing issues" as a further excuse to stall.
>
> Looks like the FCC has seen through Sprint's tricks.
>
> Poor Sprint, with already the worst churn rate, and the worst rated
> Customer Service, it will likely lose big when portability hits.

[posted via phonescoop.com]

> >Poor Sprint, with already the worst churn rate, and the worst rated
> >Customer Service, it will likely lose big when portability hits.
>

Maybe carriers will take this opportunity to jack early termination fees way
up and not, as most suspect, lower prices.

"Big Poppa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This is my point of view about it..
>
> If a customer has a balance owed that is NOT in dispute, then that
> balance should be paid before the number is transfered.. That includeds
> any termination fees.
>
> If a balance is in dispute it should be listed as such, and should allow
> the user to port the number over.
>
> I think the carriers should Get rid of ALL charges on the bills for Cost
> recovery, and only charge a ONE TIME fee at the time of porting. I think
> a $5 porting fee would be acceptable, if it removed and cost recovery
> charges from the bill..
>
> Thats just my POV..
>
> --
> SAVE YOUR BREATH....
>
> You'll need it to blow up your date.


Who's to mark a balance in dispute? Sprint? Any carrier? And why should we
trust any carrier to mark their own charges in dispute? We know customer
claims don't count.

This is my point of view about it..

If a customer has a balance owed that is NOT in dispute, then that
balance should be paid before the number is transfered.. That includeds
any termination fees.

If a balance is in dispute it should be listed as such, and should allow
the user to port the number over.

I think the carriers should Get rid of ALL charges on the bills for Cost
recovery, and only charge a ONE TIME fee at the time of porting. I think
a $5 porting fee would be acceptable, if it removed and cost recovery
charges from the bill..

Thats just my POV..

--
SAVE YOUR BREATH....

You'll need it to blow up your date.


[email protected] (Brandt ) wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> Most carriers right now are working together to deny users that owe
> another company money service. They are more likely to do the same
> thing again at the new company and that is a big issue.
>
> --
> -Brandt
>
> I work for SprintPCS,
> I DON'T speak for them.
>
>
> Camile Cardenas <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> > Sprint's press release last week bragging how it was working "for"
> > number portability, said it should only take 4 days to transfer a number.
> >
> > The FCC rules, issued Tuesday said they'll have 2 1/2 hour.
> >
> > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...38&e=8&u=/wash
> > post/20031008/tc_washpost/a58844_2003oct7
> >
> > "FCC's additional rules state that a carrier cannot hold a customer's
> > number hostage because of unpaid bills. Also, wireless carriers must
> > pass numbers over to the customer's new carrier within 2 1/2 hours of
> > the customer's making a request."
> >
> >
> > Makes sense, since Sprint allegedly spent hundreds of millions on new
> > computer systems and programs. Verizon had warned Sprint was planning on
> > using "Billing issues" as a further excuse to stall.
> >
> > Looks like the FCC has seen through Sprint's tricks.
> >
> > Poor Sprint, with already the worst churn rate, and the worst rated
> > Customer Service, it will likely lose big when portability hits.
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

[posted via phonescoop.com]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:47:50 GMT, Camile Cardenas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> Sprint's tricks? Looks like the same problem and time interval exist
> >> in the landline-to-landline porting, too.
> >
> >You don't get it do you? or are you a Sprint apologist. Just because
> >Sprint wont transfer a line for 4 days does not mean it must take them 4
> >days. The FCC thinks 2 1/2 hours is long enough. There's this new
> >invention that should allow it to be done real fast. It's called a
> >computer. Sprint has been billing every cell phone line 66 cents a month
> >for it for 3 months now, what is that $50 million already.
>
> It takes two to transfer a line. It takes registration software,
> compatible databases. Landline is a good place to look for precidents.
>
> You've never managed complex systems, have you???
>
> That's OK. If labelling people without knowing them makes you feel
> better, go ahead.

It certainly makes Rob and Tom V feel better.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:47:50 GMT, Camile Cardenas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Sprint's tricks? Looks like the same problem and time interval exist
>> in the landline-to-landline porting, too.
>
>You don't get it do you? or are you a Sprint apologist. Just because
>Sprint wont transfer a line for 4 days does not mean it must take them 4
>days. The FCC thinks 2 1/2 hours is long enough. There's this new
>invention that should allow it to be done real fast. It's called a
>computer. Sprint has been billing every cell phone line 66 cents a month
>for it for 3 months now, what is that $50 million already.

It takes two to transfer a line. It takes registration software,
compatible databases. Landline is a good place to look for precidents.

You've never managed complex systems, have you???

That's OK. If labelling people without knowing them makes you feel
better, go ahead.

> You've never managed complex systems, have
> you???

You just have to know what you're doing. Then it becomes simple.

> Maybe carriers will take this opportunity to jack
> early termination fees way
> up and not, as most suspect, lower prices.

If the Great Britain example holds.... There they went for transfers 3 years
ago, now business discounts average 50% rather than the 10% Sprint offers.

Brandt (an apologist) says:
"Most carriers right now are working together to deny users that owe
another company money service. They are more likely to do the same
thing again at the new company and that is a big issue."


The FCC rules say thats a no-no. Customer asks to be transferred, you got 2 1/2
hours.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:07:22 -0000, [email protected] (Big Poppa)
wrote:

>This is my point of view about it..
>
>If a customer has a balance owed that is NOT in dispute, then that
>balance should be paid before the number is transfered.. That includeds
>any termination fees.
>
>If a balance is in dispute it should be listed as such, and should allow
>the user to port the number over.
>
>I think the carriers should Get rid of ALL charges on the bills for Cost
>recovery, and only charge a ONE TIME fee at the time of porting. I think
>a $5 porting fee would be acceptable, if it removed and cost recovery
>charges from the bill..
>
>Thats just my POV..

That may be your POV, but unfortunately it doesn't jive with what the
FCC has decreed. Your number cannot be held hostage by a carrier for
either balance due or contract terms. If you have remaining contract
and you do not complete the terms of your contract you are liable for
ETF. If when you apply for service with your new carrier your credit
is not sterling they will either require a deposit or maybe flat out
refuse to take you on as a subscriber. If you walk out on charges
it's not all just forgiven. If you owe charges or fees you will be
expected to pay those charges. If you do not pay collections will
come after you and also your credit record will be impacted as well.
There's no free ride. You do need to be responsible for any charges
due.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To send an email reply send to
GSMthemobilestandard ( yahoo.com

Correct. All I said is that right now most of the carriers are
communicating together to find out whether someone applying for service
owes another carrier money. Some carriers will deny you service if you
owe another carrier money in dispute or not. I've seen it happen. I
have no idea what WLNP will be like, I only what is going on now. Ido
know that if the other carriers won't give you service WLNP is useless.

--
-Brandt

I work for SprintPCS,
I DON'T speak for them.


Group Special Mobile <look@signature_to.reply> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:07:22 -0000, [email protected] (Big Poppa)
> wrote:
>
> >This is my point of view about it..
> >
> >If a customer has a balance owed that is NOT in dispute, then that
> >balance should be paid before the number is transfered.. That includeds
> >any termination fees.
> >
> >If a balance is in dispute it should be listed as such, and should allow
> >the user to port the number over.
> >
> >I think the carriers should Get rid of ALL charges on the bills for Cost
> >recovery, and only charge a ONE TIME fee at the time of porting. I think
> >a $5 porting fee would be acceptable, if it removed and cost recovery
> >charges from the bill..
> >
> >Thats just my POV..
>
> That may be your POV, but unfortunately it doesn't jive with what the
> FCC has decreed. Your number cannot be held hostage by a carrier for
> either balance due or contract terms. If you have remaining contract
> and you do not complete the terms of your contract you are liable for
> ETF. If when you apply for service with your new carrier your credit
> is not sterling they will either require a deposit or maybe flat out
> refuse to take you on as a subscriber. If you walk out on charges
> it's not all just forgiven. If you owe charges or fees you will be
> expected to pay those charges. If you do not pay collections will
> come after you and also your credit record will be impacted as well.
> There's no free ride. You do need to be responsible for any charges
> due.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To send an email reply send to
> GSMthemobilestandard ( yahoo.com

[posted via phonescoop.com]