regulatory charges imposed by carriers

"O/Siris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> No, Sprint has *not*. That $1.10 is a combined fee for both number
> pooling *and* number portability.

Okay smart-ass --- let's use Veldhouse's 63 cents, which around these parts
is still less than the current nickle and proposed 20 cents Vzw is talking
about, that's $44.1 mill since June. How the hell much do you think this
stuff costs (don't include the lobbiests fighting it)? $44 million bucks is
a truck load of money. What's that you say, SPCS has more than 14 million
lines in service? Do the math on any number you want, there's a lot of cash
going someplace.

Where's the new call center "O" ---- where are the new employees "O" ---- or
is SPCS just going to watch the customers walk out the door? I'm sure you'll
save one or two with that charming personality of yours --- and that's just
you. Imagine when all the mouth breathers get their shoulders into it what
can be accomplished!!

> I'll check back once you get your "angle" right.

Don't bother ---- if you can justify this crap then you're working for the
perfect employer. Just don't come whimpering around when you get downsized.

And the "funniest" part ---- your boss has given the rope to Vzw to hang
your sorry asses with ---- go figure huh?

--tr

---

› See More: regulatory charges imposed by carriers

In article <[email protected]>, xTennxTenn_RemovethisPart_@tds=
..net=20
says...
> Would you *PLEASE* explain the difference, and why Sprint is confusing th=
e
> issue by lumping them together?
>=20

Number pooling is also a cost recovery fee we're allowed to assess. Basica=
lly,=20
a while back the FCC changed how carriers were allowed to reserve whole blo=
cks=20
of numbers. It changed in a pretty significant way how carriers accounted =
for=20
them, and even required them to surrender portions of blocks they'd already=
=20
been assigned. If I remember correctly, it was something like they could n=
o=20
longer reserve 10,000 number blocks, and could only have 1,000 at a time wi=
thin=20
an area code. Like the WLNP fee, carriers were allowed to recover the cost=
of=20
complying with that change.

I don't think Sprint's intent is to confuse the two. I think we honestly=
=20
believe the two are that similar.

--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.

In article <[email protected]>, tom=20
[email protected] says...
> Where's the new call center "O" ---- where are the new employees "O"
>=20

http://www3.sprint.com/PR/CDA/PR_CDA...681,1111819,0=
0.ht
ml

Look for yourself. We've already setup a dedicated porting division. And=
=20
we've built the ability for the customer to check their status right into t=
he *
2 customer care line. Does it *have* to be a whole new call center?

The simple *fact* is that Verizon is backtracking. From nothing to now 25=
=A2. =20
And they're doing it *before* the very promise they've already made. In th=
e=20
meantime, we've already made porting agreements with, among others, Nextel.=
=20
*And* our Long Distance cousin company has already committed to supporting=
=20
landline to wireless porting. Do you see the same from Verizon?

Yes, they're doing it cheaper. *So far*. But also so far, they're already=
=20
violating the very promises their own CEO made, and repeated. We're=20
progressing right along exactly as we said we would.

--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.

In article <[email protected]>, Anonymous via=
the=20
Cypherpunks Tonga [email protected] says...
> all the while ignoring customer sentiment on the issue,=20
> then lying about it and instructing CS reps to call it a "tax".
>=20

We in Customer Care were told *from Day One* that this was not a tax. Nor =
did=20
our bill insert make that claim, It *explicitly* cited it as a cost recove=
ry=20
fee were were allowed and chose to impose. And management repeatedly sent =
out=20
messages telling us this, too. Vision tech support didn't get too many cal=
l=20
about that, and I never had a call like that. But I'd have cancelled such =
a=20
caller without argument if I had. Because management had confirmed the nat=
ure=20
of this charge, and what it did to the contract.

--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.

In article <[email protected]>, xTennxTenn_RemovethisPart_@tds=
..net=20
says...
> No, sorry, it is all new, at least on my billing. Don't buy a crock excu=
se
> from Sprint.
>=20

Your bills are available from the SPCS web site. Look at them going back=
=20
before July, when the WLNP charge started showing up. There's a Number Poo=
ling=20
fee before that isn't there after.
--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.

In article <[email protected]>, xTennxTenn_RemovethisPart_@tds=
..net=20
says...
> Any way you cut it, Sprint is charging $1.10 for this "feature", where ot=
her
> companies seem to be charging much less.=20
>=20

No, we aren't. We are combining two different fees into one $1.10 charge p=
er=20
line. It says so right on the bill.

--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.

Amazing, I dont post for one day and all the Sprint apologists find a way to
pick fights anyway.

Its 66 cents for the number portability charge, and dont calculate it by
multiplying by the 16 million customers, its a per phone line charge and Sprint
has way more than 20 million phones out there.

But the Sprint apologists would have you believe that 5 cents is almost equal
to 66 cents.

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
says...
> Would you *PLEASE* explain the difference, and why Sprint is confusing the
> issue by lumping them together?
>

>Number pooling is also a cost recovery fee we're allowed to assess.
Basically,
>a while back the FCC changed how carriers were allowed to reserve whole
blocks
>of numbers. It changed in a pretty significant way how carriers accounted
for
>them, and even required them to surrender portions of blocks they'd already
>been assigned. If I remember correctly, it was something like they could
no
>longer reserve 10,000 number blocks, and could only have 1,000 at a time
within
>an area code. Like the WLNP fee, carriers were allowed to recover the cost
of
>complying with that change.
>
>I don't think Sprint's intent is to confuse the two. I think we honestly
>believe the two are that similar.

It sounds soooo much like Sprint is charging for setup AND implementation of
number portability. After all, the need to not reserve huge number blocks
is directly related to this issue. The fact that Sprint puts them together
would also suggest this to be true, so the total fee for Sprint's
implementation of number portability is $1.10 per phone, not $.63.

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
says...
>> Any way you cut it, Sprint is charging $1.10 for this "feature", where
other
>> companies seem to be charging much less.
>>

>No, we aren't. We are combining two different fees into one $1.10 charge
per
>line. It says so right on the bill.

Yes, you are. Both are required to implement number portability. The fact
that you charged early to start this process does not change the fact that
it is part of the overall picture of the federal requirement. Sprint is as
much saying so by putting them together, regardless of how you will try to
rationalize it.

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
says...
>> No, sorry, it is all new, at least on my billing. Don't buy a crock
excuse
>> from Sprint.
>>

>Your bills are available from the SPCS web site. Look at them going back
>before July, when the WLNP charge started showing up. There's a Number
Pooling
>fee before that isn't there after.

I checked, and yes the charge is there. But even that is part of
portability.

According to Federal Docket NO.: CC 99-200, Number pooling is part of
portability.

A portion:
"A technical solution for allocating numbers in blocks of 1,000, rather than
10,000 ("thousands-block number pooling"), wherever possible, and
establishes a plan for national rollout of mandatory thousands-block number
pooling by carriers with local number portability (LNP) capability. Wireless
carriers who become LNP-capable in November 2002 will be required to begin
participating in pooling at that time or soon thereafter."

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Ca.../nrcc0018.html

So, yes, Sprint is charging $1.10 for Number portability, regardless of any
rationalization made here. The bad news is that they were also charging for
the groundwork before that.

"xTenn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected]
> says...
> >> Any way you cut it, Sprint is charging $1.10 for this "feature", where
> other
> >> companies seem to be charging much less.
> >>
>
> >No, we aren't. We are combining two different fees into one $1.10 charge
> per
> >line. It says so right on the bill.
>
> Yes, you are. Both are required to implement number portability. The
fact
> that you charged early to start this process does not change the fact that
> it is part of the overall picture of the federal requirement. Sprint is
as
> much saying so by putting them together, regardless of how you will try to
> rationalize it.
>

They are two different mandates. The number pooling is already in effect if
I am not mistaken. They are related by the fact that implementation may be
such that a common infrastructure MAY be used. That does not mean at all
that they do use a common infrastructure. Certainly WLNP changes would
require some of the same changes to the system that number pooling would.
They are certainly different entities though and they are reflected by the
breakdown of the $1.10 charge. WLNP is indeed $0.63 and it has been
analysed and reported elsewhere [by industry analysts] as being so. You
trying to lump them together as $1.10 for WLNP and a grand scheme to screw
customers is your implication alone and definitely not a consensus opinion
of the analysts. There have been PLENTY of articles on various industry and
news sites for you to read if you care to do a little searching. You will
find that indeed, the charge is $0.63 for WLNP and not a penny more.

Tom Veldhouse

"xTenn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected]
> says...
> >> No, sorry, it is all new, at least on my billing. Don't buy a crock
> excuse
> >> from Sprint.
> >>
>
> >Your bills are available from the SPCS web site. Look at them going back
> >before July, when the WLNP charge started showing up. There's a Number
> Pooling
> >fee before that isn't there after.
>
> I checked, and yes the charge is there. But even that is part of
> portability.
>
> According to Federal Docket NO.: CC 99-200, Number pooling is part of
> portability.
>
> A portion:
> "A technical solution for allocating numbers in blocks of 1,000, rather
than
> 10,000 ("thousands-block number pooling"), wherever possible, and
> establishes a plan for national rollout of mandatory thousands-block
number
> pooling by carriers with local number portability (LNP) capability.
Wireless
> carriers who become LNP-capable in November 2002 will be required to begin
> participating in pooling at that time or soon thereafter."
>
> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Ca.../nrcc0018.html
>
> So, yes, Sprint is charging $1.10 for Number portability, regardless of
any
> rationalization made here. The bad news is that they were also charging
for
> the groundwork before that.
>

LNP is not the same as WLNP. Prior to WLNP there was a local number
portability law for landline carriers. Number pooling is strictly to make a
more efficient use of numbers and therefore help keep area code expansion
under control. The connection with LNP is only one of implementation. The
charge from Sprint for $1.10 is for number pooling and WLNP, which is $0.47
and $0.63 respectively. The $0.47 fee existed prior to the WLNP fee and is
independent of it. If the WLNP mandate was thrown out by the FCC today, the
$0.47 fee would still exist.


Tom Veldhouse

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "xTenn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected]
> > says...
> > >> No, sorry, it is all new, at least on my billing. Don't buy a crock
> > excuse
> > >> from Sprint.
> > >>
> >
> > >Your bills are available from the SPCS web site. Look at them going
back
> > >before July, when the WLNP charge started showing up. There's a Number
> > Pooling
> > >fee before that isn't there after.
> >
> > I checked, and yes the charge is there. But even that is part of
> > portability.
> >
> > According to Federal Docket NO.: CC 99-200, Number pooling is part of
> > portability.
> >
> > A portion:
> > "A technical solution for allocating numbers in blocks of 1,000, rather
> than
> > 10,000 ("thousands-block number pooling"), wherever possible, and
> > establishes a plan for national rollout of mandatory thousands-block
> number
> > pooling by carriers with local number portability (LNP) capability.
> Wireless
> > carriers who become LNP-capable in November 2002 will be required to
begin
> > participating in pooling at that time or soon thereafter."
> >
> >
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Ca.../nrcc0018.html
> >
> > So, yes, Sprint is charging $1.10 for Number portability, regardless of
> any
> > rationalization made here. The bad news is that they were also charging
> for
> > the groundwork before that.
> >
>
> LNP is not the same as WLNP. Prior to WLNP there was a local number
> portability law for landline carriers. Number pooling is strictly to make
a
> more efficient use of numbers and therefore help keep area code expansion
> under control. The connection with LNP is only one of implementation.
The
> charge from Sprint for $1.10 is for number pooling and WLNP, which is
$0.47
> and $0.63 respectively. The $0.47 fee existed prior to the WLNP fee and
is
> independent of it. If the WLNP mandate was thrown out by the FCC today,
the
> $0.47 fee would still exist.
>
>
> Tom Veldhouse
>
>

Did you even read what I had posted? I'll post it again, but please try to
read it this time:

"Wireless carriers who become LNP-capable in November 2002 will be required
to begin participating in pooling at that time or soon thereafter"

LNP REQUIRES pooling. It is part of the charge, just as Verizon and
everyone else has to do. The fact that Sprint charged early is still in
reference to the above only, nothing to do with Land Line usage. There is
NO way the $.47 fee is independent of the WLNP fee as you try to claim, and
the quote that I AGAIN posted directly from the federal docket should show
the connection to anyone.

No offense, Thomas, but it is written in a Federal docket, I cannot see how
you can say they are not integrated.

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "xTenn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected]
> > says...
> > >> Any way you cut it, Sprint is charging $1.10 for this "feature",
where
> > other
> > >> companies seem to be charging much less.
> > >>
> >
> > >No, we aren't. We are combining two different fees into one $1.10
charge
> > per
> > >line. It says so right on the bill.
> >
> > Yes, you are. Both are required to implement number portability. The
> fact
> > that you charged early to start this process does not change the fact
that
> > it is part of the overall picture of the federal requirement. Sprint is
> as
> > much saying so by putting them together, regardless of how you will try
to
> > rationalize it.
> >
>
> They are two different mandates. The number pooling is already in effect
if
> I am not mistaken. They are related by the fact that implementation may
be
> such that a common infrastructure MAY be used. That does not mean at all
> that they do use a common infrastructure. Certainly WLNP changes would
> require some of the same changes to the system that number pooling would.
> They are certainly different entities though and they are reflected by the
> breakdown of the $1.10 charge. WLNP is indeed $0.63 and it has been
> analysed and reported elsewhere [by industry analysts] as being so. You
> trying to lump them together as $1.10 for WLNP and a grand scheme to screw
> customers is your implication alone and definitely not a consensus opinion
> of the analysts. There have been PLENTY of articles on various industry
and
> news sites for you to read if you care to do a little searching. You will
> find that indeed, the charge is $0.63 for WLNP and not a penny more.
>
> Tom Veldhouse
>
>

(cut and pasted from another part of the thread)

Did you even read what I had posted? I'll post it again, but please try to
read it this time:

"Wireless carriers who become LNP-capable in November 2002 will be required
to begin participating in pooling at that time or soon thereafter"

LNP REQUIRES pooling. It is part of the charge, just as Verizon and
everyone else has to do. The fact that Sprint charged early is still in
reference to the above only, nothing to do with Land Line usage. There is
NO way the $.47 fee is independent of the WLNP fee as you try to claim, and
the quote that I AGAIN posted directly from the federal docket should show
the connection to anyone.

No offense, Thomas, but it is written in a Federal docket, I cannot see how
you can say they are not integrated.

In article <[email protected]>, xTennxTenn_RemovethisPart_@tds=
..net=20
says...
> It sounds soooo much like Sprint is charging for setup AND implementation=
of
> number portability. After all, the need to not reserve huge number block=
s
> is directly related to this issue. The fact that Sprint puts them togeth=
er
> would also suggest this to be true, so the total fee for Sprint's
> implementation of number portability is $1.10 per phone, not $.63.
>=20

No, Number Pooling *is* related, probably, but does nothing for portability=
.. =20
It simply and only releases whole blocks of number that might otherwise go=
=20
unused. It was an attempt to preserve existing area codes, rather than=20
initiate a whole new group of area codes (which wound up happening anyway,=
=20
though it was probably lessened by the pooling regulation change).

One is about having a number available in an area code you desire, the othe=
r is=20
about moving your number from carrier to carrier.

--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.