regulatory charges imposed by carriers

"xTenn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> THANK YOU! Exactly my point.
>
> All or nothing is correct, and this is exactly what ALL wireless carriers
> MUST do in order to have WLNP.
>
> They ALL have to provide Pooling AND Portability.
>
> You do understand this, right? That ALL carriers (by finally your own
> admission) must do POOLING and Portability (all or nothing) for WLNP, yet
> only Sprint broke this into two charges at first. The total cost for
> implementing WLNP would include POOLING and PORTABILITY for all carriers,
so
> this leaves Sprint's cost for WLNP (pooling and portability) at $1.10.
>
> I do hope this comes across as polite, but the facts really do speak for
> themselves.
>


No, you still have it wrong. If you have WLNP, you must have POOLING. But,
POOLING does not require WLNP. If, for some damn reason, the FCC decides
not to force implementation of WLNP next month, POOLING is still required
(and has been). It is all or nothing from the WLNP point of view, but not
from the POOLING point of view (which existed before WLNP) and is a
requirement of ALL carriers, both wireless and landline.

POOLING applies to all carriers that use telephone numbers, both wireless
and wired.
WLNP only affects wireless carries (as its name suggests).

WLNP is dependent upon POOLING, at least from a mandate point of view, if
not technically.

And, to add insult to injury, Sprint PCS is not the only carrier to charge
for both fees (broken out separately). Verizon has done so too. Sprint may
be the first carrier to combine them into one line item, but of that I am
not sure.

Tom Veldhouse

---

› See More: regulatory charges imposed by carriers

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "xTenn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > THANK YOU! Exactly my point.
> >
> > All or nothing is correct, and this is exactly what ALL wireless
carriers
> > MUST do in order to have WLNP.
> >
> > They ALL have to provide Pooling AND Portability.
> >
> > You do understand this, right? That ALL carriers (by finally your own
> > admission) must do POOLING and Portability (all or nothing) for WLNP,
yet
> > only Sprint broke this into two charges at first. The total cost for
> > implementing WLNP would include POOLING and PORTABILITY for all
carriers,
> so
> > this leaves Sprint's cost for WLNP (pooling and portability) at $1.10.
> >
> > I do hope this comes across as polite, but the facts really do speak
for
> > themselves.
> >
>
>
> No, you still have it wrong. If you have WLNP, you must have POOLING.
But,
> POOLING does not require WLNP. If, for some damn reason, the FCC decides
> not to force implementation of WLNP next month, POOLING is still required
> (and has been). It is all or nothing from the WLNP point of view, but not
> from the POOLING point of view (which existed before WLNP) and is a
> requirement of ALL carriers, both wireless and landline.
>
> POOLING applies to all carriers that use telephone numbers, both wireless
> and wired.
> WLNP only affects wireless carries (as its name suggests).
>
> WLNP is dependent upon POOLING, at least from a mandate point of view, if
> not technically.
>
> And, to add insult to injury, Sprint PCS is not the only carrier to charge
> for both fees (broken out separately). Verizon has done so too. Sprint
may
> be the first carrier to combine them into one line item, but of that I am
> not sure.
>
> Tom Veldhouse
>
>

<sigh>

Tom, my poor misguided soul, the total charge for WLNP (as we have come
learn comprises pooling AND portability) that Sprint charges is $1.10. This
compares directly to anything that the other carriers are charging, and is
much higher (by many times) than any other wireless company. The facts stay
firm.

>Yes, because they specifically said that they would NOT be charging a fee
>for WLNP and that they would reassess the decision after WLNP is implemented
>... and it hasn't been implemented yet.

I have yet to see it on my Verizon bill. Is this something that they are only charging new
customers or what?

>No, 20 cents compared to 63 cents.

Whatever it is. 5 times, three times, two times ... why does it cost Sprint so much more to
implement than it does Verizon, and why did they get a four month headstart?

And when they "recover" the costs, does anyone really think they are going to do away with the fee?
I drive on a toll road daily that was technically paid for 5 years ago. The toll was only supposed
to last until that time, BUT ... you know the story.

Every place that needed to be wired under the Universal Service Fund ... pretty much has been.

Fees have a tendancy not to go away, or be reduced, even when their original purpose has been
funded, or the maintenance costs go down.

Again, I haven't been charged for WLNP yet on my Verizon phone. Maybe it'll show this month or
next, but I expected 10-15 cents from the CEO's statements months ago. I guess I can quibble with
it being 5 cents more, but it's both less (by an integer multiplier) and later than $1 or 60 cents,
or whatever starting in June.

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> Tom, my poor misguided soul, the total charge for WLNP (as we have come
> learn comprises pooling AND portability) that Sprint charges is $1.10. T=
his
> compares directly to anything that the other carriers are charging, and i=
s
> much higher (by many times) than any other wireless company. The facts s=
tay
> firm.
>=20

Then go find Nextel, Cingular, Verizon, AT&T bills, and prove to me that=20
they include pooling into their WLNP fee policies. SPCS does not.

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

"xTenn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Tom, my poor misguided soul, the total charge for WLNP (as we have come
> learn comprises pooling AND portability) that Sprint charges is $1.10.
This
> compares directly to anything that the other carriers are charging, and is
> much higher (by many times) than any other wireless company. The facts
stay
> firm.
>
Yes, the charge is a composite charge of two line item charges. Both are
recovery charges and both are similar in nature. It is not unreasonable to
combine them on the bill. However, that does not change the fact that WLNP
requirements caused a $0.63 increase on the bill and not a $1.10 increase
which you keep pushing as the case. The fee is there as a single $1.10
recovery fee, but only $0.63 of it is a new charge related to WLNP.

So, you are ignoring the simple facts (and completely dismissing them
offhand) as they have been pointed out to you my multiple people. You are
alone on this one buddy, but if I were you, I would call *2 on your phone
now and close your accounts in protest and go on over to
alt.cellular.verizon where you will be told the same thing by the people
there.

Tom Veldhouse

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> If a wireless carrier is LNP capable, they are
> REQUIRED to begin participating in pooling.
>=20

Except that pooling has been going on for years already. A fact you=20
seem determined to overlook.

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

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> I don't know which one it is, but if you find that you can no longer addr=
ess the message,
>=20

Interesting. I responded to each one in the portion you failed to=20
quoted. But that's somehow no longer addressing it?

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

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> Oh, please.
>=20
> If they imposed this mandate on one or two carriers, it would be an unfai=
r influence on market forces.
>=20

I didn't say it was unfair. In fact, I even said it was an override=20
even when it was something the market wanted, like WLNP. So I'm not=20
saying it's about being fair or unfair.

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

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> Whatever it is. 5 times, three times, two times ... why does it cost Spr=
int so much more to=20
> implement than it does Verizon, and why did they get a four month headsta=
rt?
>=20

No one can know if it *does*, in fact, cost SPCS more, or Verizon less. =20
All we know at this point is that SPCS initiated a cost recovery fee,=20
and has been consistent with it. While Verizon promised it would be=20
much smaller, and nothing before WLNP was actually implemented, but has=20
backtracked on that.

6 of one, half a dozen of another, as far as I'm concerned. Neither=20
company looks all that great on this fee issue.

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

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprīntpcs.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> If a wireless carrier is LNP capable, they are
> REQUIRED to begin participating in pooling.
>

: Except that pooling has been going on for years already. A fact you
: seem determined to overlook.

That is an understatement. He even quotes it in a response and still does
not address the fact that pooling has been going on for quite sometime and
is a separate issue. Landline carrriers are also subject to pooling ... yet
he seems to be blind to that statement.

Tom Veldhouse

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "xTenn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > Tom, my poor misguided soul, the total charge for WLNP (as we have come
> > learn comprises pooling AND portability) that Sprint charges is $1.10.
> This
> > compares directly to anything that the other carriers are charging, and
is
> > much higher (by many times) than any other wireless company. The facts
> stay
> > firm.
> >
> Yes, the charge is a composite charge of two line item charges. Both are
> recovery charges and both are similar in nature. It is not unreasonable
to
> combine them on the bill. However, that does not change the fact that
WLNP
> requirements caused a $0.63 increase on the bill and not a $1.10 increase
> which you keep pushing as the case. The fee is there as a single $1.10
> recovery fee, but only $0.63 of it is a new charge related to WLNP.
>
> So, you are ignoring the simple facts (and completely dismissing them
> offhand) as they have been pointed out to you my multiple people. You are
> alone on this one buddy, but if I were you, I would call *2 on your phone
> now and close your accounts in protest and go on over to
> alt.cellular.verizon where you will be told the same thing by the people
> there.
>
> Tom Veldhouse
>
>

I am not dismissing the facts, I am stating them over and over again.
Sprint, which is required to have WLNP (which includes pooling and
portablity), is charging $1.10 per phone for this, much higher than other
carriers. Very simple facts, no matter what they had decided to do in the
past.

"privacy.at Anonymous Remailer" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> >Yes, because they specifically said that they would NOT be charging a fee
> >for WLNP and that they would reassess the decision after WLNP is
implemented
> >... and it hasn't been implemented yet.
>
> I have yet to see it on my Verizon bill. Is this something that they are
only charging new
> customers or what?

Why does it cost anybody more to do anything? Why is gas cheaper on one
side of town than the other. Why is Verizon service more expensive than
Sprint? The answer ... because they are different. They do things in
different ways. It is quite possible that Sprint PCS does not have a well
designed system and it will take much more work to implement it and thus
more expense. Or, it could be that Sprint is doing a more thorough job of
it and that is costing more. Who knows? I don't, but I can certainly thing
of reasons why it might be more expensive.

>
> >No, 20 cents compared to 63 cents.
>
> Whatever it is. 5 times, three times, two times ... why does it cost
Sprint so much more to
> implement than it does Verizon, and why did they get a four month
headstart?
>
> And when they "recover" the costs, does anyone really think they are going
to do away with the fee?
> I drive on a toll road daily that was technically paid for 5 years ago.
The toll was only supposed
> to last until that time, BUT ... you know the story.
>
> Every place that needed to be wired under the Universal Service Fund ...
pretty much has been.
>
> Fees have a tendancy not to go away, or be reduced, even when their
original purpose has been
> funded, or the maintenance costs go down.
>
> Again, I haven't been charged for WLNP yet on my Verizon phone. Maybe
it'll show this month or
> next, but I expected 10-15 cents from the CEO's statements months ago. I
guess I can quibble with
> it being 5 cents more, but it's both less (by an integer multiplier) and
later than $1 or 60 cents,
> or whatever starting in June.
>

You seem to take the opinion that somebody is always out to screw you unless
proven otherwise, and I prefer to take a little more moderate approach based
upon history and optimism. To each his own, although I expect that with an
outlook like you are exhibiting here, life must be full of anger, suspision
and compromise.

Oh, and the answer as to why Verizon has not charged you for it ... they
chose to delay the decision on charging for it (which they had the FCC
mandate to do immediately if they desired) until after WLNP was implemented
(at least, that is what they said originally). Other carriers chose to
recover costs now as allowed by the FCC mandate. I believe that they should
have waited until WLNP implmentation if they the cash to do so, but as
Phillipe has been so nice to point out ... they don't.

Tom Veldhouse

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprīntpcs.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>> Tom, my poor misguided soul, the total charge for WLNP (as we have come
>> learn comprises pooling AND portability) that Sprint charges is $1.10.
This
>> compares directly to anything that the other carriers are charging, and
is
>> much higher (by many times) than any other wireless company. The facts
stay
>> firm.
>>

>Then go find Nextel, Cingular, Verizon, AT&T bills, and prove to me that
>they include pooling into their WLNP fee policies. SPCS does not.
>


Now that made no sense, since we have already agreed that 1.) WLNP REQUIRES
pooling and 2.) Sprint was already charging for pooling.

Every carrier that has WLNP has the same requirements - pooling AND
portability. Every carrier has the burden of both. Do I need to post it
here yet again?

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

The fact that Sprint charges for both separately means little, since it
requires both (remember "all or nothing") to implement WLNP. All carriers
that implement WLNP do both. Again the facts stand firm. For WLNP (which
includes pooling AND portability ), sprint charges $1.10 per phone.

As far as proving anything to you I have no need to do that, I have nothing
to prove. I just want people to understand the issue of the two Sprint
charges and how they are related, which as we both have stated are directly
related and required for all carriers to implement WLNP.

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprīntpcs.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>> If a wireless carrier is LNP capable, they are
>> REQUIRED to begin participating in pooling.
>>
>
>Except that pooling has been going on for years already. A fact you
>seem determined to overlook.
>

Sorry, but you are wrong. Land lines have had pooling for a short while,
but pooling did not show up on my Sprint wireless bill until the January
2003 bill.

Definitely NOT "years", and definitely in the timeframe to be in line with
our Federal docket on WLNP.

Once Again, from the Federal Docket:
"Wireless carriers who become LNP-capable in November 2002 will be required
to begin participating in pooling at that time or soon thereafter"

They started with my January bill, which seems to be "at that time or soon
after" from November 2002.

The facts still stand firm, more than ever.

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprīntpcs.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > If a wireless carrier is LNP capable, they are
> > REQUIRED to begin participating in pooling.
> >
>
> : Except that pooling has been going on for years already. A fact you
> : seem determined to overlook.
>
> That is an understatement. He even quotes it in a response and still does
> not address the fact that pooling has been going on for quite sometime and
> is a separate issue. Landline carrriers are also subject to pooling ...
yet
> he seems to be blind to that statement.
>
> Tom Veldhouse
>

Land lines have had pooling, but pooling did not show up on my Sprint
wireless bill until the January 2003 bill.

Definitely NOT "years", and definitely in the timeframe to be in line with
our Federal docket on WLNP.

Once Again, from the Federal Docket:
"Wireless carriers who become LNP-capable in November 2002 will be required
to begin participating in pooling at that time or soon thereafter"

Sprint started charging for pooling with my January bill, which would seem
to be "at that time or soon after" from November 2002.

The facts still stand firm, more than ever.