Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16
  1. #1
    DSL GURU
    Guest
    > Just read that Verizon is going to start charging
    > customers 45 cents a month


    Please advise us all. How does Verizon charging 45 cents starting in March
    compare with SprintPCS charging $1.10 since July?

    Last time I looked $1.10 is more than 45 cents.



    See More: Portability charges- this one's for Scott the apologist




  2. #2
    Michael Arends
    Guest

    Re: Portability charges- this one's for Scott the apologist

    DSL GURU wrote:
    >
    > > Just read that Verizon is going to start charging
    > > customers 45 cents a month

    >
    > Please advise us all. How does Verizon charging 45 cents starting in March
    > compare with SprintPCS charging $1.10 since July?
    >
    > Last time I looked $1.10 is more than 45 cents.


    It's *NOT* $1.10
    It's $1.20 for *2* phones on a plan.

    It's 60 cents per phone.



  3. #3
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: Portability charges- this one's for Scott the apologist

    Michael Arends wrote:
    > DSL GURU wrote:
    >>
    >>> Just read that Verizon is going to start charging
    >>> customers 45 cents a month

    >>
    >> Please advise us all. How does Verizon charging 45 cents starting in
    >> March compare with SprintPCS charging $1.10 since July?
    >>
    >> Last time I looked $1.10 is more than 45 cents.

    >
    > It's *NOT* $1.10
    > It's $1.20 for *2* phones on a plan.
    >
    > It's 60 cents per phone.


    63 cents to be precise. Don't bother bringing up that old argument again,
    there are others here who are quite immutable on the subject.

    Tom Veldhouse





  4. #4
    Ric
    Guest

    Re: Portability charges- this one's for Scott the apologist

    [email protected] (DSL GURU) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > > Just read that Verizon is going to start charging
    > > customers 45 cents a month

    >
    > Please advise us all. How does Verizon charging 45 cents starting in March
    > compare with SprintPCS charging $1.10 since July?
    >
    > Last time I looked $1.10 is more than 45 cents.


    Gee, don't even post on the original thread (with only 3 on it so not
    because it's too long) and then states the incorrect amount!!(60
    cents, not $1.10 as Phil here stated). The main point of the original
    was how much it will generate (50% more revenue than what Sprint gets
    from this charge, and AFTER VERIZON stated publicly THEY WEREN'T
    charging this and WEREN't Going to, as Phil himself pointed out in
    other postings). Guess he's just doing his normal of spreading
    misinformation again!!



  5. #5
    Lawrence G. Mayka
    Guest

    Re: Portability charges- this one's for Scott the apologist

    "Michael Arends" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > It's *NOT* $1.10
    > It's $1.20 for *2* phones on a plan.
    >
    > It's 60 cents per phone.


    Not if you read the article and compare "apples to apples." Sprint charges
    $0.63 just for WLNP, but its total regulatory fee is indeed $1.10 per line
    per month. In March Verizon will begin charging $0.40 just for WLNP, but
    $0.45 per month total regulatory fees.

    Since the original poster mentioned Verizon's gross $0.45 figure, the next
    poster correctly compared it to Sprint's $1.10. If the original poster had
    mentioned the WLNP-only $0.40, then a comparison with Sprint's $0.63 would
    have been correct.





  6. #6
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: Portability charges- this one's for Scott the apologist

    Michael Arends wrote:

    > DSL GURU wrote:
    >>
    >> > Just read that Verizon is going to start charging
    >> > customers 45 cents a month

    >>
    >> Please advise us all. How does Verizon charging 45 cents starting in
    >> March compare with SprintPCS charging $1.10 since July?
    >>
    >> Last time I looked $1.10 is more than 45 cents.

    >
    > It's *NOT* $1.10
    > It's $1.20 for *2* phones on a plan.
    >
    > It's 60 cents per phone.



    THanks, Michael. I was just getting ready to point out to Bonehead that the
    $1.10 he always quotes is for portability and pooling. The 45 cents by
    verizon is just portability.

    I need to do some reading- I saw an article today that had Verizon speaking
    about their costs for this. It was much lower than I would have expected
    them to admit to.



  7. #7
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: Portability charges- this one's for Scott the apologist

    Lawrence G. Mayka wrote:

    > "Michael Arends" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> It's *NOT* $1.10
    >> It's $1.20 for *2* phones on a plan.
    >>
    >> It's 60 cents per phone.

    >
    > Not if you read the article and compare "apples to apples." Sprint
    > charges $0.63 just for WLNP, but its total regulatory fee is indeed $1.10
    > per line
    > per month. In March Verizon will begin charging $0.40 just for WLNP, but
    > $0.45 per month total regulatory fees.
    >
    > Since the original poster mentioned Verizon's gross $0.45 figure, the next
    > poster correctly compared it to Sprint's $1.10. If the original poster
    > had mentioned the WLNP-only $0.40, then a comparison with Sprint's $0.63
    > would have been correct.



    The original poster (me) quoted the article- they aleady charge a nickel for
    portability, and will be charging another 40 cents starting next year. THe
    total portability fee will be 45 cents.



  8. #8
    Michael L. Arends
    Guest

    Re: Portability charges- this one's for Scott the apologist

    In infinite wisdom Lawrence G. Mayka answered:


    >
    > Not if you read the article and compare "apples to apples." Sprint charges
    > $0.63 just for WLNP, but its total regulatory fee is indeed $1.10 per line
    > per month. In March Verizon will begin charging $0.40 just for WLNP, but
    > $0.45 per month total regulatory fees.
    >
    > Since the original poster mentioned Verizon's gross $0.45 figure, the next
    > poster correctly compared it to Sprint's $1.10. If the original poster had
    > mentioned the WLNP-only $0.40, then a comparison with Sprint's $0.63 would
    > have been correct.


    Well *THATS* funny. Then they must only charge for the main phone on the
    account then as I have 2 phones, and get charged a *TOTAL* of $1.20
    No other New Taxes have been added either.





  9. #9
    Lawrence G. Mayka
    Guest

    Re: Portability charges- this one's for Scott the apologist

    "Michael L. Arends" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Well *THATS* funny. Then they must only charge for the main phone on the
    > account then as I have 2 phones, and get charged a *TOTAL* of $1.20


    I have 3 phone lines on one bill. My bill clearly says:

    Federal Wireless Number Pooling and Portability 3.30

    Perhaps you are looking at another item:

    Federal E911
    1.20





  10. #10
    Lawrence G. Mayka
    Guest

    Re: Portability charges- this one's for Scott the apologist

    "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:%[email protected]
    > The original poster (me) quoted the article- they aleady charge a nickel

    for
    > portability, and will be charging another 40 cents starting next year.

    THe
    > total portability fee will be 45 cents.


    No, read it again:

    "Meanwhile, Verizon Wireless said it will soon charge subscribers 40 cents a
    month to fund `ongoing costs' of letting cell phone subscribers keep old
    telephone numbers after switching carriers.
    "The new charge will be reflected in a monthly federal regulatory fee
    Verizon collects from all 36 million subscribers. The new rate, 45 cents a
    month, takes effect in March, company spokesman Jeffrey Nelson said."

    The $0.45/mo is a total "federal regulatory fee." Of that, $0.40/mo is
    specifically for number portability. Presumably, the other $0.05/mo is for
    number pooling. (At least, that's the other cost category that Sprint
    uses.)





  11. #11
    Michael Arends
    Guest

    Re: Portability charges- this one's for Scott the apologist

    "Lawrence G. Mayka" wrote:
    >
    > "Michael L. Arends" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > Well *THATS* funny. Then they must only charge for the main phone on the
    > > account then as I have 2 phones, and get charged a *TOTAL* of $1.20

    >
    > I have 3 phone lines on one bill. My bill clearly says:
    >
    > Federal Wireless Number Pooling and Portability 3.30
    >
    > Perhaps you are looking at another item:
    >
    > Federal E911
    > 1.20


    I'll have to look BUT I have No charges other than the old ones
    and the one that started not long ago for 1.20. I *thought* it said
    WNP But I don't have my bill in front of me.



  12. #12
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: Portability charges- this one's for Scott the apologist

    Lawrence G. Mayka wrote:

    > "Michael L. Arends" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> Well *THATS* funny. Then they must only charge for the main phone on the
    >> account then as I have 2 phones, and get charged a *TOTAL* of $1.20

    >
    > I have 3 phone lines on one bill. My bill clearly says:
    >
    > Federal Wireless Number Pooling and Portability 3.30
    >
    > Perhaps you are looking at another item:
    >
    > Federal E911
    > 1.20



    Your bill is right- Pooling AND Portability. They are two seperate things-
    only 63 cents of the charge is for portability.



  13. #13
    Michael L. Arends
    Guest

    Re: Portability charges- this one's for Scott the apologist

    In infinite wisdom Michael Arends answered:

    > "Lawrence G. Mayka" wrote:
    >
    >>"Michael L. Arends" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>>Well *THATS* funny. Then they must only charge for the main phone on the
    >>>account then as I have 2 phones, and get charged a *TOTAL* of $1.20

    >>
    >>I have 3 phone lines on one bill. My bill clearly says:
    >>
    >>Federal Wireless Number Pooling and Portability 3.30
    >>
    >>Perhaps you are looking at another item:
    >>
    >>Federal E911
    >>1.20

    >
    >
    > I'll have to look BUT I have No charges other than the old ones
    > and the one that started not long ago for 1.20. I *thought* it said
    > WNP But I don't have my bill in front of me.


    NOPE I was right.

    It says Federal Wireless Number Pooling and Portability $1.20
    this is for a plan with 2 phones.





  14. #14
    Nomad45
    Guest

    Re: Portability charges- this one's for Scott the apologist

    Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > Michael Arends wrote:
    >> DSL GURU wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Just read that Verizon is going to start charging customers 45
    >>>> cents a month
    >>>
    >>> Please advise us all. How does Verizon charging 45 cents
    >>> starting in March compare with SprintPCS charging $1.10 since
    >>> July?
    >>>
    >>> Last time I looked $1.10 is more than 45 cents.

    >>
    >> It's *NOT* $1.10
    >> It's $1.20 for *2* phones on a plan.
    >>
    >> It's 60 cents per phone.

    >
    > 63 cents to be precise. Don't bother bringing up that old
    > argument again, there are others here who are quite immutable on
    > the subject.
    >
    > Tom Veldhouse
    >
    >
    >


    That's funny, Last month I payed $1.10 not 63 cents.



  15. #15
    O/Siris
    Guest

    Re: Portability charges- this one's for Scott the apologist

    In article <[email protected]>,=20
    [email protected] says...
    > That's funny, Last month I payed $1.10 not 63 cents.
    >=20
    >=20


    You sure did. $1.10 for Federal Number Pooling *and*=20
    Wireless Local Number Portability. Together. The former=20
    once being a $0.47 charge, and the latter now bringing the=20
    combined total to $1.10.

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



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast