Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26
  1. #1
    Don Starr
    Guest
    All of the posts I've read talk about Sprint charging $1.10 for number
    portability. Isn't it really $0.63 ?

    My June 11 invoice shows:
    Federal Telephone Number Pooling 0.94 (0.47)

    My July 11 invoice shows
    Federal Wireless Number Pooling and Portability 2.20 (1.10)

    (I have two lines - the numbers in parentheses indicate the per line
    charge).

    Both invoices list the charge under "Surcharges & Fees".

    With the addition of "Portability", my monthly bill has increased by
    63 cents, not $1.10.

    Incidentally - the Federal Number Pooling charge seems to have first
    appeared on my March 11 2003 invoice. It wasn't there in February.

    -Don




    See More: Number portability - $1.10 ?




  2. #2
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: Number portability - $1.10 ?


    "Don Starr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > All of the posts I've read talk about Sprint charging $1.10 for number
    > portability. Isn't it really $0.63 ?
    >
    > My June 11 invoice shows:
    > Federal Telephone Number Pooling 0.94 (0.47)
    >
    > My July 11 invoice shows
    > Federal Wireless Number Pooling and Portability 2.20 (1.10)
    >
    > (I have two lines - the numbers in parentheses indicate the per line
    > charge).
    >
    > Both invoices list the charge under "Surcharges & Fees".
    >
    > With the addition of "Portability", my monthly bill has increased by
    > 63 cents, not $1.10.
    >
    > Incidentally - the Federal Number Pooling charge seems to have first
    > appeared on my March 11 2003 invoice. It wasn't there in February.
    >
    > -Don
    >


    Come to think of it, you are correct. That explains the reference to it as
    $0.63 in this article:

    http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...siness/2047155

    Still, that is $0.63 per line, not per customer. That is still $11.3
    million per month, assuming one line per customer, which we know is not the
    case.

    Tom Veldhouse





  3. #3
    Don Starr
    Guest

    Re: Number portability - $1.10 ?

    On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:24:26 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >That explains the reference to it as $0.63 in this article:
    >
    >http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...siness/2047155


    Right. I noticed it a few minutes ago in the local paper - that's when
    I started investigating my old bills.

    --
    Don




  4. #4
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: Number portability - $1.10 ?


    "Don Starr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:24:26 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >That explains the reference to it as $0.63 in this article:
    > >
    > >http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...siness/2047155

    >
    > Right. I noticed it a few minutes ago in the local paper - that's when
    > I started investigating my old bills.
    >


    So they split the fee. Is the other fee that was reduced also "per line"?
    If not, it is $0.63 for the first line and $1.10 for each additional line.

    Tom Veldhouse





  5. #5
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: Number portability - $1.10 ?


    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > So they split the fee. Is the other fee that was reduced also "per line"?
    > If not, it is $0.63 for the first line and $1.10 for each additional line.
    >
    > Tom Veldhouse


    I guess your "bill" answered the question. You divided both charges by two,
    so $1.10 - $0.47 = $0.63 ... so it is truly $0.63 / per line.

    Tom Veldhouse





  6. #6
    Don Starr
    Guest

    Re: Number portability - $1.10 ?

    On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:37:24 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >>
    >> So they split the fee. Is the other fee that was reduced also "per line"?
    >> If not, it is $0.63 for the first line and $1.10 for each additional line.
    >>
    >> Tom Veldhouse

    >
    >I guess your "bill" answered the question. You divided both charges by two,
    >so $1.10 - $0.47 = $0.63 ... so it is truly $0.63 / per line.
    >


    Yes. Per line charges are:
    Old: Pooling $0.47
    New: Pooling and portability $1.10
    -----------------------------------------
    Diff: Add word "portability" $0.63





  7. #7
    Carl.
    Guest

    Re: Number portability - $1.10 ?

    "Don Starr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:4o[email protected]
    > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:37:24 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]
    > >>
    > >> So they split the fee. Is the other fee that was reduced also "per

    line"?
    > >> If not, it is $0.63 for the first line and $1.10 for each additional

    line.
    > >>
    > >> Tom Veldhouse

    > >
    > >I guess your "bill" answered the question. You divided both charges by

    two,
    > >so $1.10 - $0.47 = $0.63 ... so it is truly $0.63 / per line.
    > >

    >
    > Yes. Per line charges are:
    > Old: Pooling $0.47
    > New: Pooling and portability $1.10
    > -----------------------------------------
    > Diff: Add word "portability" $0.63


    But you said the "pooling" thing started in March of this year. What
    exactly was that for?


    ---
    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





  8. #8
    Maokh
    Guest

    Re: Number portability - $1.10 ?


    I have a wonderful charge of $2.20 on my bill with an add-a-phone....

    gotta love funding sprint's churn rate insurance policy

    --
    Posted at SprintUsers.com - Your place for everything Sprint PCS
    Free wireless access @ www.SprintUsers.com/wap




  9. #9
    Don Starr
    Guest

    Re: Number portability - $1.10 ?

    On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 20:43:48 GMT, "Carl." <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >"Don Starr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >>
    >> Old: Pooling $0.47
    >> New: Pooling and portability $1.10
    >> -----------------------------------------
    >> Diff: Add word "portability" $0.63

    >
    >But you said the "pooling" thing started in March of this year. What
    >exactly was that for?
    >


    It was to comply with the FCC's order that numbers be assigned in
    1,000-number blocks, instead of the 10,000-number blocks used
    previously. This was to "conserve" numbers, theoretically reducing the
    need for more area codes.

    The deadline for implementation was 24 November 2002. LNP
    implementation once had the same deadline, but the wireless carriers
    were able to get a 1-year extension.






  10. #10
    JRW
    Guest

    Re: Number portability - $1.10 ?

    Don,
    You can get credit for that. From my yesterday's post of
    "Got credit for WNP charges"

    JRW wrote:
    > Didn't recall any insert in my bill lately (if it was it
    > there, it wasn't obvious - an issue that courts are finding
    > not acceptable to not make billing changes more obvious)
    > so I checked my billing on-line and found the WNP charge
    > for $2.20 (I have two phones) on my July 13th statement.
    >
    > It was listed in the Details of Taxes and Surchages & Fees
    > section under Surchages & Fees as "Federal Wireless Number
    > Pooling and Portability". This was in itself a hidden fee
    > as my previous bills only stated Federal Telephone Number
    > Pooling". So they combined it with another mandated fee
    > (I might be mistaken, but I thought the Pooling fee was
    > truly mandated).
    >
    > My Invoice Date was the 13th of last month, so I immediately
    > called today, even though it was already *31* days past.
    >
    > She went through the normal routine about a government tax,
    > etc, but I pointed out it wasn't a tax and it wasn't mandated;
    > therefore I said it was a rate increase - she replied, "Well,
    > yeah...it is a rate increase."
    >
    > After stating I wanted to cancel without an early termination
    > charge, she said that since I was such a good customer (I always
    > paid on time for the past six months I've had the account), she
    > offered me either $40 or $80 credit. I asked if there was any
    > difference, i.e. extending my contract length if I opted for the
    > $80 credit; and she said no, the only difference was $40.
    >
    > I got a $40 credit on my current bill and a $40 credit on my
    > next month bill.
    >
    > I'm happy...........





  11. #11
    Doug Ranger
    Guest

    Re: Number portability - $1.10 ?





    So why are we getting charged for number portability now, if we don't
    have it until November. This may be a question that was answered long
    ago, but this seems to be the most important subject that has never been
    addressed. Right now we are giving them money when they aren't losing
    any, RIGHT?

    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  12. #12
    Carl.
    Guest

    Re: Number portability - $1.10 ?

    "Don Starr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > >But you said the "pooling" thing started in March of this year. What
    > >exactly was that for?
    > >

    >
    > It was to comply with the FCC's order that numbers be assigned in
    > 1,000-number blocks, instead of the 10,000-number blocks used
    > previously. This was to "conserve" numbers, theoretically reducing the
    > need for more area codes.


    Ah, I get it.




    ---
    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





  13. #13
    Don Starr
    Guest

    Re: Number portability - $1.10 ?

    On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:31:22 -0000, [email protected] (Doug Ranger)
    wrote:

    >So why are we getting charged for number portability now, if we don't
    >have it until November. This may be a question that was answered long
    >ago, but this seems to be the most important subject that has never been
    >addressed. Right now we are giving them money when they aren't losing
    >any, RIGHT?


    We're being charged so that they can spend money to implement it by
    the deadline (Nov 24). Supposedly, the wireless carriers are spending
    money now to have it ready by that date.

    Interestingly, when the wired telcos were required to implement LNP,
    they were _prohibited_ from charging for it before it was available to
    the customer:
    http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Ca.../portable.html




  14. #14
    Doug Ranger
    Guest

    Re: Number portability - $1.10 ?

    That is interesting, thanks

    Don Starr <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:31:22 -0000, [email protected] (Doug Ranger)
    > wrote:
    >
    > >So why are we getting charged for number portability now, if we don't
    > >have it until November. This may be a question that was answered long
    > >ago, but this seems to be the most important subject that has never been
    > >addressed. Right now we are giving them money when they aren't losing
    > >any, RIGHT?

    >
    > We're being charged so that they can spend money to implement it by
    > the deadline (Nov 24). Supposedly, the wireless carriers are spending
    > money now to have it ready by that date.
    >
    > Interestingly, when the wired telcos were required to implement LNP,
    > they were _prohibited_ from charging for it before it was available to
    > the customer:
    > http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Ca.../portable.html
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  15. #15
    Cruz Gracia
    Guest

    Re: Number portability - $1.10 ?


    "Don Starr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 20:43:48 GMT, "Carl." <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >"Don Starr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]
    > >>
    > >> Old: Pooling $0.47
    > >> New: Pooling and portability $1.10
    > >> -----------------------------------------
    > >> Diff: Add word "portability" $0.63

    > >
    > >But you said the "pooling" thing started in March of this year. What
    > >exactly was that for?
    > >

    >
    > It was to comply with the FCC's order that numbers be assigned in
    > 1,000-number blocks, instead of the 10,000-number blocks used
    > previously. This was to "conserve" numbers, theoretically reducing the
    > need for more area codes.
    >
    > The deadline for implementation was 24 November 2002. LNP
    > implementation once had the same deadline, but the wireless carriers
    > were able to get a 1-year extension.
    >
    >



    I thought WLNP was November 14 (as opposed to the 24th)....





  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast