Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 178
  1. #61
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Re: regulatory charges imposed by carriers


    > While Verizon promised it would be=20
    >much smaller, and nothing before WLNP was actually implemented, but has=20
    >backtracked on that.


    Are you sure they started charging already because I have yet to see it on my VZW bill.

    And 5 cents over estimates when it is still less 1/3rd the cost of competitors is not too bad in this day
    and age. At least an estimate was made, and it is pretty much in that ballpark. 20 cents vs. 15 cents
    for an estimate is not really much of an aggregious lie, and I believe 10-15 cents was an "estimate" by
    VZW, so I don't see where they backtracked one iota.

    Is 15 cents really "much smaller" than 20 cents? Really? Is that your official position? The estimated
    5 ents less that actual cost. That is a bit of a stretch. I'll admit that 20 cents is much smaller than
    63 cents, but I don't know about 20 vs. 15.

    The only quibble would be if they started charging it before November, which they haven't for either of my
    two lines, or my neighbor.




    See More: regulatory charges imposed by carriers




  2. #62
    O/Siris
    Guest

    Re: regulatory charges imposed by carriers

    In article <[email protected]>,=20
    [email protected] says...
    > this is requried only for mobile
    > carriers if they are suceptible to number portability rules
    >=20


    That's because portability is *only* applicable to wireless carriers. =20
    Even though WLNP itself also includes the ability to port landline to=20
    wireless, all the concentration has been wireless to wireless.

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



  3. #63
    xTenn
    Guest

    Re: regulatory charges imposed by carriers


    "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.com> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] says...
    >> this is requried only for mobile
    >> carriers if they are suceptible to number portability rules
    >>

    >
    >That's because portability is *only* applicable to wireless carriers.
    >Even though WLNP itself also includes the ability to port landline to
    >wireless, all the concentration has been wireless to wireless.
    >



    Of course. The focus was on "required", not if they are a "mobile" carrier.
    For all intents and purposes this converstion should be taken to mean
    "mobile", not landline. After all, that is the topic of the newsgroup.







  4. #64
    Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer
    Guest

    Re: regulatory charges imposed by carriers

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


    Understood. Remailers multiple post sometimes, just like some news readers use "=20" instead of line
    breaks. **** happens.

    Regardless, you need to get "Phil", "Phill", and "Philly" off the cranium and quit worrying about it.

    Newsgroups have trolls. And the sky is blue and grass is green. Adjust and move on.

    There are lots of people who have valid criticisms and complements of SPCS. And they aren't all trolls or
    ALPA's like Phil or Bob.

    Sometimes even valid criticisms of regular people have overlapping opinions with Trolls and ALPA's. It
    happens. Some people may have enjoyed the same brand of chocolate ice cream as Hitler. That doesn't make
    them Hitler.

    Just drop the "Phil" accusation stuff and get your well-deserved credibility back.

    That guy has made you a wreck, and you shouldn't have let that happen.




  5. #65
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: regulatory charges imposed by carriers

    On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:06:04 -0400, "xTenn"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"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.
    >


    First off, you have to compare WLNP charges between carriers.

    Sprint PCS: $0.63
    Cingular: $0.32 to $1.25 (depending upon the state)
    AT&T Wireless: $1.75 (under 1/3 of customers pay this fee)
    Nextel: $1.55
    Verizon: $0.05 to $0.30 (a little unclear on this)

    I am citing a single reference (and it doesn't paint Sprint PCS in an
    overly postive light), but these numbers can be confirmed in many
    other locations via a simple Google search.

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech...g.cell.nos.ap/

    So, like I said before ... you have no idea what you are talking
    about, other than as an attempt do demonize Sprint, I see no reason
    for your position as you have presented it.

    Tom Veldhouse



  6. #66
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: regulatory charges imposed by carriers

    On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 22:57:45 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >> While Verizon promised it would be=20
    >>much smaller, and nothing before WLNP was actually implemented, but has=20
    >>backtracked on that.

    >
    >Are you sure they started charging already because I have yet to see it on my VZW bill.
    >
    >And 5 cents over estimates when it is still less 1/3rd the cost of competitors is not too bad in this day
    >and age. At least an estimate was made, and it is pretty much in that ballpark. 20 cents vs. 15 cents
    >for an estimate is not really much of an aggregious lie, and I believe 10-15 cents was an "estimate" by
    >VZW, so I don't see where they backtracked one iota.
    >
    >Is 15 cents really "much smaller" than 20 cents? Really? Is that your official position? The estimated
    >5 ents less that actual cost. That is a bit of a stretch. I'll admit that 20 cents is much smaller than
    >63 cents, but I don't know about 20 vs. 15.
    >
    >The only quibble would be if they started charging it before November, which they haven't for either of my
    >two lines, or my neighbor.



    Many carriers choose to bill this fee to some customers and not
    others. Mostly based upon region I believe (that is the way AT&T does
    it).

    Tom Veldhouse



  7. #67
    O/Siris
    Guest

    Re: regulatory charges imposed by carriers

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]=
    et=20
    says...
    > Once Again, from the Federal Docket:
    > "Wireless carriers who become LNP-capable in November 2002 will be requir=

    ed
    > to begin participating in pooling at that time or soon thereafter"
    >=20


    Yet again, there is *nothing*, not one blessed thing, in that entire docume=
    nt=20
    that says the two are tied to together in any technical way. It is a=20
    regulatory, not a technical, requirement. There is nothing tying them toge=
    ther=20
    but an arbitrary administrative decision (BTW, I agree with enforcing the t=
    wo=20
    together, so "arbitrary" is not a negative thing here).

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



  8. #68
    O/Siris
    Guest

    Re: regulatory charges imposed by carriers

    In article <[email protected]>, Anonymous via=
    the=20
    Cypherpunks Tonga [email protected] says...
    > Understood. Remailers multiple post sometimes, just like some news=20
    > readers use "=3D20" instead of line breaks. **** happens.


    Then that was all you had to say. Instead, you accused me of not respondin=
    g.

    >=20
    > Regardless, you need to get "Phil", "Phill", and "Philly" off the cranium=

    ....
    >=20


    When it walks like a duck...

    In this case, though, I understand it turned out to be a goose

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



  9. #69
    xTenn
    Guest

    Re: regulatory charges imposed by carriers


    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > First off, you have to compare WLNP charges between carriers.
    >
    > Sprint PCS: $0.63
    > Cingular: $0.32 to $1.25 (depending upon the state)
    > AT&T Wireless: $1.75 (under 1/3 of customers pay this fee)
    > Nextel: $1.55
    > Verizon: $0.05 to $0.30 (a little unclear on this)
    >
    > I am citing a single reference (and it doesn't paint Sprint PCS in an
    > overly postive light), but these numbers can be confirmed in many
    > other locations via a simple Google search.
    >
    > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech...g.cell.nos.ap/
    >
    > So, like I said before ... you have no idea what you are talking
    > about, other than as an attempt do demonize Sprint, I see no reason
    > for your position as you have presented it.
    >
    > Tom Veldhouse


    Tom, you amuse me.

    We *should* all agree by now that the cost for WLNP under Sprint is $1.10,
    since WLNP does include pooling AND portability. This is a requirement for
    all carriers to implement WLNP.

    The author seems to not realize the basic facts we have covered here. 1.)
    Sprint started charging for Pooling, in accordance with the infamous Federal
    Docket we mention, in January 2003. 2.) Sprint raised the anty for the
    portability aspect of said Federal Docket by another $.63 in June/July.
    This brings the total cost for consumer per phone to $1.10.

    The only argument I have made since the beginning is that Sprint is charging
    $1.10 per month for WLNP, which includes Pooling and Portability. No matter
    what they did in the past, both of these are a requirement for
    implementation of WLNP, and a cost comparison (as you have provided) of WLNP
    would need this number for equal comparison.

    I'm glad you are busily scurrying about the web looking for some junk
    articles to represent your confused viewpoint, but again the facts stand
    firm. My only wish is that a.) CNN would do better research before posting
    an article and b.) Tom would not be so quick to believe everything he finds
    on the web.

    As a mater of fact, if you add in the money collected by Sprint for
    Pooling,which by the timing fits in exactly with the Federal Docket on WNLP
    (as we have discussed ad infinitum), the money that will have been collected
    by Sprint by the time WLNP goes into effect (November) will not be $55
    million, but rather :

    $.47 pooling * 17.9 million customers * 11 months = 92 million.pooling

    $92 million pooling + $55 million portability = $147 million total
    additional moeny by actual WLNP implementation deadline

    Again, these are numbers using my January 2003 - June 2003 bill for Pooling
    charge ( 47 cents ) and the articles number for subscribers (17.9 million).
    The number of subscribers vary,but as in my case multiple phones are charged
    separately, so the number is actually a low estimate.

    The facts stand firm.






  10. #70
    xTenn
    Guest

    Re: regulatory charges imposed by carriers


    "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected]
    says...
    >> 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"
    >>

    >
    >Yet again, there is *nothing*, not one blessed thing, in that entire

    document
    >that says the two are tied to together in any technical way. It is a
    >regulatory, not a technical, requirement. There is nothing tying them

    together
    >but an arbitrary administrative decision (BTW, I agree with enforcing the

    two
    >together, so "arbitrary" is not a negative thing here).



    Yet another fine example of our government hard at work with regulations
    regarding technical issues. Maybe they can be as effective with Cell Phone
    technology as they have with Email Spam.






  11. #71
    CAT0NHAT
    Guest

    Re: regulatory charges imposed by carriers

    This whole thread is misnamed. pooling and portability does not cause one penny
    of regulatory charges. It may cause companies to upgrade their computers and
    software to handle it, that may have a cost, which some have passed along,
    some have absorbed, and some have used as an excuse to gouge customers.



  12. #72
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: regulatory charges imposed by carriers

    CAT0NHAT wrote:

    > This whole thread is misnamed. pooling and portability does not cause one
    > penny of regulatory charges. It may cause companies to upgrade their
    > computers and
    > software to handle it, that may have a cost, which some have passed
    > along, some have absorbed, and some have used as an excuse to gouge
    > customers.


    How much is it costing these companies to upgrade? If you accuse them of
    gouging, you must know the cost, don't you? Oh- it's Phil- he never has
    facts, just his own inane opinion.



  13. #73
    CAT0NHAT
    Guest

    Re: regulatory charges imposed by carriers

    > How much is it costing these companies to
    > upgrade? If you accuse them of
    > gouging, you must know the cost, don't you?


    Verizon has said it'll cost them 10 to 15 cents per line, and just started
    charging 5 cents. Sprint has charging 63 cents per line for 3 months already.

    So MR. Apologist, which is it:

    1. Sprint is gouging its customers?
    2. SprintPCS is so horribly disorganized and inefficient that it will cost them
    far more than four times as much to handle WLNP than Verizon?


    It has to be one of those two.



  14. #74
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: regulatory charges imposed by carriers

    CAT0NHAT wrote:

    >> How much is it costing these companies to
    >> upgrade? If you accuse them of
    >> gouging, you must know the cost, don't you?

    >
    > Verizon has said it'll cost them 10 to 15 cents per line, and just started
    > charging 5 cents. Sprint has charging 63 cents per line for 3 months
    > already.
    >
    > So MR. Apologist, which is it:
    >
    > 1. Sprint is gouging its customers?
    > 2. SprintPCS is so horribly disorganized and inefficient that it will cost
    > them far more than four times as much to handle WLNP than Verizon?
    >
    >
    > It has to be one of those two.

    You didn't answer the question- how much to upgrade? You seem to have all
    of the knowledge- share it. Or is this another case of us having to listen
    to your ranting when you have no idea of what you are talking about?



  15. #75
    DSL GURU
    Guest

    Re: regulatory charges imposed by carriers

    Verizon 5 cents, Sprint 63 cents

    OK Apologist answer my question:

    > 1. Sprint is gouging its customers?
    > 2. SprintPCS is so horribly disorganized and
    > inefficient that it will cost
    > them far more than four times as much to handle WLNP than Verizon?
    >
    >
    > It has to be one of those two.



    SprintPCS wont give a complete answer to the true cost, but one Judge in
    Califgornia found it improper and allowed customers out of their contracts, or
    have you managed to firget so fast.



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast