Results 61 to 75 of 178
- 10-24-2003, 02:57 PM #61AnonymousGuest
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
- 10-24-2003, 03:16 PM #62O/SirisGuest
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.
- 10-24-2003, 03:23 PM #63xTennGuest
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.
- 10-24-2003, 03:55 PM #64Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga RemailerGuest
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.
- 10-24-2003, 04:26 PM #65Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
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
- 10-24-2003, 04:32 PM #66Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
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
- 10-24-2003, 11:52 PM #67O/SirisGuest
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.
- 10-24-2003, 11:55 PM #68O/SirisGuest
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.
- 10-25-2003, 01:26 AM #69xTennGuest
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.
- 10-25-2003, 01:37 AM #70xTennGuest
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.
- 10-25-2003, 07:02 AM #71CAT0NHATGuest
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.
- 10-25-2003, 08:45 AM #72Scott StephensonGuest
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.
- 10-25-2003, 08:54 AM #73CAT0NHATGuest
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.
- 10-25-2003, 11:34 AM #74Scott StephensonGuest
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?
- 10-25-2003, 11:39 AM #75DSL GURUGuest
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
- General Service Provider Forum
- General Cell Phone Forum
- General Cell Phone Forum
- alt.cellular.cingular
Aws gpu
in Chit Chat