regulatory charges imposed by carriers

from: http://wireless.ittoolbox.com/news/d...s.asp?i=103259

Verizon Wireless charges customers a nickel a month and said it is
considering raising that by 10 to 15 cents to cover its number-switching
costs. But Verizon Wireless also said that won't cover the $60 million it
has already spent to upgrade its billing system and set up a 1,000-person
customer service center in Murfreesboro, Tenn., to handle the anticipated
increase in calls resulting from number switching.
"We thought it was an ongoing cost of doing business," said Jim Gerace, a
spokesman for Verizon Wireless. The company could use its lower regulatory
fee as a selling point, he said.

---

› See More: regulatory charges imposed by carriers

"tom ronson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> from: http://wireless.ittoolbox.com/news/d...s.asp?i=103259
>
> Verizon Wireless charges customers a nickel a month and said it is
> considering raising that by 10 to 15 cents to cover its number-switching
> costs. But Verizon Wireless also said that won't cover the $60 million it
> has already spent to upgrade its billing system and set up a 1,000-person
> customer service center in Murfreesboro, Tenn., to handle the anticipated
> increase in calls resulting from number switching.
> "We thought it was an ongoing cost of doing business," said Jim Gerace, a
> spokesman for Verizon Wireless. The company could use its lower regulatory
> fee as a selling point, he said.
>
>

So Verizon has backpedaled? They were not going to charge any fee, or at
least they were not going to consider a fee until after the advent of WLNP.

Tom Veldhouse

In article <[email protected]>, Thomas T.=20
[email protected] says...
>=20
> So Verizon has backpedaled? They were not going to charge any fee, or at
> least they were not going to consider a fee until after the advent of WLN=
P.
>=20
> Tom Veldhouse
>=20

Figure the odds on any of the anti-SPCS rottweilers daring to comment on th=
is.

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

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

>Figure the odds on any of the anti-SPCS rottweilers daring to comment on
this.

Ah, lets try this ---- Vzw is looking at going to 20 cents in the future (up
from a nickel) --- Sprint's been charging $1.10 for WLNP alone since June.

(Considering that SPCS has 14 million lines (??) that's $77 million in
increased income since June.)

Wanna keep going? The other paragraph posted had another interesting angle,
if you want to review that.

>So Verizon has backpedaled?

Do you really see it that way? Sprint started charging $1.10 in June or July, Verizon may have
started charging some people 5 cents in October (is this true, because it has never appeared on my
Verizon bill). They may up charging 20 cents when WLNP is implemented. The CEO estimated 10-15
cents, so he came in a nickel over estimates.

So, I guess technically there may have been some backpeddling, but it doesn't seem that they have
decided to price-gouge on the fee.

I would rather them backpeddle a few cents later, then just come right out of the gate profiteering
on a service months before it is available, all the while ignoring customer sentiment on the issue,
then lying about it and instructing CS reps to call it a "tax".

I don't see where Verizon has lost the moral high-groung here, but I suppose if you look hard
enough, you can find it.

> They were not going to charge any fee, or at
>least they were not going to consider a fee until after the advent of WLNP.

Well, in less than 30 days ... it's here.

And 20 cents per month per line compared to $1.10 per month per line is what ... is less than 1/5th
what Sprint charges?

Does it really cost Sprint 5 times as much to implement WLNP? If so, is this due to infrastructure
differences, or employee inefficiency.

"tom ronson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >Figure the odds on any of the anti-SPCS rottweilers daring to comment on
> this.
>
> Ah, lets try this ---- Vzw is looking at going to 20 cents in the future
(up
> from a nickel) --- Sprint's been charging $1.10 for WLNP alone since June.
>
> (Considering that SPCS has 14 million lines (??) that's $77 million in
> increased income since June.)
>
> Wanna keep going? The other paragraph posted had another interesting
angle,
> if you want to review that.
>

So was that why you posted that information, to compare to Sprint's fee?

The Sprint fee is a bundled fee, meaning it is more than just WLNP. Sprint
is charging a few cents over 60 (I think it was 63 cents, but I don't recall
exactly) for WLNP.

Tom Veldhouse

"Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer" <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
>
> >So Verizon has backpedaled?
>
> Do you really see it that way? Sprint started charging $1.10 in June or
July, Verizon may have
> started charging some people 5 cents in October (is this true, because it
has never appeared on my
> Verizon bill). They may up charging 20 cents when WLNP is implemented.
The CEO estimated 10-15
> cents, so he came in a nickel over estimates.

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.

>
> So, I guess technically there may have been some backpeddling, but it
doesn't seem that they have
> decided to price-gouge on the fee.

I was talking about it technically. I didn't say they were price
gouging. In all fairness, Sprint does not charge $1.10 for WLNP, they
charge $0.63. The fee on the bill is a combined fee of several smaller
fees, one of which is WLNP.

>
> I would rather them backpeddle a few cents later, then just come right out
of the gate profiteering
> on a service months before it is available, all the while ignoring
customer sentiment on the issue,
> then lying about it and instructing CS reps to call it a "tax".

While I agree that the Sprint Fee seems high, it is not as high as I once
thought (see above) and as such, it remains to be seen if Sprint PCS is
profiteering. We will watch closely I am sure, but at present, I don't
think they have yet recovered all the costs.

>
> I don't see where Verizon has lost the moral high-groung here, but I
suppose if you look hard
> enough, you can find it.

Again ... I didn't say that they have. I simply said that they backpedaled
from the original [public] statement.

>
> > They were not going to charge any fee, or at
> >least they were not going to consider a fee until after the advent of
WLNP.
>
> Well, in less than 30 days ... it's here.
>
> And 20 cents per month per line compared to $1.10 per month per line is
what ... is less than 1/5th
> what Sprint charges?

No, 20 cents compared to 63 cents.

>
> Does it really cost Sprint 5 times as much to implement WLNP? If so, is
this due to infrastructure
> differences, or employee inefficiency.
>

Better do your research. I once made the same assumption and it was proven
wrong to me ... in this very newsgroup.

Tom Veldhouse

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> So was that why you posted that information, to compare to Sprint's fee?

No. I thought the article offered some insights to an ongoing discusion that
dates back to June. Of course you an "O" appeared to want to up the ante, so
I thought I'd play another round with y'all to see where you wanted to take
it.

I do wonder though, a proposed 20 cents is less than 63 cents, right? See I
recall speaking about the PR highroad path Vzw was given when a few other
carriers saw it as a chance to nickle dime folks to death ---- and how a
number of folks said, 'nah --- Sprint excreets vanilla ice cream'. But boy,
look what Vzw is doing --- stuffing it down those carriers throats when it
comes crunch time. Sometimes the 63 cents aint worth it.

> The Sprint fee is a bundled fee, meaning it is more than just WLNP.
Sprint
> is charging a few cents over 60 (I think it was 63 cents, but I don't
recall
> exactly) for WLNP.

Ya, and I pay over $5 for "Surcharges and fees" for two lines per /
month --- in addition to $11 in taxes ---- and isn't that what the story is
about --- getting a little protection from stunts like this?

--tr

"tom ronson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > So was that why you posted that information, to compare to Sprint's fee?
>
> No. I thought the article offered some insights to an ongoing discusion
that
> dates back to June. Of course you an "O" appeared to want to up the ante,
so
> I thought I'd play another round with y'all to see where you wanted to
take
> it.

Up the ante? This is what I posted:

"So Verizon has backpedaled? They were not going to charge any fee, or at
least they were not going to consider a fee until after the advent of WLNP."

No more than a call. You must have been bluffing because it appears you had
alterior motives.

>
> I do wonder though, a proposed 20 cents is less than 63 cents, right? See
I
> recall speaking about the PR highroad path Vzw was given when a few other
> carriers saw it as a chance to nickle dime folks to death ---- and how a
> number of folks said, 'nah --- Sprint excreets vanilla ice cream'. But
boy,
> look what Vzw is doing --- stuffing it down those carriers throats when it
> comes crunch time. Sometimes the 63 cents aint worth it.

Do a nice search on the subject in this forum. I spent some time defending
the fact that it could be legitimate, and I spent quite a bit more time
arguing with Bob about how bad it makes Sprint look when they don't disclose
why the fee is as large as it is and what happens when they recover the
funds. I was anything but siding with Sprint on the issue ... so you aren't
talking to a "Sprint excreets vanilla ice cream" kind of guy.

>
> Ya, and I pay over $5 for "Surcharges and fees" for two lines per /
> month --- in addition to $11 in taxes ---- and isn't that what the story
is
> about --- getting a little protection from stunts like this?

Have you ever looked at the fees and taxes on a Verizon bill? It would make
you cry and wish for the good old days of Sprint PCS. Not to mention they
charge you for a lot more little things (i.e. detailed billing is $1.99 /
month). I think that the carriers should be required to show in detail
what they are recovering, or they should not be able to list a charge to
recover it. As the republicans like to say, they need to be accountable.
Right now there is no accounting for the maginitude (or lack of it) of the
WLNP portion of the fee. It is possible Sprint is right on the money and
that Verizon has been under charging in hope of gaining market share from it
(most likely if you ask me), and it is also possible that Sprint is trying
to make a little profit on WLNP by charging an inflated recovery fee (not as
likely if you ask me as they, as are all carriers, are under constant
scrutiny by those willing to sue over anything that will make a class action
(legitimate or not) ... hoping for a settlement and early retirement for the
lawyers).

Tom Veldhouse

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <snip>
>
> I was talking about it technically. I didn't say they were price
> gouging. In all fairness, Sprint does not charge $1.10 for WLNP, they
> charge $0.63. The fee on the bill is a combined fee of several smaller
> fees, one of which is WLNP.
>
> >

So, you mean that one of my line items went away when WLNP was added and is
now included in this charge (which is $2.20 for me, since we have two
phones)?

No, sorry, it is all new, at least on my billing. Don't buy a crock excuse
from Sprint.

"xTenn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> So, you mean that one of my line items went away when WLNP was added and
is
> now included in this charge (which is $2.20 for me, since we have two
> phones)?
>

Yes. I believe it was the old local number portability (separate from WLNP
which allows the same thing between wireless providers).

> No, sorry, it is all new, at least on my billing. Don't buy a crock
excuse
> from Sprint.

No, you are wrong. It wasn't Sprint that made the excuse. Go look at your
previous bills if you like .. that is what convinced me. It was exactly 63
cents per line difference. Started in June I believe, perhaps July.

Tom Veldhouse

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Up the ante? This is what I posted:
>
> "So Verizon has backpedaled? They were not going to charge any fee, or at
> least they were not going to consider a fee until after the advent of
WLNP."

See, and this is probably samantics, but I don't recall Vzw ever saying
"never" ---- I do recall them saying they wanted to asses the true cost of
implimenting WLNP and taking it from there.

> No more than a call. You must have been bluffing because it appears you
had
> alterior motives.

(Yawn) What was that? Oh ya, you were saying that you knew what my hand was
before I did, before the draw. Okay.

> Do a nice search on the subject in this forum. I spent some time
defending
> the fact that it could be legitimate, and I spent quite a bit more time
> arguing with Bob about how bad it makes Sprint look when they don't
disclose
> why the fee is as large as it is and what happens when they recover the
> funds. I was anything but siding with Sprint on the issue ... so you
aren't
> talking to a "Sprint excreets vanilla ice cream" kind of guy.

Wow, did I say you were one of those? I don't recall saying that. Since this
wasn't an email discusion I cast with a wider net. Sorry you took it so
personal.

> Have you ever looked at the fees and taxes on a Verizon bill? It would
make
> you cry and wish for the good old days of Sprint PCS. Not to mention they
> charge you for a lot more little things (i.e. detailed billing is $1.99 /
> month).

Monthly. But when I call them I get the feeling the elevator heads all the
way to the top floor, if you know what I mean ---- and that buys a lot with
me.

> Right now there is no accounting for the maginitude (or lack of it) of the
> WLNP portion of the fee.

In the story posted Vzw says it cost them $60 million, to-date, to convert
the billing, add a call center and add (and train) 1,000 employees. That
seems a logical number to me.

What doesn't seeem logical to me is Lauer saying he has no friggin' clue and
that it is a huge continuing investment. It might be a huge investment
alright, if everyone bolts. But SPCS could be adding a friggin' Cray a month
to the program and still be turning a profit at the level they're gouging
the customer. Have we seen any talk from SPCS of what the monthly increase
brings the customer, besides the "we have to do this" line of thinking?
Hell, I'll wager they're currently spending more in lobbying stop it than
implentation --- and you know that's the case since this came on the radar
screen.

Maybe "O" can tell us where the new call center is? Maybe "O" can tell us
how many employees were added. Damn, you know what's going to happen Nov 24
as sure as I do --- SPCS will get hammered and wont be able to answer a call
to sell a phone, or fix a problem --- or take a willing Vzw customer that's
looking to switch.

>It is possible Sprint is right on the money and that Verizon has been under
charging in
>hope of gaining market share from it (most likely if you ask me),

It's cheap marketing $$ to sit back and watch the competition back
themselves into a corner.

>and it is also possible that Sprint is trying
> to make a little profit on WLNP by charging an inflated recovery fee (not
as
> likely if you ask me as they, as are all carriers, are under constant
> scrutiny by those willing to sue over anything that will make a class
action
> (legitimate or not) ... hoping for a settlement and early retirement for
the
> lawyers).

Desperate times my friend call for desperate measures. A guy looking to keep
the bottom line up is capable of nearly anything. Ask the boys at Enron,
Global Crossing and WorldCom how it works.

--tr

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "xTenn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > So, you mean that one of my line items went away when WLNP was added and
> is
> > now included in this charge (which is $2.20 for me, since we have two
> > phones)?
> >
>
> Yes. I believe it was the old local number portability (separate from
WLNP
> which allows the same thing between wireless providers).
>
> > No, sorry, it is all new, at least on my billing. Don't buy a crock
> excuse
> > from Sprint.
>
> No, you are wrong. It wasn't Sprint that made the excuse. Go look at
your
> previous bills if you like .. that is what convinced me. It was exactly
63
> cents per line difference. Started in June I believe, perhaps July.
>
> Tom Veldhouse
>
>

Maybe I should type slower... The WLNP is a newer item on my bill, yet I
have not lost any other items (although I need to check a few more bills to
be certain). Not sure what you mean by "old local number portability", but
it is in essence the same feature? So, even if it did exist before on my
bill (which I cannot find), is it safe to say that one should replace the
other? Isn't this even the way Sprint is labeling it on the bill?

Any way you cut it, Sprint is charging $1.10 for this "feature", where other
companies seem to be charging much less. Only new information is that in
your case (maybe mine, but again I do not have sufficient bills at hand to
be certain) Sprint may have been changing for number portability before they
should have been doing so..

"tom ronson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >Figure the odds on any of the anti-SPCS rottweilers daring to comment on
> this.
>
> Ah, lets try this ---- Vzw is looking at going to 20 cents in the future (up
> from a nickel) --- Sprint's been charging $1.10 for WLNP alone since June.
>
> (Considering that SPCS has 14 million lines (??) that's $77 million in
> increased income since June.)
>
> Wanna keep going? The other paragraph posted had another interesting angle,
> if you want to review that.

No, Sprint has *not*. That $1.10 is a combined fee for both number
pooling *and* number portability.

I'll check back once you get your "angle" right.

"O/Siris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "tom ronson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > >Figure the odds on any of the anti-SPCS rottweilers daring to comment
on
> > this.
> >
> > Ah, lets try this ---- Vzw is looking at going to 20 cents in the future
(up
> > from a nickel) --- Sprint's been charging $1.10 for WLNP alone since
June.
> >
> > (Considering that SPCS has 14 million lines (??) that's $77 million in
> > increased income since June.)
> >
> > Wanna keep going? The other paragraph posted had another interesting
angle,
> > if you want to review that.
>
> No, Sprint has *not*. That $1.10 is a combined fee for both number
> pooling *and* number portability.
>
> I'll check back once you get your "angle" right.


Would you *PLEASE* explain the difference, and why Sprint is confusing the
issue by lumping them together?