said by wildcat man:because there is no port charge to Cablevision. Costs might be more than putting in a new number, but there has never been a port charge as it would be anti-competitive.
All parties should disclose all fees, however, in their advertising in equal font. Porting charges are nuts. The Subscriber Line Charge is userous and pure profit. Intra-state access fees (carrier to carrier fees), particularly with anyone but the biggest carriers, are insane (as much as 10 cents per MOU). And the fact that wireless companies cannot charge the same fees that come to a cell phone in your home as the wireline company charges for the same call from the same person to the home phone is just crazy.
Imagine the discussion at Verizon or at&t if VZW now had an access revenue source and at&t or VZ wireline had to pay out more. Thanks, FCC, and state PUCs. A couple strokes of the pen and we'd have a drastically different landscape. Cablevision's porting fee is just part of the game that VZ, at&t and the rural carriers have perpetuated since the Telecom Act of 1996. Time to change the rules.
I can't see how a cable company is at a competitive disadvantage, especially with internet & video, and cable & entertainment related revenue generating properties. Compare that with go-it-alone voip companies can make a decent profit at it & they're not even last mile providers. Certain fees can be labeled outrageous in both 'industries', however the blurring of lines about what business they're in happened when cable-cos did internet & telcos began reselling video (at first in partnership with satellite co's)
