 EPS
@verizon.net | Why? Other articles on this issue claim that Verizon isn't allowed to contact customers with deals until they've officially switched over- alright, if that's the rule, then they've probably broken it, but why is this? The cable companies are allowed to use retention strategies as much as they want, as are cell-phone companies (including VZW), internet service companies- why not standard POTS telephone? |
|
|
|
| Because VoIP/wireless service is not a public utility. Cable companies get to call themselves phone providers as an offer strategy, but when it comes to regulation, they don't have to play by the same rules. For instance, if an ILEC wants to increase basic service rates, it is almost an act of congress and has to pass through the state PUC, while a cable company can increase rates without any of that trouble. They also have fewer taxes and regulatory fees to pay.
Phone companies are fighting hard to have cable providers regulated equally for voice service. As it is the cable industry has a pretty big advantage because of this lack of regulation, and you better believe that any communications provider is going to take any unfair advantage they can get in order to succeed in this highly competitive environment. |
|
| reply to EPS
The same rules apply to our VOIP customers. Once we get the order via their new phone service to disconnect them, we can't contact them for 60 days. |
|
 gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | reply to EPS
said by EPS :
Other articles on this issue claim that Verizon isn't allowed to contact customers with deals until they've officially switched over- alright, if that's the rule, then they've probably broken it, but why is this? The cable companies are allowed to use retention strategies as much as they want, as are cell-phone companies (including VZW), internet service companies- why not standard POTS telephone?
Incumbents didn't want to lose their subscribers to other competitors, so they argued against line portability saying it cost too much.
Mobile phone company's, CLEC's, Cable, and others complained and got the LNP and MLNP laws changed to allow people to switch providers easier to promote competition.
Strict rules were made on LNP so that incumbents couldn't interfere or delay LNP in any manner. Which is what they would do if they had half a chance to stifle competition.
--
‘Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts,
Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit,
With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will
We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish.’
Solon |
|
| reply to A Cable Guy
yes, but the person's question was why cable/wireless/high speed internet providers can get away with so many retention tactics, and you cannot deny that part of that reason is because they simply do not have the same amount of FCC and PUC regulation as POTS providers and ILECs.
What you're going to see a lot of now is local service freezes, which are similar to PIC freezes on long distance where you have to contact your current provider to verify cancellation of your service before you can change to another provider. My company offers this and it is perfectly legal in most states per their PUCs, though the customer has to go through a 3rd party verification to verify this freeze.
I don't agree with how Verizon is doing business, as an Embarq employee I see my own company trying very hard to play by the rules. Instead we are focusing on winback offers after the customer has already switched service providers, and it has proved very successful in bending the trend of lost access lines. I think this is the approach Verizon and other providers should take, as even if the customer is leaving, I personally do not feel you should be doing anything so customer affecting and slimey. |
|
| reply to gaforces
Our experience has been that porting a number from a CLec is often difficult because of these delays. Porting numbers away from AT&T/BellSouth has always been a breeze though our customers complain that about 2 weeks after the port they start getting win back calls and they won't give up. |
|
| reply to Syncognition
said by Syncognition: For instance, if an ILEC wants to increase basic service rates, it is almost an act of congress and has to pass through the state PUC, while a cable company can increase rates without any of that trouble. They also have fewer taxes and regulatory fees to pay. They don't need an act of congress, they just tack on some bs regulatory fee that isn't a real fee.
--
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots" |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to EPS
It's not just Verizon. Verizon is in violation of FCC rules. (alleged) Cable does retention strategies when customers call in to cancel their video and internet services. That is perfectly fine.. Verizon can do the same all they want..
When people are going to go from one company to another, and keep their number, they don't call their current provider to schedule a disconnect, rather, they place the order with the new company. The port order, when completed, will trigger the losing company to disconnect the telephone service.
It's also possible that Verizon is getting disconnects on multi-profit customers calling to disconnect a portion of their service and are being asked their story. It's possible that Verizon is THEN trying to offer retention.
HOWEVER, in the article, Verizon is stating that it's all pure B.S. and that "cable is just trying to limit customer choice".. which tells me the excuse machine is in full force here so I don't tend to believe Verizon is being innocent.
And, as for the rules, ALL phone providers that are in the pool of numbers (VoIP, Cellular, Cable, Two-Cans and a Sting with phone numbers) MUST follow porting rules, which include the do not market under port rule. |
|
