GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  Verizon makes a good point
If it can't respond and try to retain the customer, cable would have an unfair advantage, Verizon says. Why? A cable customer who switches to Verizon for TV must call to cancel cable service, giving the cable company a chance to try to keep its customer. And if the FCC rules prevent what Verizon is doing, then the rules need changing. Of course, even NEW rules shouldn't allow Verizon to unduly delay the transfer. They should get 1 crack at retaining their customer and then they should have to put thru the transfer request.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
Enlightener
join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX | I would think that once a customer has contacted another provider and put in a transfer request that the previous provider has already ha their 1 crack at keeping the customer happy. |
|
jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to GOLFnSUN
No, Verizon is comparing apples and oranges.
If a customer transfers their Comcast Digital Voice (or whatever it's called now) to Verizon they follow the exact same porting process in reverse.
Porting regulations aren't applicable to TV service. Remember, the point of this law was for the good of consumers -- switching carriers doesn't mean losing your phone number. There's nothing of the sort in television, whether satellite, cable, Uverse, or FIOS. |
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to GOLFnSUN
said by GOLFnSUN  :If it can't respond and try to retain the customer, cable would have an unfair advantage, Verizon says. Why? A cable customer who switches to Verizon for TV must call to cancel cable service, giving the cable company a chance to try to keep its customer. And if the FCC rules prevent what Verizon is doing, then the rules need changing. Of course, even NEW rules shouldn't allow Verizon to unduly delay the transfer. They should get 1 crack at retaining their customer and then they should have to put thru the transfer request. FCC Rules don't allow a "one crack". You can't winback till after the port to the new company. VZ should suffer lots of fines. After all, they have no problem suing everyone for "violating" their broad patents. It is a clear FCC violation NOT to just port and try and win the customer back before porting. The FCC put that rule in since the RBOCs are monopolies. K. Martin should do his job and fine them and tell them to cease and desist. VZ wants to play the game by chosing which laws they like and which they don't. When I switched to Cox Digital Phone, Bellsouth didn't try to win me back till after I left. They did try and delay the damn port for 14 days though. Funny, cell cos can port in 24 hrs but it takes a Bell 10 days to port. Ridiculous. Fines can be imposed on that too. Fine VZ and makes rules so clear these bozos get it. By the way, employees doing that can get fired so fire the executive that started this mess.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to jester121
Exactly... the only reason that this process exists is to keep a phone number. As part of LNP, this process exists to allow you to change providers and retain the number, and this process is to be followed by all providers porting phone numbers... Verizon should not be exempt, or try to compare this with switching TV service.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to jester121
said by jester121 :No, Verizon is comparing apples and oranges. If a customer transfers their Comcast Digital Voice (or whatever it's called now) to Verizon they follow the exact same porting process in reverse. Porting regulations aren't applicable to TV service. Remember, the point of this law was for the good of consumers -- switching carriers doesn't mean losing your phone number. There's nothing of the sort in television, whether satellite, cable, Uverse, or FIOS. Don't forget to add Comcast Digital Phone or any other VOIP type offering. Voip providers aren't allowed to port numbers. Comcast Digital Phone is supposed to be dead by April something or other, then they may or may not be telephone companies with porting requirements. |
|
jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·surpasshosting
·ViaTalk
| said by xsiddalx :Don't forget to add Comcast Digital Phone or any other VOIP type offering. Voip providers aren't allowed to port numbers. Comcast Digital Phone is supposed to be dead by April something or other, then they may or may not be telephone companies with porting requirements. ???
Vonage, Viatalk, and all the rest will be interested to hear that they can't port numbers -- they've both ported my SBC number, as did Sunrocket. Although, technically, I guess you could say it's whoever they're purchasing PSTN access from that's handling the port. |
|
MadMANN
Premium
join:2005-08-19
·Comcast
| reply to xsiddalx
said by xsiddalx : Voip providers aren't allowed to port numbers. Inaccurate. Most do it all of the time, as long as the customer lives in the same area where the prefix can apply.
As far as the news story goes, I don't feel that giving a provider one last chance to retain a customer is so off the wall. However, being in the industry, I can tell you that many illegal tactics are used during the porting process by many ILECs. I have seen ports delayed further than the legal time frame in hopes of frustrating the customer into staying where they are and giving the appearance that the new provider can't get the job done. This is most useful when a customer is getting a triple play and the company either has to make 2 trips or delay the entire install. In that case, they not only affect the phone service and screws with the TV/'net install in the process. |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Hollis Hosting
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to GOLFnSUN
I'm not aware of the details but I agree with GOLFnSUN as long as:
1) They are only trying to retain existing customer's
2) is not used to delay transfer.
The second one is the most problematic because as a result of deregulation there are many "Verizon's" even though from a customer perspective we are dealing with a single company.
/tom |
|
