| FCC went too far on this I think I don't agree with the FCC decision on this one, though the fact they actually ruled for the cable industry for a change was pleasantly surprising.
Verizon went too far by DELAYING the phone number port process and that should be prohibited. But preventing them from trying to convince customers not to switch goes too far in my opinion. As long as Verizon doesn't slow down the port process, they should have their 1 chance at convincing a user not to switch. After all, cable does this all the time - trying to keep users from switching their TV & internet service to a telco.
So while the decision may have legal backing in the law regulating telephone service, it isn't developing a level playing field between the telcos & cable companies in their competition for triple play customers
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
1 edit | said by fAcEtIOUs: But preventing them from trying to convince customers not to switch goes too far in my opinion. As long as Verizon doesn't slow down the port process, they should have their 1 chance at convincing a user not to switch. After all, cable does this all the time - trying to keep users from switching their TV & internet service to a telco. No, it's not the same as what cable does to keep customers. Verizon was taking a port request and turning it into a sales call. The customer had already made a business transaction with the cable company for phone service. And it obviously slows the port process, how could it not? Simply flagging it so that Verizon would call the customer to sell them service is slowing the port. As they could have done the port at the same time it was flagged.
When a customer calls up cable to cancel, they are calling them directly to stop service, not going through Verizon, and of course cable would take the opportunity to keep them. Verizon does the same when someone calls them directly to cancel.
Now if the FCC ruling somehow allows cable to try to stop a port request the same way Verizon was, but not allowing Verizon to do the same, then you have a point. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Verizon went too far by DELAYING the phone number port process and that should be prohibited. But preventing them from trying to convince customers not to switch goes too far in my opinion. As long as Verizon doesn't slow down the port process, they should have their 1 chance at convincing a user not to switch. After all, cable does this all the time - trying to keep users from switching their TV & internet service to a telco. Indeed. And Verizon is not the only that is suspected of doing this, although they seem to be the only one that has been publicly outed and given a wrist slap. There are other companies out there that take days longer than others to complete a port request and seem to have a higher incidence of canceled port requests. |
|
| reply to smcallah
BellSouth here delayed my port to Cox for nearly 2 weeks. I think that is ridiculous. |
|
Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
VZ had plenty of time to contact that customer before the port request to try to keep that customers business. But the fact is VZ will NOT offer lower prices until that request came and it said was from a cable company. What VZ was doing was and is wrong and should be illegal like the FCC says. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Can't agree with you on this one, my friend.
"...but Verizon argued that it was a perfectly legitimate way to provide customers with information about their options."
Verizon have every day to provide customers with information about their options. Many companies only want to send information when it's a benefit to the company. The competitor is out there every day doing the same thing. Why does verizon want a free pass around the rules and only counter office when a customer either 1) gets a better offer, or 2) wants to leave over poor service? Same applies to cable.
Companies should reach out more often to their customers by providing information about their choices.
The bottom line is this: Consumers leave for a few reasons. 1) Tired of poor service. 2) Price. 3) Changing technologies.
When it comes to poor service, they need to ALL improve. Keep the customer happy, they will stay, often no matter the price. Customer service is still king, no matter what people say. These days, most companies provide less than par service and the consumer is always looking for a company that treats their customers well.
When it comes to price, this is the one that gets me most. Cable has a long way to go on their video price. I understand it's hard because they simply resell a product and must maintain a plant. They got it with telephone though. Telco, on the other hand, can't price telephone service to save their life. Consumer know this and are willing to bail on price - Telco has long raped the customer and needs to wake up.
When it comes to technology.. younger people want mobility more and more these days.. in fact, a lot of people do.. BOTH providers need to come up wtih a cost effective way to give consumers both.
Providers on both sides have the opportunity to take care of their customer. Many customers have already been in touch with the provider PRIOR to making a change. During that call, it's most likely that the losing provider failed in their chance.
Trust you me, if I called cable to put in a change order, I meant it; same in return. In all honesty, the other day, I called to have Qwest take over my phone lines from Comcast CDV... I now remember WHY I couldn't wait to take my voice service AWAY from them in the first place. Talk about a living hell..
If Qwest, for example, were to call me in the middle of a number port, that rep would CERTAINLY know that the call was a mistake.
Moral is.. if Verizon was taking care of their customers, they wouldn't have to worry about winning them back. They also haven't shown/proved by any doubt that they are honest and responsible when it comes to contacting the customer. Way too many delayed ports says the FCC got this right. If verizon were to want to call me.. really.. it's their mistake.. but don't they DARE interfere with MY decision to leave and delay me by a minute. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Martin still holds his anti-cable bias Even though cable caught a break from the FCC for the 1st time in a long while, it didn't change Martin's vendetta against cable companies. The vote was 4-1 for the cable companies, but Martin was the lone vote against cable. I guess the fact that Comcast knocks Martin every chance they get still rankles with him and his votes are now personal.
»www.businessweek.com/ap/financia···NFG0.htm
But by a 4-1 vote, with FCC chairman Kevin Martin the lone dissenter, the commission upheld the complaint and sided with the cable industry.
Martin has been commission chairman since March 2005. This was the first time in his chairmanship that he has been outvoted.
It also marked a rare victory for the cable industry, which has claimed the chairman has treated it unfairly.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
|
|
 BSD24Tier 4Premium
join:2008-04-30
Middleboro, MA
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: FCC went too far on this I think said by fAcEtIOUs:I don't agree with the FCC decision on this one, though the fact they actually ruled for the cable industry for a change was pleasantly surprising. Verizon went too far by DELAYING the phone number port process and that should be prohibited. But preventing them from trying to convince customers not to switch goes too far in my opinion. As long as Verizon doesn't slow down the port process, they should have their 1 chance at convincing a user not to switch. After all, cable does this all the time - trying to keep users from switching their TV & internet service to a telco. So while the decision may have legal backing in the law regulating telephone service, it isn't developing a level playing field between the telcos & cable companies in their competition for triple play customers Yea Verizon delayed my port for 3 weeks. They claimed they didn't realize I had a local pic freeze, even though I had already requested they remove the local and longdistance pic freezes a few days before porting originally was supposed to go through...
The FCC should have dealt with them right off the bat, It's about time they take action on Verizon. |
|
