Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| It's not the same. VZ was using the information from the cable company to call you. IF you call CableVision and request to shut your service off than they can offer what ever they want to you at that time. VZ was NOT doing that. VZ was waiting on the port request BEFORE they'd call you. NOT when you called them. By the way its not illegal for companies to send you mail. And they can call you for between 6 months to a year of you doing business with you. But you have to be on the Federal Do Not Call List.
What you are talking about and what VZ was/is doing is not the same. |
| That's my point. It's not the same, but now Verizon has a very good case based on this ruling to ask the courts and/or the FCC to make it the same.
Today's system.
Verizon to Cable (Phone): Call up cable to arrange service. They put in a port request to Verizon. You don't have to call in. Verizon could then call you which is what this ruling may prevent.
Cablevision to Verizon (TV)
Call Cablevision to cancel and be in retention Hell for 30 minutes to an hour (what it took me to cancel) Then continue to be harassed for months, even after I requested no further calls. (And yes I'm on the do not call list, but as you pointed out this does not apply)
My point is that by winning this battle, the cable companies may loose the large battle as Verizon can now make a good case that they are at a competitive disadvantage and now all they are asking is to level the playing field by allowing them to cancel cable service on behalf of the customer, just like the cable company now uses porting request to cancel phone service. (In fact Verizon has already made this argument when the case was first brought up). This ruling may play directly into Verizon's hands. |
