how-to block ads
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| Makes sense Everyone seems to complain about prices being too high, and this allows Verizon to offer a better deal- which would, one would think, be a good thing.
Things like this are done because government agencies want to decrease the market share of the largest player to make there look like is more competition, rather than actually wanting to help people get a better deal. | |
|  
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Makes sense While I don't think that competition is a 'bad' thing, I do think what Verizon is performing is wrong.
If I called Verizon and told them I was going to cancel, I'd almost expect some form of retention offer.
If I went through a porting process to transfer my number to another carrier that I've signed up for service with, then I'd expect Verizon to stay out of my business of porting until its done.
While its fair game to send me info on attempting to win my service, its not 'fair game' to hold my service up from being ported.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | 
SteveCon
IBEW 2222 Boston, MA
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Burlington, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Makes sense I'd be very surprised to learn that VZ "holds up" the port process. Up until a few years ago, I worked in a VZ (Bell Atlantic) CO as a CO Tech. Platform UNE (Unbundled Network Elements) was a big deal and monitored very closely by VZ, CLEC and regulators.
CLEC orders came in a couple of :weeks: in advance of the actual cut over date. There would be an order to check for dial tone & preinstall new crosswire between the new CLEC OE and VZ CP. This was scheduled two days in advance of the actual cut over date. The second order was to perform the actual cut at a very specific date time. When the cut over command came, we'd rechecked all the CLEC OE's for dialtone and if *all* was good, the cut over to CLEC OE began with very stringent time allowances and rules. After the cut, if the CLEC reported no problem with the cut over, the numbers were routed to their switch. The old crosswire between the VZ OE and CP would be removed from the mainframe. If there was an issue, the the entire cut was usually canceled, and we'd have to reconnect the VZ OE to the CP on the mainframe. The CLEC would have to do something at their end that prevented the porting; which would ensure that the number remained routed to the VZ switch to maintain phone service to the customer. You can see, there was plenty of time for marketing for winbacks. | |
| | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Makes sense I actually worked for a company that did 3rd party billing, with ties to all LECs.. regulation is painful at times.
I suspect that VZ may have implemented a process to send a notification to retentions when the initial order is received.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| 
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | "this allows Verizon to offer a better deal"
They had a chance to offer a better deal right up to the port request. They had their chance. | |
| | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| Re: Makes sense So basically you're saying that it doesn't matter if the customer could save money on phone service? What is the goal of competing providers, then?
Now, I'm predicating this on the assumption that Verizon isn't being too aggressive- i.e., refusing to take no for an answer, calling incessantly, delaying porting longer than necessary, etc. but is instead just using delays inherent to the porting process to offer one last chance offering. If they're doing anything more than that then there should be restrictions. | |
| | |
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | Re: Makes sense The providers were competing and obviously the other carrier has won the customers business. Once they have reached the part where the number is to be ported it is supposed to be too late. | |
| | | wildcat man
join:2007-11-03
Kansas City, MO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| The issue is that VZ would not call everyone who ported away. They use street address, Zip Code, and potentially any other history that they had, including things like "how much long distance?" or "did they have international calling?" or other factors. This is a violation of proprietary calling information. Re: not everyone would get called, as the ruling indicated, just the most predicted valuable customers. | |
| | | |
|
