Cable Accuses Verizon Of Cheating In VoIP WarsSays company illegally using LNP requests to retain customers... ( old news - 06:23PM Tuesday Feb 12 2008) tags: competition · business · cable · VoIPTipped by fiberguy  Cable providers are accusing Verizon of using port requests as an opportunity to market to (and win back) customers in violation of FCC rules. In other words, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks allege, customers are signing up for cable VoIP, cable providers are sending in number portability request, and Verizon is then using the opportunity to try and get back those customers (and cancelling the port request if they succeed). That violates FCC rules (pdf) according to the cable operators. Verizon defends the practice to Multichannel News: "This filing should be seen for what it is -- another cable company effort to block consumer choice as competition heats up," said Verizon spokesman David Fish. "Verizon’s retention marketing is lawful, does not interfere with number porting and, most important, it allows consumers to choose a better alternative. It’s hard to believe that cable would attempt to block consumers from receiving information about additional services and lower prices."
Related:- Free Cablevision Wi-Fi To Offer VoIP, Video
- Thursday Morning Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Should Cable Operators Offer Wireless?
- FCC Doesn't Like Comcast's New Treatment of VoIP
- Comcast Denies Unfair VoIP Discrimination
- Comcast Struggles With Subscriber Additions
|
 
sansri88
Go digtal you analog laggards
Premium
join:2005-12-17
Iselin, NJ
clubs:  | They sent me a letter.... Verizon sent me a letter via overnight UPS saying they want me to stay, blah blah blah...
And they said switch to FiOS. That ticked me off, since it's not even available in my area. | |
|  | Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | Re: They sent me a letter.... Hold them to it and tell them to provide you with FIOS. | |
| | | | | 
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
1 edit | Re: They sent me a letter.... Not true, you can cancel the port request before translations gets the routing request and makes the change. Even after the 3rd party verification process has started. You can call up and cancel it. Been there.. done that. 
Not say VZ can refuse to port you, but they can offer you a better deal while processing your request. If you decide to take it, it's the customer who has the power to stay or go. I had my number ported once without my permission (junkrocket). Took me over 40 days and the FCC and PUC to get it back. No one could provide me with the port request data or recording of the 3rd party verification call, so there wasn't much Comcast, Sunrocket or Level3 could do but get me back my number. But if VZ flat out holds up the port request, yes, there is a fine, however, as much as they rip off their wireless customers (fools) they have deep pockets.  | |
| | | | 
Fubar
join:2001-02-20
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: They sent me a letter.... said by tc1uscg :Not true, you can cancel the port request before translations gets the routing request and makes the change. Even after the 3rd party verification process has started. You can call up and cancel it. Been there.. done that. Not say VZ can refuse to port you, but they can offer you a better deal while processing your request. If you decide to take it, it's the customer who has the power to stay or go. I had my number ported once without my permission (junkrocket). Took me over 40 days and the FCC and PUC to get it back. No one could provide me with the port request data or recording of the 3rd party verification call, so there wasn't much Comcast, Sunrocket or Level3 could do but get me back my number. But if VZ flat out holds up the port request, yes, there is a fine, however, as much as they rip off their wireless customers (fools) they have deep pockets. From the article it sounds like the customer isn't canceling the port... Verizon is... That is not allowed.
The customer would have to call whoever they initiated the port with and cancel it that way... | |
| | | | |
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
| Re: They sent me a letter.... From the article it sounds like the customer isn't canceling the port... Verizon is... That is not allowed.
The customer would have to call whoever they initiated the port with and cancel it that way...
It sound like the argument was, if Verzon tried to "talk" the customer into terminating their port, before it went the full mile, would be open for fines, which isn't true. If they cancel after the fact, or delay it past the accepted 30 days FDD (firm due date), then they can get in trouble. Other then that, they can turn the customer any direction they want, if the customer is willing. | |
| | | | | | 
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
·Skype
 ·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| Re: They sent me a letter.... said by tc1uscg :From the article it sounds like the customer isn't canceling the port... Verizon is... That is not allowed.
The customer would have to call whoever they initiated the port with and cancel it that way...
It sound like the argument was, if Verzon tried to "talk" the customer into terminating their port, before it went the full mile, would be open for fines, which isn't true. If they cancel after the fact, or delay it past the accepted 30 days FDD (firm due date), then they can get in trouble. Other then that, they can turn the customer any direction they want, if the customer is willing. Exactly, you can't "win back" a customer that hasn't ported. Duh! to the others that didn't get it.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
| | | | | | |
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI | Re: They sent me a letter.... got it.. | |
| | mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA | Didn't happen to me. I ported a number with no communication at all from Verizon. | |
| | | 
Taxi77
join:2008-01-25
Manassas, VA | Re: They sent me a letter.... VZ spent overnite fees to beg me to stay, then offered me discounted rates...made me feel good that I was leaving them for good. Where were those rates before? | |
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| if it's a good deal.... if verizon is willing to give the customer a better deal, what the heck.
in the current, non-competitive market, it sounds like threatening to leave or leaving is the only way to make them notice. how many threads exist talking about getting better offers from comcast or another cable company when they call up to cancel?
it's sad that the customer has to be all but signed up with another provider (in cases where there is one), before the company they left even gives a sh1t. | |
| | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: if it's a good deal.... True - I like open market approach, however if what they are doing is not legit, then they'll have to stop. This is not much different than slamming/cramming.
quote:
The cable companies also stated that Verizon broke the rules because its knowledge of a customer's intention to switch came from the cable company's number portability request, not from information directly derived from the consumer.
Cable CO says port the line, Verizon's 'retention marketing' has to go and find out who it is, put the status in 'pending' and attempt to win them back while its in transit. I think they're not allowed to do this while the order is pending, especially if it didn't come from the customer.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | 
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| Re: if it's a good deal.... No the problem is that LNP requests do not require Verizon to call their customer. Verizon is using the request as an excuse to have a rep from the retention department make a sales pitch to them to keep/delay them from switching services.
The only problem I have is most likely the deal verizon cuts with the customer most likely also has a min 2 year committment attached to it. | |
| | | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: if it's a good deal.... I guess I worded my response a bit wrong with the 'Verizon's retention dept. "has" to go out and win back. It's an excuse for their marketing department to have a chance to attempt to win you back. Their marketing/retentions should only be involved before the port was initiated, and after it is complete.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | | | | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: if it's a good deal.... Good - I hope they get a large bill.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | 
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN
| I say give up completely on retention and improve customer service. Beef up quality control with calls and make phone reps responsible for what they say. Then when a customer does threaten to cancel just tell 'em goodbye, cya, we dont play the threaten us game! When they try the other company still spending the money on retention instead of actually having people tell you the truth they'll get fed up with the crap and come back.
--
kustomerservice.net | |
| | | 
meister_sd
Premium
join:2006-01-29
La Mesa, CA
| Re: if it's a good deal.... said by Chuckles :I say give up completely on retention and improve customer service. Beef up quality control with calls and make phone reps responsible for what they say. Then when a customer does threaten to cancel just tell 'em goodbye, cya, we dont play the threaten us game! When they try the other company still spending the money on retention instead of actually having people tell you the truth they'll get fed up with the crap and come back. I'm sorry, is this a Sprint thread?  | |
| 
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? | |
| | Syncognition
join:2008-01-12
Winter Park, FL
| Re: Why? 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. | |
| | | | |
A Cable Guy
@twtelecom.net | 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. | |
| | | Syncognition
join:2008-01-12
Winter Park, FL
| Re: Why? 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. | |
| | 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
·Cruzio Internet
| 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 | |
| | | battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000
| Re: Why? 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. | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| 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. | |
| 
Jeffrey
Bye George, 1937-2008
Premium
join:2002-12-24
Huntington Station, NY
clubs:
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Vonage
·magicjack.com
| Consumer Caught in the Middle May be it's me -- while I can say that I'd consider this fair business practices on the part of Verizon, it does have a little bit of slime associated with it. The customer made a choice to change providers, and they shouldn't have to fight to make that choice once they provide the correct paperwork.
If I wanted to leave Verizon for a cable company, I would have done my research before hand, or at least inquired about a Verizon discount to "save me". May be not every customer would do this, but if it happened to me, I would be a little pissed with Verizon.
--
And so castles made of sand, slip into the sea, eventually.
I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. You know, that or, uh, His Dudeness, or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing. | |
| | 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: Consumer Caught in the Middle said by Jeffrey :May be it's me -- while I can say that I'd consider this fair business practices on the part of Verizon, it does have a little bit of slime associated with it. The customer made a choice to change providers, and they shouldn't have to fight to make that choice once they provide the correct paperwork. The slime part isn't because they are trying to retain customers. It is because they often DELAY a port of a number for more time than is necessary so that they can extend their marketing effort. The FCC gets involved because delaying porting of a number is against the rules.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | |
Jeffrey
Bye George, 1937-2008
Premium
join:2002-12-24
Huntington Station, NY
clubs:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FIOS
·Vonage
·magicjack.com
| Re: Consumer Caught in the Middle said by LiamJunket :said by Jeffrey :May be it's me -- while I can say that I'd consider this fair business practices on the part of Verizon, it does have a little bit of slime associated with it. The customer made a choice to change providers, and they shouldn't have to fight to make that choice once they provide the correct paperwork. The slime part isn't because they are trying to retain customers. It is because they often DELAY a port of a number for more time than is necessary so that they can extend their marketing effort. The FCC gets involved because delaying porting of a number is against the rules. Yeah I agree, that's what I'm implying if I wasn't clear. Wanting to retain the business is fine, but any delays that further prohibit the customer's choice is slimey, IMHO.
--
And so castles made of sand, slip into the sea, eventually.
I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. You know, that or, uh, His Dudeness, or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing. | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Consumer Caught in the Middle Here's another issue that many people have forgotten about. These incumbents have not played very nice PERIOD to anyone else they deal with.
Back when DSL was in full swing, and they were supposed to play by similar rules with the CLEC providers, or 3rd party DSL providers, they'd play the same tricks.
Say for example, PacBell.. You placed an order with PacBell for DSL and they could get you up in one week. However, order it from MCI (CLEC) and it would take upwards to 30 days. Meanwhile, while the customer who chose to use another company to provide the DSL is waiting for their extended order to be installed (if they were lucky it only took 30 days) PacBell would break the rules, look at the customer data, market that customer, and take the customer away from the CLEC/3rd Party.
I always found THAT, too, to be slimy. If I were the 3rd parties, I would have sued the ILECs off their as*es. MCI marketed the customer, while PacBell would take the free lead.. and often would sell the service even cheaper to the customer than PacBell would have if the customer called PacBell direct.
I see some of the same concept going on here. Let's now use Comcast and Verzion as an example. Comcast marketed the customer with offers - and spends a lot of money doing so. Verizon gets the port order from Comcast to lose the number, so Verizon uses the efforts and money resources of Comcast to solicit a customer who, technically, is no longer theirs at that point.
The rule is a good one. I don't see cable as limiting the choices of customers. Verizon is perfectly in their rights to solicit the customer after the banned period has ended. They can STILL use the loss as a lead.. Verizon is afraid the customer will taste the new service and stay. To be fair, some customers come back, quickly at times, on their own anyway.
With the recent past events of Verizon in the way they are going after the competitor, I do not feel sorry for them one bit. If ANYONE is limiting customer choice, it's CLEARLY Verizon... | |
| 
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | How about offering it BEFORE they leave? If they offered the better service and lower prices in the first place, they wouldn't be fleeing to cable.
Duh. | |
| |
See 10 replies to this post | |
burn1out
Raw Horsepower
Premium
join:2000-12-12
Meridianville, AL | Ethics Ethics 101
All of them should use it. | |
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: Ethics I don't think they'll let you in to either the cable or telephone industry if you act like you actually passed Ethics 101. | |
| | |
burn1out
Raw Horsepower
Premium
join:2000-12-12
Meridianville, AL | Re: Ethics Sammer, You are probably right. However, they must have blinked | |
| wrad
join:2003-09-11
Fort Pierce, FL | AT & T ...offered to cut my bill in half. Had they done this before I went to ViaTalk, I likely would have remained with AT&T. | |
| | proletarian
join:2007-01-08
00000 | Comcast does something similar Comcast takes locate requests to target customers getting fiber dug to their house.
That's a fact. | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Comcast does something similar Really...? ... are you SURE about that? 
You couldn't be any more wrong.
Dig requests are just a normal part of the day. A request is called in by, 'who ever', and is sent to all those who need to locate. When the locater gets to the property they simply mark their lines and leave.
When the locater gets to the property, and if done right, they will find the white marker flags or pain - and again, still doesn't matter. A locate is a locate.. you go out, mark, leave.. locate the next.
Myth Busted.
Further, if there was a law about locate information not being used as a marketing tool, then they would be breaking it..
So.. care to enlighten us with any evidence to this 'fact' of yours? or are you just making things up?
(For the record, even verizon marks their own lines like everyone else before their own FiOS is installed) | |
|
anon101
@verizon.net
| Cable does the same Brighthouse does the same crap, except they dont try to retain the customers with calls just delay the process. When the number is requested Brighthouse then advises that there is pending order on the account and will not allow the number to port until completed, I called them they advised i had called to upadate some info in which an order had to be placed. I never called them and same happened to 4 of my neighbors. It 2 weeks to port my number. | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Cable does the same Some providers, depending on they way they have their numbers assigned, can take up to 14 days to complete a port. It's not limited to just bright house. If you are going to perform a port, the winning company knows, in advance, the standard port completion time depending on the company.
Qwest - they say 10 days.
Comcast - they say 8 days.
at&t - they say 7 days
MCI Neighborhood - they take 12 to 16 days
.. and so on and so on.
You are, however, correct. If you have ANY pending orders, including account information changes (and they are orders and can take 24 or 48 hours depending on the software) your port WILL be delayed. This happens A LOT because in order to port, the account data much match exactly or the port WILL fail. Many people often call the losing company to update the information as to what they told the winning company after they place the order. This usually ALWAYS delays the order.
The winning company will never get an FOC until everything clears quality control.. and the losing company has every right to reject the port according to rules. Sometimes, the winning company has to resubmit the port because of errors and the customer doesn't realize this.
Porting isn't perfect all the time with the way the rules are set up. I think the process is a total pain and there are many fingers to point here. However, the issue isn't about a simple delay.. it's that they are marketing when they receive a port request which has clear rules against it. | |
|
Adam T
@verizon.net
| I can see both sides I just posted something about this over at the Tech Liberation Front.. »www.techliberation.com/archives/043336.php
In a nutshell, while the number portability rules have generally benefited consumers and competition, I think the FCC should be careful about regulating customer inducements by incumbents regardless of whether those offers happen before or after the porting process. The better approach would be to make sure that the incumbents can offer whatever inducements they want but then also make sure that rivals have a clear opportunity to respond and beat the offer. | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: I can see both sides said by Adam T :I just posted something about this over at the Tech Liberation Front.. » www.techliberation.com/archives/043336.phpIn a nutshell, while the number portability rules have generally benefited consumers and competition, ... I hate to say there.. but dang if that didn't sound like a corporate PR statement.. the buzz word was "generally"...
Line porting has been an incredible thing for customers, and not generally.
The rules need to be there and remain in place so that neither side can degrade the product.
I hate to agree as Doc said about.. it's about squeezing the last penny out and the service degrades in the process.
Sell a product, stand behind it, price it right and your customers will stay. BUYING a customer back, and using insider information, is not cool.
If a customer leaves.. they leave. If Comcast lost the customer, when the port is over, they can send the winback offers. If the customer leaves Verizon, they can send the winbacks when THEIR order is complete.
I see this similar to insider trading and we have those kinds of rules in place as well.
Customers already call in with fake threats to leave in order to get a better deal.. just imagine what happens if this were allowed.. customers would have a field day with it!
If this happened, I'd hope you'd never need to call customer service for a real issue.. the lines would either be busy, or hold times would be extensive while people wait to place fake orders so they could wait for that 'mid-port retention offer' to come their way. | |
| tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| is it REALLY a better deal to stay? Verizon is notorious for billing discrepancies, delayed fixing of billing discrepancies (we'll credit you NEXT MONTH line), and of numerous other problems. If you happen to be one of the lucky few who NEVER has a problem and you switched for pricing reasons, good for you. However, deciding to stay with your old provider should still be about the money.. Verizon's BOTTOM LINE PRICE after taxes, fees and surcharges tends to be HIGHER than many cable companies discounted rates (around the cable company's standard rates). Unless they are offering you something ABOVE AND BEYOND.. it's generally NOT A GOOD DEAL and your well justified in switching. Also, don't fall for that 2 year contract nonsense... with early termination fee-- tell them where to stick that!!
BTW, the only way Verizon would be cheating is if they circumvent that 3rd party call verification to "WIN BACK" customers. You can't just harangue customers, and aggressively market to them just because they're leaving you.. if they want to go you can make one last ditch effort to lower their bills & correct any problems the customer might have had, but if it's about price, generally its better to stick to one's guns so the price can get lowered for everybody & Verizon lowers their rates for all. That's what competition is all about. Verizon shouldn't be rewarded for doing customer retention on the cheap (customer by customer basis). | |
| DemonicLlama
join:2007-11-19
Potomac, MD | still waiting on fios here I said I'd gladly get fios to the reps that call....when they make it available to my area. The state keeps interefering with verizon cause they cannot balance a budget. | |
| 
RainWind
join:2000-10-20
Van Wert, OH
| With me they waited until post port to send anything... If they're contacting the customer to sell any services or attempt to retain the customer and they're using the competitor's port out request as a trigger to do so then they deserved to be fined. You can't do that. You must wait until the port completes and the customer is lost, or the customer must contact their current carrier. You CAN NOT NOT NOT use a competitor's convert request to initiate action. Basic CPNI training covers this.
When I left verizon I received a letter in the mail asking me to come back. However, it was sent after I had already left. | |
| 
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| Pot, Kettle your Black Um, at least here in Kansas City, we have experienced numerous instances when Time Warner has blocked our VoIP service to our mutual customers.
They've blocked ports, they've blocked ATA mac addresses, etc. They always deny it, but they continue to randomly do it to about 50% of our mutual users.
I think a phone company using reasonable means to maintain their customers, such as a counter offer at cancellation, which is what a port request is versus outright monopolistic, anti-competitive behavior like port blocking so customers are forced to only use the cable providers "digital" phone service doesn't even compare.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com | |
| |
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| Re: Pot, Kettle your Black Plus, cable can always keep the perspective new customer by insuring they offer a better deal than the phone company, which quite honestly they do not.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com | |
| | rosiemeow
join:2004-08-07
Louisville, KY
| TeleCom, Time Warner has partnered with Charter. What would one expect? Surely not ethics, because it's not catchy, at least in Charter's world.
Time Warner has made delegation their friend and Charter is their boy, pure and simple.
Desperation makes one do strange things, and those two together make the perfect Valentine's Day sweethearts. Charter has been rode hard and put away wet and will suck Time Warner dry.
If TW has any brains left in that outfit, they would dump the Charter partnership quicker than the Geek Squad dumped Charter. | |
|
Taxi77
join:2008-01-25
Manassas, VA
| Verizon's Double Whammy I guess they violated the rules, I got my overnite mail 2 days after signing up with Comcast, 2 weeks prior to porting the number.
After it was ported, Verizon kept billing me for DSL with no phone line even though they won't sell it to you a la carte. Hopefully that was the last time I will ever have to call that Verizon phone nightmare line. | |
| Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Break it up. Apparently Verizon is using the same technique that the Bell Operating Companies used shortly after the Carter Phone legal decision in 1969. Whenever a customer placed an order to install Voice Connecting Arrangements used to connect a privately owned PABX System, the local Bell marketing office would send out a team of dirt-bags to un-sell the competitors service. I know, because I worked for one of the first competitors. They were forced out of business long before the 1984 AT&T breakup. That anti-competitive practice was one of the reasons that the Justice Department broke up the old AT&T (The old Bell System). Even before the Bell System was broken up each Bells Operating Company was forced to set up a separate department originally called the Centralized Operations Group, (COG) to handle request for new service from competitors. Furthermore the COG was forbidden from competing with competitors. It seems that Verizon needs to be required to set up a similar arrangement for customers wishing to transfer their telephone number to a VOIP Service Provider. The customer would sign a revocable limited power of attorney allowing the VOIP Service Provider to act as agent to transfer their phone number to the VOIP Service Provider. That way the customer would not have to contact the Local Exchange Carrier.
Regards | |
| | | |
|
|
