 slomike2
join:2007-07-18
San Luis Obispo, CA
edit:
February 2nd, @03:00PM
| Excessive Fee ... Cable company ... Where is the surprise? The cable industry has shown over and over again, that they will charge excessive fees when ever they are allowed to. | |
|
 | battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | Re: Excessive Fee ... Cable company ... Where is the surprise? I'm not really that involved with this part of our VoIP business but I am pretty sure that there are rules in place to prevent the ILecs from charging such fees. | |
|
| | |
| 
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southeast
 ·magicjack.com
·Skype
| If you pay an LNP fee to Cablevision, report it to the FCC. Hell, I'd sue them in small claims court over--win or lose.
Are carriers allowed to charge for number porting, and, if so, how much can the charges be?
Carriers are allowed to recover their costs of implementing wireless LNP by charging fees to customers. They have been allowed to do this in advance of the LNP deadline because they have been incurring costs for LNP upgrades in preparation for the deadline.
Carriers may recover their costs either by including line-item fees for LNP on their customers' monthly bills or by raising the monthly rate. Carriers that have been adding line items to consumer bills to recover LNP costs have typically been charging from a few cents to a little over a dollar.
Carriers are also allowed to charge a fee to customers at the time their number is ported. However, there are no rules preventing a new carrier from paying an old carrier's porting costs for the benefit of the new customer. You should ask the new carrier whether it has a policy of paying or reimbursing such charges.
Can different carriers charge different amounts?
Yes, because different carriers have varying costs of operating due to numerous economic factors. Although the FCC does not regulate the amount of such charges, all such charges must be just and reasonable.
»www.fcc.gov/cgb/NumberPortability/
Sounds like to me Cablevision is committing fraud by violating the FCC Rules on LNP.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
|
| | 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Excessive Fee ... Cable company ... Where is the surprise? said by supergirl  :Can different carriers charge different amounts? Yes, because different carriers have varying costs of operating due to numerous economic factors. Although the FCC does not regulate the amount of such charges, all such charges must be just and reasonable. » www.fcc.gov/cgb/NumberPortability/Sounds like to me Cablevision is committing fraud by violating the FCC Rules on LNP. I would disagree. While to you and me $40 seems excessive, I bet a court (or the FCC) would side with Cablevision. $40 may be reasonable if Cablevision charges only those customers that port their number in instead of charging everyone a smaller LNP fee.
Plus, what exactly does "just and reasonable" mean? It's too vague and so at most, I bet they would only get a slap on the wrist. | |
|
| | | |
| fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by slomike2 :The cable industry has shown over and over again, that they will charge excessive fees when ever they are allowed to. And somehow, my POTS phone bill has 7 fees on it, and caller somehow is now worth $10 a month.
If you're going to make a statement, at least be accurate about it.
Cable doesn't charge the fees... cable may have high rates, but fees? not really... | |
|
| | ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16
Stratford, CT | Re: Excessive Fee ... Cable company ... Where is the surprise? Someone who goes by the name "fiberguy" should know that POTS lines are regulated and VoIP service is not. | |
|
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Excessive Fee ... Cable company ... Where is the surprise? said by ITALIAN926 :Someone who goes by the name "fiberguy" should know that POTS lines are regulated and VoIP service is not. .. to a point! VoIP does have SOME regulation behind it.
And what does fiber have to do with either service exclusively? Both use it..
My point remains about "fees"... Telephone doesn't have to charge some of the fees they charge to begin with. Regulations have nothing to do with it. If you had Comcast or Time Warner, or other "VoIP" services, you'd know they do charge "fees".. just not as many. | |
|
| 
StreetSpirit
R.I.P. George Denis Patrick Carlin
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn Heights, NY
clubs:
edit:
February 2nd, @09:46PM
| Just a few weeks ago I was ordering new OV service and was a bit surprised at the relatively high fee of $40 dollars to port a number. | |
|
Bobcat
Verizon blows, Cablevision sucks
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ | No surprise to me In my opinion, Cablevision is run by a bunch of scumbags. Don't trust a single thing they say. | |
|
| J3ff
join:2007-09-10
Norwalk, CT
| I ported in... and bitched and bitched about that 40 dollar charge....
they wouldn't budge...but in the end it saved money anyway.
I'm just about to port my business line in, I might cite this report and bitch some about it and maybe they'll move this time... | |
|
| 
Sr Tech
Premium
join:2003-01-19
New Fairfield, CT | Re: No surprise to me Porting a number does not cost anything. There is really no labor involved, it is just a ploy to prevent you from leaving.
--
Got HAM, KE1MG | |
|
| | herberthm1
join:2002-04-06
Van Nuys, CA
| Re: No surprise to me obviously you don't know what you are talking about, there is labor involve some one actually needs to seat behind a computer and do it, that is labor and that person needs to get paid, but regarless $40 seem kind of high but as long as they tell customer about these charges I don't see the problem no one is force to swicht and if you are willing to pay the fee swicht if not then don't | |
|
| | |
Bobcat
Verizon blows, Cablevision sucks
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: No surprise to me said by herberthm1 :obviously you don't know what you are talking about, there is labor involve some one actually needs to seat behind a computer and do it, that is labor and that person needs to get paid, Yeah, it probably costs them 47 cents.
And it probably costs them more to bill for the $40 than it does to actually port the number.
--
We messed-up, but we looked great doing it! | |
|
| | | | sokhapkin
Premium
join:2003-05-08
Somerset, NJ
| Re: No surprise to me said by Bobcat :Yeah, it probably costs them 47 cents. The actual LNP cost is in $10-25 range.
--
»www.callwithus.com | |
|
| majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY | Well then verizon isnt any better since they charge even more fees for things then cablevision does. Plus they refuse to deal with the town of babylon on fios tv .
Cablevision is the less of two evils. | |
|
christos
join:2002-01-09
Bridgewater, MA | Oh crap.... Now Comcast will be jealous and start doing it too... | |
|
|
haynosity
CovadVonage FST
join:2000-08-15
Spring, TX | Lame! As far as I know Vonage and other voip companies charge you $0 for porting your number from Verizon and AT&T. Cablevision is just ripping off thier customers. | |
|
|
Bobcat
Verizon blows, Cablevision sucks
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Lame! said by haynosity :Cablevision is just ripping off thier customers. Standard Operating Procedure for Cablevision. | |
|
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud | Just one of many bullcrap unfees And whether it's telcos, cable operators or VOIP companies they always lie about it and defraud customers as to why the bullsh!t fee is being charged. | |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH | They got it rifght At least we can't say they are nickel and diming people to death. $40.00 is WAY past that. | |
|
Jeffrey
Bye George, 1937-2008
Premium
join:2002-12-24
Edgartown, MA
clubs:
·magicjack.com
·Verizon FIOS
·Vonage
|  Girlfriend getting OV installed as I type this...
She wants to keep CV, but I happily left in 2005 after 25 years of subscribing to CV products.
Ideally, this fee should be ZERO.
--
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. | |
|
wahoospa
join:2006-03-23
Charleston, SC
| What Their Business License Mean I think that the cable and the telecommunications companies believe that their business licenses' is a license to steal.
And they are doing whatever they want to steal your money from you. They believe they are in a position to gobble up any money they can find an excuse to do that with. | |
|
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | Re: What Their Business License Mean No, its shareholder responsibility. Its not a charity you know. | |
|
waRdRivR
@geneseo.edu
| scum bags indeed i used to work for them as a customer service rep and this is what trainees were encouraged to tell customers; "it's a fee charge by your own phone company." But we never knew the truth, however i'm not surprised...It's always a simple bait and switch trick with Cablevision because they're a relatively regional service concentrated within the tri-state area of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. They often get away with shit like this because it's a privately held company that provides cable but operates like telecom, when in fact it's not a telecom at all! They're historically a Cable service provider that's upgraded to VOIP & broadband services as early as 5 years ago. Nevertheless, What Cablevision does is they send circulars to every single apartment soliciting customers every week, via through junk mail or even on your door step, then they advertise services as a "yearly fee" but it's actually an introductory subscription fee that switches in 6 months, but you can only access that info from the cablevision website, and cablevision figures once the circular is in hand you'll call them directly instead of conducting some more independent research of your own. The new ads are also littered with other false offers such as the formentioned "keep your old number" offer but this only applies to you if you're ALREADY a Cablevision subscriber. In other words you keep your number for free when you move to new address, but only if you're already a Cablevision VOIP subscriber, forget it if you're already getting cable & internet from them, be ready to pay up! But not only is this advertised as a free switch, but it's not even included in the fine print, if you're even clever enough to look for an asterisk it'll lead you to believe every Cable subscriber gets the switch because chances are if you reside in one of those three states you're probably already a customer because their only competition is DirecTV & timewarner, and Cablevision has been on the market a least a decade before those guys being it's the very first company to offer cable service in the metropolitan NY area. But i bet those scum bags will ing "free HD" service, loi, like everyone won't be doing that in the next year anyway. Good luck if your a Cablevision subscriber. | |
|
| soothsayer15
join:2002-03-01
Irving, TX
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: scum bags indeed This practice is becoming more and more common. Companies are trying to figure out new ways to boost their average revenue per customer. They add fees to generate additional revenues. Like the Charles Schwab commercial said, for some of these companies sending them money cost you money. Verizon is having success with Fios, and it is more costly to lose the television customer than a telephone customer. There are a lot more people ordering extra services like pay-per-view and sports packages for television, then ordering extra services like long distance and caller ID for telephone.
Competition is great for us because sometimes it lowers prices or in reality slows down increases. Companies today are not as big about research and development to create new products that develop a new revenue stream as they used to be. Corporations have greatly cut their research and development departments. The mindset of companies today is to add fees and raise rates on their existing services. | |
|
| Stu Pidaso
join:2006-10-12
West Islip, NY
| said by waRdRivR :
They often get away with shit like this because it's a privately held company that provides cable but operates like telecom, when in fact it's not a telecom at all! When did they go private? I thought the buyout was denied. | |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
edit:
February 2nd, @04:37PM
| Wanted to Switch I have wanted to switch to OV for quite some time now but the $40 fee irks me and having to pay for an additional fee for installation because it is a number port is annoying as well. Supposedly the installation is required to make sure you are disconnected from the POTS. Apparently that is not a problem if you decide to drop your existing number and get a new OV number. I have not figured that one out.
What is interesting is that by complaining the reporter was able to get the fee waived. I may try that and see what happens.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
|
StreetSpirit
R.I.P. George Denis Patrick Carlin
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn Heights, NY
clubs:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Wanted to Switch said by n2jtx :I have wanted to switch to OV for quite some time now but the $40 fee irks me and having to pay for an additional fee for installation because it is a number port is annoying as well. Supposedly the installation is required to make sure you are disconnected from the POTS. Apparently that is not a problem if you decide to drop your existing number and get a new OV number. I have not figured that one out. What is interesting is that by complaining the reporter was able to get the fee waived. I may try that and see what happens. Heck, they plain out lied to me and said self install with NO number porting is not allowed either. So I was still stuck paying them $14.95, and then having 2 tech visits to fix what the original "contractor"-tech f*cked up.
Let alone for that installation charge I was left without either dialtone OR internet!
True story. | |
|
| |
Bobcat
Verizon blows, Cablevision sucks
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ | Re: Wanted to Switch No way I'd ever trust Cablevision to handle a 911 call. | |
|
| | | 
MoeDumb
"America Si, Obama No."
Premium
join:2002-09-23
Bronx, NY
| Re: Wanted to Switch said by Bobcat :No way I'd ever trust Cablevision to handle a 911 call. Made one a couple of months ago, no problemo.
--
"tick...tick...tick..."
»www.jtf.org/
| |
|
sansri88
Go digtal you analog laggards
Premium
join:2005-12-17
Iselin, NJ
clubs: | This is why... Comcast is good right now. No fees for transferring my Verizon line to them and I just can't wait for them to come out on Tuesday and replace my POTS line with CDV. | |
|
houseboatcrab
@optonline.net
| but the payback only takes a month I just did the switch to the triple play. $40 to port, and about $15 for a service call. They insisted I could not install the equipment myself (right), nor would they waive the porting fee. Gave me the cheap hd box. But in the long run the payback saved over POTS + long distance is little more than a month (naked cable + internet = $97 month, add in POTS @ $28, and some crazy ATT long distance at about $9 per month; OK it really takes two months for the payback). And in a year I will switch to FIOS (if they ever answer the phone or let me log into my account). | |
|
|
Bobcat
Verizon blows, Cablevision sucks
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
edit:
February 3rd, @08:44AM
| Re: but the payback only takes a monthsaid by houseboatcrab :
but the payback only takes a month Not for me. My Verizon phone bill is only $18.34 per month. Here's the total:
Cablevision: $51.12
Verizon DSL: $29.95
Verizon POTS: $18.34
--------------------
Total: $99.41
Cablevision keeps harassing me, saying they can save me money. But whatever they come up with always costs me more! | |
|
| | Severus
join:2008-03-09
| Re: but the payback only takes a month Well if I know for a fact you do not have long distance, and you have slow internet service. If you had Cablevision Optimum Online service it would be 5 times faster. If you had their OV service, you will have 13 calling features, free 411 directory service and unlmited calling anywhere in the US, Canada and Puerto Rico. My point is you get more for about the same price. I would not mind paying $40 to keep my number, if it's going to benefit me. | |
|
| | |
Bobcat
Verizon blows, Cablevision sucks
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
edit:
March 10th, @07:46AM
| Re: but the payback only takes a month And I would lose Verizon's fantastic newsgroup service, so I'd be forced to pay more for a third patry provider. In my experience, Verizon DSL is much more reliable than OOL, as is Verizon's email service. I don't care about the speed; I probably won't even switch to FIOS. I don't need long distance calling in the US or Canada, as I get all I need included with my cell phone service (yes, I already get free calling to Canada). I have no desire to ever call Puerto Rico, I wish we'd give the island away to some other country.
--
We messed-up, but we looked great doing it! | |
|
| MisterBill
Verizon DSL
join:2002-06-05
Yorktown Heights, NY
| said by houseboatcrab :
I just did the switch to the triple play. $40 to port, and about $15 for a service call. They insisted I could not install the equipment myself (right), nor would they waive the porting fee. Ironically, if you don't need to do the port, they'll let you do the self-install. It's only when the porting is involved that you need to have them install it and pay for that AND the porting fee.
I'm still with Verizon and 1.5 DSL even though I know I won't be able to get FIOS for a few years (underground wires, will be done after all the easy areas in my town are done). I keep thinking of switching but I'm waiting for a better deal than Triple Play. Last year they were offering OOL and OV for a combined $30/month for a year. Won't offer it to me now. | |
|
| |
Bobcat
Verizon blows, Cablevision sucks
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: but the payback only takes a month said by MisterBill :OOL and OV for a combined $30/month for a year. I never get suckered-in by those one-year deals. I always ask how much it will cost after the year is up, and it's always more expensive than my Verizon service. | |
|
Rob A
Jets 19 - Steelers 16
Premium
join:2005-01-17
Pompton Plains, NJ | Alright CV! Keep up the good work!  | |
|
JE
Can I Taste It? Mmmm
Premium
join:2000-12-15
Brooklyn, NY
edit:
February 3rd, @12:11AM
| GOoOoO JETZZZZZZZZZZZ OoOps I mean GIANTS 40, Pats 6! LOL | |
|
|
MoeDumb
"America Si, Obama No."
Premium
join:2002-09-23
Bronx, NY | Re: GOoOoO JETZZZZZZZZZZZ Keep dreaming! | |
|
crooks
@verizon.net | ..... cablevision is just a bunch of crooks. thats why i signed up for fios here in valley stream. | |
|
end the fees
@verizon.net
| some up north humor »youtube.com/watch?v=vfXp-1ydfTs
One day mad-tv or snl will do a spoof of this with our high gasoline, healthcare prices.. & everything else which has seen a 300%+ increase over the past 8 years. | |
|
| |
wildcat man
join:2007-11-03
Kansas City, MO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
| I'm not supporting Cablevision... because there is no port charge to Cablevision. Costs might be more than putting in a new number, but there has never been a port charge as it would be anti-competitive.
All parties should disclose all fees, however, in their advertising in equal font. Porting charges are nuts. The Subscriber Line Charge is userous and pure profit. Intra-state access fees (carrier to carrier fees), particularly with anyone but the biggest carriers, are insane (as much as 10 cents per MOU). And the fact that wireless companies cannot charge the same fees that come to a cell phone in your home as the wireline company charges for the same call from the same person to the home phone is just crazy.
Imagine the discussion at Verizon or at&t if VZW now had an access revenue source and at&t or VZ wireline had to pay out more. Thanks, FCC, and state PUCs. A couple strokes of the pen and we'd have a drastically different landscape. Cablevision's porting fee is just part of the game that VZ, at&t and the rural carriers have perpetuated since the Telecom Act of 1996. Time to change the rules. | |
|
|
pfing
@verizon.net
| Re: I'm not supporting Cablevision... said by wildcat man :because there is no port charge to Cablevision. Costs might be more than putting in a new number, but there has never been a port charge as it would be anti-competitive. All parties should disclose all fees, however, in their advertising in equal font. Porting charges are nuts. The Subscriber Line Charge is userous and pure profit. Intra-state access fees (carrier to carrier fees), particularly with anyone but the biggest carriers, are insane (as much as 10 cents per MOU). And the fact that wireless companies cannot charge the same fees that come to a cell phone in your home as the wireline company charges for the same call from the same person to the home phone is just crazy. Imagine the discussion at Verizon or at&t if VZW now had an access revenue source and at&t or VZ wireline had to pay out more. Thanks, FCC, and state PUCs. A couple strokes of the pen and we'd have a drastically different landscape. Cablevision's porting fee is just part of the game that VZ, at&t and the rural carriers have perpetuated since the Telecom Act of 1996. Time to change the rules. I can't see how a cable company is at a competitive disadvantage, especially with internet & video, and cable & entertainment related revenue generating properties. Compare that with go-it-alone voip companies can make a decent profit at it & they're not even last mile providers. Certain fees can be labeled outrageous in both 'industries', however the blurring of lines about what business they're in happened when cable-cos did internet & telcos began reselling video (at first in partnership with satellite co's) | |
|
| | wildcat man
join:2007-11-03
Kansas City, MO
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: I'm not supporting Cablevision... Good question. Here's why - carrier to carrier charges are the lifeblood of the ILECs. Charging for business circuits is the other artery. Once those go to normal profits, there is no cash left to fund expansive video deployments. Back to carrier-to-carrier charges: Video has none (content only). High speed data has none (when was the last time espn.com charged Comcast or Verizon to access its content?) - just have the cost to get to the servers. Phone is full of archane charges. Go-it-alone VoIP companies are not achieving positive cash flows (or I am reading the wrong statements) because they are churning out a lot of their bases to the ILEc and cable bundles, or the cost savings vs. cable bundle equivalents is not significant enough to switch. The question is not whether a company is competitive in total, but whether the source of the competitiveness comes from "hidden" revenue streams that mask the effectiveness of the core business. If you peel back the income statements of at&t and VZ, you will find some pockets of super-normal profits. Welcome to the cross-subsidy maze that the FCC, Judge Green (1984), the Congress (1996 Telecom Act) and politically-charged and consumer-unfriendly state PUCs have created. | |
|
chek_ya_self
join:2007-08-05
Merrick, NY
·Optimum Online
| Outsource to Synchronoss There is a cost associated with porting telephone numbers.
In fact Cablevision as many other Telephone Providers outsource the work to a company call Synchronoss.
A quick google search finds this link.
»www.synchronoss.com/customers.htm
I'm sure they charge a high fee. I would imagine it is like $20 a number.
Not to mention they have to provide Cablevision employees with a salary and benefits to process the orders to send to Synchronoss.
Regardless though, many providers have found a way avoid charging those fees. Sucks for customers, but good business plan for Cablevision. | |
|
|
|
|
|
Cablevision Charges Excessive Fee For Phone Number Transfers
