said by GOLFnSUN :

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.

said by GOLFnSUN :

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.

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.

said by GOLFnSUN :

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

said by GeekJedi :

From the Article:

"Verizon has argued that upholding the cable companies' complaint would put it at an unfair disadvantage and would deny customers full information about their options."

Since they've only been offering the "save" pricing to potential defectors, it seems to me that it's their own fault that they're at a disadvantage. Price yourself competitively in the first place, and you won't bleed customers.

said by buckingham :

It's funny to me that the Cable-cos complained about this while at the same time making similar calls for customer retention. That happened to me when I bagged Comcast HSI years ago when VZ DSL was finally available to me here.

said by hottboiinnc :

The standard time to transfer a number is 5-10 business days. TWC tells you this. ATT tells you this. VZ SHOULD tell you that. Comcast tells you that.

It's just Comcast reserves the right to have 5-10 days to fully complete. They don't use that information to CALL YOU and offer you a LOWER price. VZ does call.

It's not the same thing and they don't have to make cable play by the rules that VZ is being made to follow.

said by yepyup :

Comcast does the same damn thing no matter what service you have with them. Cable TV, internet, phone... if you call them up to cancel your service they offer you all kinds of crap to stay with them. Even six months of internet service at a ridiculously lower price.

said by inslyx :

[] Gets the point of this thread.
[] Makes valid points.
[x]Doesn't get it.

said by rizzo2dial :

Precisely. This needs to be spelled out in idiot proof terms. Verizon, AT&T, Embarq, Qwest, Sprint, T-Mobile, Alltel, Comcast, TimeWarner, COX, Cablevision, etc. all have retention departments that YOU the customer get transferred to when you call to cancel service. Their job is as their name implies: to try and retain you as a customer by offering you unadvertised deals.

The HUGE DIFFERENCE in this case is that a customer signs up with a new provider (i.e. the cable co), where the new provider submits a PHONE NUMBER PORT REQUEST to transfer the customer's phone number from their old provider (i.e. Verizon) to the new provider (i.e. cable co). Once ported, the number no longer belongs to the old provider, which results in the old provider losing yet another customer.

Verizon has been pitching unsolicited retention bids to their about to be gone customers after they've received the PORT OUT REQUEST from the customer's new provider but before they've completed the PORT OUT itself. By delaying the PORT OUT REQUEST and marketing retention offers to the customer, this is the improper (i.e. unlawful IN MY OPINION) behavior on Verizon's part.

To clarify, it's perfectly OK for Verizon to try and "win back" the customer after he/she has left, but to DELAY the PORT OUT PROCESS and market retention offers to the customer is a completely unfair competitive advantage on Verizon's part and now ruled by the FCC as being in violation of NUMBER PORTING rules.

Note: I have no love for either Verizon or the cable co's. They're necessary evils, but that's not germane to this topic.

said by Turbocpe :

What is the issue with a company offering their customer, as they are still technical a customer of theirs, from offering deals?

said by Turbocpe :

The point has been tossed around that there is a difference between the customer contacting the business, and such as this case, the business contacting the customer. However, what about those emails, calls, and mailings that so many current customers receive? I fail to see the issue with the business contacting the customer to make a last chance offer, when businesses call, email or send mailing that basically do the same thing. In those cases, the customer is not contacting the business.

said by rizzo2dial :

Nothing, so long as it's not done in violation of porting rules. If Verizon were to proceed w/ the PORT OUT while simultaneously pitching the "final retention offer" to their customer, different story. Clearly they're not though, as previous articles on this topic state that Verizon simply cancels the PORT OUT requests of customers they manage to retain via this tactic. Operating in this manner is a completely unfair competitive business practice and is also in violation of porting rules.

said by hottboiinnc :

No VZ should have given the customer better rates to begin with if they wanted to keep them. They SHOULD NOT be using the new information to keep that customer. They had their chance they lost it done deal. VZ is using the data unfairly and should be illegal.

said by fiberguy :

The rate they give you for leaving should be the rate they give everyone on their foot print. (Competition anyone?)

said by fiberguy :

Why don't you first learn how to read and maybe I wouldn't have to answer your very strange questions.

said by fiberguy :

For one, DISTINCTLY made a difference between save offers and initial promotional offers.

I do NOT believe in save offers, I believe that legally they are anti-competitive and hurts other businesses. When you're with a current company who has disclosed their rates to you as, say $50 a month, and company B comes along with an every day price of $40 a month and you found you like that price better.. you call to cancel your service and your current provider says "Wait.. don't leave.. what if we offer you service for a year at $30 a month".. you'd stay.

said by fiberguy :

How about if you just called up your provider and said "Hey.. This rate is too high, can you lower my bill".. they are going to say "NO".. its ONLY when you are leaving to take another companies service that they are willing to give you a better deal.

said by fiberguy :

Second, I also stated that I have NO problems with promotional introductory offers. These are generally given as a way to get people to try their service. THESE offers are given FAIRLY across the board to ALL customers who are signing up.

said by fiberguy :

You, however, didn't read what I said or you wouldn't have gone on like you did. And to answer your question, if someone calls in with a threat to disconnect and an offer is made available to THAT customer that would not normally be offered to others simply for asking, then yes, that should be illegal, and, technically, I believe it already is. The fact that it happens, and the fact that both companies do it, in my opinion, tells me that while bother do it, neither will try to stop the other and both deem it ok, void of what the laws state. And, I've already cited a case where it was decided anti-competitive rules were violated for similar/same actions.

And, I only singled out cable companies, since we're basing conversations on topic (are you?) is why I put cable on the side that I did.. again, PLEASE read before you post.

said by fiberguy :

What's the issue? Everything. While TECHNICALLY they are still providing service, they are no longer their customer.

said by jerryjam :

I dont see where it says anything about verizon delaying a port request. By the way, Cox does this all the time!!!!!