Verizon lied about WLNP charges.....

I thought it would be $0.15 ant they would absorb the cost?
I hope the people that switched when sprint started doing it are happy now.
At least Phillipe has something he can't yak about anymore.

 

Verizon never said they would not charge they said they would not charge prior to LNP implementation. They should be allowed to recoup the cost of implementing LNP. But the many carriers who have been charging for months I would consider the real problem...Outside of taxes vzw only recoups 5 cents...compare that with sprint and others.

 

You mean the almighty Verizon made a goof?

 

WBB is correct... people are upset that they have to pay a small amount for the ability but they have been upset because they've paid it all this time with other carriers and haven't even been able to take advantage of the feature.

 

Verizon did somewhat lie about this. They made such a big deal about not believing in charges because it was a cost of doing business. I agree with what the originally said, and think a ten cent charge or something like that is fine, but really nothing more. these regulatory programs fees are all crap in my opinion. to me it would be like going to a restaurant and having 5% added to your bill as a health inspection compliance fee, covering the clean up necessary to pass an inspectiong (i know, crappy analogy, but you get the point). regulatory compliance is a cost of doing business, that carriers should take into account when bidding for spectrum if its really that important.

 

I think the difference is Sprint and other companies that added the fee a long time ago were bashed non-stop by Verizon users that were so proud and quick to point out that their favorite company was not charging any fee. I'll admit, I was and still am upset I have to pay a monthly fee for a service that I can't forsee I will take advantage of. But now that Verizon will charge a fee they are suddenly no better in this regard than the others. Verizon is a great carrier, but they aren't so perfect like many seem to think. It's a fact that Verizon's PR department was loudly proclaiming how great they were for not charging a fee while other carriers were. Now they will be charging a fee too. Also, after blasting other companies for their high fees for WLNP, claiming it would cost about 10 cents per customer, they announce they will charge 40 cents? Gee, that makes sense. Sprint charges 40 cents too (their fee was tacked onto a pre-exisiting 70 cent number pooling fee) and was blasted for overcharging the WLNP fee. WBB is correct to point out that Verizon never said they would never charge a fee, they clearly left the door open that they might. Funny though that they decided to announce the fee right on Nov 24...talk about "waiting to asses the imapct of WLNP"...after one whole day they are able to tell they need to charge a fee? Obviously this was a move Verizon had planned for quite some time.

 

Any time you call anyone who has ported a number you are taking advantage of LNP. In my opinion wireless carriers should be held to the same standards as wireline carriers. They can only recoup the exact cost of LNP and can only charge the fee if LNP is available in that area, and once they implement the fee they can only charge it for 5 years.

 

How so? I don't care what number I dial or what carrier the person that I am dialing uses. They took advantage of LNP, not me. Sure, I may be calling a ported number, wireless or landline, but I fail to see how that is advantageous for me. I could just as easily have dialed a different number had no LNP provision been in place. In fact, LNP may even be disadvantageuous for me (local toll calls).

I completely agree that the charges, if there must be charges, should be assessed only to those that have the option to port their number and a time constraint upon them.

 

Anyways, seems like carriers would recoup some money for not having to dish out for reverse toll billing.

 

I do not see this as Verizon lying. Merely recouping an outlay. Still cheaper than most. A little symantical, but not lying.

 

Yeah same here. I am just glad I didn't pay for it, before it was offered. I am not thirllled with Verizon's decision, but it wasn't lying.

If someone thinks they will get banned because of "sprint bashing" then they are mistaken. ILUVSOCAL was 100% correct IMO. Now, if people make little cracks at others all the time and are constantly rude, they then might get banned. All mods voice their opinions on bans by the way.

 

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: WirelessBeachBum
Any time you call anyone who has ported a number you are taking advantage of LNP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How so? I don't care what number I dial or what carrier the person that I am dialing uses. They took advantage of LNP, not me. Sure, I may be calling a ported number, wireless or landline, but I fail to see how that is advantageous for me. I could just as easily have dialed a different number had no LNP provision been in place. In fact, LNP may even be disadvantageuous for me (local toll calls).

I completely agree that the charges, if there must be charges, should be assessed only to those that have the option to port their number and a time constraint upon them.




Okay, if you don't think that is an advantage, then I'm sure you won't be jumping on any of Sprints new plans or extended N&W calling which are a direct result of LNP. Even if you don't change your carrier or number if you get a better deal or customer service because of LNP you are ahead...on the other hand you were happy with Sprint prior to LNP, do you think that the money they have had to spend on LNP should come from which part of their budget....network buildouts? Would you want fewer towers so I can keep my number and switch carriers? There are many benefits to LNP, but they all cost money to the carrier in one way or another.

 

Personally, I wish they'd all build it into the plan prices. It's very annoying to sign up for a $39.99 plan and end up paying over $50 due to taxes and fees. I'm not saying they shouldn't inform us where the money is going to; they should just be up front about what a plan really costs.

 

i agree that it doesn't really give people who arent porting an advantage....

while sure your may get a better deal on some night and weekend mins, its really not anything bettter than what you would have been offered as a retention bonus without LNP. Sure nights start at 7pm now with sprint, but do you really think they wouldnt have done that in an effort to grab market share eventually, even without LNP??

i would also think it better to assess a porting fee to porting customers. some sort of flat fee, regulated as to not exceed a reasonable amount. i still dont think these regulatory compliance fees are legitimate at all, but it would be better to apply them to those using it

 

I'm not adding the 7pm nights (though if I lived on the west coast I might consider it) and I am not changing plans because I don't want my contract date to start over.

 

Do you guys think that each carrier should have just charged a one time fee to all those porting of say like $5.00? Then that way only those who are taking advantage of LNP would be paying. You figure if right now each customer is paying anywhere between .32-1.25/mon then a one time charge sounds better to me than years of added "Taxes"

 

I think a one-time fee is more approriate. That way, only those who port have to pay for that service. No need for me to be subsidizing other people's porting.

 

I still do not see the big deal. There is now a thread on this subject in darn near every forum on this site. It almost seems to me that the way the posts go, it's Verizon Wireless against everyone else and vice-versa. Who cares about the darn fee? And before anyone accuses me of being a Verizon Cheerleader, I never picked on the other companies charging fees! And if I did, I do not recall it...and I can see why most companies need to charge fees. I would.

Every company will charge something. Every company will do things to increase their bottom line. No wireless company is the Salvation Army. My question is this: Why is this $.40 fee such a big deal?? Why is it repeatedly the subject of new threads every day?

Personally, I could care less if Verizon lied about the fee, or did not lie. I don't care what they say or do. All I know is I get flawless coverage and service where I live through Verizon, nobody else can offer service that good where I live, and I am willing to pay for that service. If Cingular took all their profit and gave it to ending the conflict in Iraq and never charged a port fee I still wouldn't use them, at least where I live. I could care less about promises and policies...as long as it does not affect my service.

I just think this subject is getting blown WAY out of proportion. If you want to pick on Verizon, I'll give you some good stuff to pick on, and I'm "The Verizon Cheerleader". I just say if we're gonna b!tch about something, make sure it's worth b!tching about. Maybe some day Verizon will say or do something that will make me change my mind, but for now I think this four-dimes-debate is a little overrated.

(deep breath) Ok....I KEED, I KEED!!

 

Delta...
I have to agree. Like someone said, Verizon may charge a fee now, but it is still among the lowest. Being a Sprint customer...I have noticed that my bill is continually finding a way to increase. Excluding porting fees my bill has managed to go from $43 a month with taxes to $46 a month with taxes (now $47 with porting fee) in the last two years...obviously, without changing plans. Go figure my $39.99 plan is costing $47.40 after all is said and done.

I guess my point is, that no matter what the fee...the company will always find another way to cover costs for porting...among other things. Companies like T-Mobile may not have a porting fee but the cost will be made up somewhere else.

Speaking of porting, I will be leaving Sprint very soon.

 

I agree that a one-time charge would be more appropriate to those who do not wish to port their telephone numbers. I also find it amusing that companies like Cingualr and T-Mobile are now using advertisements that portray WLNP in a positive light when both companies were against it and I haven't seen one Verizon commercial about WLNP and they flip-flopped months ago and decided to back the WNLP initiative. I'm not surprised that T-Mobile and Cingular are doing this on one hand but I think that they would not want to advertise something that they do not agree with because they would not want to take the chance that Cingular customers would see the commercial and decide to port away from Cingular. (And many have as I saw a news report citing Cingular as one of the WNLP losers... at least for the initial launch of the service.) However, I must say that using Jenny 867-5309 was pretty brilliant.

 

T-Mobile never made a statement against portability. Perhaps you are thinking of Verizon, who fought WLNP very hard until the summer, and all of a sudden they flipped.