 
Rob
In Deo speramus
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL | FCC siding with a telco? Shocking.. FCC siding with telco? Shocking I tell you.. just shocking... | |
|  | Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| Re: FCC siding with a telco? Shocking.. From the article:
The cable companies said that violates a law that says, “[a] telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains proprietary information from another carrier for purposes of providing any telecommunications service shall use such information only for such purpose and shall not use such information for its own marketing efforts."
Verizon countered that since it is not receiving the information to provide a service, but rather to terminate one, that reading of the law is wrong. IANAL, but the law quoted above seems pretty clearcut to me. Sounds like Verizon was dancing around the technicalities on that one.
But no big surprise that the current FCC is bending over backwards to keep the telcos happy.
--
My opinions are my own. No-one else would want them! | |
| | | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
 ·SONIC.NET
| Re: FCC siding with a telco? Shocking.. said by Corydon  :From the article: The cable companies said that violates a law that says, “[a] telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains proprietary information from another carrier for purposes of providing any telecommunications service shall use such information only for such purpose and shall not use such information for its own marketing efforts."
Verizon countered that since it is not receiving the information to provide a service, but rather to terminate one, that reading of the law is wrong. The service is still being provided, by someone, i.e., the carrier it is being ported to; is the law otherwise specific about such an exclusion somewhere else?, because from the above excerpt alone, "provided" still applies since someone is providing it (the essense of the porting) regardless of who. | |
| | | 
jimbo48
join:2000-11-17
Hayward, CA
·EarthLink
| More like the FCC is bending forward grabing its collective ankles and inviting the Telcos to have their way with the FCC and the they(FCC) will throw in the KY if asked.
The Cell phone carriers, the Landline "Cretins of Capitalism" as well as the other myriad liars and thieves that make up american Technology services providers are all standing in line for a date with the FCC whores. | |
| | 
chill boy
@bellatlantic.com
| why not? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Cable been doing this for year. Tell u what, try and go cancel your cable svc and tell them you going to Fios or Direct TV and see if they dont try to retain you. Offer you this or that. Thats same thing. Why is it bad when VZ wants to do it? Just like AT&T fought like heck to keep VZ out of Long Distance but meanwhile AT&T was already doing local svc taking cust from VZ. No one wants to play fair with VZ. | |
| | rizzo2dial
Premium
join:2004-08-05
| Re: why not? said by chill boy :
Tell u what, try and go cancel your cable svc and tell them you going to Fios or Direct TV and see if they dont try to retain you. Tell YOU what there Mr. "bellatlantic.com" (i.e. Verizon)... Learn what the issue is before opening your trap. If a customer calls Verizon to cancel their service (with Verizon), then at that point it's perfectly OK for Verizon to offer the customer special deals in order to retain that customer.
However, once a customer has decided to leave Verizon, has signed up for service w/ a competitor (i.e. a cable co) and has issued an LNP request through their new provider, upon Verizon receiving that LNP, Verizon then contacts the customer to try and lure them back. If successful, Verizon halts the LNP preventing that customer from ever successfully establishing service with their new provider. THAT, in short, is stealing.
Disclaimer: I'm not a fan of either Verizon or the cable co's. | |
| | | 
bcronin
Premium
join:2004-03-27
Hyde Park, NY
| Re: why not? It is tough to imagine how that customer would change their mind at the last minute, so what's the harm in VZ trying? If they're truly committed to make the switch, they can always tell VZ to f*ck off (on the other hand if VZ comes up with some fantastic retention offer they didn't come up with before, they should be free to hear about it). Personally, I'd tell VZ to f*ck off no matter what (and did), but I don't want the government telling some company who COULD offer me a fabulous deal that they're not allowed to inform me about it. | |
| | | | | | | | |
bcronin
Premium
join:2004-03-27
Hyde Park, NY
| Re: why not? I see your point. Is it possible for someone other than the customer in question to submit a port request? I didn't think so. I thought you have to fax a signed LOA to the provider you want to port-TO. If so, then I've changed my mind, VZ should not be able to delay your port for that last-minute attempt to lure you back. However, back in the early days of long distance deregulation it was apparently possible for your long distance provider to be changed to someone else without your knowledge (I believe it was referred to as "slamming"). I bet VZ is somehow worried about a similar scenario (but it is likely unfounded due to the signed LOA requirement). | |
| | | | | | ProFiOSDude
Premium
join:2005-05-27
Chesapeake, VA
| Re: why not? The port request is not submitted by the customer, per se. It's submitted by the incoming LEC to the outgoing LEC. There is an intermediary called the 3rd party verifier to prevent slamming. Once the customer initiates a change of service, as soon as they hang up with the 3rd party verification, they have no more involvement until regaining dial tone.
PFD | |
| | | | | | |
bcronin
Premium
join:2004-03-27
Hyde Park, NY | Re: why not? But the customer generally has to provide the intended-new-provider with a signed LOA, no? | |
| | | | | | | | 
idlewillkill
Go Blue
Premium
join:2005-09-28
North York, ON | Re: why not? Generally, no. Third-party verification effectively replaces this. | |
| | | | | MrSpock29
join:2008-02-09
Hammonton, NJ
| said by chill boy :
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Cable been doing this for year. Tell u what, try and go cancel your cable svc and tell them you going to Fios or Direct TV and see if they dont try to retain you. Offer you this or that. Thats same thing. Why is it bad when VZ wants to do it? Just like AT&T fought like heck to keep VZ out of Long Distance but meanwhile AT&T was already doing local svc taking cust from VZ. No one wants to play fair with VZ.
I do agree, when I left Verizon a couple of years ago, my number was ported in a day IIRC, but Comcast took at least 5 days when I switched back a couple of months ago. And yes, they did try to get me to stay, made some offers, and one guy told me that he was sorry to hear of my incident that caused me to leave, as they have been told to try to keep customers as best they can with the change in the landscape.
I don't think there is anything wrong AT ALL with EITHER trying to keep a customer-provided they do it fairly. And that includes Comcast, whom I don't like. It's what businesses do. What shouldn't occur is tying up one's request to switch.
Comcast wanted to take telco's business so they started offering phone and bundling. Now telco is doing the same by offering video and bundling (where one can get it). In those situations, whether a cableco or telco, they are directly competing service for service now, and have taken on characteristics of the other. Those offers allow even better deal for consumers, which is who is most important in all of this. | |
| | Scragg
join:2007-09-01
Virginia Beach, VA
| said by chill boy :
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Cable been doing this for year. Tell u what, try and go cancel your cable svc and tell them you going to Fios or Direct TV and see if they dont try to retain you. Offer you this or that. Thats same thing. Why is it bad when VZ wants to do it? Just like AT&T fought like heck to keep VZ out of Long Distance but meanwhile AT&T was already doing local svc taking cust from VZ. No one wants to play fair with VZ.
I think the issue is with the number porting. When you move a phone number from one company to another you don't cancel your service the new company submits the request to the old and your service is automatically stoped when the number is ported. In the past i think your old company was not supposted to be able to try and keep you during the process.
It's different if you call to cancel. Since you called them they can try and do anything they as long as its legal I guess to keep you.
IMHO... anyting that makes the companies compete for your business is a good thing.
I wonder what cox is going to offer me later today when I call to cancel since I'm switching to FiOS......  | |
| |
Pepe
@verizon.net | Fiber my friend is worth alot of money right now so i see the fcc giving em what they want. | |
| |
RR fan
@rr.com
| You got it all wrong,if you say you're going to cancel witrh cable,they'll try to save you,of course.if you switch your phone number to a different company and the company notifies the carrier your switching and you go through all the legal mumbo jumbo,the current carrier is not suppose to call the customer back and try to save them in the middle of the porting process.When someone request to have a number ported out and it goes through FCC 3rd Party Verification,you cannot deny switching the number over once you have that number,and thats what Verizon is doing | |
| | | | | FinallyFree
join:2004-07-01
Canada | Tsk tsk.. Comcast must have missed its monthly payment to the FCC.. Come on guys stay on the ball. | |
| 
Mellow
Premium
join:2001-11-16
Salisbury, MD
 ·HostGator
·Cavalier Telephone
| Guess cavalier could care less I ported over from Cavalier to Comcast a few months ago, got no phone call from Cavalier asking me to stay or giving me deals with them.
Verizon cares enough about their customers to try and win them back, I say its a good business sense to do what it takes to keep a customer happy.
--
SurfingOC.com / GsdPhotography.com | |
| | | 
Devanchya
Smile
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Pickering, ON
·Bell Sympatico
| Bell Canada USE to do this, until the CRTC banned it Back a few years ago, Bell Canada was FAMOUS for doing this. As a result our CRTC (somewhat close to the FCC) banning such practice.
I'm pretty sure the rule is 90 days "freeze" on advertising now.
--
»www.codecipher.com - Marking the way to tomorrow's solutions | |
| tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| bleeding edge of...competition! neither company is willing to give up the goods on a competitive deal until you've got a foot into the other's camp.. this is particularly true of Verizon.. waving the LNP request flag in their face.. but if the deal is THAT GOOD.. why not let Verizon shoot themselves in the foot and undercut the cable companies price.
Would you cancel your request and go back to Verizon if they didn't offer a better deal? They're not THAT good at telemarketing..
Don't worry.. they're not going to start giving the service away for free.... | |
| | 
TraumaJunkie
Premium
join:2004-03-05
Knoxville, TN
| Re: bleeding edge of...competition! What you are missing is the difference between cable/internet attempts to keep customers and telephone. There have never been rules regarding cable and internet tactics but there were rules put into place when the telephone industry began to get compitition not only from cable but also voip and wireless. People wanted to keep the SAME # they had for years regardless of who provided the service. The FCC then made the rule that you could not attempt to block this wish by offering special deals. Why? because the consumer made the choice and you (the incumbant phone provider) should honot thos wishes and let the number go to who ever the consumer wanted it to be moved to. Now VZ has decided they do not want to play by those rules and (no suprise here) the FCC has said OK. I just wonder what would have been the ruling had TWC, Comcast, or another cable telephone provider had done the same thing and VZ had filed the FCC complaint? IMO the ruling would have been the exact opposite.
--
I'm not really sure what I am doing, but I'm doing it anyway! | |
| oldmike
join:2005-04-14
Latonia, KY | What's the big deal? Just Say No and drive on. I understand the delay concern, but it isn't that big a deal. | |
| 
Realtech23
Premium
join:2006-03-27
Olean, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| How is Cable suppose to get there customers back? So when Cable customers flip to Direct Tv or Verizon Fios or switch there internet to DSL or Sat, how are they suppose to fight to get there customers back. Sounds like this is where the FCC is turning a blind eye for the wire taps Verizon and Telcos did for them a while ago....
--
I am the Coyote | |
| williamrodri
join:2006-08-23
West New York, NJ
| The level field aren't the same for cable as for teleco The problem isn't what verizon is doing - the problem is the playing fields aren't quite fair. If I have cable and wanna switch to satelite or fios - I'd have to call the cable company to advise them that I wanna disconnect my service, in which their retention departments would make nice offers to get me the consumer to stay with them. Verizon is just doing the same as cable has always done, jut reverse. Personally, the playing fields should be the same. Cable is just complaining cuz they wanna be able to disconnect phone company numbers through a third party verifier but don't want telephone company's to be able to do the same. | |
| | Unreasonable
join:2007-10-15
Portland, OR
·Integra Telecom
·Comcast
| Re: The level field aren't the same for cable as for teleco said by williamrodri : If I have cable and wanna switch to satelite or fios - I'd have to call the cable company to advise them that I wanna disconnect my service No.
As someone pointed out previously, you are free to initiate service with the new provider without ever contacting the old one, and the old provider has zero leverage in terms of controlling the process.
You are free to have as many interweb providers as you can stomach. | |
| 
RainWind
join:2000-10-20
Van Wert, OH
| The rules looked clear to me When you receive a port request from another carrier you cannot act on that request. Basic CPNI. If the customer calls you then you can act, but you can't take action if the knowledge comes from a convert request from another carrier.
BS rule anyway IMO. If Verizon wants to beat the cable company's offer I think that's a good thing. As long as they don't hold up the port request without the customer's consent I see no harm in it.
Its not like the cable companies don't have their own screwups. Shit, they'll take customers who never agreed to have their service. I've had friends get called by Comcast to offer service, decline it, and then end up having their TN ported when they never ordered cable. | |
| | Syncognition
join:2008-01-12
Winter Park, FL
| Re: The rules looked clear to me CPNI is a tricky thing though. When you sign up for service, many companies have information in their terms of service stating that if you do not call to opt-out within a certain amount of time, then CPNI consent is assumed, meaning that your current provider can use any information that it receives from other providers in order to market to you.
Also, many companies have a CPNI script that their agents read to you, and depending on your answer, could affect the company's ability to use competitor information to market to you on that specific call. A sample CPNI script looks something like this:
"As _______ provides you service, it acquires information about the services you use including the types of service, amount of use, call destinations, and other billing information. You have a right, and ______ has a duty to protect the confidentiality of this information. May I have permission to use this information to offer you additional products and services on this call."
If that is not read to you when you call in to a company, you've either opted out and the company is not able to use information it has come across to market to you, or by your own lack of action, you have given consent for the company to use that information all the time.
More than likely this is how Verizon is getting away with marketing to customers when they receive a port request. By not taking action on their CPNI rights, customers are allowing Verizon to use any information they receive from other providers as a method to save customers. Whether this is good or bad is up for debate, but this is basically what I see going on. | |
| | | |
|
|
FCC Okays Verizon To Steal Back Defecting Customers
The FCC also said this rule needs to be changed
·
·
