 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Verizon / September 2003Verizon Portability- Landlines to Cell Phone
This may already be out here on this board, but I just saw a news release where Verizon Communications will allow its landlines to have number portability with Verizon Wireless phones and vice versa. That is really a great move for cell phone users that want to cut the cord and is a PR move by Verizon that puts more pressure on others to follow suit. What do you think about this? > This may already be out here on this board, but I just saw a news > release where Verizon Communications will allow its landlines to have > number portability with Verizon Wireless phones and vice versa. That > is really a great move for cell phone users that want to cut the cord > and is a PR move by Verizon that puts more pressure on others to > follow suit. What do you think about this? The FCC has said "Yes number portability should include this". The other baby Bells are yelping. everything I have read shows verizon as the only major carrir that supports portablility -- if left to other carriers portability willnot happen .. they are all fighting it ..  Signature80% of success is showing up!-- Woody Allen trimodeman@hotmail.com (TriModeMan) wrote in article <b70b36a3.0309231237.52061184@posting.google.com>: > This may already be out here on this board, but I just saw a news > release where Verizon Communications will allow its landlines to have > number portability with Verizon Wireless phones and vice versa. That > is really a great move for cell phone users that want to cut the cord > and is a PR move by Verizon that puts more pressure on others to > follow suit. What do you think about this? You must not have been following this issue for very long. Verizon Wireless, as a partially owned subsidiary of Vodafone and Verizon Communictions (formerly Bell Atlantic) had invested millions of dollars into fighting number portability. Only in the last several weeks has Verizon Wireless decided to be "the knight in shining armor". Read below... "Number portability proponents, generally wireless customers, say that keeping a phone number is a customer benefit that could increase competition among carriers. But Verizon is the lead plaintiff in a court battle against the FCC rule" Visit this link for the rest of the story: http://news.com.com/2100-1039-986040.html Just do a search on Google to see how Verizon fought against number portability. AD > everything I have read shows verizon as the only major carrir that > supports portablility -- if left to other carriers portability willnot > happen .. they are all fighting it .. > You must not have been following this issue for very long. Verizon > Wireless, as a partially owned subsidiary of Vodafone and Verizon [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > competition among carriers. But Verizon is the lead plaintiff in a court > battle against the FCC rule" Hey, "if you can't beat em you might as well join em". Shows flexibility, adaptability, and a marketing department thats really on the ball. -:) -Quick You do realize the article you posted was from February? Verizon has been for local number portability for some time now. I know this because there I personally have undergone training for local number portability and how things are supposed to be set up to process those customers that want to either port to Verizon or Port from Verizon, and that was a few months ago. About Dakota <aboutdakota@REMOVEMEhotmail.com> wrote in article <3F70BEEB.8050301@REMOVEMEhotmail.com>: > You must not have been following this issue for very long. Verizon > Wireless, as a partially owned subsidiary of Vodafone and Verizon [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > supports portablility -- if left to other carriers portability willnot > > happen .. they are all fighting it .. > You do realize the article you posted was from February? Verizon has > been for local number portability for some time now. I know this [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > [posted via phonescoop.com] All of the cellular companies have been doing the same training- that is not an indeication of Verizon's open-armed embrace of this. Just because you are prearing for it doesn't mean that you won't fight to stop it. > You do realize the article you posted was from February? Verizon has > been for local number portability for some time now. I know this [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > [posted via phonescoop.com] All of the cellular companies have been doing the same training- that is not an indication of Verizon's open-armed embrace of this. Just because you are preparing for it doesn't mean that you won't fight to stop it. Think about it.....what does Verizon stand to gain? Customers. Would you be opposed to having a open-arm policy when it comes to LNP? Verizon is only in a position to GAIN from LNP not lose. Try to understand this from a business perspective. Make it easy for people to take their numbers if they want them who cares? Just wait though you haven't seen anything yet for competition between Wireless Providers. http://news.vzw.com/news/2003/09/pr2003-09-10f.html Hmmm....guess Verizon isn't embracing LNP? You are fighting an uphill battle. > Think about it.....what does Verizon stand to gain? Customers. Would > you be opposed to having a open-arm policy when it comes to LNP? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > [posted via phonescoop.com] Yeah- I hear they had to issue neck braces for upper management. Such sudden changes of course always lead to whiplash. And I really appreciate the unbiased news article- you need to do a little better than that. Last month, Verizon Wireless urged the FCC to establish firm guidelines for wireless number portability implementation, and to reject the position advanced by the ?Wireless Carrier Group? (WCG), consisting of ALLTEL, AT&T Wireless, Cingular, Nextel and Sprint PCS, that would, if allowed, create new barriers to wireless customers who want to change service providers while keeping their mobile numbers with them. This was after the WCG told the FCC that their understanding of number portability will allow them to impose new barriers to switching that do not exist today, effectively derailing number portability. More recently, several carriers filed a lawsuit challenging the FCC?s authority to require WLNP. In June, Verizon Wireless president and chief executive officer Denny Strigl detailed the Verizon Wireless plan for implementing number portability: no up-front costs to current customers; no special barriers to switching from one service provider to another; fast service; and no hassle. Strigl said, ?We will not charge any ?special fees? for customers who want to take their numbers with them. Our plan at Verizon Wireless is to treat porting customers the same way we treat any customer today. No change from today.? http://news.vzw.com/news/2003/09/pr2003-09-10f.html > Last month, Verizon Wireless urged the FCC to establish firm guidelines > for wireless number portability implementation, and to reject the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > [posted via phonescoop.com] Wow- they've been on board for a whole month. Take a look a little further back than that- they have been the most vocal opponent in the past. The only reaso nthey did the 180 degree turn was becasue they found a way to make a buck. It has nothing to do with the customer. Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in article <YvPdb.3169$qK1.3236631@news2.news.adelphia.net>: > Wow- they've been on board for a whole month. Take a look a little further > back than that- they have been the most vocal opponent in the past. The > only reaso nthey did the 180 degree turn was becasue they found a way to > make a buck. It has nothing to do with the customer. Scott, seriously your reaching for things you have no idea about. I can guarantee Verizon has been a vocal pro-ponent for LNP for MUCH longer than a month. Especially since September doesn't come after June. It goes June, July, August, September. Verizon has urged the FCC and other providers to be more compliant or cooperative with LNP and thats been for nearly 8-10 months now. > Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in article > <YvPdb.3169$qK1.3236631@news2.news.adelphia.net>: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > [posted via phonescoop.com] Yeah- they're great. How come they don't have any agreements in place like this: http://cbs.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/newsarticle.asp?siteid=mktw&sid=8274&gui d=%7BB70D4A3C%2D6B21%2D4F5C%2D9516%2DEAEBB43D5549%7D&symb= If they were urging other providers, how come they don't have SLA's in place with anyone but themselves? Face it- all of the candy coating and dressing up is not going to help you- they only care about themselves, their pocketbooks (not yours), and will do anything to look good. Unfortunately, they don't do a real good job at it, which is one of the reasons 2003 earnings have been downgraded. Kepp telling me I don't know about the things I talk about. Your whole line here is a classic example of throwing up the Verizon smokescreen- looks good on paper until people get the bill, or until somebody else takes real action. Well gee whiz...that was posted on CBS marketwatch TODAY. I'm sure as WLNP hits closer and closer you'll see more agreements be put into effect. And so what if Verizon Communications and Verizon Wireless have produced and agreement to make porting numbers easy? I'm sure Sprint's landline service and Sprint's Wireless Service are in the same process. Not to mention At&t as well. > Well gee whiz...that was posted on CBS marketwatch TODAY. I'm sure as > WLNP hits closer and closer you'll see more agreements be put into [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > [posted via phonescoop.com] Don't skirt the issue at hand- two competing telecommunications companies, who in your mind are being less cooperative than Verizon about WNP, have come to agreement on this, and neither one of them is Verizon. I thought everyone else was being uncooperative about this, except for the mighty Verizon? And this, unlike the 'agreement' between VZ and VZW, deals with more than one corporation's subscribers. And your right- it was posted today. And if you took the time to read the article, you would see that they have working on this for MONTHS. Was the point of bringing up the posting date because you want everyone to think that they got together last night for beer and pizza and came up with the idea? Try to make it less than it is. Once again, while Verizon has been making the noise, others have taken action. Other than that article posted today thats the first info I have seen of other companies acting on anything for WLNP. I'm sure Verizon isn't far behind. Why are you so bitter? > Other than that article posted today thats the first info I have seen of > other companies acting on anything for WLNP. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > [posted via phonescoop.com] I'm not bitter- I just don't like seeing half of the story. Verizon may be the biggest, but they have made some questionable business decisions that impact every person who mails a check to them every month (which I do not do). And they always have a way of putting a slant on it to make it appear like they are poised to take over the world. PTT is a classic example, and WNP falls into that category too. I'm still looking for the article I read earlier this summer that named them as the #1 spender in the fight against WNP. Of course they're going to 'embrace' it now- they have no choice. And until they really do something about it, it is only words. And that's not the first article. Sprint rolled out the same type of arrangement that Verizon did, and I feel the same way about that as I do about the Verizon deal. But the articlew that I mentioned earlier is THE FIRST agreement between rivals, and the fact that Verizon is not involved shows who is really dragging their heels. > I'm not bitter- I just don't like seeing half of the story. Verizon may be > the biggest, but they have made some questionable business decisions that > impact every person who mails a check to them every month (which I do not > do). We may be close to the reason for your view from what you wrote above. All indications point to Verizon being the one to gain the most new customers when people can take their number along. Like you said, you are not with Verizon, so you are going to be losing your customers! You better jump ship and get with a winner. ;-) Tom J >> I'm not bitter- I just don't like seeing half of the story. Verizon may >> be the biggest, but they have made some questionable business decisions [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Tom J I will when one presents itself- Verizon certainly showed their opinion of employees during contract talks. I'll pass. Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in article <Hn5eb.3391$qK1.3466743@news2.news.adelphia.net>: > > Other than that article posted today thats the first info I have seen of > > other companies acting on anything for WLNP. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > FIRST agreement between rivals, and the fact that Verizon is not involved > shows who is really dragging their heels. Dragging their heels....jeez it hasn't even been 24 hours since that agreement was announced between Sprint and Nextel.....give it a few days I bet you'll see something by the end of the week from Verizon pertaining to WLNP regarding other providers, that is IF those companies are even willing to negotiate with Verizon. Keep looking for that article... > Other than that article posted today thats the first info I have seen of > other companies acting on anything for WLNP. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > [posted via phonescoop.com] You may want to check out Verizon ONE. They have been selling it for a while. when hooked to a landline and within 300 FT it's a cordless phone, further away it becomes a cell phone. Why is it called ONE? Cause it's ONE number whether it's a landline phone or cellphone! Verizon Avenue focuses on ONE strategy: One phone, one number, one voicemail box. Check it out at http://www.wirelessreview.com/ar/telecom_verizon_integrated_phone/ Been out since June 19th 2003 "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> wrote in article <blaum4$9rttc$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de>: > > Other than that article posted today thats the first info I have seen of > > other companies acting on anything for WLNP. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Been out since June 19th 2003 I have known about that for a while, but thanks for the info. > You may want to check out Verizon ONE. They have been selling it for a > while. when hooked to a landline and within 300 FT it's a cordless phone, > further away it becomes a cell phone. Why is it called ONE? Cause it's ONE > number whether it's a landline phone or cellphone! Sounds like the GTE Mobilnet Tele-go service I started out with in 1993. It's a good idea, and I wish GTE had never gotten rid of it. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950 Steve Sobol, Proprietor 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net Please refer me to the article in question. Bet you can't. > everything I have read shows verizon as the only major carrir that > supports portablility -- if left to other carriers portability willnot [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > [posted via phonescoop.com] > Please refer me to the article in question. Bet you can't. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >>[posted via phonescoop.com] You mean this one? Here's the link: http://cbs.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/newsarticle.asp?siteid=mktw&sid=182435&g uid=%7B0F1186EC%2D3341%2D4B37%2DBA70%2DF5482BAF1988%7D&symb= >> Please refer me to the article in question. Bet you can't. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > http://cbs.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/newsarticle.asp?siteid=mktw&sid=182435&g uid=%7B0F1186EC%2D3341%2D4B37%2DBA70%2DF5482BAF1988%7D&symb= Of course, only Verizon is painting such a pretty picture of themselves > Of course, only Verizon is painting such a pretty picture of themselves With the exception of Van Gogh, have you ever seen anyone paint a *bad* picture of themself? <g> Larry >>Of course, only Verizon is painting such a pretty picture of themselves > > With the exception of Van Gogh, have you ever seen anyone paint > a *bad* picture of themself? <g> > > Larry Well, I have seen some who had no choice > >>Of course, only Verizon is painting such a pretty picture of themselves > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Larry > Well, I have seen some who had no choice Good point! Larry Did I misread the news articles, or doesn't portability require the interchangeability of all phone numbers, not just cell phones? Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote in article <3F70FA9E.A800056E@spamcop.net>: > > >>Of course, only Verizon is painting such a pretty picture of themselves > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Larry > Did I misread the news articles, or doesn't portability require the > interchangeability of all phone numbers, not just cell phones? http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/numbport.html Larry > Did I misread the news articles, or doesn't portability require the > interchangeability of all phone numbers, not just cell phones? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > [posted via phonescoop.com] I'm pretty sure you're right, but Verizon gives the appearance of offering deals to their landline customers to switch to wireless. And I doubt they will offer the same leniency to landline subscribers that want to port to another carrier. Not a bad corporate decision, but it might hold some to a single choice to port their landline number (those that can't afford the 'closing' costs associated with going to a different provider), which is totally not the intent of number portability. >Did I misread the news articles, or doesn't portability require the >interchangeability of all phone numbers, not just cell phones? Number portability has been on the landlines for some time, now. Larry W4CSC 3600 planes with transponders are burning 8-10 million gallons of kerosene per hour over the USA. R-12 car air conditioners are responsible for the ozone hole, right? I think the question was is number portability universal? For example, can you any local landline number to any local wireless company? And vice versa -- can you take any local cellular number to any local landline company, and if not, why not? If that's not what he meant, that is what I mean, so it's a question either way. AD >>Did I misread the news articles, or doesn't portability require the >>interchangeability of all phone numbers, not just cell phones? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > gallons of kerosene per hour over the USA. R-12 car air > conditioners are responsible for the ozone hole, right? ARe you saying that a landline number can be exchanged for cell number and the other way too? more details please. nospam@home.com (Larry W4CSC) wrote in article <3f718f09.1850644@news.knology.net>: > >Did I misread the news articles, or doesn't portability require the > >interchangeability of all phone numbers, not just cell phones? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > gallons of kerosene per hour over the USA. R-12 car air > conditioners are responsible for the ozone hole, right? >ARe you saying that a landline number can be exchanged for cell number >and the other way too? more details please. Hell, why not. Verizon Wireless is NOT the center of the switching universe.....IT'S THE EDGE! ATT Long Lines, what's left of MCI/Worldcom (or whatever they're calling that company to hide from the investors lawyers this week), in any event the LONG LINES CARRIERS are the ones that do the switching to determine if 202-212-1234 should be ROUTED to Verizon Wireless, Farmer's Telephone Cooperative, Bell$outh or PacBell......not some rinky-dink wireless carrier with a terminal... The calls, except for M2M, are routed on the LANDLINES, where number portability is ALREADY a reality! We're not talking about stringing wires here.....it's all just DATA in a DATABASE! However, the SIZE of the database will grow exponentially when all the number from 843-696-0000 to 843-696-9999, one of Verizon's BLOCKS of numbers here in Charleston is BROKEN UP into smaller chunks as people flee to other carriers, landline or otherwise. There won't be a routing from just those first 6 digits 843696 to Verizon Wireless's Charleston Switch (or however they route it inside the company). Other carriers will have numbers in that block....... This is going to be a database disaster, like I'm sure it was on landline until the database was corrected and the database management software upgraded to the new reality..... There, now I can get slammed by the company "engineers" who will tell me I'm full of sh.t for the rest of the thread...... Larry W4CSC 3600 planes with transponders are burning 8-10 million gallons of kerosene per hour over the USA. R-12 car air conditioners are responsible for the ozone hole, right? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.