08 Jul 2003 | Jason said...

From http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/030624/1600000972_2.html: "But indicating that Verizon Wireless believes it may be able to gain customers using local-number portability, Mr. Strigl said there is "no group of people we talk to where they don't say, 'We would love to be a Verizon customer, but I'm dependent on my phone number.'"

08 Jul 2003 | Paul said...

Verizon has been trying to play this to their advantage, though their understanding of advantage has shifted as the debate has developed. Originally Verizon led the challenge to the FCC. After it became apparent that portability was inevitable, Verizon shrewdly switched sides and now is vocal about delivering the service to customers. Sneaky.

Good links at Ars Technica.

08 Jul 2003 | pb said...

It's surprising how much movement there is among service providers even despite the significant problem of getting a new number. Every service provider obviously spends way too much energy acquiring new customers than retaining existing customers. Coverage remains awful and deals for pricing for new customers remains far superior. The only current benefit in remaining with a service provider is number continuity.

08 Jul 2003 | Don said...

What is ironic is that many of these same companies (or their parent companies) pushed the FCC to force local Bell operating Companies to allow similar measures in the local service market (especially for business services). Now, they find themselves in what may be an indefensible position. Ha!

08 Jul 2003 | Don said...

Comment 2:
What will happen if/when the FCC allows consumers to transfer their wireline phone number to a wireless one ( see here)? What side will the wireless providers be on then? Will they still want to charge more for the service or be happy to get the extra consumers, screwing the RBOCs yet again?

(Also, see two older articles here and here on earlier battles for local number portability.)

08 Jul 2003 | Matt said...

In the spirit of giving, Sprint PCS has just informed me of the Federal Telephone Number Pooling and Portability Surcharge.

This increased surcharge recovers costs incurred by Sprint to comply with federal regulations concerning both number pooling and wireless number portability.

No good deed goes unpunished.

08 Jul 2003 | pb said...

In the brokerage industry, you pay the broker you are *leaving* when you transfer your account. Charging to bring your number *to* a service makes no sense to me.

09 Jul 2003 | Steve said...

AT&T are going to charge for number portability? Smart move on their part. They pretty much just guarantee I will be portable-ing my number in November to a different company.

10 Jul 2003 | Some Guy In NYC said...

As an advertising exec, I can tell you that EVERY one of the carriers is currently developing campaigns to capitalize on WNP. The question isn't who will be the first, but who WON'T be the first. The client we're working for (unnamed) is terrified. Years and years of pathetic attention to customer service and overattention to aquisitions is coming to roost. It'll be ugly for them, but pretty for you and I. You think the competition is fierce now? Just wait. 5000 minutes will seem like a pittance...

15 Jul 2003 | Kim said...

The fact that Verizon has not already revealed its plans to suck customers dry in some fashion on this issue is kind of scary. They would not even allow me to keep my number when I switched from their prepaid to their postpaid service, so it is inevitable that eventually, they will be the company that comes up with the way around the law, even if it is passed. Their customer service is terrible enough when you ask a simple question about your account, I can see it now- the trouble they will cause when you try to ditch them.

01 Oct 2003 | Don Durke said...

After years and years of customer abuse you'd think you would have learned a thing or two. Without a doubt you'll see a new "service termination fee" attached to all new and existing accounts to discourage switching. For those companies who seek an advertising advantage by not charging for FWNPP they'll make up the difference by increasing their termination fee. The majority of consumers have, to date, simply shrugged with a 'What can I do about it.' attitude and paid. The culture though is in the mood for a fight as it seems to be fed up with being bankrupted by a thousand fees and may, once again, decide to fight back. However, if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is any indication of the success of that fight - then you might as well pay the two bucks and call it a day.

20 Nov 2003 | CoCoPuff said...

Seems to be a silence in this post for a few weeks. Number portability is going into effect on Monday and there are a few sites I thought people would be interested in looking into for info:

http://wireless.fcc.gov/
http://www.numberportability.com
http://www.easyporting.com/

18 Dec 2003 | Nguyet said...

I'm writing an article about cell phone portability for OC Metro magazine, a business magazine based in Orange County, Calif. You can check out the Web site at www.ocmetro.com. I'm looking for a few personal stories to include in my article. If you think you meet these criteria, please contact me.

Whatever your circumstance, you must be an Orange County resident. Anyone who could tell of an entire family or business switching service would be wonderful.

1. You've switched cell phone companies and had a GREAT experience. Couldn't be happier.

2. You've switched but it turned out to be a nightmare.

Write to [email protected]. Thanks.
Nguyet

31 Jan 2005 | compatelius said...

bocigalingus must be something funny.