We do not have number portability for our landline in our area, even
though that as well as choice of provider was promised and made legal
several years ago. I don't think we should have to pay for wireless
number portability either. That's a cost the providers should bear as a
cost of doing business. You play, you pay.

elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock) wrote in article
<de37a2e0.0306131131.28f74c2c@posting.google.com >:
> In the thread 'thoughts on wireless "number portability"' John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<VzkGa.2219$%3.140756@typhoon.sonic.net>...
>
> > >If wireless consumers knew just how MUCH number portablity and E911 are
> > >costing them, we'd probably tell the federal goverment to forget about them.
> >
> > Those numbers are wildly exaggerated.
>
> But so what if they are?- why should any of YOU have to pay for any
> service so I can receive it FREE?
>
> So let's have a (hopefully) fun little poll to see what you think:
>
> For those of you who want WNP so badly, put your money where your
> keyboard is! What are willing to actually PAY for it each month?
> $1/month? $5? $10?
>
> How much is too much to pay for a service that a small percentage of
> us will actually use? And remember- it's not just YOU that will pay
> that monthly charge- we ALL get to pay too- even the 80-90% or more of
> us who'll NEVER use it!
>
> Check out your home phone bill and see what it costs you there if you
> think I'm kidding! My local rural telco line-listed the charge for
> number portability on my home phone bill at $4.95/month- at least
> before I fired them and went 100% wireless!
>
> Personally, I'd support number portability this way: if the those who
> want to take their number to the next carrier paid a one time
> "transfer charge" to pay for the costs of WNP. Say $50 or $100 per
> transfer. This would cover the costs of WNP, and put the costs
> associated with the service where it belongs- on the backs of those
> who want it, not all of us.
>
> Have some fun with this!

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

momcat1@hotmail.comNOSPAM (momcat1 *) wrote in message news:<vff1s8augj3c41@corp.supernews.com>...
> We do not have number portability for our landline in our area, even
> though that as well as choice of provider was promised and made legal
> several years ago. I don't think we should have to pay for wireless
> number portability either. That's a cost the providers should bear as a
> cost of doing business. You play, you pay.


Lemme guess- you didn't major in business, did you?

Any expense a business incurs will be paid for by the customers of
that business through the prices the business charges for goods
and/or services. The difference between the phone company
line-listing certain fees and charges on your bill simply allows you to
see what that particular tax, fee or surcharge represents in cost.

For example, if you want the phone company to "bear the cost" of
NP, they could- instead of sending you a bill listing their $20/month
service fee and a $1/month charge for NP, they could "bear the
cost" and raise the service fee to $21. Would that make you feel
better, "knowing" you weren't paying for WNP? Every cost your
carrier incurs- rent, utilities, employee payroll, printing 4-color
glossy brochures with wildly inaccurate maps, stupid TV
commercials that film students can't even understand, etc.
all ultimately cost US on our bills. WE "bear" the expenses- all of
them!

So, when it comes to NP, or any other "service" you want to
force companies or industries to implement, remember the old
saying- be careful what you wish for... you might get it!

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <de37a2e0.0306240738.4939ecf3@posting.google.com > on 24 Jun 2003 08:38:33
-0700, elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock) wrote:

>momcat1@hotmail.comNOSPAM (momcat1 *) wrote in message news:<vff1s8augj3c41@corp.supernews.com>...
>> We do not have number portability for our landline in our area, even
>> though that as well as choice of provider was promised and made legal
>> several years ago. I don't think we should have to pay for wireless
>> number portability either. That's a cost the providers should bear as a
>> cost of doing business. You play, you pay.
>
>Lemme guess- you didn't major in business, did you?

Start off with a superior attitude and an insulting innuendo -- how nice.

>Any expense a business incurs will be paid for by the customers of
>that business through the prices the business charges for goods
>and/or services. The difference between the phone company
>line-listing certain fees and charges on your bill simply allows you to
>see what that particular tax, fee or surcharge represents in cost.

True, albeit simplistic.

>For example, if you want the phone company to "bear the cost" of
>NP, they could- instead of sending you a bill listing their $20/month
>service fee and a $1/month charge for NP, they could "bear the
>cost" and raise the service fee to $21.

Or they could get more efficient, and find ways to minimize and/or offset the
cost. A monopoly has no incentive to do that, which is why you tend to see
such things on your bill as an increase in price. The beauty of a competitive
market is that suppliers have a strong incentive to do that, which is why
prices tend to go down as the level of competition increases.

>Would that make you feel
>better, "knowing" you weren't paying for WNP?

What makes me feel better is increased competition.

>Every cost your
>carrier incurs- rent, utilities, employee payroll, printing 4-color
>glossy brochures with wildly inaccurate maps, stupid TV
>commercials that film students can't even understand, etc.
>all ultimately cost US on our bills. WE "bear" the expenses- all of
>them!

True, albeit simplistic.

>So, when it comes to NP, or any other "service" you want to
>force companies or industries to implement, remember the old
>saying- be careful what you wish for... you might get it!

WNP really isn't a "service" -- it's removal of a barrier to competition.

The notion that your phone number belongs to a carrier rather than to you is a
throwback to days when that was the only practical way to do it. Technology
has now come more than far enough to make personal numbers practical. It's a
change that's long overdue.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <de37a2e0.0306241949.2efabf4@posting.google.com> on 24 Jun 2003 20:49:53
-0700, elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock) wrote:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<qI3Ka.5169$%3.266701@typhoon.sonic.net>...

>> Or they could get more efficient, and find ways to minimize and/or offset the
>> cost.
>
>True- albeit simplistic...

Not at all simplistic.

>"Minimize" the cost, by definition, means
>there will still be a cost to pass on, however small,

Not necessarily.

>and "offset"
>really is a cute way of saying "pass it on to the customer."

Just the opposite.

>The
>wireless business generates it revenues from customers. Where else
>but from those customers will they get any money to "offset?"

From other cost savings.

>> A monopoly has no incentive to do that, which is why you tend to see
>> such things on your bill as an increase in price. The beauty of a competitive
>> market is that suppliers have a strong incentive to do that, which is why
>> prices tend to go down as the level of competition increases.
>
>We've gone around this road already, ...

So no point in going around again.

>> What makes me feel better is increased competition.
>
>Wireless currently has a churn rate of what, 35% annually or so?

Much less than that. (Feel free to prove me wrong, but only with real data.)

>> WNP really isn't a "service" -- it's removal of a barrier to competition.
>
>If it's a option that requires inter-carrier cooperation, it's a
>service.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. There is already a requirement for
inter-carrier cooperation.

>I'm not against consumer protectionism, but this is a free market.

If it were a free market, then WNP wouldn't be an issue.

>There are always some "barriers" to complete competition.

I have no objection to natural barriers, only artificial ones.

>If you want
>to regulate cell carriers, fine- regulate them.

I don't.

>But if not, let THEM
>introduce services we want based on market demands.

I'm all for that (which has nothing to do with WNP).

>If the government
>won't even bother to force "handset portability" via a single national
>digital standard, why bother with number portability or any other
>"portability?"

Because ownership of numbers in not a natural monopoly -- it was created by
regulation.

>If I had to choose which is a bigger barrier to
>competition, I'd say my inability to take a $500 PocketPC Phone from
>T-Mo's GSM to Verizon's CDMA might rate a bigger "barrier" for me than
>taking my phone number!

I'd disagree. There are now three major GSM carriers, which seriously worries
the CDMA folks, as it should.

>> The notion that your phone number belongs to a carrier rather than to you is a
>> throwback to days when that was the only practical way to do it. Technology
>> has now come more than far enough to make personal numbers practical. It's a
>> change that's long overdue.
>
>Where did any of us ever get the notion that any number "belongs" to
>us anyway?

Why not? It is, after all, a public trust. Carriers did not create these
numbers.

>Until I can take a New York phone number to L.A. with me,
>the notion of "portability" is pretty limited anyway, isn't it?

That will probably change too.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>