backtop


Print 18 comment(s) - last by Hyraxxx.. on Feb 15 at 3:14 PM

Verizon has lost a lawsuit filed by several competitors, with the FCC watching each company more closely

Verizon is no longer allowed to use proprietary information from its rivals to persuade phone owners to switch from Verizon's competitors, a U.S. appeals court ruled.

Verizon tried to defend itself by saying it should be allowed to undercut competition by offering better deals to customers who were thinking about switching phone carriers.  Comcast, Time Warner, and Bright House Networks all complained to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about Verizon's activities, saying they violate federal law.

In essence, Verizon was caught sending letters to customers who canceled their service trying to persuade them to go back to Verizon rather than let them sign up with a competitor.  Rather than simply port the number after a customer requests it be transferred to a new service, Verizon allegedly delayed the process in an effort to persuade customers to rejoin.

This activity is banned under federal rules, which caused a government investigation into Verizon's activities.

Specifically, when a company contacts another rival company, it's known as a "port," which means the companies transfer the same phone number to the new carrier.

Last year, the FCC agreed with the cable companies and told Verizon it must stop its illegal activity.  The federal appeals court upheld the FCC's ruling, agreeing the law Verizon violated was designed so a carrier losing a subscriber could have a neutral role in the process of transferring a former subscriber's phone number.  

Verizon and AT&T currently offer internet and TV services, with cable competitors such as Comcast offering phone and Internet services.

"If Verizon is allowed to do this kind of retention marketing, consumers in general get less competitive deals on phone services," said Consumers Union attorney Chris Murray.

Verizon fired back, with company spokespeople saying it "looks like a loss for consumers, who now will have less information available when choosing between different competitors."

This court victory against Verizon could open up the door to similar lawsuits in the future, with companies actively looking to point fingers at one another after customers begin switching services.  Unconfirmed reports indicate other companies do the same thing, but Verizon was the first company to be officially accused of the practice.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

At least...
By Sungpooz on 2/12/2009 3:50:36 AM , Rating: 5
they might have saved some people from signing up with Comcast Internet.




RE: At least...
By meepstone on 2/12/2009 8:31:34 AM , Rating: 1
comcast offers 12 megabit connection in my area. the only other competition is embarq with 3megabits for the same price and embarq has literally no upload. while i see people on this site complain about comcast i do not know why. their internet is fast and reliable.


RE: At least...
By jrollins006 on 2/12/2009 10:15:06 AM , Rating: 2
I dont know about other areas, but here in winchester, virginia, there service is terrible. Internet is always going down, DL/UL is terrible and when you call when you have a problem they treat you like your 5 years old "did you unplug it, well did you unplug it the right way?" and so forth


RE: At least...
By afkrotch on 2/12/2009 11:44:38 AM , Rating: 1
I think that type of service is common to any telephone support line. Hell, I do it all the time.

"Have you rebooted the computer? You did? Well, can you do it again for me."

I do that, cause users have a tendency to somehow speed the process along and the simplest fix is one they overlook, thinking it does nothing. I don't know how many jobs I've gone out on and just rebooted the computer to fix it, when they told me they did.

I will treat all customers like a 5 year old, as majority of them have that mental capacity when it comes to computers. Yes, there will be times when you get an actual IT professional on the line, but safer to just treat them all the same.


RE: At least...
By mattclary on 2/12/2009 12:04:13 PM , Rating: 2
Same boat: Comcast/Embarq duopoly. Embarq won't sell naked DSL, and I don't need a home phone*. Once you figure in the price of the phone service with DSL, low and behold, the price is almost identical to what you have to pay Comcast. There is no real competition.

*I don't get why triple plays even sell. Who the hell wants to pay for a landline nowadays?! A wired phone is so 20th century!


RE: At least...
By UNHchabo on 2/12/2009 12:58:51 PM , Rating: 3
I have a landline. Here are the reasons why:

-I have a pre-paid cell, because the cheapest monthly plan I could find was 300 minutes/month. I've used roughly that number on my cell in the past year. If I'm at home or work, then I have a landline that's much cheaper than my pre-paid cell.

-I don't trust wireless technologies. Even if you have a great wireless provider, you'll still get SOME dropped calls, despite what the Verizon commercials say. The service will inherently get worse the more people use it. See Washington, D.C. on inauguration day, despite the mobile tower vans they used. For many of the same reasons, I'd rather wire up my house with Cat6 cable rather than just get a wireless router.

-The 911-finder for cell phones still doesn't work as well as for a landline.


RE: At least...
By sprockkets on 2/12/2009 3:31:48 PM , Rating: 2
I have a VOIP "landline" since calling internationally is ridiculous on a cell phone. Viatalk has some of the best rates. I would pay around 2-4x for the same calls on the cable phone or even Vonage.

Besides, the less phone signals getting passed through my brain, the better.


RE: At least...
By DatabaseMX on 2/12/2009 2:50:45 PM , Rating: 2
Or worse ... Time Warner !!


Maybe you should have spoken up sooner
By rdeegvainl on 2/12/2009 7:30:30 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Verizon fired back, with company spokespeople saying it "looks like a loss for consumers, who now will have less information available when choosing between different competitors."

Well, maybe you should have informed them while they were your CUSTOMERS? Why wait till after customers leave before telling them about all the GREAT things you have to offer? You sow, you reap.




RE: Maybe you should have spoken up sooner
By Bateluer on 2/12/2009 8:43:46 AM , Rating: 2
There's nothing stopping Verizon from calling up former customers and inquiring why they switched providers and if there's anything Verizon can do to get them back.

If Verizon were to call me and ask me to switch to their DSL service, I'd tell them exactly what they needed to offer me in terms of price vs bandwidth, and strict adherence to net neutrality.


By rdeegvainl on 2/12/2009 8:55:40 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Rather than simply port the number after a customer requests it be transferred to a new service, Verizon allegedly delayed the process in an effort to persuade customers to rejoin.


Well, I have nothing against them contacting people in general, but delaying their transfer and using my first quoted statement as their defensive position is pretty shady.


RE: Maybe you should have spoken up sooner
By djc208 on 2/12/2009 9:15:29 AM , Rating: 4
The problem (and this isn't limited to Verizon) is that you can be a loyal customer for the last 10 years and they will offer you all kinds of promotions and upgrades for more money. But when you call to cancel THEN they come out with the "well we can give you this discount, or this plan which will save you money and provide better service."

So why do you have to leave your service before you wanted to offer me better pricing or capabilities. If Verizon had been doing that from the start they wouldn't need to worry about people jumping ship as much.


By fic2 on 2/12/2009 12:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
My sister and my parents in Dallas just transferred all their stuff from Time Warner to ATT. My sister said that they were saving about $60/month. When she call TW to cancel they just said ok. Didn't try to offer her any deals. Didn't ask why she was leaving.


Completely off topic
By amarr on 2/12/2009 10:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but this comment is completely off topic.

meepstone,
I just had to answer your question for you. Comcast is evil, because they just started capping internet access. We're capped at 250 gigs per month now... while that may seem like plenty (they claim it affects less than 1% of their users) it's going to be chump change eventually. I already watch most of my tv online (hulu.com), I have several websites, and I have a girlfriend abroad that I video conference with daily. I always find a reason to download several gigs of stuff daily... soon everyone will. Comcast put that cap on with an eye to the future. They also sell cable... they know people are starting to watch cable online. Solution? Cap internet activity. Yes, they have terrible customer service... everyone does! Who cares about customer support?!? I've never received good customer support from cable/internet/phone providers, but at least I get relatively consistent service. Soon... I'll have a hard time finding a fast provider that's not going to kill me on a rate, because I'm using bandwidth a few years ahead of my time. Be warned this will affect you in time.

Hope that answers your question.




RE: Completely off topic
By contractcooker on 2/12/2009 11:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, I don't even think that 250GB is a lot right now. I used 650GB my first month (back) on comcast. They called and said if it happened again i would be disconnected with no recourse for one year. Not only do they cap bandwidth BUT they don't offer ANY WAY TO UPGRADE. >>>>>>I WANTED TO PAY THEM MORE MONEY FOR MORE BANDWIDTH and they would not do it. After keeping the representative on the phone for 10 minutes trying to figure out a way to get more bandwidth the best they could offer me was an "enterprise" solution for >>>>>FIFTEEN-HUNDRED DOLLARS PER MONTH..... you heard me right... the next step up from $60.00 is $1500.00. I FUCKING HATE COMCAST AND THEIR RIDICULOUS ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES. I don' know why they are allowed to operate the way they do. I don't understand why no one thinks it's a problem that there is no competition in many areas of the US. We are a declining nation and I think our awful TELCOS are playing a part in our decline.


RE: Completely off topic
By FredEx on 2/15/2009 6:45:14 AM , Rating: 2
Somebody is way off there wherever you are. Where I am I can get a 16/2 business class account for $82.95 a month from Comcast. A business class account has no bandwidth limit. Also you are allowed to legally (via the usage agreement) run your own servers. I know several folks on Comcast around the country doing just that. Some are paying around $100.00 because they went for static IP's. In some areas that have DOCSIS 3.0 installed already they get 22/5 for that price.


By Lord 666 on 2/12/2009 7:25:14 AM , Rating: 3
While it appears to be cleaned up a little since yesterday, pulling it in the first place questions the integrity of DT.




aol
By Hyraxxx on 2/15/2009 3:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
Back inthe aol days, we got a year of aol free. I call to cancel, they say we'll give you a free month to stay. Month later, same thing happened. it was sweet. then netzero came along that had better free sevice than aol.




"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki