FCC Nails Verizon
In one of the poorest kept secrets at the FCC in recent years, the agency officially sanctioned Verizon June 23 for attempting to keep customers from porting their telephone numbers to another carrier. According to the FCC order, Verizon used proprietary information such as customers' telephone numbers and porting requests to blitz potentially departing customers with offers to stay at AT&T, including deep discounts and American Express reward cards. The cable companies complained the tactics were hurting their business of luring customers to their own voice offerings. Under the June 23 FCC order, Verizon is now prohibited from contacting customers during the four-day period allowed for porting numbers from one carrier to another. For FCC watchers, the decision was an important one, not for ruling against an incumbent landline carrier (although that is rare indeed), but for handing FCC Chairman Kevin Martin his first defeat as head of the agency. In the end, even Martin's two fellow Republican members voted against Martin's idea to let AT&T continue its "retention marketing" program. "Carriers are free to initiate customer retention marketing campaigns before the consumer gives the order to switch from his or her current phone provider to a new provider," said Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell. "Under law, carriers are also permitted to launch 'win-back' campaigns after consumers have switched." The ruling was a good one for consumers or businesses seeking to change carriers. However, more significantly, the ruling may also reflect the first changing winds at the FCC with a new president (Republican or Democrat) taking office next year. Martin's last days may see a few more defeats. |
Comments (6)
I thought this was about AT&T. Why is Verizon mentioned?
Posted by Truth in Accuracy | June 25, 2008 9:23 AM
Verizon is mentioned because I went into brain lock. You are correct. It's all about AT&T. My bad.
Posted by Roy Mark | June 25, 2008 9:36 AM
Where does AT&T fit in this story? Everyone else has Verizon as the bad guy vs. the cable/IP folks as the victims. You seem to use Verizon and AT&T interchangeably when they're not even related.
Posted by Paul Konstadt | June 25, 2008 9:36 AM
AT&T is mentioned because I went into brain lock. It's all about AT&T. My bad. It's been corrected. Many thanks for the eagle eye.
Posted by Roy Mark | June 25, 2008 10:00 AM
OK...again, my mistake and hopefully blog has been corrected. This story is entirely about Verizon and not about AT&T.
Posted by Roy Mark | June 25, 2008 10:02 AM
The story might just as well have been about AT&T too. Judge Greene must be spinning in his grave.
"Of the twenty-two Bell Operating Companies which AT&T owned prior to the 1984 agreement to divest, eleven have become a part of the new AT&T Inc." (Wikipedia)
When will we see an Android iPhone?
Posted by Stratocaster | June 25, 2008 12:40 PM