PIC charges?

[jmazza]

I pay line charges for POTS lines from my local carrier @ $20 per month. This includes number portability and LD charges of @ .06 per minute.

I have a national LD carrier that handles all of our national sites, dedicated T1s, low LD rates.

The problem is, the POTS lines have been PIC'd over to them as well but they also charge an access fee per line per month as weel as number portability charges! double charges?? Is this right?
What do you have to pay your national carrier for the priveledge of carrying your PIC's traffic? I always thought it was $0. You just payed for the usage...

 

[macphoneguy]

heres My .02Cents
first if you have a Pots Line pic'ed to a national carrier, they may or may not charge, and if they do charge the amounts will vary per carrier, that amount goes to the carrier i.e. MCI, AT&T, SBC and a Host of other's If you have a Number of Pot's lines you may want to review some of the others to see if they are consist amount, and talk to whomever you Carrier's rep is. and review your Customer Service Record. Second there is also "Local Number portability", this charge is money goes to whoever your local service Carrier is. this should not Vary that Much, it is for you you want to take your number to some other Carrier or CLEC instead of your LEC again it should be consistint and some companys will charge you others will not, but you can bet your booty's it part of the bottom line Bill.

 

[jmazza]

Thanks for the response...
Right, I understand it's a legit charge from my local carrier. However, I'm also being charged for lnp from my LD carrier just because it's PIC'd to them....is this right? In this particular case, it costs $5.05 per POTS line that is PIC'd to this LD carrier before any calls are made on them.
There's also the cost paid to the local carrier who "owns" the physical line and charges me a monthly fee plus lnp!
I don't think the LNP from the PIC'd LD carrier is correct.
Does that sound right?

 

[SYQUEST]

The purpose of the LNP charge is cost recovery for LECs/CLECs that provide LNP services.(Even though the public never asked or voted for it) If the carrier is not providing such, then the charge is bogus! The carrier providing the line is the one that should be charging the fee NOT the LD carrier and only for a line with a number assigned to it. Out WATS lines do not usually have DNs assigned to them and are usually oneway out service. The charge is directly related to the 'phone number'.

The PIC/PICC charge is another ripoff of the customers! Pure profit, I would never pay for the pleassure of a carrier to have their PIC on my line!! That is insane! Talk about GREED!

Regards to the LNP, check with your PUC or the FCC for clarification about who should be charging what. You might talk to your account rep about dropping the ridiculous charges from the lines or remove the PIC. Especially if you do not have any LD traffic on them. Some the these carriers apply all kinds of charges and get away with it! Even when they do not apply. Challenge all of them. If they are not 'legit' and they won't remove them or issue credit for them, then I WOULD TAKE MY BUSINESS ELSEWHERE.

Another new one that has been creeping on to our bills is the 'non required charge' I have seen in some of terms of service statements. If it is not required why is it even there??? This one seems to be in the DSL TOS I have been reading lately. More ripoffs of the public.

Once they start they never seem to go away...

....JIM....

 

[ISDNman]

I am guessing since LNP required some updates to the SS7 signalling system/database that all Telco's are having to share the cost.

I am also guessing that the carriers "are permitted" to pass these charges along to the customers. As with certain other charges different carriers handle this in different ways.

At least this is the case with certain other types of charges.

Obviously the honest way to do this is to raise your rates. But the sneaky way to do this is add it on described as "government mandated LNP charge".

I have to admit the above is conjecture.