Slashdot Mirror
Ebay Suspends Phone Number Sales
wellingt writes "According to the
Jackson Sun, the attention brought by the sale of Jenny's famous 867-5309 has led Ebay to evaluate whether or not phone numbers are the property of their owner, and whether they can be sold. Verizon has made the claim otherwise."
"Buyers and sellers on eBay enter into a binding contract, [Ebay spokesman Henry Gomez] said.
So officials of the auction service have to make sure the seller actually owns the item for sale and has the right to sell it."
This is not a very smart position to take. Ebay is basically saying, for example, that they are responsible if someone attempts to sell stolen property over their service.
Well, people sell 800 numbers all the time. If I want 1-800-BUY-STUFF then I can contact the person that has that number and offer to buy it from them. They may not sell it to me, but that's their choice. I guess by Verizons logic that 800-CALLATT doesn't belong to AT&T then. Shouldn't regular numbers be the same?
Robert
Once the phone companies figure out that there is money to be made in selling vanity phone numbers - like vanity license plates - you'll see this sort of number transferability made available - for a fee, of course.
This is sometimes done for business partners who split up and the other person takes the number, Sybil McLain said. "What two parties do between themselves is between them," she said. "We provide phone service."
So while the original New York seller of the 212 code version might not be able to transfer it, this article is primarily about a Murfreesboro, TN car dealer, who it appears could.
Kind of a good thing. I wouldn't want some investment company buying up all the numbers in my area, then I have to pay some crazy fee just to get a phone number.. Or if they did, and I called the wrong number, would they set them up to re-direct the call to telemarketers?!
Mod +5 Drunk
> Verizon has made the claim otherwise.
... because THEY want to cash in on selling the vanity numbers. A buddy of mine (let's call him Mike) has a number of the form ###-###-MIKE. If he ever wants rid of the number, the phone company doesn't want him selling it to some other Mike, they want to have it back so they can sell it to some other Mike.
if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
I'm not sure this is a big surprise. I think that if you don't own the number, then it would be fraud to try to sell it. Here is ebay's user agreement. Maybe some people think this a grey area, but refer to the first posters comment, portability not ownership. I'd rather not bid on items that the seller doesn't own. If people started selling stuff that they had no claim over, no one would trust ebay. Trust seems like a big part of their business. Now if the new laws were tested in court and somehow ruled that I own my cellphone number...well that would be a different story.
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
If there isn't a friendly phone company out there (which is hard to believe since there'd almost certainly be a little money in it from them, especially if they were able to make all the transfers happen in a small number of days), it's possible for someone to set up a company for the sole purpose of doing this.
Given enough flexibility, networks WILL route around damage. Fortunately the FCC has just given us the flexibility we need.
If I already have the right to transfer a wireless service (with the existing wireless number) to another person without restriction or penalty...why would any wireless company be able to stop me from charging for that transfer. Its just that simple.
I agree with previous posts, it has nothing to do with reality, the wireless providers are just looking for yet another way to stick it to their customers.
Isn't something, by definition, the property of its owner? I guess the question is "Who is the owner -- the subscriber, or the provider?"
Quote from the article: "nothing prevents a customer from transferring a number to someone else." - seems pretty clear cut to me. The partnership splitting is only given as an example.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with phone number portability, which is the ability to move providers and keep the same number. Granted, the case may be that Bell South "owns" the number and might not let you transfer it to a third party, but they obviously don't mind you selling to one if that third party stays with Bell South.
The point is, it seems the policy varies depending on who is providing your phone service, and this TN guy had a right to sell the number, while the NY guy didn't, but Ebay pulled both auctions without discrimination.
that actually want this number? Yeah, I want to pay thousands of dollars so I can have the #1 Drunk Dial number and get hundreds of calls from dumbasses who think they have an original idea in calling the number from an 80's song. It'd be funny for about a day and then I'd rip the phone out of the wall. If only there were a way to send a shock through the lines to the slapass on the other end., then I could see the value of this.
While, in theory, the telephone company (claims it) can change your number if there is a service problem or - again in theory - for any reason it wants to, with the ability of the customer to move the number to a different Local Exchange Company (LEC-Incumbent ILEC or Competitive CLEC) or even move numbers between wireless and wireline companies, Verizon's claim that the customer does not 'own' the phone number is specious at a minimum and in any case clearly incorrect.
We as customers are paying a few cents every month for local number portability. If the customer can move their number without consent of the carrier - which is the case - then the carrier's claim that the customer does not own the number is clearly incorrect.
When competitive local (wired) phone service came into Maryland about 5 years ago I moved from (what was then) Bell Atlantic to Starpower faster than you can say 'Long distance is the next best thing to being there.' All (what is now) Verizon could do was send me a final bill and wish me a goodbye.
Since the carrier no longer has any means to refuse to let you change carriers - even if you still owe them money - then obviously the carrier no longer owns the phone number, the subscriber does.
When I moved to Virginia, I signed up with Starpower directly and have had service with them for three years. (Yes, I know the actual service comes from Verizon but it's at least a partial victory.)
The point remains, if I can take my (wireline) number from Verizon to someone else - or have a number issued from a different carrier and move it elsewhere - then obviously I own that number. This was the standard for 800/888 etc. numbers for years now, has been the standard for wired customer numbers and is now established for cellular numbers too.
It will probably take a tedious suit against some telephone company to establish de jure what is already de facto: that the customer now owns the phone number, not the carrier.
----Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Doesn't anyone get this weirdness? One of Cingular's latest commercials with with some chick who said she was happy she was able to keep her number, and she's dancing to the Jenny song. I thought that was odd, since it's a Verizon number.
That really doesn't stand up, does it? So, what is the fundamental difference between a phone number and a static IP that makes one property and the other a resource?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
jeez people, it's not really that hard... and although you can't technically "sell" a phone number, you can get paid to transfer it to someone else, just like any other intangible object i.e. software, music, domains, names of businesses, license plate names, etc.
But if I "owned" the number 1-800-GET-LAID, does that mean I couldn't get paid to transfer it to someone? This might to lead to the idea that phone numbers have no value, which obviously is very wrong, because if someone somehow redirected a business phone number that could be very serious.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
2)People are legally allowed to require money be transfered as a condition of said transfer. Verizon admits that also - they do it all the time.
So Verizon is insisting they do not use the word "sale"/"sold".
Unless you change Point 1 or Point 2, Verizon's belief makes no sense.
I can't sell something I don't own, but I sure can accept a fee to vacate an apartment earlier than my lease. Even though I don't own the apartment, I have rights with respect to that apartment and those rights can be sold. Similarly I now have rights to my phone number, and unless a law states otherwise, Verizon is going to have to admit that I can therefore sell my rights to my phone number.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I think the part that some providers is they don't want to see anyone profiting but them... So by selling your number you get profit they don't see.. they just need time to figure out a fee they can charge you for this type of dealings so they get their slice of the pie too and they will be happier... they wont be fully happy untill they can obtain all the moneys from the transfer of a number then they will love it... But as i mentioned before.. They arn't looking athe the big picture... if number squatting started to happen then they would all see pure profit from contracts with no actual use of the service which puts them in complete heaven... Collecting money for nothing more or less.
Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt