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."

Comments

Bad Idea

[corby]

"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.

Not my number?

[TheVampire]

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 This Out

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Transfering numbers is possible

[interiot]

So a few companies have stated they're unwilling to transfer numbers to a different individual. No problem, I don't see anything stopping the seller from transfering their number to a friendly company who WILL transfer numbers to another individual, and then the buyer can transfer that number to whatever phone company they want (even if it's the same company that the seller originally used).

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.

Tautology

[B2K3]

...whether or not phone numbers are the property of their owner

Isn't something, by definition, the property of its owner? I guess the question is "Who is the owner -- the subscriber, or the provider?"

And this isn't about number portability anyway

[blorg]

The thing is, the phone number cannot be sold alone.

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.

who are these chumps???

[PDubNYC]

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.

Verizon's Claim is specious and incorrect

[rfc1394]

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>