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."
Number portablity doesn't mean number transferablity. In order to get "your number" to move from Provider X to Provider Y, you have to show proof to Provider Y that you do in fact hold that number at Provider Y... if you go into Radio Shack with your buddy's phone bill and even with your buddy saying it's okay, you can't get his old number on your new cell phone.
So, there's nothing to sell on eBay. If you can't give it away even when you try, you can't sell it either.
"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.
Yes, you do not "own" the number, but what's different here than all the auctions for domain names? You don't "own" the domain - you lease it from the registrars/ICANN/whatever. The phone companies let you transfer phone numbers just like you can transfer a domain, so what's the difference?
/.'d than they'd make in commission.
Maybe eBay just realized they're losing more in bandwidth charges from being
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
Next thing you know the SSN I bought of Ebay will turn out to be nontranferable too.
--
Tsiangkun
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.
...low Slashdot ID numbers?
ah yes, 867-5309: the original DDOS attack...
ed
While I think people are clearly renting the phone numbers (if you don't pay the phone company, they take it away and can re-issue it), it seems you own the rights to use that number while paying for it. So, that people can sell "the right to use the number while paying for it" seems fair enough.
On the other hand, if we look at phone numbers in the same light as domain names (e.g. identifiers to get a query to a place that information can be retrieved), a whole new can of worms is opened. People say they own a domain name, but it may be more like renting than owning outright. Same as with phone numbers. If you don't pay the fee every year, it is taken away and can be re-issued to someone else.
The only thing that throws the analogy is that there are certain numbers "given" to the phone companies, if I understand correctly, whereas domains, the company has no claim to the letters.
Register a patent on the phone number.
Start suing.
No basis for a lawsuit? Why let that stop you?
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.
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.
when i moved into my apartment in august, my roomates and i discovered that the building exchange was 382...spelling "FUC". you can only imagine what our final decision was when we called the local telco company and requested a vanity number. i will say this: the prank phone calls are USUALLY lame...but there have been a few worth note: "damn...someone already has this number!" "do you know what your number spells?" "you're daughter come over my house, and she kick my dog" etc. regardless, telling girls my phone number ensures they will NEVER forget it.
He may be laughing his ass off somewhere around here. The official site says that Tommy "pays his bills with work as a software engineer."
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.
i do this quite a bit for my company, with verizon and cingular. here's an example: we hire a new sales person who's had his cell number for a gazillion years and doesn't want to part with it, but his provider/plan suck in comparison to our corporate plan, and we don't want to get stuck paying for a sucky plan/service.
we contact the phone company, request for an assumption of service in which the company now take on the financial responsibilities of the service contract. this usually take a tax id number, but between individuals you would use a social security number. once the billing is switched over in the company name, we port the number into our corporate plan.
if the employee leaves and wants to retain their phone number, the process is simply reversed. the process is easy, what's difficult is that each provider wants to lock you into their service plan. in the case of assuming an individual number into a group plan, since the group plan already exists, we're not bothered to sign any contracts. on the other hand, if the individual wants to break their number from our plan, they need to commit to a some type of time commitment( 1 or 2 year plan) before they can assume responsibility and service.
three can keep a secret, if two are dead - benjamin franklin
111-1111 Lois? *damn* 111-1112 Lois? *damn* 111-1113 Lois? *damn*
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.