Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Bases $5 Fee To Not Publish Your Phone Number On 'Systems and IT' Costs
coondoggie writes "Let's say that for whatever reason, you'd rather your telephone number not be published. If you are a Verizon customer, that privacy privilege will cost you $5 a month. And how does Verizon justify such a significant fee for such an insignificant service? 'The cost charged to offer unlisted phone numbers is chiefly systems and IT based,' a media relations spokesman for the company tells Network World. (Asking the same question of online customer service elicited a predictably unenlightening response.) Sixty dollars a year to keep an unpublished number unpublished? Does that seem plausible?"
It's called "alternate revenue streams" and they will try to nickle&dime-XXL you for almost everything. A one-time charge would be plausible, but a MONTHLY fee? This is gauging. But... guess what? There's nothing you can do.
bend over and take it, you haven't any other choice.
Their system is design to make money for them while annoying you. I'd say it is working.
If it cost them several hundred thousand dollars to ask a third party contractor to carry out this "Systems and IT" costs, and if it's going to cost them a non-trivial amount of money to maintain it going forwards, then yes - it is reasonable.
Especially when you consider just about nobody in the world gives a shit so they need to get a fair bit of money from each customer who activates this service.
$60 a year for doing what? Nothing? Surely marking a number as unlisted in the subscriber database is a once-off 30 activity of at most 5 minutes. So who's being paid $720 an hour for doing it?
The only reason they need to give is, "Because we can." That's what monopoly status buys you.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Verizon has built a system where it is cost-effective to track every single $.10 text message and minute of call time; but it costs $5/month, forever, to keep a database field set to 'no' rather than 'yes'... Surely this is entirely plausible, no?
They charge you 5$ because you will pay it. Don't like it? Vote with your wallet and switch to another provider. Oh, too much of a hassle so you'll just pay the 5$? That's why they are charging 5$. Because you will pay it. "Cost" has nothing to do with "price." Willingness to pay sets price.
This is the kind of thing that could've been solved by class action (I hate to say it, but class action is actually useful for some things).
But that was back before every single corporation on the planet started contractually affirming no one can file a class action against them and then the courts actually fucking agreed with them.
They probably figured that people who don't really care would rather be listed, but were unlikely to pay for it specifically. Assuming they have to hire people/design a system to list some numbers and not others, they pushed the cost onto people who would be willing to pay. Yawn.
Why it's a monthly instead of a one-time fee, I couldn't tell you. Trying to make a continuous revenue stream out of privacy fanatics I guess.
Because fuck you, that's why.
Welp at least I can go to one of the many other carriers, because there is no way they would implement such a fee themselves! I'm glad competition is so fierce between wireless carriers, I always feel like I'm getting a great deal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dktVJ3qRGS0
Since when is an paying for an unlisted phone number new or news? Its always been a paid for service.
Jack of all trades,master of none
POTS vendors have always had this policy. It's stupid, but it's easy to circumvent. Since they let you publish the listing under any name you want, you make one up. When I had a landline, it was under "Gigo Hasp" (old IBM mainframe joke).
Add all the numbers from the white pages into a data base and whats left is all of the unlisted numbers. The numbers are sequential.
Similar to the "convenience fees" many utilities, companies, and government agencies charge to conduct business via their web sites. Why does it cost money to NOT publish my phone number? Why does it cost money to renew my car registration online via an automated system instead of at a building that costs rent and overhead with a human employee? Why does it cost my bank $3 a page to mail me copies of old bank statements (and why can't they send me pdf's)?
Perhaps we've hit upon a new revenue stream. We could call it "Unservice" or "Negative Features".
unlisted phone numbers and call blocking both cost extra
When you threaten to do something bad to someone, like give out their phone number, unless you are paid, you are engaging in extortion.
E Proelio Veritas.
I bet they have to pay a Verizon employee to daily verify your phone number is still on the list (can you see me now?).
Or maybe it is like the Verizon witness protection program. Your phone number will get its own case agent. Hey, this stuff costs money.
Can you tell I used to be a Verizon customer?
On the one hand, this is bullshit.
On the other hand, I'll gladly pay $5/mo. Now whenever I get a junk call, I can harass Verizon about it. Why did I get this call? What will you do to prevent this in the future? When they do nothing, then we do what good Americans do, complain and sue!
It's always been like this. The phone company (ever since the dark days of the Bell/AT&T monopoly) has always charged extra to "have an unlisted number" in the phone book. Not only is this not "new" news..... it's 60-year-old news from the era of my great-grandparents.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Welcome to Canada. They've been doing that to us here for decades, now you know exactly what it's like. And you get all the fringe benefits too.
Om, nomnomnom...
Clearly, the answer is to get rid of all the pesky regulations on businesses, because the free market would make every business honest.
Or something.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Since when is it considered acceptable to pay for incompetence?
If this requires any more human effort than checking a checkbox, then it's just pure incompetence.
They don't charge when you DISCONNECT the service and they wipe your name from the phone book!
http://about.verizon.com/index.php/about/bios-pictures
https://www22.verizon.com/investor/bo_meettheboard.htm
Though your reply is rather offtopic, I'll only tell you that: When Fancyman wants to say somethin', he just squeezes wunna his security ho's. Got dat? Yeaah u do...
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
In the days of land lines I was reading the fine print in the phone book (remember "the phone book"?) and noticed I could list my name any way I wanted for free. ...so I put the listing under the name of my imaginary roommate. Whenever I got a call asking for Mr. Skoog I knew it was a cold sales call.
They monetize a published number by publishing a directory, publishing reverse directories, publishing area directories for use in direct marketing, and so on. Forget that there are laws about these things being used to actually call you without your permission or a preexisting business relationship, since anyone who buys the drivetories from them is a business partner, and therefore entitled to call you.
What they are saying is that they are making some value $X, where $0 $X = $60 off of this process, and by asking to be unlisted, you cost them this additional profit they would otherwise be able to make by publishing your number in various ways. My guess is that on average it's pretty close to what they are charging, in order to keep it legally defensible should some consumer go lawyer-happy on them.
fucking Virgin media in the UK charges me that ($5) just for caller ID display, i would hate to find out how much unlisting costs
...because you, and millions like you, will pay it, because you think you can't live without a cel phone. Same as all the other weird fees.
If you don't want us to publish your information, we'll have to charge you. That sounds a lot like "If you don't want to see those pictures in the papers, it's cost $$$$". The big difference is that (at least in fiction) the blackmailer only extorts you once. Now I can see that there could possib;y be a one-off cost to removing a name from a default of "publish". But to keep charging, every month? Nah!
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
If you ask for 'unpublished', you and the few who do ask for this share the entire cost of setting this capability up and maintaining it. Stop whining.
They actually make money selling it, so that people can advertise to you.
A qualified lead is worth up to $200 a name, depending on who they are. Medical doctors and engineers names, email addresses, and phone numbers go for major bucks.
And it all lines the CEO's pocketses. Yes, precious.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I call and get fee reversed, but I guess I am one of the few who bother to call and bitch about it( to clarify, I mean about it where it can make a difference... not online...:P)
In case someone needs a way help in that respect, I present you.. way to get fees reversed, discounted or eliminated
Naturally, you actually need to make an effort...
This post is provided without warranty as to reliability, accuracy or otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose.
Plausible? No, it's a fraudulent lie. Maybe a $5 one-time charge, maybe. It you call a human to use a web interface for you instead of doing it yourself. However, charging to not list your number is as old as phones; this is nothing new.
Also fraudulent:
- That banks need to charge $35 overdraft fees per overdraft. This is a scam to get around usury laws -- $35 for a $1.49 overdraft would quickly get them in the pokey.
It's fraud because they lie and say it's to compensate for costs, when, in fact, it's a deliberate, core profit vector. Their business model isn't sayng, "Dammit! He OD'd!"
It's saying, "FUCK YES!!! HE OVERDRAFTED!!! OH GOD YESSS!!!"
- Credit card companies are similarly fraudulent, lying that their high interest rates are due to rational statistical risk.
The proof of a lie? Again, their business model isn't worrying people are now risky, but rather they are crossing their fingers, hoping you get into financial difficulties so they can jack up the rates so it is very difficult to pay down the principle.
Their business model hopes, and relies, on you getting into trouble. It does not worry about it, contrary to public statements to Congress. It prays for it.
Regarding the bank, I went in to complain because I overdrafted without realizing it and had over $400 in charges for about $60 in overdraft. The bank lady didn't have her bank screen turned enough and I looked on my record of it. In all caps at the top was:
DO NOT SHOW CUSTOMER THIS SCREEN
I'm pretty sure I also saw a link to how to sodomize My Little Pony, and they weren't an anti-pony group. THEY WEREN'T AN ANTI-PONY GROUP!!!
Ok, you got me. I made one of those two up.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
But then my middle name is '; drop table subscribers;
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Twice I got reps to list my name as John Doe for my phone number listing. When someone called for Mr. Doe, I said I was speaking. Whatever they offered, I quickly sounded very interesting, and said, "Just one minute, I'll be right back, that sounds great." Then I would set the phone down (not hanging up) and go about my business. Then I simply stopped getting a land line.
But I'm waiting to start receiving the monthly bill for not having Verizon.
offtopic? Citing Verizons previous behavior and contempt for others is offtopic? Fits like glove in the post. But keep 'em (-1s) coming, sockpuppet trolltards!
How about they just flip their system to not share my information by default. Those who want the telemarketer "feature" can pay the 5 dollars for the elevated costs! Better yet! Give it to them FREE, YEAH! You can make the telemarketer scumbag pay for the list of people who OPT IN!!!
Oh... wait... you already make people pay for the list, don't you. Hmm... I wonder what your motives are then... could it be people opting out is hurting your data sales?
I find often you you turn things on their head it makes it real easy to see the bullshit.
Claim that the land-line is for faxing and/or data. When I had two POTS lines, I used the "listed" number for data/modem, and the "unlisted data" line as my voice line. I never answered the listed number, because I only ever gave out the unlisted number to people. FAX numbers are subject to even more stringent policies regarding junk faxes so they are generally not listed.
I'm not sure this will work on an existing line, but it probably will for new service.
You may have to pay for an unlisted number, but you can list your name any way you like. Just become one of the many John Smiths in the directory and when telemarketers call, tell them that John's not here.
Unless you just have to have an expensive smart phone, go to the local CVS, Walgreens, Rite Aid, etc... Get the cheapest, dumbest throw down phone you can find, buy minutes on pre-paid cards only, don't ever use a CC or debit card to pay for minutes.
No GPS, no data, no camera, no personal data attached to the phone number. Texting can be a PITA on old school 0-9 # * keypad, but it gives you an excuse to use terseness like never before :)
Best they can do is track by cell tower.
I have a small clamshell flip phone from Samsung. It has been dropped a few dozen times and the worst damage it has suffered is the back pops off and the battery falls out. Standby time is 10 days. If I lose it or drop it in the water, I am out about 15 bucks and some minutes.
The problem here is not that Verizon can't justify such a fee. Nobody selling anything needs to "justify" their price, not least because it's unclear what that even means. The only meaningful measure of value for anything is what someone else will pay for it. And people are apparently willing to pay $5/month for an unlisted number.
That does not mean that this price is not outrageous. It is. If Verizon had any competitors at all, the price would be much lower.
The problem here is not "price-gouging" - it's monopoly.
Hello. Is this Chuck U. Farley?
Have gnu, will travel.
All you have to do is buy a gun, kill a few of these fucking scumbags and let them know why.
Charge per month to not track you. Indeed, Google could tier this by the various ways they agree to not spy on you.
Viz, $1/mo for no ads (they can be blocked anyway), $5/month to not photograph your house (BTW, can anyone give me the google earth coordinates of Brin and Page o I can find out if they like eating their own cooking?), $2/mo to not illegally sniff out and cross correlate your internet connection as they drive down your street for full frontal photos, $3 to lose your phone number, $1 to not hack into your iPhone, $20 to not bug and track you with "adsense" and endless other nonsense (nor have other sites do it on their behalf as is their current practice). What else? Lots else.
Anyway, crime does pay and so does evil. Personally I'd be willing to pay for some privacy; in due time they may offer that as an option but not just yet.
Its free to sign up for the do not call list that's the main reason people in the past have paid for the service and it was worth it. It shouldn't cost judges,military personal anything to be added as an unlisted number is for personal safety reasons.
Jack of all trades,master of none
If unlisted(customer.no) == TRUE then add.to.bill($5) else return 'number unlisted';
AccountKiller
Seriously. I've got cable internet and VOIP. If you want to use ADSL just use VOIP and don't connect a phone to your wallpoint. Then they can list the number if they want but calling it will never cause it to ring.
And here I was going to finally make the switch from AT&T to Verizon.. Why hello there T-Mobile!
For years GTE -> verizon would charge a few bucks extra for the privilege of having touch tone.
That's because it costs you for every call someone makes to you (at least there are plenty of us who don't get unlimited everything, that that is the case).
Therefor, if they list your number and you get spammed with calls, they get to foot the bill - 100% of it, because you never told them they could *start* to list the number.
It's a scam - time to get the State's Attorney General's involved.
While we're at it - let's have them look at their outrageous costs for data services as well.
Push for common carrier status of all cell towers and interconnects - make it all *ONE* big network that anyone can provide service over.
What you have a landline?
And Zaphod Beeblebrox for a few more years after that.,
It's been almost a decade since I dropped local landline service, where I was paying $5/mo for an unlisted number, and I paid that for years.
Verizon is undoubtedly selling lists of names, phone numbers, and other data to third parties. If you opt out, they lose that revenue. Sure, they're looking for ways to make more easy money, but it's not just about the amount of time or effort it takes to get you on the opt-out list. They want to recover their lost revenue, so they make sure you REALLY want your name off their list before they will do it!
1. Complain - when there's serious customer backlash against a new proposed fee, companies realize they're putting their brand name in jeopardy and retreat. Banks do this all the time. A charge sticks when there aren't enough complaints.
2. Try registering for your phone under another name.
- Try signing up as "M.i.a M.a.o T.e.n" - Vietnamese-ish for "fake name"
- Try a googling for a name name no one has used before: Mike/William/Janet/ G.a.r.u.b.s.k.y
3. Cut the cord - Cable companies and wireless companies have come a long way and as a bonus my cell phone doesn't ring off the hook during elections.
4. Get a VOIP phone. VOIP doesn't suck as bad as it used to.
They should market it as a discount.
Everyone pays $XX.XX, but if you agree to have your phone number published, we'll give you a $5 discount.
Now, it doesn't seem so bad, does it?
It's a 5 minute edit in a legacy mainframe system.
A monthly charge is absurd, and I would advise bitching to a manager, and threatening to speak to the public utility commission and/or the FCC. You would be amazed how quickly that gets folks motivated.
Red
Disconnect..
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
Just do what my friend did, and tell the phone company a fake last name.
When I was setting up my phone service, they asked me how I'd like my name to appear in the directory. I told them that my step-son would be the one that used the phone the most so they used his name (I don't have a step-son, just made up a name) in the phone book....
With AT&T at least they will charge you for having it unlisted but if it is listed you can list it with any name you want. We have a number of numbers that are listed as "Lily Rose" which is the name of two of the dogs.
Problem solved.
They're going to pass those tens of millions on to their IT peopel, right?
That they are sucking more money out of you any way they can like tethering, text messaging, etc. Why the heck is unlimited text messaging $30 per month in addition to your 4 gig data plan which doesn't cost much more? It's ridiculous. I don't mind paying for stuff they do, but how much data does a text message use for instance. A one time $5 fee would be OK maybe but to keep charging you $5 per month is pure profit. Simple as that and they also insult the intelligence of anyone with half a brain.
The telephone company listing policies are very flexible. There is no requirement to have your address or location in the listing. Only a name is required, but this can be any name that you select. It doesn't have to be your name. In theory, you could have a listing that states:
Place This Number On Your Do Not Call List . . . . . 607-555-2368
I'll preface this with: I have little doubt that they're charging $5 because they can, and it goes no further than that.
However! They might be using this as an insurance policy of sorts, follow with me:
- Your number is no different than a celebrities to look at/in their database/etc.
- You pay the same for non-listing as does said celebrity
- Unlike you, the celebrity could possibly win a lawsuit for a decent chunk of money if the company (through negligence) publishes their number.
So given that accidents happen, humans are prone to error, etc. etc. It is just possible that you're paying $0.50 a month for the actual service, and $4.50 a month for their eventual legal costs due to a fuckup.
As I said above though, when phone companies charge thousands of times reasonable rates for SMS and such I hardly expect that it goes any further than "because they can".
That is a bogus bulls**t charge. As a phone system administrator I KNOW that you can go into the system and block the numbers visibility one time and never have to do it again. For them to claim that it is necessary every month is CRAP. Do like BOA and protest to the point of DENIAL OF SERVICE to them.
bell telephone always charged for unlisting you.
Or better yet, get dry loop DSL and never have a landline in the first place. Although in some service areas it costs exactly the same for Internet as it does for Internet+Basic Phone or a couple dollars more for just Internet.
Wow, I didn't know that Verizon, and the rest of the LECs only had people whose memories were going keeping records of this, and so they have to be paid to remind them every month.
Now, if *I* ran a LEC, I'd just have a database with a boolean....
mark
...considering Verizon, AT&T, etc. all charge $5 to unlist any landline phone or to list any cell phone on contract, it's nothing new.
Yes, by default all landlines are listed, and you have to pay to unlist them. Where as by default cell phones have generally been unlisted by default, and you have to pay to list them.
Now, how would they know what to list it under for a pre-paid phone? You don't exactly sign a contract, and the buyer may not be the phone owner. So this really doesn't make any sense.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
It's a cash grab, pure and simple. They offer a service that is valuable to a number of people and monetize it as much as they can. Any attempt to rationalize the fee beyond this is simply obfuscation and outright lies. It costs absolutely nothing to flag a number as unlisted vs. listed.
Once you turn 18, you can change your name. But you might not want to.
The phone company has to ask you if you want to be listed - and it's illegal to charge extra fees for unlisted entries.
I got around the issue in pre-privacy law days by having my entry listed with a bogus name and an address which was a horse paddock nearby.
If USA denizens can't get state privacy laws to protect them, they may be able to get bogus listings instead.
Surely it was supposed to be 5 cents a month, but they didn't grasp the difference?
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
Very surprising that you haven't commented yet on the latest article about Julian Assange. The Ecuadorians have granted him asylum, why aren't you in there declaring that to be a great victory for ron paul?
Come on, it can't be because the world knows that Julian Assange is diametrically opposed to the philosophy of your lord. You woud never let something like the truth get in your way. Or are you using yet another sock puppet to comment in there, instead?
We love watching enemies of free speech like yourself squirm...
Every month there is something about Verizon and their increasing fees. I'd say move your account to T-Mobile, Sprint or AT&T or any of the smaller companies.