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coondoggie writes "Let's say that for whatever reason, you'd rather your telephone number not be published.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 Sixty dollars a year to keep an unpublished number unpublished?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?"

5 of 331 comments (clear)

  1. It's true, folks! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  2. Justification by TimHunter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And how does Verizon justify such a significant fee for such an insignificant service?

    Because fuck you, that's why.

  3. Extortion by Sqreater · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Re:Revenue Stream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    True: It isn't even there to give away any more.

  5. Re:Revenue Stream by kenh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The $5 isn't the cost to 'not publish' the number, it is most likely a reflection of the value of that telephone number to various DB and telemarketers. By in listing the number, Verizon can't sell the data to third-parties. The dollar amount is likely as high as it is to try an discourage anyone from wanting the service, giving Verizon more numbers to sell and fewer exceptions to look out for in their database.

    --
    Ken