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coondoggie writes "Let's say that for whatever reason, you'd rather your telephone number not be published.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 Sixty dollars a year to keep an unpublished number unpublished?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.
Their system is design to make money for them while annoying you. I'd say it is working.
$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?
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.
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.
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).
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".
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.
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.
Firstly, not quite, some of those numbers are not in service.
Secondly, the primary value of an unlisted number to people who have them is that their name isn't attached to it.
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!
Yes, I'm sure it's really hard to add a WHERE clause to an SQL statement. This clearly costs hundreds of thousands of dollars in third-party consulting work.
Also, following federal regulations around privacy is not an optional add-on, it's a cost of doing business. I'd be astonished if they can legally do this - though not nearly as astonished as if someone from the FTC grew a pair and started enforcing these regulations against the telcos.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
ah, I get it, now. we COST them money by asking for privacy.
its their RIGHT to monetize every thing possible. if we stand in their god-given right of way toward cashola, they get angry.
understood. thanks for the explanation.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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?
"Where did you learn this behavior, Verizon?"
"I learned it from you, Ma Bell! I learned it by watching you!"
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.
The probelm is not the WHERE clause, it's the NULLs. With unlisted numbers the displayed phone number has to be a null. Have you ever gone down to Radio Shack to pick up a bukcet of nulls? Now, I now that Verzion buys them in bulk, but still.
They must not be using Oracle. With Oracle, nulls are the same as empty values. That's why Oracle databases are so much lighter to carry around than other databases.
If unlisted(customer.no) == TRUE then add.to.bill($5) else return 'number unlisted';
AccountKiller