Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon Bases $5 Fee To Not Publish Your Phone Number On 'Systems and IT' Costs

Posted by Soulskill on from the also-on-'give-us-your-money'-costs dept.

coondoggie writes "Let's say that for whatever reason, you'd rather your telephone number not be published.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 Sixty dollars a year to keep an unpublished number unpublished?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

34 of 331 comments (clear)

  1. Revenue Stream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Revenue Stream by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Informative

      $5 per month is no longer in the realm of "nickel& dime", it's bare-faced robbery.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Revenue Stream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    3. Re:Revenue Stream by jxander · · Score: 3, Informative

      I know reading TFA is considered bad form around these parts, but you might want to give it a shot from time to time.

      Anyone on a prepaid cell phones lost a reasonable expectation of privacy, and can be tracked without warrant. If that's not a flagrant 4th amendment violation, I don't know what is.

      --
      This signature is false.
    4. Re:Revenue Stream by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But... guess what? There's nothing you can do.

      - sure you can. You can get rid of the gov't regulations and licenses and taxes and stop inflation and then there will be actual businesses built in all industries, including the one Verizon is in.

      Do you realise that throughout 19th century and in the beginning of the 20th century (before the Fed was set up) the prices for consumer goods and services CONSTANTLY WENT DOWN?

      If you didn't know that, you should research this topic. Of-course there were no gov't regulations, income taxes, money printing, licenses to start and to run business, no gov't departments, no cabinets, etc.

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
    5. Re:Revenue Stream by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well what they could have done is have a $5 fee to have an unlisted number as one option, and a different $5 fee if do you want your number listed.

    6. Re:Revenue Stream by currently_awake · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes it does cost them $5/month. This is how much money they lose selling your name.

    7. 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
    8. Re:Revenue Stream by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Informative

      There was no government regulation involved when the banks fucked up the economy.
      Sure there was. In fact, it was the government requiring a certain percentage of loans be made in areas that historically default on mortgages that helped fuel the mortgage crisis.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    9. Re:Revenue Stream by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There was no government regulation involved when the banks fucked up the economy.

      - so you do not consider over 100,000 regulations to be regulations? That's the number in financial, banking industry. By the way, it's funny in a sad way to see that you don't understand that FDIC, Fed, FHA, HUD, F&F, Patriot Act, etc. - all these things are regulations.

      Comcast is a separate story, AT&T was a huge gov't monopoly, which killed 3000 competitors to AT&T, gov't just shut them down in the beginning of the 20th century. Since then the communications infrastructure has been abysmal in USA, specifically because of that.

      The only single regulation that was removed by Clinton was Glass Steagall, but without the Fed, FDIC, HUD, FHA, F&F this wouldn't have been a problem. Glass Steagall was implemented to counteract the negative effects of the moral hazard created by the FDIC, which was a way to keep people using the banks during the Great Depression (also created by the Fed and Hoover and FDR policies of huge spending, bail outs, stimulus by the way).

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
    10. Re:Revenue Stream by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      Those cheap prepaid phones don't have GPS, but they could do tower triangulation.

      My deepest concern is that I'll be one of 6 dozen people whose cell timing and location fit some high profile crime find myself under extreme scrutiny by people I neither trust nor believe are interested in justice half as much as they are in feathering their prosecutorial careers in preparation for running for high office.

      Sadly, few if any prosecutors are interested in justice or anything else besides furthering their careers. See: Innocence Project.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  2. It's based on system design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Their system is design to make money for them while annoying you. I'd say it is working.

  3. Money for nothing ...... by realitycheckplease · · Score: 3, Insightful

    $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?

    1. Re:Money for nothing ...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I call bullshit on you.

      To make a phone book they have to collate a list of phone subscribers from the phone company. To exclude a subscriber, they simply don't turn over that subscriber's record to whoever makes the books. Or alternatively, the phone book company doesn't print the names of people who have the privacy bit set on their record. How can it possibly be so difficult?

      How can it cost $5/month to skip over somebody's name?

      What legal issues are there that would justify the same cost?

      Since you're so smart maybe you can tell us exactly why.

    2. Re:Money for nothing ...... by PT_1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      $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?

      I doubt it's even a 5 minute job. I work for a large telco in Europe. If a customer over here asks for their number not to be printed, we have to honour that request and we're not allowed (by law) to charge a cent for doing so. The phone directory is based on a database, which is linked to our customer care software. If a customer asks for their number to be removed from the phone book, a customer care agent clicks the button on their screen and the database is updated overnight. Factoring in a staff member's time, overheads for running the call centre etc., a call like this costs on average the equivalent of just over $4. Charging $60 per year is outrageous.

    3. Re:Money for nothing ...... by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Informative

      I currently work for a phone company, and less than 2 years ago was part of the "number management" group.
      You're full of shit.
      Phone numbers are published by a 3rd party. Once a year we do a SQL dump of our existing customers and send that over. That's how the number gets published. Our billing system has a flag: nonpublish and it's y/n

      The SQL statement involved is so fucking trivial it's ridiculous. There is NO reason at all to charge for this based on the difficulty of excluding you.

    4. Re:Money for nothing ...... by hurfy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's how much they WON'T get paid for selling your phone number :(

    5. Re:Money for nothing ...... by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      I worked at a major telco in Oz for 7years as a technical lead on their mission critical systems, The telco was an old school government monopoly that had just been semi-privatized. I agree adding something like this their systems to comply with the law would take much longer and cost a lot more than most people would think, but once it's done it's done. It's then just a fucking checkbox that needs to be ticked once, not once a month.

      This is nothing more than a company thumbing their nose at regulators by saying "If we are forced to provide X as part of our service then we will do so in such a way that ensures nobody wants to use X". Such behavior is frowned on over here, it would land the company in court where they would likely be levied a fine with lots of zeros on the end. Verizon know this because they operate in Oz and somehow manage to handle unlisted Aussie numbers without the need for a recurring charge.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  4. 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?

    1. Re:It's true, folks! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes!

      I mean... no?

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:It's true, folks! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Funny

      [blonde voice] "updating databases is hard!" [/blonde voice]

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:It's true, folks! by adlib24 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I wish they just cut the crap. Verizon has built a system where they can sell your listing for a profit. Some of that money is used to offset the cost of maintaining your line. Without that revenue stream they need to add a fee in order for you to be a profitable customer.

      It reminds of the situation with desktops and Windows. Because of licensing arrangements, it is cheaper to buy a Windows prefab than to buy a machine with no os. Crazy but true.

      Without certain features some products are not as profitable for vendors, so it is discouraging, but not surprising, that they would pass on the offset costs to the end-user.

    4. Re:It's true, folks! by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 4, Funny

      But this is about not updating a database once data has been entered once. NOT updating is so easy I do it constantly.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  5. 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.

    1. Re:Justification by Holi · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, to quote one of the funniest ladies of all time,
      " You see, this phone system consists of a multibillion-dollar matrix of space age technology that is so sophisticated -- even we can't handle it. But that's your problem, isn't it? So, the next time you complain about your phone service, why don't you try using two Dixie cups with a string? We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company. "

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  6. Welp at least by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  7. Old News by fm6 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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).

  8. LIfe's Great Mysteries by paleo2002 · · Score: 3, Funny

    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".

  9. 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.
  10. Doesn't Cost Me Anything by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

  11. Re:It's the phone company by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Where did you learn this behavior, Verizon?"
    "I learned it from you, Ma Bell! I learned it by watching you!"

  12. I don't have Verizon. by Cornwallis · · Score: 4, Funny

    But I'm waiting to start receiving the monthly bill for not having Verizon.

  13. Re:Sounds reasonable to me by alexander_686 · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  14. Re:Sounds reasonable to me by LurkerXXX · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.