Verizon Bases $5 Fee To Not Publish Your Phone Number On 'Systems and IT' Costs 331
coondoggie writes "Let's say that for whatever reason, you'd rather your telephone number not be published.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 Sixty dollars a year to keep an unpublished number unpublished?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?"
Revenue Stream (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.
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing you can do.
My first reaction was "Oh yes there is..."
But in light of another very recent /. article [slashdot.org], I'm not sure if the alternatives are any better.
So, do you want to give up your 4th amendment, or pay $60 a year?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Note: The 4th amendment doesn't stop private entities looking through your shit. It stops the government.
Re:Revenue Stream (Score:5, Insightful)
True: It isn't even there to give away any more.
Re:Revenue Stream (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
I know reading TFA is considered bad form around these parts, but I think reading comprehension is still in vogue.
Go back to my first post in this thread where I pondered the options of (A) getting worked over by Verizon for $60 a year or (B) getting my 4th amendment worked over by a prepaid phone, and a link to the article you mentioned.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. I missed that.
Re: (Score:2)
when they got you buddies cell phone when they busted him for pot or speeding, and looked at his cellphone contacts list where he happened to save your number after you called him.
Re: (Score:3)
Add GPS or triangulation, occasional self incriminating statements and call logs and I'm pretty sure they could build a case against anybody they wanted to. 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. Our sad mouth breathing publi
Re:Revenue Stream (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
"can be tracked without warrant" != "is being tracked without warrant"
Yeah, big difference, except now the cops can tell the telcos they want regular tracking data on all cellphones held for them for five years in case they ask for it. They don't need a warrant. Biiiiiig difference.
Then again, they could just ask the NSA for it.
Re:Revenue Stream (Score:5, Informative)
$5 per month is no longer in the realm of "nickel& dime", it's bare-faced robbery.
Re: (Score:2)
$5 per month is no longer in the realm of "nickel& dime", it's bare-faced robbery.
I guess I'm old, but I recall Bell charging more than that to keep land lines unlisted.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing you can do.
yeah? Maybe they'd notice if everyone here called up Verizon, asked about this, and gave an informed opinion. Some people might switch to other carriers, or some looking for one might avoid them. If that's the case, be sure to tell them why they're losing your business, so they are fully aware of the opportunity to improve.
Responsiveness varies depending on who you talk to, so it is possible it would be worth calling more than once.
Since they're regulated by government agencies, feedback to those is appr
Re: (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, licens
Re:Revenue Stream (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (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 abysma
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Actually, yes, there is a lot you can do. These days prepaid, non-contract cellular service compares favorably and most times you come out ahead. I used to be with Verizon Wireless until I discovered Page Plus Cellular [pagepluscellular.com] in January of 2009 and haven't looked back. Page Plus Cellular uses Verizon's network and you can activate a Verizon-branded phone or buy one from PP's website. For 55.00 per month, I have unlimited talk, text, and 2GB of 3G web. That 55.00 per month includes taxes too. If you don't hav
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Revenue Stream (Score:5, 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.
Re:Revenue Stream (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Revenue Stream (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.
It's based on system design (Score:5, Funny)
Their system is design to make money for them while annoying you. I'd say it is working.
Money for nothing ...... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
comcast does the same thing
Re: (Score:2)
The market value of something is based on two things: How much it costs to provide, and how much people are willing to pay for it. In this case an unlisted number is worth more than $60/yr for some people, so they're willing to pay for it.
Normally, competition would drive the market price down to just above the cost to provide the service. But si
Re:Money for nothing ...... (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.
Re:Money for nothing ...... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's how much they WON'T get paid for selling your phone number :(
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty darn close.
Re: (Score:2)
So who's being paid $720 an hour for doing it?
The CEO?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, if it's like Canada, they actually get paid for listing you. I think the idea here is to make it cost prohibitive to unlist yourself so as to not see that revenue stream drain away. They do not get paid 5 bucks a month to list you, mind you. It's probably a cent or two if not fractions of that. At least that's what we get paid for listing phone numbers.
Re:Money for nothing ...... (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.
Re: (Score:2)
A BT Basic phone line costs £4.80/month in the UK, which is about $7. If they can manage to give subscribers the option to be listed or not (which is simply a tick-box when signing up online), why can't Verizon?
The VoIP providers have the same rules to adhere to, and they manage to have zero-cost "line rental".
Re:Money for nothing ...... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it means they have to set the "listed" flag to FALSE. It's a one-bit field in their database, and the cost is offset by having smaller indexes for searching the listed numbers.
Re:Money for nothing ...... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
It's an ILEC (Score:2)
The only reason they need to give is, "Because we can." That's what monopoly status buys you.
It's true, folks! (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 $5/month, forever, to keep a database field set to 'no' rather than 'yes'... Surely this is entirely plausible, no?
Re:It's true, folks! (Score:4, Funny)
I mean... no?
Re:It's true, folks! (Score:4, Funny)
[blonde voice] "updating databases is hard!" [/blonde voice]
Re: (Score:2)
don't forget to bob your head dramatically left and right when you say that
Re:It's true, folks! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's true, folks! (Score:5, Informative)
I wish they just cut the crap. Verizon has built a system where they can sell your listing for a profit. Some of that money is used to offset the cost of maintaining your line. Without that revenue stream they need to add a fee in order for you to be a profitable customer.
It reminds of the situation with desktops and Windows. Because of licensing arrangements, it is cheaper to buy a Windows prefab than to buy a machine with no os. Crazy but true.
Without certain features some products are not as profitable for vendors, so it is discouraging, but not surprising, that they would pass on the offset costs to the end-user.
What the market will bear (Score:2, Insightful)
They charge you 5$ 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.
Re: (Score:2)
I say we the market should bear the CEO's office. A hungry North American Grizzly should do nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
"Contracts"
You may want to look into them. I'd be quite surprised if this is a large enough change to provide you with a window to end your service contract without the ETF (unlike, say, raising rates or changing contents of the plan, which definitely is)
What was the alternative? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably figured that people who don't really care would rather be listed, but were unlikely to pay for it
Not at all! They are selling the listed people's numbers and figured they need another way to get money from from people who do not want their number to be sold
Trying to make a continuous revenue stream out of privacy fanatics
There are some legitimate reasons to be unlisted though. Think of Sarah Connor! Or, more realistically, someone who had changed their number to avoid harassing calls. Demanding $5/month to hide your number seems like blackmail to me. At least when they have a land-line monopoly.
Justification (Score:5, Insightful)
Because fuck you, that's why.
Re:Justification (Score:5, 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. "
Welp at least (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You say this, but have you looked around? They do stuff lock step. If Verizon can get away with charging higher prices for voice and text, AT&T/Sprint can too!
I think you might need to re-read the GP's post. Pay special attention to the hidden sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
Your sarcasm detector is broken.
Old News (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).
Re: (Score:2)
My variant of that was to use the name "Montgomery, Bart".
Those in San Francisco will get the joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of gives me the urge to post it under the name "FTC Field Office", just to see how many telemarketing types are either too stupid or ballsy to notice.
Re: (Score:2)
POTS vendors have always had this policy.
Um, no they haven't. I've never heard of a phone company charging for this. It is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I apologize for your ignorance. Perhaps you're too young to have actually used POTS. Nowadays most people just have cells (including me), and of course cell phones are never listed.
Re: (Score:2)
LIfe's Great Mysteries (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps we've hit upon a new revenue stream. We could call it "Unservice" or "Negative Features".
Re: (Score:2)
Why does it cost money to NOT publish my phone number?
Because they make money providing their customer lists to the people who publish phone directories, political organizations that request the list, telemarketers, etc.
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?
Because the whole point of a car registration is to serve as an impediment to prevent any idiot from buying a car. Doesn't work very well, but can you imagine how bad it would be if people who couldn't scrape together $35 once a year were allowed to operate and maintain a car? It costs a lot more than $35/year to keep a car safe; oil changes al
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Because until they can do away with the brick and mortar, they have to pay for both the building/employees and the web-servers/sysadmins. That doesn't justify a 10000% markup for a non-service though.
Extortion (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure there is a simple explanation (Score:2)
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?
Nothing new. (Score:2)
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.
Hey...hey guys... (Score:2)
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.
Obviously (Score:2)
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.
If it's unpublished, they can't monetize you (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
The answer? (Score:2)
...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.
How's this different from blackmail? (Score:2)
Doesn't Cost Me Anything (Score:5, Funny)
Hi, I'm calling for Mr. Doe (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Pick it up after a while and if they are still there say "Pleeeez beegeeen once more. I not understaaaand you well. At the beeegeeening pliz"
Then "I theeenk you need to speeek to nother deeeferent person. I fetch that person. Pleeeez wait now"
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that depends, who is giving more to Obama's campaign, AT&T or Verizon. Whichever does so, he will pass a tax on those who do not buy their service in his next term, right after he passes the tax for not buying a car from GM.
Your thoughts sound very reasonable and well-put-together.
Is your name Levi Strauss? Because, you must be a jean-yus!
Re: (Score:2)
Do you people really have nothing to go with? All you do is make up lies and ridiculous accusations.
I like the debate, but the last two election is't been like the democrats are playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon says nonsense, craps on the board, then goes and tells it's flock it won.
And when you point out provable false hoods, and incorrect statements they say "You say that becasue you are a liberal/.. I'm not talking opinion on social matters, I'm talking the actual provable facts. It's mind numbing
Charles Ulysses Farley (Score:2)
Hello. Is this Chuck U. Farley?
Sixty Dollars for one line of code .. (Score:3)
If unlisted(customer.no) == TRUE then add.to.bill($5) else return 'number unlisted';
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 an unlisted number, not an undialable number.
Robodialer goes 728-1234, 1235, 1236, 1237 and on and on. It doesn't care who you are. You're just another meat popsicle. Perfectly interchangeable.
Since when? (Score:3)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Sounds reasonable to me (Score:4, 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.
Re:Sounds reasonable to me (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
They used to charge for touch tone service, too.
Just because they used to do it, doesn't make it acceptable now.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Texas Verizon was charging for touch tone service for longer than most other companies in the rest of the US. I believe I was paying for that even after 2000. I cancelled my home phone service several years back so I don't know if they have that still or not.
They were also charging monthly for "number portability" or something like that. Basically that service they are required to provide where you can move your phone number from one service to another. Whether you move it or not, you pay monthly
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds strangely like deja-vu. Wasn't there formerly a phone company, and then they did this kind of crap, and then the government applied the Sherman Anti-Trust Act hammer, and then there were more phone companies?
Re:It's the phone company (Score:5, Insightful)
"I learned it from you, Ma Bell! I learned it by watching you!"
Re: (Score:2)
yes but they only made smaller regional monopolies which are simply buying each other up and will be a mega monopoly again in the next couple of years with more power than before. they will now have landline, cell, internet, maybe cable. and they will of paid off all of the right people this time to let them keep it that way.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You mean back when almost all phone service in the U.S. was provided by the original AT&T and they charged just as much or more for the same service? No, there was never a time when this kind of thing could be solved by a class action law suit.
Re: (Score:2)
"fraudulent"
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
". could it be people opting out is hurting your data sales?"
yes, and it's not a secret so I'm not sure why you think it's bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
You are very underrated.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Do you find it so hard to recognise a cold sales call otherwise?