Fees to Not Do Something

[BobandXiaomei 14]

Where is your outrage? This is crazy charging for No Service.

From http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/31/business/la-fi-lazarus-20100831 (with my emphasis)

Time Warner Cable doubles fee to not list phone number

That monthly $1.99 fee for something the company isn't doing for customers is now one of the highest of its type in the telecom industry, and there appears to be nothing to justify it.

August 31, 2010|David Lazarus

Time for an update on one of my all-time favorite fees — the fee that telecom companies charge to not provide you a service.

So if a customer asks that his or her name not be included in the directory, you'd think you'd be saving the telecom provider a little cash. That's one less entry in the database, for example, one less dollop of ink at the printer.

But this month, Time Warner Cable more than doubled its fee for an unlisted number to a whopping $1.99 a month, or nearly $24 a year.

The higher fee applies immediately for new customers. Existing customers will see their unlisted number charge go up in January.

Again, that's a recurring fee — now one of the highest of its type in the telecom industry — for something Time Warner isn't doing for customers.

What prompted the increase? I asked Jim Gordon, a Time Warner spokesman, if the company's own costs had gone up.

He declined to answer that question directly, saying only that this is "an administrative fee" and that it's "consistent with our competitors in this space."

Actually, it's higher. Verizon Communications charges $1.75 a month not to list your name in its phone book and not to give your number to people who call directory assistance. AT&T charges $1.25 monthly not to provide these services.

OK, so why is the unlisted number fee charged on a recurring basis? After all, your ongoing preference can be recorded with a few taps at a keyboard, and then it's done.

"It's a recurring service that you're provided throughout the month," Gordon explained.

Let's savor that a moment, shall we?

Time Warner and other telecom companies are charging for a service that consists of them basically not doing anything. And because they continue not to do anything month after month, they keep charging you on the grounds that it's a recurring service.

Time Warner's fee is all the more remarkable because the company doesn't produce its own phone book. It pays Sprint to compile all its customers' names and numbers, and to then pass them along to whichever phone company dominates a particular market for inclusion in that firm's directory.

Just to be clear: That's $1.99 a month not to be in a phone book that Time Warner doesn't even publish.

AT&T's and Verizon's fees are a little more understandable. After all, they make extra cash selling ads in their phone books. The more people who choose not to be listed, the less valuable the directory becomes to advertisers, so the phone company wants to discourage people from leaving.

But Time Warner isn't in the phone book business. Its recurring fee for unlisted numbers is a money grab, pure and simple.

And the unlisted number charge isn't the only way that the cable giant has started reaching deeper into people's pockets.

As of Aug. 6, the company raised its fee for customers to pay their bill by phone to $4.99 from $2.99. It also raised it fee for ordering pay-per-view by phone to $4.99 from $2.99.

I'm not trying to tell Time Warner how to run its business, but are such heavy-handed charges really the best way to maintain customer loyalty, especially during economic times like these?

"It's always a good time to give your customers options and choices, and we do that every day," Gordon replied.

State Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) introduced legislation in 2009 that would have prohibited telecom companies from charging a fee for unlisted numbers. She reasoned that protecting your privacy shouldn't cost you more.

But Pavley abandoned the bill after fierce opposition by phone and cable companies.

I told her about Time Warner doubling its charge. She wasn't pleased.

"This kind of an increase — during a time of such economic hardship for so many families — is plain wrong," Pavley said. "The fact that as many as 50% of Californians have chosen an unlisted number demonstrates that a large portion of the public care about the privacy of their phone number."

She added that "it's simply ludicrous that this 'service,' which involves doing absolutely nothing, should require a charge."

Unfortunately, she said the telecom industry will "kill any bill that even hints at impacting their profits." So don't hold your breath that things will change any time soon.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I don't know what's funnier; the fact that this is even an article/news or the hypocrisy of a politician wanting to 'protect privacy rights'

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

customer service seems to be a misnomer nowadays.

[nab 74]

Where is your outrage? This is crazy charging for No Service.

From http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/31/business/la-fi-lazarus-20100831 (with my emphasis)

what need for "outrage"? if sheep will pay for it then businesses will charge for it. They're in business to make money. are you required to pay it? no. you can choose not to have them remove you from the published phone book where they make money from advertising. if everyone chose to be "special" and not have their name listed, there wold be no revenue from the advertisers. So to request your name to be removed you are paying for lost revenue.

frugal solution? list your phone in any name, doesnt have to be YOUR name, or even anyone in your house (i.e. billing does not have to match what they put into the public telephone book), make up a name, use your initials...

and to save time and another post in response to "no one will find me like that" ... doesnt matter if no one can find you you didn't want your name in the book in first place, remember?

added benefit of the frugal solution, besides saving money, is that when someone calls your house asking for Engelbert Humperdinck you KNOW they are a telemarketer and can respond immediately with "remove me from your call list please, thank you" and hang up without wasting time listening to the spiel.

HTH

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Who has a landline anymore? I haven't for over 5 years.

[mawilson 2,133]

Who has a landline anymore? I haven't for over 5 years.

I do. I only use my cell phone as a pager and always call back from a landline.

[Heracles 417]

I don't know what's funnier; the fact that this is even an article/news or the hypocrisy of a politician wanting to 'protect privacy rights'

Trust you to find an angle for the government to blame for that actions of private sector.

I do. I only use my cell phone as a pager and always call back from a landline.

Yeah landlines are also way clearer.

At the very least, sign up with a VOIP service, which delivers ISDN grade call clarity and quality.

[mawilson 2,133]

Yeah landlines are also way clearer.

Well my provider is AT&T

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I do. I only use my cell phone as a pager and always call back from a landline.

It is cheaper for me to have a 1500 minute call plan that gives free cell to cell calls and just use that for everything. I have a magic jack if I really don't want to use my cell phone but I don't use it much.

[nab 74]

Who has a landline anymore? I haven't for over 5 years.

some businesses require a landline (i.e. when applying for credit cards etc). for those who want to get around this (go completely cellular and still do business with those companies) you can call your cellular company, tell them you want to port your home number over to your cellphone. folow their instructions how to do it, because you dont cancel your home phone right away.

you keep a 'landline' number with the convenience of a cellphone, with all the high cost 'extras' of a landline for free (voicemail, caller ID, call waiting, etc are usually free on cell here in USA).

this is especially handy for folks who are moving so you dont have to notify everyone of your new number.

as for clarity... i dont know what to say to that since that hasnt been an issue for me in MANY years. when i first began i had AT&T and it was an issue with them, as well as they were over-priced. i switched to Sprint and have never looked back!