Latest Telco Fee: Your Fee For Not Paying Fees

from the do-you-have-to-pay-a-fee-to-find-out-about-your-fees dept

Fri, May 4th 2007 6:39am — Mike Masnick

For many years, we've had stories about people getting incredibly pissed off at hidden fees, often from the telco industry. The industry tries to defend those fees, but they're really just ways of lying about the actual price so they can advertise low prices and actually charge you a lot more. The telcos really love these fees. Remember last year when telcos no longer had to charge a certain government mandated fee, and instead simply replaced it with a new fee with a meaningless name that they just got to pocket? The latest is also a fun one. Chronno S. Trigger lets us know that Verizon is charging some customers a fee for not using its long distance service. Yes, you read that right. There's a $2 fee for some customers if they don't make any long distance calls. But, it gets even better. If you want to get rid of it, you can pay a one-time fee of $6.75 to block all long distance calls on your phone. Verizon, almost comically, tries to defend the $2 fee by coming up with an absolutely bizarre example: "Because what they're helping to do is supporting the network they would use if their cousin Tillie is critically ill in California and they need to arrange a critical-care nurse." Oh, of course. If only Verizon had said it was all so I could help cousin Tillie in the first place, I'm sure everyone would be thrilled to pay the fee. In the meantime, will Verizon be okay if its customers charge it a fee for having to waste time understanding all its fees? How about if they swear that money will go towards helping poor cousin Tillie who needs a critical-care nurse? Verizon obviously wouldn't mind that.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

34 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

dorpus, 4 May 2007 @ 7:09am

Verizon, heh
Why do they even bother advertising that they have the best coverage of any network? My consistent experience with them has been that they have no signal on large stretches of rural roads, plus I couldn't even get a signal in my last two apartments. Cingular has worked better for me, not that they are any more ethical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mike, 4 May 2007 @ 7:51am
  
  Re: Verizon, heh
  Verizon, not Verizon Wireless...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2007 @ 11:07am
  
  Re: Verizon, heh
  duh.......Verizon Landline...not Verizon Wireless. Way to read the article.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Non-Mouse Cow Herd, 4 May 2007 @ 7:09am

hrmmm
I thought for sure you would have reverted back to your old layout.

Oh well, time to remove TD from my /ig

Its a pity that you decided to yahoo a perfectly google site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matt Bennett, 4 May 2007 @ 8:03am
  
  Re: hrmmm
  Well, that was unnecessarily snippy.
  
  But I don't like the new look either, just so you have it on record.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jordan, 4 May 2007 @ 8:30am
    
    Re: Re: hrmmm
    agreed
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dosquatch, 4 May 2007 @ 8:43am
    
    Re: Re: hrmmm
    Hey, guys, be nice now. I grant, the new color scheme could use a bit of retooling... the opening splash is a touch heavy-handed... but otherwise, the refresh to the layout seems pretty clean and functional to me.
    
    Oh, hey, and this nifty new pop-over for replies rocks!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dosquatch, 4 May 2007 @ 8:48am
      
      Re: hrmmm
      ... and it still chains "Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ", I do wish that was fixed. Y'know, since everything here hinges on my opinion ;-)
      
      I guess what I'm saying, though, is constructive criticism is a better way to go than just flinging dung.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - erinol0, 4 May 2007 @ 9:35am
        
        Re: hrmmm
        looks better in Firefox. When I use IE to view the page, the page gets squeezed to the right, and the sidebar is at the bottom left.
        Is that part of everyone's issue with the layout? I must say I like it, although I agree that the view should be threaded by default. Also, I like the pop-over for replies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dosquatch, 4 May 2007 @ 10:17am
        
        Re: hrmmm
        [...] I agree that the view should be threaded by default.
        
        You can set this. Up in the cream-colored toolbar, all the way to the right, "Your Preferences". There's a radio button that'll let you set threaded as the default. I think it's per computer, though, so if you read TD from multiple machines you might have to set it more than once.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Alan, 4 May 2007 @ 9:12am
  
  Re: hrmmm
  I agree, the former format was WAY better. This one sucks... And why arent comments threaded by default...you would think this to be the preferred view.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Eric the Grey, 4 May 2007 @ 9:39am
    
    Re: Re: hrmmm
    There is "Your Preferences" link at the top of the page where you can set that.
    
    Overall, I did prefer the old layout, but this is not so bad as to drive me away.
    
    EtG
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Charles Griswold, 4 May 2007 @ 12:17pm
    
    Re: Re: hrmmm
    And why arent comments threaded by default...you would think this to be the preferred view.
    
    Personally, I prefer a flat view.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Jerk, 4 May 2007 @ 8:28am

Verizon & VZW both suck
I speak from experience. My first cell phone was with Verizon. My parents had T-mobile. Inside my house, if I wanted to make (or receive, for that matter) a phone call, I had to lean against a window. My parents? No problem making/receiving calls.

Now, as for their phone service, it, too, is crappy. I've since switched to Vongage (lol, might be Vonage-Verizon in the not-too-distant-future!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Help The Clueless, 4 May 2007 @ 8:36am

First this is Verizon phone service not their cellular company. Secondly if another vendor has a tower closer to you by all means go with them, they will provide better service for you, there is no reason to come whine here about your inability to research a companies foot print in your area and claim ignorance when you get crappy service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Royal Blue, 4 May 2007 @ 8:38am

I encountered this same thing
A few years back, I encountered this same exact thing with Verizon. It was a 4th line in the house that was NEVER used for LD calls, and I found out that there would be a monthly fee in order to carry no LD service.

My sister suggested that she should send an invoice to everyone in the country for NOT using her company's services!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GoblinJuice, 4 May 2007 @ 9:15am

Fees suck.

Don't care about the new design/color scheme/whatever of TD. It works. That's all that matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sanguine Dream, 4 May 2007 @ 9:29am

Raked/Raped over the coals
And this is why that $20/mn phone plus $24.99/mn DSL adds up to a $90 total bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dosquatch, 4 May 2007 @ 10:28am
  
  Re: Raked/Raped over the coals
  VZW base plan: $69.99
  
  3 additional lines: $9.99/ea
  
  last bill: $124.78
  
  difference: $24.82 in misc crap charges over the "advertised price"
  
  I don't understand how this isn't false advertising. How long do you think Applebee's would get away with it if they padded the price of dinner out an extra $7 with "fees" and "charges" that weren't disclosed until after the meal?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patrick, 4 May 2007 @ 9:35am

site
The site looks just fine. A little class never hurts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob, 4 May 2007 @ 9:37am

Verizon's Fees
We canceled LD with Verizon several years ago. The fee back then to drop it was $5.00. I was incredulous, but so wanted to get rid of it that at that point it was worth it. Apparently, the fee to do away with it has increased presumably because it requires so much work. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
R. Berlin (profile), 4 May 2007 @ 9:42am

verizon
Yes, it's $2.00 a month and here in Michigan the heap on the indignity by adding tax to that. Total $2.19 monthly for not making long distance calls. I'm so close to dropping the land line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DCX2, 4 May 2007 @ 10:27am

It's just like cable or DSL
For cable, they charge you an extra fee if you just get Cable Internet without any Cable TV.

If you order DSL without a phone line, there's also an extra fee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dosquatch, 4 May 2007 @ 10:37am
  
  Re: It's just like cable or DSL
  The other side of that story is that the primary purpose of the line is to carry television signals. What they don't tell you is that "on" is "on", when they flip the switch so you can pick up the internet feed, basic cable flows down the wire just as well even if you haven't specifically ordered it.
  
  They can put clamping filters on the line so the broadcast frequencies don't pass, but they typically don't (unless they think there's a reason to) because those filters are a little on the pricey side. The extra fee is mostly to offset the people who know this and hook their televisions up after the installer has left.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vernon, 4 May 2007 @ 10:47am

Verizon is not alone...
AT&T does the same thing if you "choose" them as your long distance company and you are their customer... Fees suck...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dai, 4 May 2007 @ 10:48am

more than $2.00
Actually, here in Boston my latest Verizon Landline bill says the fee is going from
$2 to $4 as of May. Note that it's actually a minimum usage charge since the
$2 (or $4) is applied to the LD calls that you do (or don't make).

While this plan has "no monthly charge" (other than the
minimum usage), they do offer a different LD plan that has a
$3/month fee, and no mention of a minimum usage requirement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2007 @ 11:25am

I'm sure everyone has cell phone horror stories about one carrier or the next. There's no point in bashing a carrier because they don't have good coverage in your area. It isn't indicative of anything. Just switch to the wireless service with best coverage. I find these "Verizon sucks because they have bad coverage in my limited local area of the country" comments to be utterly useless.

In the Washington DC area Verizon is hands down the only carrier with even decent coverage for the whole metro area. You can even use your cell in the metro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger, 4 May 2007 @ 12:16pm
  
  Re:
  That's great and all but you'd think that they would strive to even have decent coverage in a city like Pittsburgh. (It's crap up here)
  
  And I can complain because I also have other horror stories about the bill and tech support. (wireless, wired, and DSL)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sanguine Dream, 4 May 2007 @ 7:17pm
  
  Re:
  The complaints me prove useless in the end but I for one don't think being quiet is going to do any good either. I personally only have one choice for DSL (sprint), land line (sprint), and cell phone (US Cellular). When I'm in the shop of a different carrier I always mention the fact that there is only one choice in my area. I know it doesn't guarantee that competition will move in but it's elections. If you don't voice your opinion then you have business complaining.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Raptor85, 4 May 2007 @ 12:40pm

how to make verizon dsl a little bit cheaper
I'm a verizon/vzw customer. (only DSL provider here is verizon, only cell with decent coverage is VZW, cingular normally ok but there's a ton of cingular dead zones, but back on topic..)
If all you want from verizon is the dsl, not the phone service, ask them and they'll do it, you just have to pay some stupid line fee (but it's much smaller than a phone bill, like $6 a month IIRC)
I have small buisness but at my old apartment i had it for VZ residential too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JR, 5 May 2007 @ 3:42am

Re:
I have VZ service. Was paying MCI $2/mo for a plan which I didn't use much. About 2001 or 2002, I changed the LD to a MCI plan with no monthly fee, then had VZ block access to MCI. No monthly or one-time fee. I can make 1-800 calls ok, and have an AT&T calling card for LD and any "just-beyond-local" calls I need. Bill is about $17/mo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2007 @ 6:27am

Qwest does this too (i.e. charge people to not have long distance). Only its fee is 99 cents per month. They don't have a one time fee to get rid of the fee, but I wish they did. No I wish they didn't charge it at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mkam, 7 May 2007 @ 5:03am

Those f*ckers
I just sent this to Verizon after I saw the fee

Are you guys seriously charging 2 dollars minimum for me not using my long distance?
As discussed on the web here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/184330.shtml
http://reporternews.com/news/2007/may /03/phone-companies-levy-new-fee-not-making-calls/

If you answer yes I will be moving my home, DSL, and cell phone to other providers ASAP. ($200+ per month) This will be the most expensive $2.00 Verizon ever charged anyone. So remove the fee and stop sacrificing customer support for the immediate short-term financial gain.

I look forward to your reply.

I was on the fence with them anyway and this will push me over the edge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
njamen, 9 May 2007 @ 8:51am

ask for a cable
it is with plaesure for me to writing u this letter.
i am a small boy for another country for ask a cable internet network for free give to me it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]