Charges for "non-published" landline numbers

[JDgreen227]

How many of you have what is called a non-published land line phone number, meaning it isn't printed in the phone book? We have Frontier (formerly Verizon) and for the past twenty years or more, we have been paying a charge for that so called "service", which is currently costing us $4.95 per month. Exactly why do phone companies charge their customers for such a service, $60 a year isn't much, but exactly WHAT are they providing for the fee? Neither Verizon nor Frontier or GTE (remember GTE?) wants to explain the charge.

 

[k0ua]

How many of you have what is called a non-published land line phone number, meaning it isn't printed in the phone book? We have Frontier (formerly Verizon) and for the past twenty years or more, we have been paying a charge for that so called "service", which is currently costing us $4.95 per month. Exactly why do phone companies charge their customers for such a service, $60 a year isn't much, but exactly WHAT are they providing for the fee? Neither Verizon nor Frontier or GTE (remember GTE?) wants to explain the charge.

They charge fees like that to try to remain in business. The landline phone business is a rough one. The number of subscribers declines constantly each month, the operating budgets are stretched extremely thin. If their data networking business is not supporting the landline end of the business then they will eventually go broke. Many of the company's had a mobile division, but most of that has now been broken up and went it's seperate way. It is ironic that in the beginning the "rich" landline business supported the fledgeling Mobile business. Then the Mobile business helped subsidize the faltering landline division, and then it was sold off, and now landline must try to exist on it's own..The future is not bright..

James K0UA

 

[Bird]

Way back in time (40+ years ago), there was no charge for what was then called "unlisted" numbers. I used to have one for one reason only; I was working nights, sleeping in the daytime, and got tired of sales people calling in the middle of the day. Since I'm not hiding from anyone, though, I haven't had an "unlisted" or "unpublished" number in over 40 years.:laughing: I knew they charge for that now, but have never paid such a charge.

 

[Scooby074]

IF i could be guaranteed that no telemarketers would call, id gladly pay $4.95/month

But even with being on the "Do not call list" we still probably average one telemarketer a day. **** annoying telemarketers They'll always find a loophole to try and contact you

 

[JDgreen227]

IF i could be guaranteed that no telemarketers would call, id gladly pay $4.95/month

But even with being on the "Do not call list" we still probably average one telemarketer a day. **** annoying telemarketers They'll always find a loophole to try and contact you

Two of my immediate neighbors are policemen, they also have to pay for non-published numbers to hide their home adresses and are as unhappy about it as I am. Seems to me the landline providers could simply charge thse with PUBLISHED numbers a nickle a month instead of gouging those with NON-published numbers $4.95 per month...

 

[Bird]

Two of my immediate neighbors are policemen, they also have to pay for non-published numbers to hide their home adresses and are as unhappy about it as I am. Seems to me the landline providers could simply charge thse with PUBLISHED numbers a nickle a month instead of gouging those with NON-published numbers $4.95 per month...

Yep, I know a lot of our officers did that, but I never did. I was working nights in the Post Office, was single (no wife to answer the phone:laughing when I had an unlisted number, but never did in the nearly 25 years I was a police officer.

I can certainly understand what K0ua is talking about though. More and more people we know pay big prices for cell phones, then no land line. We do the opposite; pay $90.73 (with all the taxes, fees, etc.) for a land line with all the bells & whistles (such as call forwarding, call waiting, unlimited long distance, 3-way calling, etc.) and 10 meg DSL Internet service. Then I pay $27.27, including taxes, every 3 months for my prepaid cell phone and never use up that at 10 cents a minute.:laughing: And a daughter provides and pays for my wife's cell phone on their family plan (i think it costs her $10 a month).

 

[CinderSchnauzer]

Seems to me the landline providers could simply charge thse with PUBLISHED numbers a nickle a month instead of gouging those with NON-published numbers $4.95 per month...

Now that is a novel approach. Charge more to those who do want the service so that those who do want the service can pay less.

 

[JDgreen227]

Now that is a novel approach. Charge more to those who do want the service so that those who do want the service can pay less.

Exactly what is the "service" the phone company is providing me by not publishing my number?? I am SAVING THEM the cost of printing my name, address, and number in fifty bazillion directories...:laughing:

No doubt they have to spend $4.95 per month in employee time looking up the information they need to mail me my bill....:laughing:

 

[jinman]

Bill, I think the telephone company would say that they are charging you because you are the "exception" by having a non-listed number. They have to block your number from being displayed by caller ID and also have to exclude you from telephone book listings. Whether it's more work for them or not, I'd bet they would say that exclusion costs them more than inclusion. Prior to the caller ID feature, it probably was cheaper as Bird and others have noted. Right or wrong, you know they'll have a prepared list of reasons it should cost you more.

 

[JDgreen227]

Bill, I think the telephone company would say that they are charging you because you are the "exception" by having a non-listed number. They have to block your number from being displayed by caller ID and also have to exclude you from telephone book listings. Whether it's more work for them or not, I'd bet they would say that exclusion costs them more than inclusion. Prior to the caller ID feature, it probably was cheaper as Bird and others have noted. Right or wrong, you know they'll have a prepared list of reasons it should cost you more.

True, and because we have only one landline provider, we are stuck with them.