Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

the latest absurdity: CONVIENIENCE FEE

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
May 2, 2005 2:57:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

This is by far the most classic (and sad at the same time) 'nickel-and-dime'
fee I've ever seen.

If you want to pay your bill in an actual Verizon store, they charge you a
$2.00 fee. So you are basically PAYING AN EXTRA FEE TO PAY YOUR BILL in
person. I cannot believe it.

What will they think of next?

Since when did it cost Verizon money to COLLECT money from its own
customers?

If it weren't so heinous, it would be laughable.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 2:57:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Xman wrote:
> What else do you expect from that fat corporate pig of Verizon Wireless?

Uh, Sprint does the same thing.

Sprint doesn't charge you if you pay in the store at the payment machine, only
if you talk to a human to pay, and our VZW store here has a payment machine and
I bet they have the same policy.

Other companies have the same policy because it costs more for a person (who
you're generally paying hourly) to take the payment, than for a computer to do it.

So VZW isn't the only company that does this. Not saying that it makes it any
more right or wrong...


--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 3:50:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

This is just about as bad as the "occupation privilege" tax that we pay
locally.

"Alan" <test@test.com> wrote in message
news:B9dde.130$5o2.31@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> This is by far the most classic (and sad at the same time)
'nickel-and-dime'
> fee I've ever seen.
>
> If you want to pay your bill in an actual Verizon store, they charge you a
> $2.00 fee. So you are basically PAYING AN EXTRA FEE TO PAY YOUR BILL in
> person. I cannot believe it.
>
> What will they think of next?
>
> Since when did it cost Verizon money to COLLECT money from its own
> customers?
>
> If it weren't so heinous, it would be laughable.
>
>
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 3:50:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On 5/1/05 7:50 PM, in article _Wdde.3215$5I5.346938@newshog.newsread.com,
"SOME BAD HAT HARRY" <badhatharry@yahoo.com> wrote:

> This is just about as bad as the "occupation privilege" tax that we pay
> locally.

Aaah, another Pennsylvania resident!
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 4:08:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

>
> Sprint doesn't charge you if you pay in the store at the payment machine,
> only if you talk to a human to pay, and our VZW store here has a payment
> machine and I bet they have the same policy.

And, that wouldn't be so bad, but when I worked at the VZW store, the Bill
Payment Kisok (BPK) often crashed, and the customer who had to make a
payment had to wait for a customer service rep, or a manager, to first free
up from what they were doing, and then reboot or somehow fix the machine.

ex-tech
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 4:08:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

ex-tech wrote:
>>Sprint doesn't charge you if you pay in the store at the payment machine,
>>only if you talk to a human to pay, and our VZW store here has a payment
>>machine and I bet they have the same policy.
>
>
> And, that wouldn't be so bad, but when I worked at the VZW store, the Bill
> Payment Kisok (BPK) often crashed, and the customer who had to make a
> payment had to wait for a customer service rep, or a manager, to first free
> up from what they were doing, and then reboot or somehow fix the machine.

The one time the local Sprint payment machine was down, a store rep took my
payment and credited me the $5 since the payment fee which was going to be
automatically charged. In such a case, I think you could succesfully convince a
VZW rep or manager to issue a credit or not charge the convenience fee. Most
VZW store employees, I've found, are generally pretty reasonable folks. ;) 


--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 5:02:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Alan" <test@test.com> wrote in message
news:B9dde.130$5o2.31@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> This is by far the most classic (and sad at the same time)
> 'nickel-and-dime' fee I've ever seen.
>
> If you want to pay your bill in an actual Verizon store, they charge you a
> $2.00 fee. So you are basically PAYING AN EXTRA FEE TO PAY YOUR BILL in
> person. I cannot believe it.
>
> What will they think of next?
>
> Since when did it cost Verizon money to COLLECT money from its own
> customers?
>
> If it weren't so heinous, it would be laughable.

Many banks do the same thing-- ATM transactions are free but they nail you a
buck or two to play pattie-cake with a teller.

It does cost them more to have a person rather than a machine deal with you
but you're right, it does piss a guy off when they charge you a user fee.
Seems it ought to be part of the G&A overhead.

Where will it end? Stores may start charge customers a special carpet
cleaning and recovery fee if you come in on a rainy day and drip water from
your umbrella or track mud from your shoes;-)

Doc
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 7:42:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

A local Credit Union branch has no tellers, only an atm. The two
people who work there, are jvst for opening vp new accovnts etc.
May 2, 2005 12:39:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

There's a fine line between profits and greed.

Verizon posted a 1st qvarter profit of nearly 2 billion dollars this year SO
FAR.

I'm all for capitalism, I know they have stockholders, and they're in
bvsiness to make money.

Bvt to charge its own cvstomers to pay their bills in person is jvst
flat-ovt greedy.


"Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6lhde.2879$HL2.678@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> A local Credit Union branch has no tellers, only an atm. The two people
> who work there, are jvst for opening vp new accovnts etc.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 2:55:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Alan" <test@test.com> wrote in message
news:4Hlde.11653$J12.1410@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> There's a fine line between profits and greed.
>
> Verizon posted a 1st quarter profit of nearly 2 billion dollars this year
> SO FAR.
>
> I'm all for capitalism, I know they have stockholders, and they're in
> business to make money.
>
> But to charge its own customers to pay their bills in person is just
> flat-out greedy.

No, you're a flat-out socialist;-)

Doc
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 3:16:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sun, 01 May 2005 22:57:37 GMT, "Alan" <test@test.com> wrote:

>This is by far the most classic (and sad at the same time) 'nickel-and-dime'
>fee I've ever seen.
>
>If you want to pay your bill in an actual Verizon store, they charge you a
>$2.00 fee. So you are basically PAYING AN EXTRA FEE TO PAY YOUR BILL in
>person. I cannot believe it.
>
>What will they think of next?
>
>Since when did it cost Verizon money to COLLECT money from its own
>customers?
>
>If it weren't so heinous, it would be laughable.

Pay at the payment machine.
--
To reply, remove TheObvious from my e-mail address.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 3:17:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Mon, 02 May 2005 00:08:07 GMT, "ex-tech"
<kbechernospam@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>And, that wouldn't be so bad, but when I worked at the VZW store, the Bill
>Payment Kisok (BPK) often crashed, and the customer who had to make a
>payment had to wait for a customer service rep, or a manager, to first free
>up from what they were doing, and then reboot or somehow fix the machine.

A savvy customer would simply hit C-A-D. :) 
--
To reply, remove TheObvious from my e-mail address.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 6:09:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

I would rather not may higher wireless bills to pay for other people to
be able to pay their bill to a person.
I guess that makes me greedy.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 6:09:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

My guess is that the "CONVIENIENCE FEE" is to change people's behavior if it
works then this option to pay in person will go away.
May 2, 2005 6:09:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Stanley Reynolds wrote:
> My guess is that the "CONVIENIENCE FEE" is to change people's behavior if it
> works then this option to pay in person will go away.
>
>

My guess is they want to change the behavior because they don't want to
have a lot of cash at those locations which would make them an easy
target for robberies. I know the package delivery companies (UPS, FEDX)
will not accept cash on a COD delivery for that reason. The only reason
you would need to pay at a store is if you were paying with cash. If you
have a checking account you can do a ACH transfer directly fron your
phone.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 6:54:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"SOME BAD HAT HARRY" <badhatharry@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_Wdde.3215$5I5.346938@newshog.newsread.com...
> This is just about as bad as the "occupation privilege" tax that we pay
> locally.



What is an "occupation privilege" tax ? Do the welfare leeches have to pay
it too? Thats a new one me?
>
> "Alan" <test@test.com> wrote in message
> news:B9dde.130$5o2.31@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> This is by far the most classic (and sad at the same time)
> 'nickel-and-dime'
>> fee I've ever seen.
>>
>> If you want to pay your bill in an actual Verizon store, they charge you
>> a
>> $2.00 fee. So you are basically PAYING AN EXTRA FEE TO PAY YOUR BILL in
>> person. I cannot believe it.
>>
>> What will they think of next?
>>
>> Since when did it cost Verizon money to COLLECT money from its own
>> customers?
>>
>> If it weren't so heinous, it would be laughable.
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 6:54:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Roughrider50" <corkyf56@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_arde.6207198$Zm5.936511@news.easynews.com...
>
> "SOME BAD HAT HARRY" <badhatharry@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:_Wdde.3215$5I5.346938@newshog.newsread.com...
> > This is just about as bad as the "occupation privilege" tax that
we pay
> > locally.
>
>
>
> What is an "occupation privilege" tax ? Do the welfare leeches
have to pay
> it too? Thats a new one me?

It's a tax that was created probably in the 1950s when people started
moving out to the suburbs.

The view was that people who work in a community benefit from the
services and infrastructure and therefor should contribute to maintain
these benefits.

I grew up in Pittsburgh and I think that it was one of the first
places to institute the tax. I never understood why I had to pay the
tax as I lived in the city and benefited from the great roads and
highway systems in place!

Chas.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 7:43:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> A local Credit Union branch has no tellers, only an atm. The two
> people who work there, are jvst for opening vp new accovnts etc.

Wow, a far cry from the days went people went to credit vnions BECAUSE
they specialized in one-on-one service and DIDN'T steer yov to the atm
for every little thing.

--
E-mail fvdged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
May 2, 2005 8:53:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Alan wrote on [Sun, 01 May 2005 22:57:37 GMT]:
> This is by far the most classic (and sad at the same time) 'nickel-and-dime'
> fee I've ever seen.
>
> If you want to pay your bill in an actual Verizon store, they charge you a
> $2.00 fee. So you are basically PAYING AN EXTRA FEE TO PAY YOUR BILL in
> person. I cannot believe it.
>
> What will they think of next?

Checks, sending payments in by mail, paying online?

Welcome to the 20th century?
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 8:53:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Why would anyone want to go into a Verizon store to pay their bill? I does
not make sense to me.

"Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd7cmov.9ku.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
> Alan wrote on [Sun, 01 May 2005 22:57:37 GMT]:
>> This is by far the most classic (and sad at the same time)
>> 'nickel-and-dime'
>> fee I've ever seen.
>>
>> If you want to pay your bill in an actual Verizon store, they charge you
>> a
>> $2.00 fee. So you are basically PAYING AN EXTRA FEE TO PAY YOUR BILL in
>> person. I cannot believe it.
>>
>> What will they think of next?
>
> Checks, sending payments in by mail, paying online?
>
> Welcome to the 20th century?
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 8:53:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

They were just getting tied up with too many people
who couldn't get anyone else to talk to them... They
were all driving to their local store to chit chat with a
captive audience under the guise of paying their bill
in person.

-Quick

Mij Adyaw wrote:
> Why would anyone want to go into a Verizon store to pay
> their bill? I does not make sense to me.
>
> "Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnd7cmov.9ku.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
>> Alan wrote on [Sun, 01 May 2005 22:57:37 GMT]:
>>> This is by far the most classic (and sad at the same
>>> time) 'nickel-and-dime'
>>> fee I've ever seen.
>>>
>>> If you want to pay your bill in an actual Verizon
>>> store, they charge you a
>>> $2.00 fee. So you are basically PAYING AN EXTRA FEE TO
>>> PAY YOUR BILL in person. I cannot believe it.
>>>
>>> What will they think of next?
>>
>> Checks, sending payments in by mail, paying online?
>>
>> Welcome to the 20th century?
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 9:17:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sun, 01 May 2005 21:53:53 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>The one time the local Sprint payment machine was down, a store rep took my
>payment and credited me the $5 since the payment fee which was going to be
>automatically charged. In such a case, I think you could succesfully convince a
>VZW rep or manager to issue a credit or not charge the convenience fee. Most
>VZW store employees, I've found, are generally pretty reasonable folks. ;) 

I think most would do as your SPCS rep did; credit the fee without the
customer having to ask. And based on my experiences, I have to agree
about VZW store employees being pretty reasonable people, except for
that one un-holy bitch who disassembled my phone, certain that it had
been dropped in water, and upon finding the litness paper intact,
wouldn't put it back together so I could retrieve my contact list from
it.

I still won't walk into VZW's Greenville, SC, Woodruff Road store.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 9:20:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Mon, 02 May 2005 11:17:19 -0700, Evan Platt
<evan@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 02 May 2005 00:08:07 GMT, "ex-tech"
><kbechernospam@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>And, that wouldn't be so bad, but when I worked at the VZW store, the Bill
>>Payment Kisok (BPK) often crashed, and the customer who had to make a
>>payment had to wait for a customer service rep, or a manager, to first free
>>up from what they were doing, and then reboot or somehow fix the machine.
>
>A savvy customer would simply hit C-A-D. :) 

No, a savvy customer would bring it to the attention of a store rep
and not try to "fix" equipment that doesn't belong to them.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 9:35:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Mon, 02 May 2005 12:24:13 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>My guess is they want to change the behavior because they don't want to
>have a lot of cash at those locations which would make them an easy
>target for robberies.

I don't really think that was their reason. If they don't have people
bringing in cash and checks, they don't have to make a bank deposit.
They started processing checks in the stores and debiting the money
directly out of customers' accounts several months ago. This just
seems to be an extension of that. If they were truly concerned about
large amounts of cash, that's what they make drop safes for. Besides,
there are plenty of other places around which make for better robbery
targets. Ever see Pulp Fiction?;-)
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 9:39:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Mon, 2 May 2005 10:30:28 -0700, "Mij Adyaw" <mijadyaw@nospam.com>
wrote:

>Why would anyone want to go into a Verizon store to pay their bill? I does
>not make sense to me.

Until recently, I used to do it quite regularly. I pass my local
store 4-6 times a day, so it's not out of my way, plus it was a
convenient excuse to see what new phones were out And it helped to
build a rapport with the staff. Everyone in there (except the one new
sales rep) knows me by name, and have given me nothing but excellent
service.
May 2, 2005 9:47:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> "Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnd7cmov.9ku.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
>> Alan wrote on [Sun, 01 May 2005 22:57:37 GMT]:
>>> This is by far the most classic (and sad at the same time)
>>> 'nickel-and-dime'
>>> fee I've ever seen.
>>>
>>> If you want to pay your bill in an actual Verizon store, they charge you
>>> a
>>> $2.00 fee. So you are basically PAYING AN EXTRA FEE TO PAY YOUR BILL in
>>> person. I cannot believe it.
>>>
>>> What will they think of next?
>>
>> Checks, sending payments in by mail, paying online?
>>
>> Welcome to the 20th century?
>
[post fixed]

Mij Adyaw wrote on [Mon, 2 May 2005 10:30:28 -0700]:
> Why would anyone want to go into a Verizon store to pay their bill? I does
> not make sense to me.

Exactly my point. Surely it's gotta cost more to drive to the store than
to put a check in the mail.
May 2, 2005 10:15:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Its not that complex. Just take a minute and think what actually is going on
here.

Instead of rationalizing why its absurd to give money to a human, and think
of all the reasons VZW has for changing a fee, just ask yourself a simple
question:

Why am I being charged a fee to actually pay my bill in person?

I do think some of the responses make sense (not wanting a lot of cash in
the stores is very sensible) but don't any of you think this fee is a bit
over the line?

----


"Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd7cpud.9ku.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
>> "Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrnd7cmov.9ku.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
>>> Alan wrote on [Sun, 01 May 2005 22:57:37 GMT]:
>>>> This is by far the most classic (and sad at the same time)
>>>> 'nickel-and-dime'
>>>> fee I've ever seen.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to pay your bill in an actual Verizon store, they charge
>>>> you
>>>> a
>>>> $2.00 fee. So you are basically PAYING AN EXTRA FEE TO PAY YOUR BILL in
>>>> person. I cannot believe it.
>>>>
>>>> What will they think of next?
>>>
>>> Checks, sending payments in by mail, paying online?
>>>
>>> Welcome to the 20th century?
>>
> [post fixed]
>
> Mij Adyaw wrote on [Mon, 2 May 2005 10:30:28 -0700]:
>> Why would anyone want to go into a Verizon store to pay their bill? I
>> does
>> not make sense to me.
>
> Exactly my point. Surely it's gotta cost more to drive to the store than
> to put a check in the mail.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:15:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Alan wrote:
> Its not that complex. Just take a minute and think what actually is going on
> here.
>
> Instead of rationalizing why its absurd to give money to a human, and think
> of all the reasons VZW has for changing a fee, just ask yourself a simple
> question:
>
> Why am I being charged a fee to actually pay my bill in person?

We're not rationalizing anything. You, on the other hand, are trying to
cling to a practice that has become outmoded in favor of methods and
technologies that are far easier to perform, and are more efficient to
process. It's very simple: hiring people to handle in erson payments
*costs money*. On the other hand, the company is under pressure to keep
costs *down*. So,for those who want that extra touch that is more
costly, a premium is assessed.

I can't understand the complete disparity in rational thought when
someone bemoans the loss of personal interaction when they carry around
a cell phone; the de facto symbol of technocractic depersonalization,
and for the more militant, a symbol of downright rudeness. :) 

> I do think some of the responses make sense (not wanting a lot of cash in
> the stores is very sensible) but don't any of you think this fee is a bit
> over the line?

$2? No, I don't think so. Verizon COULD just add $2 a month to
everyone's bill, and then allow in person payments to be free. WOuld
that make you happier?

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:26:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Evan Platt wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2005 00:08:07 GMT, "ex-tech"
> <kbechernospam@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>And, that wouldn't be so bad, but when I worked at the VZW store, the Bill
>>Payment Kisok (BPK) often crashed, and the customer who had to make a
>>payment had to wait for a customer service rep, or a manager, to first free
>>up from what they were doing, and then reboot or somehow fix the machine.
>
>
> A savvy customer would simply hit C-A-D. :) 

The payment kiosks are NOT computers. Touch screen input.
May 2, 2005 10:38:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> "Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnd7cpud.9ku.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
>>> "Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnd7cmov.9ku.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
>>>> Alan wrote on [Sun, 01 May 2005 22:57:37 GMT]:
>>>>> This is by far the most classic (and sad at the same time)
>>>>> 'nickel-and-dime'
>>>>> fee I've ever seen.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to pay your bill in an actual Verizon store, they charge
>>>>> you
>>>>> a
>>>>> $2.00 fee. So you are basically PAYING AN EXTRA FEE TO PAY YOUR BILL in
>>>>> person. I cannot believe it.
>>>>>
>>>>> What will they think of next?
>>>>
>>>> Checks, sending payments in by mail, paying online?
>>>>
>>>> Welcome to the 20th century?
>>>
>> [post fixed]
>>
>> Mij Adyaw wrote on [Mon, 2 May 2005 10:30:28 -0700]:
>>> Why would anyone want to go into a Verizon store to pay their bill? I
>>> does
>>> not make sense to me.
>>
>> Exactly my point. Surely it's gotta cost more to drive to the store than
>> to put a check in the mail.
>
>

[post fixed]

Alan wrote on [Mon, 02 May 2005 18:15:50 GMT]:
> Instead of rationalizing why its absurd to give money to a human, and think
> of all the reasons VZW has for changing a fee, just ask yourself a simple
> question:
>
> Why am I being charged a fee to actually pay my bill in person?

Because it costs money to have someone take your payment, input it into
the system, print and hand you a receipt? Money that could be better
spent selling someone something instead of brining in money that is
already going to come in.


> I do think some of the responses make sense (not wanting a lot of cash in
> the stores is very sensible) but don't any of you think this fee is a bit
> over the line?

I take it the banks in your area don't charge these kinds of fees for
teller service either then.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:38:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Justin wrote:

>>I do think some of the responses make sense (not wanting a lot of cash in
>>the stores is very sensible) but don't any of you think this fee is a bit
>>over the line?
>
>
> I take it the banks in your area don't charge these kinds of fees for
> teller service either then.

Actually, many banks have removed this type of fee, and offer "unlimited
teller transactions" with even the "free" accounts now. I see that as a
different case though. If you have a technical problem with a wireless
phone, Verizon and other carriers don't charge you a fee just to look at
the phone (usually, anyway). They are ONLY charging for payments; a
routine and moribund operation that can handled easily through automated
processes. On the other hand, banks were charging for EVERY teller
transaction, even if there was a genuine problem that required human
interaction to resolve.


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 11:28:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

No. I think they shovld charge $10 or $20, or jvst like a local credit
vnion branch here, there are no tellers, jvst kiosk machine only.
And yov can only vse it when they are open. There is no drive throvgh.
May 3, 2005 12:44:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Some of these reasons for the fee do make sense.

But tell me how this works.

In a VZW store;

-you open a new account with a human.
-the human processes the new account into a computer.
-you buy a phone from a human.
-the human processes the purchase into a computer.
-the human then uses the computer terminal to activate your phone.

Why is it so crazy to think that same human CANT ACCEPT PAYMENT FOR YOUR
ACCOUNT AND PUT INTO THE SAME COMPUTER?!

c'mon.

Its not about fees, profits, kiosks, etc.

ITS LOGIC.

Does it really cost them more time & money to put PROCESS ONE MORE OPTION
WITH THAT SAME HUMAN?

I'm not a sheep. I'm a thinking man.

WHAT HAPPENED TO CRITICAL THINKING in this country?

"Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
news:117d1e2qmvuug4c@corp.supernews.com...
> Alan wrote:
>> Its not that complex. Just take a minute and think what actually is going
>> on here.
>>
>> Instead of rationalizing why its absurd to give money to a human, and
>> think of all the reasons VZW has for changing a fee, just ask yourself a
>> simple question:
>>
>> Why am I being charged a fee to actually pay my bill in person?
>
> We're not rationalizing anything. You, on the other hand, are trying to
> cling to a practice that has become outmoded in favor of methods and
> technologies that are far easier to perform, and are more efficient to
> process. It's very simple: hiring people to handle in erson payments
> *costs money*. On the other hand, the company is under pressure to keep
> costs *down*. So,for those who want that extra touch that is more costly,
> a premium is assessed.
>
> I can't understand the complete disparity in rational thought when someone
> bemoans the loss of personal interaction when they carry around a cell
> phone; the de facto symbol of technocractic depersonalization, and for the
> more militant, a symbol of downright rudeness. :) 
>
>> I do think some of the responses make sense (not wanting a lot of cash in
>> the stores is very sensible) but don't any of you think this fee is a bit
>> over the line?
>
> $2? No, I don't think so. Verizon COULD just add $2 a month to
> everyone's bill, and then allow in person payments to be free. WOuld that
> make you happier?
>
> --
> E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
> Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
May 3, 2005 12:53:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Alan wrote on [Mon, 02 May 2005 20:44:32 GMT]:
> Some of these reasons for the fee do make sense.
>
> But tell me how this works.
>
> In a VZW store;
>
> -you open a new account with a human.
> -the human processes the new account into a computer.
> -you buy a phone from a human.
> -the human processes the purchase into a computer.
> -the human then uses the computer terminal to activate your phone.
>
> Why is it so crazy to think that same human CANT ACCEPT PAYMENT FOR YOUR
> ACCOUNT AND PUT INTO THE SAME COMPUTER?!

Because all of the above processes involved creating MORE revenue for
the company. Not just collecting revenue already due.


> Its not about fees, profits, kiosks, etc.
>
> ITS LOGIC.
>
> I'm not a sheep. I'm a thinking man.
>
> WHAT HAPPENED TO CRITICAL THINKING in this country?

You tell me, you apparently seem to be the one who can't grasp the
concept.
May 3, 2005 1:19:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

ahh yes, of course. that explains it.

using your logic. why bother having stores at all.

-rent
-leases
-employees
-site insurance

aren't those expenses?

yes I'm sure that extra step creates a total labor catastrophe in the retail
locations.

you can open an account, shop, buy, and activate cell phones ALL ONLINE
TODAY. why bother with retail locations at all? aren't they revenue leaks
too?

you actually believe that VZW created a 'convenience fee' because its a
process that serves to collect revenue already due?

"Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd7d4pq.9ku.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
> Alan wrote on [Mon, 02 May 2005 20:44:32 GMT]:
>> Some of these reasons for the fee do make sense.
>>
>> But tell me how this works.
>>
>> In a VZW store;
>>
>> -you open a new account with a human.
>> -the human processes the new account into a computer.
>> -you buy a phone from a human.
>> -the human processes the purchase into a computer.
>> -the human then uses the computer terminal to activate your phone.
>>
>> Why is it so crazy to think that same human CANT ACCEPT PAYMENT FOR YOUR
>> ACCOUNT AND PUT INTO THE SAME COMPUTER?!
>
> Because all of the above processes involved creating MORE revenue for
> the company. Not just collecting revenue already due.
>
>
>> Its not about fees, profits, kiosks, etc.
>>
>> ITS LOGIC.
>>
>> I'm not a sheep. I'm a thinking man.
>>
>> WHAT HAPPENED TO CRITICAL THINKING in this country?
>
> You tell me, you apparently seem to be the one who can't grasp the
> concept.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 1:19:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:22:25 -0700, Steve Sobol wrote:

>There are two officially accepted methods of accounting in the USA. One is cash
>basis, which records revenue when money's collected. The other is accrual
>basis, which records revenue when the bill is printed up and sent out.
>Sometimes those two points in time are exactly the same, but not for a business
>that invoices most of its customers (like VZW).
>
>IIRC, the majority of companies use accrual.
>
>Assuming VZW also does (which is generally a good bet, it makes a lot of things
>easier to account for), they don't actually "make" money when they collect it -
>the revenue was accounted for and is taxable as of the moment they generate the
>invoice. (Yup, that means that at the end of the year, they get taxed on all of
>the sales they made during the year, even the sales for which they haven't been
>paid yet. Cool, huh?)
>
>So technically, and from an accounting and legal point of view, those people
>who are paying at the store are not generating revenue.

Totally wrong and probably irrelevant.

Accrual accounting makes provision for a reserve for bad debts which reduces profits. And I would guess (I am not an accountant) that a company that has many of its customers in the habit of paying monthly bill ASAP in person has a lesser reserve than one without such service as well as its ability to make of the expedited cash flow by earning interest thereon (or avoiding interest by paying down its line of credit earlier). It also avoids payments to the credit card companies.

More importantly, cash is legal tender, 31 U.S.C. 5103. I don't think it'll take too long for a class action lawsuit against VZW.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 1:19:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Philip R. Mann" <prmlaw@NOSPAMnyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cezynjalpeepbz.ifw2xx3.pminews@news.individual.net...

>
> More importantly, cash is legal tender, 31 U.S.C. 5103. I don't think
it'll take too long for a class action lawsuit against VZW.


True, but they are under no legal obligation to accept service payments at a
retail location. What would the basis for litigation be? There would
appear to be no legal justification for it- customers wanting to use cash
have many other options to pay a Verizon bill, and the $2 convenience charge
is a deal compared to many of the other commercially available options. The
acceptance of payments at retail locations is a convenience, not a business
requirement. Any such class action could ultimately lead to the complete
denial of this service in the future, which is ultimately what the company
is wanting in the first place.

The fee is certainly intended to discourage payment that is handled by a
retail employee. While they may not pay credit card fees on these
transactions, the combination of wages, headcount and lost float from the
non-immediate posting to their bank account mitigates any processing costs
for other forms of payment. If they have the right vendor agreements in
place (which I would believe they do), every other form of payment accepted
by Verizon is immediately deposited to their account and available for use
by the company. There could be as much as a three day delay in getting
retail store payments deposited in some cases.
May 3, 2005 1:28:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Alan wrote on [Mon, 02 May 2005 21:19:39 GMT]:
> ahh yes, of course. that explains it.
>
> using your logic. why bother having stores at all.
>
> -rent
> -leases
> -employees
> -site insurance
>
> aren't those expenses?
>
> yes I'm sure that extra step creates a total labor catastrophe in the retail
> locations.
>
> you can open an account, shop, buy, and activate cell phones ALL ONLINE
> TODAY. why bother with retail locations at all? aren't they revenue leaks
> too?
>
> you actually believe that VZW created a 'convenience fee' because its a
> process that serves to collect revenue already due?

Nope. I believe they created it to stop people trying to pay their bill
to a person in a store. They won't create a fee to stop people starting
new service now... not yet anyway.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 1:28:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Mon, 02 May 2005 21:28:16 GMT, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

>They won't create a fee to stop people starting
>new service now... not yet anyway.

You mean an activation fee?:-)
May 3, 2005 1:50:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

The Ghost of General Lee wrote on [Mon, 02 May 2005 17:43:58 -0400]:
> On Mon, 02 May 2005 21:28:16 GMT, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>They won't create a fee to stop people starting
>>new service now... not yet anyway.
>
> You mean an activation fee?:-)

Good point.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 3:50:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Mon, 02 May 2005 21:03:33 -0400 (EDT), "Philip R. Mann"
<prmlaw@NOSPAMnyc.rr.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:22:25 -0700, Steve Sobol wrote:
>
>>There are two officially accepted methods of accounting in the USA. One is cash
>>basis, which records revenue when money's collected. The other is accrual
>>basis, which records revenue when the bill is printed up and sent out.
>>Sometimes those two points in time are exactly the same, but not for a business
>>that invoices most of its customers (like VZW).
>>
>>IIRC, the majority of companies use accrual.
>>
>>Assuming VZW also does (which is generally a good bet, it makes a lot of things
>>easier to account for), they don't actually "make" money when they collect it -
>>the revenue was accounted for and is taxable as of the moment they generate the
>>invoice. (Yup, that means that at the end of the year, they get taxed on all of
>>the sales they made during the year, even the sales for which they haven't been
>>paid yet. Cool, huh?)
>>
>>So technically, and from an accounting and legal point of view, those people
>>who are paying at the store are not generating revenue.
>
>Totally wrong and probably irrelevant.
>
>Accrual accounting makes provision for a reserve for bad debts which reduces profits.

Yes, but it's after the fact. You must wait until you write off the
debt as being uncollectable, then you may deduct it in the year you
declare it uncollectable. And if one day you *do* collect something
on it, you have to remember to declare it as income (again).
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 3:52:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:22:25 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>IIRC, the majority of companies use accrual.

Actually most corporations are on a cash basis. But that is only
because most corporations are actually *small* businesses. Most large
businesses (and I'd consider VZW in that crop), are on accrual.
Everything else seemed to be on target.;-)
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 3:52:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:22:25 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>IIRC, the majority of companies use accrual.
>
>
> Actually most corporations are on a cash basis. But that is only
> because most corporations are actually *small* businesses. Most large
> businesses (and I'd consider VZW in that crop), are on accrual.
> Everything else seemed to be on target.;-)

OK. Point taken. Although I've always used accrual... :) 



--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 5:48:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Oh, that same human can, but it costs verizon more money instead of
making them money.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 5:50:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Na, they would just lower the subsidys on the phones and raise rates.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 6:00:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

You are right. Collecting payments does not generate income. That
income has already been generated. Making sales generates income.
Making sales is what requires a warm body. Collecting payments does
not. Sales can be made over the internet and maybe mail order, but a
huge market is missed if they don't have retail locations with warm
bodies.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 11:45:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Justin wrote:
> Exactly my point. Surely it's gotta cost more to drive to the store than
> to put a check in the mail.

Particularly with the price of gasoline being in the $2.50-$3.00 /
gallon range.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 5:32:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Alan wrote:

> In a VZW store;

> -you open a new account with a human.

Yes, human interaction here is highly justified because a person may
have a question about the services, rate plans or phones being offered.
Generally the wireless carrier that can answer these questions
reasonably well enough gets that new customer's business. So in effect,
while it costs money to have someone sell you on a new account, that
interaction assures a revenue stream, and thus actually MAKES money for
the company.

When paying a bill however, there really isn't much to debate about.
Customers generally won't have to ask questions about what the
advantages of paying one way over another are, nor are they haggling
about price. You just pay the bill. That's it! And it's a total waste
of time for a CS rep who could be doing other things, when those
processes can be handled self-serve.

> -the human processes the new account into a computer.

Correct, that's an extension of the above.

> -you buy a phone from a human.

Yet another extension of the above.

> -the human processes the purchase into a computer.

Yet ANOTHER extension of the above.

> -the human then uses the computer terminal to activate your phone.

This is all the same point, really, you're just dragging it out for your
own melodramatic effect here.

> Why is it so crazy to think that same human CANT ACCEPT PAYMENT FOR YOUR
> ACCOUNT AND PUT INTO THE SAME COMPUTER?!

Because in the time it takes to process your payment which can EASILY be
done by any competent human being unassisted, that person COULD have
been out selling another phone, account and service plan to a new
customer. But instead, you're sitting there, insisting on having your
hand held.

> c'mon.
>
> Its not about fees, profits, kiosks, etc.

Yes it is.

> ITS LOGIC.

Oh, my mistake. I thought it was logical to assume that if someone can
use a cell phone, then they have the mental capacity to use an automated
payment machine.

> I'm not a sheep. I'm a thinking man.

GOOD! Then use that wonderful thinking capacity of yours and push some
buttons, instead of having someone do it FOR you.

> WHAT HAPPENED TO CRITICAL THINKING in this country?

My thoughts, exactly.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 5:35:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Mon, 02 May 2005 22:31:51 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:22:25 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>IIRC, the majority of companies use accrual.
>>
>>
>> Actually most corporations are on a cash basis. But that is only
>> because most corporations are actually *small* businesses. Most large
>> businesses (and I'd consider VZW in that crop), are on accrual.
>> Everything else seemed to be on target.;-)
>
>OK. Point taken. Although I've always used accrual... :) 

If it works for you, then stick with it. While I was DP manager for a
rather large construction company in the mid 80's, we switched from
accrual to cash. It was a hell I'd rather not go through again. But,
it worked out for us in the long run, as we also went from being a
general contractor to doing construction management. Had we not been
on a cash basis when we started doing CM, I probably would have left a
lot sooner, probably in a padded wagon.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 5:36:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Alan wrote:
> ahh yes, of course. that explains it.
>
> using your logic. why bother having stores at all.

Can you not read? The previous poster said that revenue streams are
generated from creating new accounts. THAT is why the stores exist.
They also exist for the purpose of taking in defective or damaged phones
for service.

> yes I'm sure that extra step creates a total labor catastrophe in the retail
> locations.

Evidently so, since you appear incapable of doing this yourself.

> you can open an account, shop, buy, and activate cell phones ALL ONLINE
> TODAY.

Good! Then you can pay your bill online, too!



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
!