

Verizon changes mind, cancels $2 payment fee - 11031a
http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/verizon-changes-mind-cancels-2-payment-fee-20111230/

======
tsunamifury
This stunt was pulled by a certain west coast Big 4 Bank with their 3$ debit
card fee. The media uproar caused them to 'rescind' the fee, then just tack on
a $15 fee per month for all checking accounts with less than a $10,000 balance
-- obviously a significant higher fee affecting 100% of their customers rather
than x%<100\. By then no was willing to go through the news cycle again to
cover it because it was old news by then.

I'd be somewhat surprised if Verizon isn't doing the same thing.

~~~
bane
In politics it's called the Overton Window...I wonder if there's a similar
name for this in corporate terms?

------
resnamen
Just watch, they'll just obfuscate the wording and re-add it on Tuesday. "Data
transmission surcharge", or something.

~~~
re_todd
Or they will increase everyone's rates by $2, then a week later offer a $2
reduction for paying via the methods they want you to. And the sheeple will be
grateful.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
THey want you to use online payment, and pay the $2 fee! The fee isn't to
discourage use or direct users; its there because most everybody uses online
payments, won't quit even if there's a fee, and they see a way to make a buck
on a captive audience.

Its the free market, I guess. They can charge whatever they want, and we can
shop around for a better deal. Except all those people with a contract.

~~~
pmiller2
Actually, they want people to use automatic payment, not one-time online or
phone payments.

------
bjornsteffanson
2011 was exciting in that, for what seems like the first time, mass consumer
reaction played a significant role in affecting the decision-making of several
corporations: Bank of America, Netflix, GoDaddy, and now Verizon.

Hopefully this will continue.

------
msluyter
I'm curious; if Verizon was just a bit more patient, they might have tried,
say, a .25$ fee first, and then just gradually increased it over time. I
suspect nobody would have noticed in that case. Insert boiling frog analogy.

------
siculars
Pay us for paying us. Seriously? What are these people thinking?

~~~
97s
ATT had something very similar in my area. I used to go to the store to pay.
They would charge me 3 dollars to pay in cash.

It was outrageous. They eventually dropped the charge along with the ability
to pay in store.

~~~
erichocean
My favorite is that Wells Fargo charges $5 to cash a check drawn on their
bank, at their own bank, if you don't have an account with them.

This is true even if the check is for, say $10, or even just $2.

AFAIK they still have this policy today.

~~~
philipmorg
In one case, a Wells Fargo bank flat out refused to cash a Wells Fargo check.
They said I could open an account there and then they'd be happy to honor the
check. Of course.

------
MichaelApproved
With the ability to limit class action lawsuits, cell phone companies are
going to keep trying to push the limits of what the market will allow. The FCC
and bad PR are the primary weapons left to fight abuses like these.

 _"The U.S. Supreme Court has handed corporations a major victory. By a 5-4
vote, the court ruled Wednesday that companies can enforce contracts that bar
consumers and employees from banding together to bring class action suits.

Ever read that long cell phone contract you signed when you enrolled for
service? Well, look again. It likely has a provision requiring all disputes to
be resolved by arbitration and barring consumers from banding together in a
class action. Your credit card agreement, your cable agreement and maybe even
your employment agreement have similar clauses"_

[http://www.npr.org/2011/04/28/135785797/supreme-court-
impose...](http://www.npr.org/2011/04/28/135785797/supreme-court-imposes-
limits-on-class-actions)

------
coryl
Ticketmaster has these kinds of fees. How come the mob hasn't been successful
at pressuring them so far?

~~~
Terretta
You mean apart from where Ticketmaster is now having to refund these fees for
years past?

[http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-01/tech/30462126...](http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-01/tech/30462126_1_ticketmaster-
ticket-order-credits)

~~~
missrobot
Yes--although according to the article, "Ticketmaster can continue to profit
off transactions — they just have to say they're doing so on their website."

Plus, as far as I understand it the settlement is a coupon award, meaning you
get $1.50 back the next time you buy from Ticketmaster. So if you decided they
were in fact deceptive and you don't want to give them your business again
(difficult if you ever want to see another concert, I agree), you get nothing.

I'm not an expert on class action lawsuits but this whole thing seemed like it
didn't benefit the consumer much, but was worth multi-millions for the firm
bringing the suit.

~~~
zem
i believe that the general point of class action suits is to punish the
company rather than to benefit the individual consumers.

------
r00fus
Mission Accomplished.

Now they'll get what they want: fearful, alert users who can't quit VZ (due to
lack of competitor coverage) will move their payments towards ACH/autopay.
Everyone else is blissfully unaware.

------
missrobot
Glad Verizon cancelled their fee, but $2 is nothing compared to what the
airlines charge for booking over the phone...I can understand why a company
would want to discourage people tying up their service reps, but making you
pay for the privilege of buying something...?

~~~
jedbrown
How about a discount for buying it in a way that costs the vendor less?

~~~
philwelch
If they raise the prices first, it even works out the same!

------
vertr
Is it me, or has 2011 been the year of the corporate tech PR blunder?

~~~
simonsarris
I don't think this is necessarily related to tech (see: banks), its just a
trend this year we've seen, and I think I know why.

In my unprofessional observations, I think that faced with declining consumer
revenue (or just the mere perception of potential future declining consumer
revenue) many CEOs considered schemes to make their stock prices/quarterlies
look better regardless. Below are some I can think of from this year that had
zero point except to pad accounting numbers for a small period of time.

If successful:

* Netflix's qwikster would have made the stock look better by shedding off the less %profit part.

* HP's considering of ditching their consumer computer division would have made their stock look better for the same reason (corporate customers = more %profit)

* Bank of America's/Wells Fargo debit fees, same reasoning, higher %profit for nothing

* Verizon, same reasoning

All of these would have buffed short term numbers but were panned because
either the consumers and the press "caught on", or more accurately, caught on
too early.

Part of the blame lies on companies/CEOs thinking very short term. Steve Jobs
or John Chambers (long term CEOs) would probably dismiss all of the above out
of hand. Part of the blame lies on speculators/investors who turn into
doomsayers overnight if every quarter does not look incredible compared to the
previous.

~~~
vertr
I considered banks, but I think the backlash comes down harder on tech
companies because we instantly jump to criticizing on social media, and they
are more susceptible to it's effects.

~~~
simonsarris
Yes I think you are right, it comes down harder on tech companies because of
their audience, but that audience (social-media saavy) is growing much wider
and more mainstream, and we as consumers are lucky to live in this age where
we can actually create a tangible media backlash so early!

Another commentor mentioned Ticketmaster. They were fortunate enough to
establish absurd fees before the social media era really took hold.

If social media existed as well as it does today 10 years ago, I do not think
we would be paying so much for things like Ticketmaster or cell phone texting
precisely because of the backlash we are capable of creating these days.

