Sure, you can setup autopay to get around this fee, but who wants to
setup autopay with a company that often makes billing "mistakes" and you
need to fight with them to get your money back?
"Convenience" fee? "Convenience" for whom?? No way will I
ever set up autopay, ever. Fortunately, I already have
online bill pay through my bank that will not be subject to
this "convenience fee."
Yet another way companies are bypassing a fee and/or tax
increase. Call it a "fee" and it's not subject to
regulations--problem solved!
"Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:jdhuse$o4m$1@dont-email.me...
> Looks like VZW is instituing a fee to pay your bill of $2 if you do it
> online or via your phone.
>
> http://bit.ly/uRSZrw
> or
> http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/...hone-20111229/
>
> Sure, you can setup autopay to get around this fee, but who wants to
> setup autopay with a company that often makes billing "mistakes" and you
> need to fight with them to get your money back?
As I recall Verizon Fios tried the same game a few months back. Took about
48 hours to start back tracking.
Agent_C wrote on [Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:36:53 -0500]:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:53:02 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>Looks like VZW is instituing a fee to pay your bill of $2 if you do it
>>online or via your phone.
>
> You can avoid the fee by using an electronic check.
True, if you trust them with your bank account info.
"Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:jdj3ar$nam$1@dont-email.me...
> Agent_C wrote on [Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:36:53 -0500]:
> > On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:53:02 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> > <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Looks like VZW is instituing a fee to pay your bill of $2 if you do it
> >>online or via your phone.
> >
> > You can avoid the fee by using an electronic check.
>
> True, if you trust them with your bank account info.
Don't they get that at the bottom of your check? What more info does an
electronic check provide?
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 01:15:07 +0000 (UTC), Justin wrote:
> Agent_C wrote on [Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:36:53 -0500]:
>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:53:02 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Looks like VZW is instituing a fee to pay your bill of $2 if you do it
>>>online or via your phone.
>>
>> You can avoid the fee by using an electronic check.
>
> True, if you trust them with your bank account info.
If you do online banking, *you* tell *your* bank to send them an ACH
transfer. No fee in that scenario and little if any bank acc't info to VZW.
Wouldn't surprise me, though, if, like T-Mobile with their ill-considered
$1.99 fee for detailed paper billing, VZW doesn't wind up rescinding their
decision to impose such a fee :-) . The threat of mass customer migration
can be a painful thing for a company like VZW to contemplate.
HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:58:00 -0600, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>"Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>news:jdhuse$o4m$1@dont-email.me...
>> Looks like VZW is instituing a fee to pay your bill of $2 if you do it
>> online or via your phone.
>>
>> http://bit.ly/uRSZrw
>> or
>> http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/...hone-20111229/
>>
>> Sure, you can setup autopay to get around this fee, but who wants to
>> setup autopay with a company that often makes billing "mistakes" and you
>> need to fight with them to get your money back?
>
>As I recall Verizon Fios tried the same game a few months back. Took about
>48 hours to start back tracking.
You can also set up automatic payments by credit card -- that gives
you a lot more protection (and the potential to earn rewards/miles)
tlvp wrote on [Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:34:31 -0500]:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 01:15:07 +0000 (UTC), Justin wrote:
>
>> Agent_C wrote on [Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:36:53 -0500]:
>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:53:02 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>>> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Looks like VZW is instituing a fee to pay your bill of $2 if you do it
>>>>online or via your phone.
>>>
>>> You can avoid the fee by using an electronic check.
>>
>> True, if you trust them with your bank account info.
>
> If you do online banking, *you* tell *your* bank to send them an ACH
> transfer. No fee in that scenario and little if any bank acc't info to VZW.
>
> Wouldn't surprise me, though, if, like T-Mobile with their ill-considered
> $1.99 fee for detailed paper billing, VZW doesn't wind up rescinding their
> decision to impose such a fee :-) . The threat of mass customer migration
> can be a painful thing for a company like VZW to contemplate.
VZW already has a 1.50 fee for detailed paper billing.
On 12/29/2011 4:36 PM, Agent_C wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:53:02 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> Looks like VZW is instituing a fee to pay your bill of $2 if you do it
>> online or via your phone.
>
> You can avoid the fee by using an electronic check
That works but no credit card rewards. They want customers on auto-pay.
It's cheaper for them and it probably reduces churn because the customer
doesn't push out that big payment every month and wonder about alternatives.
On 12/29/11 9:53 AM, Justin wrote:
> Looks like VZW is instituing a fee to pay your bill of $2 if you do it
> online or via your phone.
>
> http://bit.ly/uRSZrw
> or
> http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/...hone-20111229/
>
> Sure, you can setup autopay to get around this fee, but who wants to
> setup autopay with a company that often makes billing "mistakes" and you
> need to fight with them to get your money back?
>
1-800-ATT
--
These are the charges as recorded this day.
Faithfully submitted,
Douglas C. Neidermeyer, Sergeant-at-Arms.
tlvp wrote on [Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:42:47 -0500]:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 05:35:04 +0000 (UTC), Justin wrote:
>
>> VZW already has a 1.50 fee for detailed paper billing.
>
> Makes Page Plus look better and better, don't it?
when they offer unlimited data, I'll look into it.
On 12/29/2011 8:15 PM, Justin wrote:
> Agent_C wrote on [Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:36:53 -0500]:
>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:53:02 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like VZW is instituing a fee to pay your bill of $2 if you do it
>>> online or via your phone.
>>
>> You can avoid the fee by using an electronic check.
>
> True, if you trust them with your bank account info.
I think that's bogus! Your account number is printed on every paper
check you write. Paper or electronic, the bank needs to know that
number in order to process the transaction.
On 12/30/11 2:43 PM, Justin wrote:
> tlvp wrote on [Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:42:47 -0500]:
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 05:35:04 +0000 (UTC), Justin wrote:
>>
>>> VZW already has a 1.50 fee for detailed paper billing.
>>
>> Makes Page Plus look better and better, don't it?
>
> when they offer unlimited data, I'll look into it.
Yeah, that will be the day after hell freezes over.
You may not have missed this but cellular providers are eliminating
unlimited data. Of the majors, only Sprint still does. Pity their signal
goes away when you're more than a mile away from an interstate highway.
--
These are the charges as recorded this day.
Faithfully submitted,
Douglas C. Neidermeyer, Sergeant-at-Arms.
Douglas C. Neidermeyer wrote on [Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:30:07 -0500]:
> On 12/30/11 2:43 PM, Justin wrote:
>> tlvp wrote on [Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:42:47 -0500]:
>>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 05:35:04 +0000 (UTC), Justin wrote:
>>>
>>>> VZW already has a 1.50 fee for detailed paper billing.
>>>
>>> Makes Page Plus look better and better, don't it?
>>
>> when they offer unlimited data, I'll look into it.
>
>
> Yeah, that will be the day after hell freezes over.
>
> You may not have missed this but cellular providers are eliminating
> unlimited data. Of the majors, only Sprint still does. Pity their signal
> goes away when you're more than a mile away from an interstate highway.
oh, I am aware of that. The data options on page plus are nowhere near
my needs though
Richard B. Gilbert wrote on [Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:28:16 -0500]:
> On 12/29/2011 8:15 PM, Justin wrote:
>> Agent_C wrote on [Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:36:53 -0500]:
>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:53:02 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>>> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looks like VZW is instituing a fee to pay your bill of $2 if you do it
>>>> online or via your phone.
>>>
>>> You can avoid the fee by using an electronic check.
>>
>> True, if you trust them with your bank account info.
>
> I think that's bogus! Your account number is printed on every paper
> check you write. Paper or electronic, the bank needs to know that
> number in order to process the transaction.
If you pay by credit card right now they don't have you check, do they?
In article <jdj7s8$c8u$1@dont-email.me>, Drewdove says...
>
> "Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:jdj3ar$nam$1@dont-email.me...
> > Agent_C wrote on [Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:36:53 -0500]:
> > > On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:53:02 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> > > <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Looks like VZW is instituing a fee to pay your bill of $2 if you do it
> > >>online or via your phone.
> > >
> > > You can avoid the fee by using an electronic check.
> >
> > True, if you trust them with your bank account info.
>
> Don't they get that at the bottom of your check? What more info does an
> electronic check provide?
You have to provide them with the routing number and checking account
number so they can take the money out of your account.
In article <elmop-143098.22403029122011@news.eternal-september.org>,
Elmo P. Shagnasty says...
> You can't win their game; you can't even break even. The only way not
> to lose at their game is...not to play their game.
>
> <cue all the whining about how people are entitled to do business with
> VZW on the people's terms, that they absolutely need VZW-brand cell
> phone service, yada yada yada>
Agreed. When VZW pissed me off, I left them.
My 2c about the situation:
Yes, it DOES cost money to accept credit cards. Even a low discount rate
like 1.5% means when the customer pays $100, they pay $1.50 to the
credit card processor.
(The "discount rate" is the percentage of each credit card sale that a
merchant pays to the processor.)
BUT, they should already have figured that as a cost of doing business
and built it into the profit they make on their services and phone
sales.
My theory is that they already did, and they were looking to cut costs
by passing the cost onto the consumer anyhow.
In article <4efddb50$0$1641$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
>
> On 12/29/2011 4:36 PM, Agent_C wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:53:02 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> > <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Looks like VZW is instituing a fee to pay your bill of $2 if you do it
> >> online or via your phone.
> >
> > You can avoid the fee by using an electronic check
>
> That works but no credit card rewards. They want customers on auto-pay.
> It's cheaper for them and it probably reduces churn because the customer
> doesn't push out that big payment every month and wonder about alternatives.
Technically it isn't cheaper, but it does allow them to reduce the time
they have to wait for their money.
"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.2967ce2182ed1f059898b3@news.justthe.net.. .
> In article <elmop-143098.22403029122011@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Elmo P. Shagnasty says...
>
>
>> You can't win their game; you can't even break even. The only way not
>> to lose at their game is...not to play their game.
>>
>> <cue all the whining about how people are entitled to do business with
>> VZW on the people's terms, that they absolutely need VZW-brand cell
>> phone service, yada yada yada>
>
> Agreed. When VZW pissed me off, I left them.
>
> My 2c about the situation:
>
> Yes, it DOES cost money to accept credit cards. Even a low discount rate
> like 1.5% means when the customer pays $100, they pay $1.50 to the
> credit card processor.
>
> (The "discount rate" is the percentage of each credit card sale that a
> merchant pays to the processor.)
>
> BUT, they should already have figured that as a cost of doing business
> and built it into the profit they make on their services and phone
> sales.
>
> My theory is that they already did, and they were looking to cut costs
> by passing the cost onto the consumer anyhow.
>
The high fees hit the small businesses. The big boys get a much better deal.
In some cases they are the bank as well so they get a slice on all sides of
the transaction.
Verizon changes mind. was Re: $2 fee to pay your bill?
meh wrote the following:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 07:39:55 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/29/2011 4:36 PM, Agent_C wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:53:02 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>>> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looks like VZW is instituing a fee to pay your bill of $2 if you do it
>>>> online or via your phone.
>>> You can avoid the fee by using an electronic check
>> That works but no credit card rewards. They want customers on auto-pay.
>> It's cheaper for them and it probably reduces churn because the customer
>> doesn't push out that big payment every month and wonder about alternatives.
>
> BUT..
>
>
> They HAVE backed off on this.
Yep, CNN reports
Verizon Wireless to scrap proposed $2 fee for one-time payments, citing
"customer feedback."
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @
On 12/30/2011 4:34 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
> My 2c about the situation:
>
> Yes, it DOES cost money to accept credit cards. Even a low discount rate
> like 1.5% means when the customer pays $100, they pay $1.50 to the
> credit card processor.
>
> (The "discount rate" is the percentage of each credit card sale that a
> merchant pays to the processor.)
>
> BUT, they should already have figured that as a cost of doing business
> and built it into the profit they make on their services and phone
> sales.
>
> My theory is that they already did, and they were looking to cut costs
> by passing the cost onto the consumer anyhow.
However, they weren't going to charge it if you had Autopay set up. So
they would have had to eat the cost in that case. So it really made no
sense, other than trying to get some extra money from customers.
This is something that the banks were prohibited from doing as part of
the recent credit card changes.
On 12/30/2011 4:26 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
> In article<jdj7s8$c8u$1@dont-email.me>, Drewdove says...
>>
>> "Justin"<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>> news:jdj3ar$nam$1@dont-email.me...
>>> Agent_C wrote on [Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:36:53 -0500]:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:53:02 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>>>> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Looks like VZW is instituing a fee to pay your bill of $2 if you do it
>>>>> online or via your phone.
>>>>
>>>> You can avoid the fee by using an electronic check.
>>>
>>> True, if you trust them with your bank account info.
>>
>> Don't they get that at the bottom of your check? What more info does an
>> electronic check provide?
>
> You have to provide them with the routing number and checking account
> number so they can take the money out of your account.
Isn't this what the poster you're replying to said? There is no
difference between the information on a paper check and what you give
them when you enter your checking account information online.
On 12/30/2011 4:15 PM, Justin wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote on [Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:28:16 -0500]:
>> On 12/29/2011 8:15 PM, Justin wrote:
>>> Agent_C wrote on [Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:36:53 -0500]:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:53:02 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>>>> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Looks like VZW is instituing a fee to pay your bill of $2 if you do it
>>>>> online or via your phone.
>>>>
>>>> You can avoid the fee by using an electronic check.
>>>
>>> True, if you trust them with your bank account info.
>>
>> I think that's bogus! Your account number is printed on every paper
>> check you write. Paper or electronic, the bank needs to know that
>> number in order to process the transaction.
>
> If you pay by credit card right now they don't have you check, do they?
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:34:31 -0500, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
wrote:
>Wouldn't surprise me, though, if, like T-Mobile with their ill-considered
>$1.99 fee for detailed paper billing, VZW doesn't wind up rescinding their
>decision to impose such a fee :-) . The threat of mass customer migration
>can be a painful thing for a company like VZW to contemplate.
Verizon backtracks on $2 fee after customer outrage
(Reuters) - Verizon Wireless has reversed its decision to charge a $2
fee for one-time telephone and online bill payments bowing to a storm
of criticism from consumers and the U.S. communications regulator.
The biggest U.S. wireless operator retracted its decision on Friday,
just a day after it announced the fee, which was to have begun January
15.
The consumer victory comes after Bank of America recently decided
against a new $5 monthly fee for debit card users after consumer and
lawmaker uproar about the charge.
Verizon said it was making the decision based on customer input after
many consumers spoke out about the fee on the company's online forum,
with some threatening to leave the service as a result.
The Verizon Wireless turn-around came after the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission said it was "concerned" about the fee and
vowed to look into it.
"On behalf of American consumers, we're concerned about Verizon's
actions and are looking into the matter," an official for the FCC said
earlier on Friday.
The prospect of a $2 fee created a flurry of online activity and one
consumer organization, Change.org, said that 95,000 people joined a
campaign on its website urging Verizon to drop the fee.
"The era of corporations walking roughshod over consumers without
consequence is officially over," Ben Rattray, chief executive of
Change.org, said in a statement.
Verizon Wireless customers told the company, often in colorful
language, that they would not put up with the fee.
"If this fee goes through, I will be taking my business elsewhere!!!"
one person said on the Verizon Wireless website.
Another said "Victory is ours!" after the turn-around.
The Verizon Wireless uproar served to highlight practices in the
communications industry. Its rivals AT&T Inc and Sprint Nextel said on
Friday that they charge some customers $5 for bill payments, revising
their comments from the day before.
AT&T and Comcast Corp say that they charge some customers who look for
personal assistance in paying their bills but that they do not charge
for online payments.
Verizon Wireless is a venture of Verizon Communications Inc and
Vodafone Group Plc
Re: Verizon changes mind. was Re: $2 fee to pay your bill?
"willshak" <willshak@00hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:P4ydnZGl-swtrGPTnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@supernews.com...
> meh wrote the following:
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 07:39:55 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/29/2011 4:36 PM, Agent_C wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:53:02 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>>>> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Looks like VZW is instituing a fee to pay your bill of $2 if you do it
>>>>> online or via your phone.
>>>> You can avoid the fee by using an electronic check
>>> That works but no credit card rewards. They want customers on auto-pay.
>>> It's cheaper for them and it probably reduces churn because the customer
>>> doesn't push out that big payment every month and wonder about
>>> alternatives.
>>
>> BUT..
>>
>>
>> They HAVE backed off on this.
>
>
> Yep, CNN reports
> Verizon Wireless to scrap proposed $2 fee for one-time payments, citing
> "customer feedback."
>
Verizon Wireless Ditches Plan for $2 'Convenience' Fee
Amidst backlash from consumers and the possibility of a Federal
Communications Commission investigation, Verizon Wireless said Friday
afternoon that it will not charge consumers a $2 fee for one-time bill
payments online and by phone.
"At Verizon, we take great care to listen to our customers," Dan Mead,
president and chief executive officer of Verizon Wireless, said in a
statement. "Based on their input, we believe the best path forward is to
encourage customers to take advantage of the best and most efficient
options, eliminating the need to institute the fee at this time."
In article <jdlc0f$526$1@dont-email.me>, NotMe says...
> > My theory is that they already did, and they were looking to cut costs
> > by passing the cost onto the consumer anyhow.
> >
> The high fees hit the small businesses. The big boys get a much better deal.
1% - 1.5% is actually a very good discount rate. Small businesses can
expect anywhere from 2.0% to 3.5%.
It's all about volume. The more volume you do, the lower your per-
transaction costs are.
In article <jdlc4e$4f9$1@dont-email.me>, Bill says...
> This is something that the banks were prohibited from doing as part of
> the recent credit card changes.
Many merchant agreements prohibit surcharges, but I know many retail
stores and other credit card merchants ignore those rules even though
breaking the rules can cause their merchant accounts to be terminated.
Re: Verizon changes mind. was Re: $2 fee to pay your bill?
In article <jdlhrn$5ks$3@dont-email.me>, NotMe says...
> "At Verizon, we take great care to listen to our customers," Dan Mead,
> president and chief executive officer of Verizon Wireless, said in a
> statement. "Based on their input, we believe the best path forward is to
> encourage customers to take advantage of the best and most efficient
> options, eliminating the need to institute the fee at this time."
Duh. Of course it is.
At least they paid attention to everyone who was complaining.
$2 fee to pay your bill? 
Linear Mode
