Last message on previous page:
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"cfj03" <cfj03.1oklpy@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote in message
news:cfj03.1oklpy@nospam.cellphoneforums.net...
>
> "Again- go back to school. The customer is given two options at the
> store-
> use the payment kiosk and pay no fee or go to the counter and pay a
> fee. If
> it were intended as a revenue boost, they would have applied it to the
> kiosk
> or removed the kiosks to force payment at the counter."
>
> Because they haven't done it yet means nothing. It didn't used to cost
> anything to use an ATM (whether your bank or not) but now BOTH banks
> charge(yours and the ATM owner). Is that a deterrent too? I thought
> teller fees were to force people to use ATM machines, and if the
> problem is non-customers, why do BOTH banks charge(again, your bank and
> the ATM owner)? To force you to use your own bank's ATM I guess
> (rrriiigghhtt).

My bank doesn't charge me to use their ATM, and they don't charge me if I
use another bank's ATM. The other bank might charge (depending on the
bank), but there are associated costs with going through the Federal Reserve
system to recover the funds. But you already knew that, being the smart,
educated guy you are.

>It is the EXTRA CASH. Just like the bounced check fee
> which is some 5-10 higher than the actual cost

but greatly outweighted by the amount of bad debt they write off to bounced
chacks that are not recovered on.

> and in the case of
> multiple checks say, many small ones and one large one, the bank will
> pay the large one first to collect as many OD charges as possible.

See my statement above.

> Different industry, same concept. Charge what you can because you
> can.

But your analogies don't apply to the suituation at hand. Banks work as a
network of seperate entites to allow financial transactions to occur from
one to another. You can't walk into a Cingular store to pay your Verizon
bill. And the bounced check fee is in direct response to the customer
violating the TOS for their bank account- their are no TOS issues in this
thread.

>
> "There is no evidence this will occur, and there is no precendent of
> any kind
> to show that any company would walk down that path. A baseless and
> very
> inaccurate claim."
>
> Well, until someone actually does it there will NEVER BE ANY EVIDENCE!

Do you buy your aluminum foil by the case?

> What do you even mean by that statement? Do you believe VZW, or anyone
> else for that matter, is going to send out memo's before they start
> charging?

I'd be pretty confident in saying that the likelihood is high of there being
a notice somewhere on customer's previous bills or a sign in the stores
indicating when the fee would take effect.

>I know companies now that charge you FOR RECEIVING A BILL.

Can you name a few? Maybe a half dozen?

> Isn't that part of the NATURAL cost of selling a product or service?

It used to be- times have changed (I knowit is a hard concept to grasp)>

> And is it not a fact that a business will incur expenses because THAT
> is part of the deal?

Only if you assume that it is a normal cost for that business to incur.
Many companies exist today that have never provided a paper bill as a
standard option to customers. Why can't other companies transition to that
business model?

> If a company charges for a paper bill, as IF
> everyone has a computer with internet access, they will eventually
> charge for any payment method.

Can you please point me to any independent study that says this? I ask,
because you are the only person to say with absolute certainty that this is
going to occur.

>
>
> "And your point is......?"
>
> My point was you can save all that nonsense about revenue recognition
> and when it is earned and blah blah blah. WHEN THE CUSTOMER PAYS
> THEIR BILL, THE COMPANY RECEIVES THE CASH. If the customer does not
> pay, that accounting revenue is irrelevant. So for you to dismiss bill
> payment, just because it is in person, as a burden is silly.

No its not. I've provided facts about associated costs that you choose to
ignore. And knowing that I have worked in the past in the financial area of
a company that processes millions of dollars in monthly payments (and having
to look at the cost efficiency of each payment option), I think I'm
comfortable with my level of knowledge here.

> But if you
> actually owned a business you would find that you would be more than
> happy to have customers actually PAY their bill.

I did own my own business for about 5 years. I received all my payments as
I requested.


> And finally, how long
> does it take to pay a bill

Long enough to lose a sales and the associated future revenue.

>
>
> Anyway, you are hopelessly in love with "business theory" and, as I
> said, will believe any nonsense you are fed by corporations.

Funny- in this entire thread, I have yet to see Verizon feed us any
nonsense. I guess that would mean that I formed my opinion based on
experience andfacts that you are obviously not in possession of. You are
dealing in hypotheticals and I am telling how it is in the real world. If
you choose to ignore it, then must believe any nonsense you are fed by the
anti-business coalition.

Do you clean the toilets where you work? You should if you don't- after
all, it needs to be done and you're already getting paid.

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

SS wrote on [Thu, 5 May 2005 18:44:12 -0600]:
>
> "cfj03" <cfj03.1oklpy@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote in message
> news:cfj03.1oklpy@nospam.cellphoneforums.net...
>>
>
>>I know companies now that charge you FOR RECEIVING A BILL.
>
> Can you name a few? Maybe a half dozen?

State Farm
Primus telco
Verizon if you want to know about the details of the minutes you paid
for and how they were used.

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

you VZW fanboys are hopeless.

completely myopic and blissfully ignorant. defending VZW at any cost, never
to opine against them ever. as long as what VZW does is 'profitable' in the
name of 'capitailism', it's agreeable to you.

you scold any dissent with your pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo - which
clearly has no application in the real world.

if you cant see the greed and lunacy in such a ridiculous fee, its your
loss.





"SS" <nospam1336479852@wopdj.net> wrote in message
newsL2dnZQQnOwIIOffRVn-sw@adelphia.com...
>
> "cfj03" <cfj03.1oklpy@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote in message
> news:cfj03.1oklpy@nospam.cellphoneforums.net...
>>
>> "Again- go back to school. The customer is given two options at the
>> store-
>> use the payment kiosk and pay no fee or go to the counter and pay a
>> fee. If
>> it were intended as a revenue boost, they would have applied it to the
>> kiosk
>> or removed the kiosks to force payment at the counter."
>>
>> Because they haven't done it yet means nothing. It didn't used to cost
>> anything to use an ATM (whether your bank or not) but now BOTH banks
>> charge(yours and the ATM owner). Is that a deterrent too? I thought
>> teller fees were to force people to use ATM machines, and if the
>> problem is non-customers, why do BOTH banks charge(again, your bank and
>> the ATM owner)? To force you to use your own bank's ATM I guess
>> (rrriiigghhtt).
>
> My bank doesn't charge me to use their ATM, and they don't charge me if I
> use another bank's ATM. The other bank might charge (depending on the
> bank), but there are associated costs with going through the Federal
> Reserve
> system to recover the funds. But you already knew that, being the smart,
> educated guy you are.
>
>>It is the EXTRA CASH. Just like the bounced check fee
>> which is some 5-10 higher than the actual cost
>
> but greatly outweighted by the amount of bad debt they write off to
> bounced
> chacks that are not recovered on.
>
>> and in the case of
>> multiple checks say, many small ones and one large one, the bank will
>> pay the large one first to collect as many OD charges as possible.
>
> See my statement above.
>
>> Different industry, same concept. Charge what you can because you
>> can.
>
> But your analogies don't apply to the suituation at hand. Banks work as a
> network of seperate entites to allow financial transactions to occur from
> one to another. You can't walk into a Cingular store to pay your Verizon
> bill. And the bounced check fee is in direct response to the customer
> violating the TOS for their bank account- their are no TOS issues in this
> thread.
>
>>
>> "There is no evidence this will occur, and there is no precendent of
>> any kind
>> to show that any company would walk down that path. A baseless and
>> very
>> inaccurate claim."
>>
>> Well, until someone actually does it there will NEVER BE ANY EVIDENCE!
>
> Do you buy your aluminum foil by the case?
>
>> What do you even mean by that statement? Do you believe VZW, or anyone
>> else for that matter, is going to send out memo's before they start
>> charging?
>
> I'd be pretty confident in saying that the likelihood is high of there
> being
> a notice somewhere on customer's previous bills or a sign in the stores
> indicating when the fee would take effect.
>
>>I know companies now that charge you FOR RECEIVING A BILL.
>
> Can you name a few? Maybe a half dozen?
>
>> Isn't that part of the NATURAL cost of selling a product or service?
>
> It used to be- times have changed (I knowit is a hard concept to grasp)>
>
>> And is it not a fact that a business will incur expenses because THAT
>> is part of the deal?
>
> Only if you assume that it is a normal cost for that business to incur.
> Many companies exist today that have never provided a paper bill as a
> standard option to customers. Why can't other companies transition to
> that
> business model?
>
>> If a company charges for a paper bill, as IF
>> everyone has a computer with internet access, they will eventually
>> charge for any payment method.
>
> Can you please point me to any independent study that says this? I ask,
> because you are the only person to say with absolute certainty that this
> is
> going to occur.
>
>>
>>
>> "And your point is......?"
>>
>> My point was you can save all that nonsense about revenue recognition
>> and when it is earned and blah blah blah. WHEN THE CUSTOMER PAYS
>> THEIR BILL, THE COMPANY RECEIVES THE CASH. If the customer does not
>> pay, that accounting revenue is irrelevant. So for you to dismiss bill
>> payment, just because it is in person, as a burden is silly.
>
> No its not. I've provided facts about associated costs that you choose to
> ignore. And knowing that I have worked in the past in the financial area
> of
> a company that processes millions of dollars in monthly payments (and
> having
> to look at the cost efficiency of each payment option), I think I'm
> comfortable with my level of knowledge here.
>
>> But if you
>> actually owned a business you would find that you would be more than
>> happy to have customers actually PAY their bill.
>
> I did own my own business for about 5 years. I received all my payments
> as
> I requested.
>
>
>> And finally, how long
>> does it take to pay a bill
>
> Long enough to lose a sales and the associated future revenue.
>
>>
>>
>> Anyway, you are hopelessly in love with "business theory" and, as I
>> said, will believe any nonsense you are fed by corporations.
>
> Funny- in this entire thread, I have yet to see Verizon feed us any
> nonsense. I guess that would mean that I formed my opinion based on
> experience andfacts that you are obviously not in possession of. You are
> dealing in hypotheticals and I am telling how it is in the real world. If
> you choose to ignore it, then must believe any nonsense you are fed by the
> anti-business coalition.
>
> Do you clean the toilets where you work? You should if you don't- after
> all, it needs to be done and you're already getting paid.
>
>
>

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

On Fri, 06 May 2005 01:04:46 GMT, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

>SS wrote on [Thu, 5 May 2005 18:44:12 -0600]:
>>
>> "cfj03" <cfj03.1oklpy@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote in message
>> news:cfj03.1oklpy@nospam.cellphoneforums.net...
>>>
>>
>>>I know companies now that charge you FOR RECEIVING A BILL.
>>
>> Can you name a few? Maybe a half dozen?
>
>State Farm

Since when? And under what conditions? State Farm Mutual or State
Farm Fire and Casualty? I've been a SFM customer for over 25 years,
and have never been charged extra to receive a bill.

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

"Alan" <test@test.com> wrote in message
newsrzee.2884$5o2.1116@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> you VZW fanboys are hopeless.

But I'm not a fan of Verizon- never have been. Don't have their service and
never would.

>
> completely myopic and blissfully ignorant. defending VZW at any cost,
never
> to opine against them ever.

But I have posted many negatives about Verizon over the last few years. I
guess that would make me much moreobjective than those of you who feel the
need to bash any big company when the situation arises.

>as long as what VZW does is 'profitable' in the
> name of 'capitailism', it's agreeable to you.

Again, you're wrong. Try having a semblence of a clue before responding,
unless you really are thirteen years old as your posts would indicate.

>
> you scold any dissent with your pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo - which
> clearly has no application in the real world.

And your last statememnt translates into, "Please don't use such big words.
It hurts my uneducated brain to try and figure them out."

>
> if you cant see the greed and lunacy in such a ridiculous fee, its your
> loss.

If greed and profit was the motivator, why choose the least used payment
method to charge for? Doesn't seem like a way to make a big profit, and if
they were greedy, they would choose a method used more often. Want to bet
that less than 1% of revenue is collected at a retail store counter?

If you can't see the idiocy of your ranting, its your loss.

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

"Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd7lgle.tu7.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
> SS wrote on [Thu, 5 May 2005 18:44:12 -0600]:
> >
> > "cfj03" <cfj03.1oklpy@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote in message
> > news:cfj03.1oklpy@nospam.cellphoneforums.net...
> >>
> >
> >>I know companies now that charge you FOR RECEIVING A BILL.
> >
> > Can you name a few? Maybe a half dozen?
>
> State Farm
> Primus telco
> Verizon if you want to know about the details of the minutes you paid
> for and how they were used.
>

You're right- to a degree. The companies charge for a paper bill- they
provide other forms of billing at no charge. Therefore, you can receive a
bill at no charge, contrary to the claim. I'm just playing the "literal
interpretation of the post" game.

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

SS wrote on [Thu, 5 May 2005 19:33:47 -0600]:
>
> "Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnd7lgle.tu7.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
>> SS wrote on [Thu, 5 May 2005 18:44:12 -0600]:
>> >
>> > "cfj03" <cfj03.1oklpy@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote in message
>> > news:cfj03.1oklpy@nospam.cellphoneforums.net...
>> >>
>> >
>> >>I know companies now that charge you FOR RECEIVING A BILL.
>> >
>> > Can you name a few? Maybe a half dozen?
>>
>> State Farm
>> Primus telco
>> Verizon if you want to know about the details of the minutes you paid
>> for and how they were used.
>>
>
> You're right- to a degree. The companies charge for a paper bill- they
> provide other forms of billing at no charge. Therefore, you can receive a
> bill at no charge, contrary to the claim. I'm just playing the "literal
> interpretation of the post" game.

True.

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

The Ghost of General Lee wrote on [Thu, 05 May 2005 21:23:27 -0400]:
> On Fri, 06 May 2005 01:04:46 GMT, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>SS wrote on [Thu, 5 May 2005 18:44:12 -0600]:
>>>
>>> "cfj03" <cfj03.1oklpy@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote in message
>>> news:cfj03.1oklpy@nospam.cellphoneforums.net...
>>>>
>>>
>>>>I know companies now that charge you FOR RECEIVING A BILL.
>>>
>>> Can you name a few? Maybe a half dozen?
>>
>>State Farm
>
> Since when? And under what conditions? State Farm Mutual or State
> Farm Fire and Casualty? I've been a SFM customer for over 25 years,
> and have never been charged extra to receive a bill.

If you want a monthly bill it's $3/mo with State Farm Mutual.

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

SS wrote:

>>I know companies now that charge you FOR RECEIVING A BILL.
>
> Can you name a few? Maybe a half dozen?

I can name exactly one.

Went to my doctor, forgot the $5 copay. That was Tuesday, planned to come in
Friday, couldn't; called the office manager, was told if we could get the
payment in by Monday afternoon we were fine, otherwise they'd have to bill us
and there would be an additional $10 charge.

Seems kinda steep for a $5 copay, but it's irrelevant since I don't typically
forget to bring in the copay anyhow...

> Do you clean the toilets where you work?

No, he works the fryer...

(I'm sorry, I'm really sorry, but I just COULDN'T resist.)

--
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"

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

Alan wrote:

> if you cant see the greed and lunacy in such a ridiculous fee, its your
> loss.

Yet you said, in a previous post, that you were okay with the fee.

And *we're* hopeless?


--
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"

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

On Fri, 06 May 2005 02:01:51 GMT, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

>The Ghost of General Lee wrote on [Thu, 05 May 2005 21:23:27 -0400]:
>> On Fri, 06 May 2005 01:04:46 GMT, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>>SS wrote on [Thu, 5 May 2005 18:44:12 -0600]:
>>>>
>>>> "cfj03" <cfj03.1oklpy@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:cfj03.1oklpy@nospam.cellphoneforums.net...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I know companies now that charge you FOR RECEIVING A BILL.
>>>>
>>>> Can you name a few? Maybe a half dozen?
>>>
>>>State Farm
>>
>> Since when? And under what conditions? State Farm Mutual or State
>> Farm Fire and Casualty? I've been a SFM customer for over 25 years,
>> and have never been charged extra to receive a bill.
>
>If you want a monthly bill it's $3/mo with State Farm Mutual.

Oh, you mean the charge to get set up with *monthly billing*. This is
not the same as being "charged to receive a bill". You can receive
your bills for free. It just costs you $3/month to break those 6
month premiums into monthly payments.

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

The Ghost of General Lee wrote on [Fri, 06 May 2005 07:28:59 -0400]:
> On Fri, 06 May 2005 02:01:51 GMT, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>The Ghost of General Lee wrote on [Thu, 05 May 2005 21:23:27 -0400]:
>>> On Fri, 06 May 2005 01:04:46 GMT, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>SS wrote on [Thu, 5 May 2005 18:44:12 -0600]:
>>>>>
>>>>> "cfj03" <cfj03.1oklpy@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:cfj03.1oklpy@nospam.cellphoneforums.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I know companies now that charge you FOR RECEIVING A BILL.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you name a few? Maybe a half dozen?
>>>>
>>>>State Farm
>>>
>>> Since when? And under what conditions? State Farm Mutual or State
>>> Farm Fire and Casualty? I've been a SFM customer for over 25 years,
>>> and have never been charged extra to receive a bill.
>>
>>If you want a monthly bill it's $3/mo with State Farm Mutual.
>
> Oh, you mean the charge to get set up with *monthly billing*. This is
> not the same as being "charged to receive a bill". You can receive
> your bills for free. It just costs you $3/month to break those 6
> month premiums into monthly payments.

It is the same as "being charged to receive a bill the same way every
other service bills besides insurance".