the latest absurdity: CONVIENIENCE FEE - Page 2

Last message on previous page:
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.

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

--
I work for the ILEC ...." stuff happens! "

"Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
news:117fdcplqfa7mb3@corp.supernews.com...
> 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.

Or the credit-worthiness of the applicant (which speaks to the previous
response).....

> 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

if the aforementioned CWN check is properly done, ALMOST 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,

Not necc. true. Noone can verify the veracity of a check better than 2 eyes.
But I do agree if a credit card is involved, IPO a check.........

> 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.

Don't correlate a want to reply in-line with melodrama. Some feel it make
more sense to reply
in that manner...

>> 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.

Thank You.. Let's not forget that "handholding" can cause lost time /
commisions..

>
>> c'mon.
>>
>> Its not about fees, profits, kiosks, etc.
>
> Yes it is.
>
>> ITS LOGIC.
>

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

that so many of you argue with contorted logic for the rationale of the
retail stores and the fee itself is interesting.

if you accept a paying a fee just for paying your bill in person that's
fine. I have no problem paying the fee, but its absurd. if you all are ok
paying fees simply because you can rationalize them that's perfectly in
order. its not about using the mail, online billpay, or using a kiosk. just
because you don't ever pay it, that doesn't mean its not there.

frankly, I don't think the fee exists to discourage paying in stores; its
labeled exactly for what it is: A FEE. A revenue generator. Plain and
simple. Its VZWs prerogative to charge the fee, and up to us to decide to
pay it or not. but just because they can, does it mean they should?

using some of the logic in this thread, they could also charge you to pay
online (which they will very shortly). I wonder what some of you will say
when that day comes. Oh, wait, I know: IF YOU DON'T LIKE VERIZON, THEN
LEAVE. you will gladly pay that new fee too, applying newfound rationale for
it.

let me ask you this, what fee WOULD you consider to be absurd? or, can you
find a cost-cutting, profit-making, management efficiency-making, revenue
generating rationale for EACH AND EVERY FEE VZW charges?

its as if some of don't know there was a time in this country before an
internet. there was a time when the American business existed and thrived
without kiosks, ATMs and online billpay. yes they save money and create
higher profits; that's great too. that's the whole point of being in
business. I'm sure you all are the same people that are ok with these same
management efficiencies that create more revenue and make life so much more
'convenient' for us customers:

-voice mail.
-tech support via script (mostly outsourced overseas now).
-overseas medical diagnosis via telecomm
(this list could be very large so I'll stop here)

for a time at least, American business did pretty good without kiosks, ATMs
and online billpay. yes, its a new world now, and 'we compete globally', its
all about cost-cutting, etc, etc. but so many of the arguments overlook the
thesis of my original post: its absurd to charge your customers money to pay
their bills.

if you don't see the simple craziness in that, so be it. The lemming
mentality is exactly what corporate America counts on. For the most part,
its why the Sarbanes-Oxley Act exists today. Ask anyone IN corporate America
and they will tell you the S-O Act is a complete disaster for business
itself.

this fee is an example of why the phrase 'customer service' has become an
oxymoron in America.

I suppose if you own VZW stock its another story. the company cleared almost
2 billion in profits in Q1 2005. awesome. I'm all for it.

in general I like being a VZW customer. I am happy with them. the whole
point here was to call attention to an absurdity. the level of greed and
squeezing out every single nickel & dime possible. wringing out revenue in
every nook and cranny. some fees exist for good reason, and some are just
plain insanity.

if you cant perceive this simple idea, that's ok too. keep enjoying the
Kool-Aid.


"Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
news:117fdcplqfa7mb3@corp.supernews.com...
> 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.

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

It's your incessant whining that is the "latest absurdity". You are
swatting a fly with a five inch gun.....

Your irrational ranting over what is, in fact, a trifle is becoming more
than a little tedious.....

Fees charged for service are a fact of life in all businesses and reflect -
as you've been told repeatedly - an offset to the COSTS incurred by a
business to provide that service. This is, indeed, a "no brainer".....

Enough already - quit while you're behind....

PC

Alan wrote:
| that so many of you argue with contorted logic for the rationale of
| the retail stores and the fee itself is interesting.
|
| if you accept a paying a fee just for paying your bill in person
| that's fine. I have no problem paying the fee, but its absurd. if you
| all are ok paying fees simply because you can rationalize them that's
| perfectly in order. its not about using the mail, online billpay, or
| using a kiosk. just because you don't ever pay it, that doesn't mean
| its not there.
|
| frankly, I don't think the fee exists to discourage paying in stores;
| its labeled exactly for what it is: A FEE. A revenue generator. Plain
| and simple. Its VZWs prerogative to charge the fee, and up to us to
| decide to pay it or not. but just because they can, does it mean they
| should?
|
| using some of the logic in this thread, they could also charge you to
| pay online (which they will very shortly). I wonder what some of you
| will say when that day comes. Oh, wait, I know: IF YOU DON'T LIKE
| VERIZON, THEN LEAVE. you will gladly pay that new fee too, applying
| newfound rationale for it.
|
| let me ask you this, what fee WOULD you consider to be absurd? or,
| can you find a cost-cutting, profit-making, management
| efficiency-making, revenue generating rationale for EACH AND EVERY
| FEE VZW charges?
|
| its as if some of don't know there was a time in this country before
| an internet. there was a time when the American business existed and
| thrived without kiosks, ATMs and online billpay. yes they save money
| and create higher profits; that's great too. that's the whole point
| of being in business. I'm sure you all are the same people that are
| ok with these same management efficiencies that create more revenue
| and make life so much more 'convenient' for us customers:
|
| -voice mail.
| -tech support via script (mostly outsourced overseas now).
| -overseas medical diagnosis via telecomm
| (this list could be very large so I'll stop here)
|
| for a time at least, American business did pretty good without
| kiosks, ATMs and online billpay. yes, its a new world now, and 'we
| compete globally', its all about cost-cutting, etc, etc. but so many
| of the arguments overlook the thesis of my original post: its absurd
| to charge your customers money to pay their bills.
|
| if you don't see the simple craziness in that, so be it. The lemming
| mentality is exactly what corporate America counts on. For the most
| part, its why the Sarbanes-Oxley Act exists today. Ask anyone IN
| corporate America and they will tell you the S-O Act is a complete
| disaster for business itself.
|
| this fee is an example of why the phrase 'customer service' has
| become an oxymoron in America.
|
| I suppose if you own VZW stock its another story. the company cleared
| almost 2 billion in profits in Q1 2005. awesome. I'm all for it.
|
| in general I like being a VZW customer. I am happy with them. the
| whole point here was to call attention to an absurdity. the level of
| greed and squeezing out every single nickel & dime possible. wringing
| out revenue in every nook and cranny. some fees exist for good
| reason, and some are just plain insanity.
|
| if you cant perceive this simple idea, that's ok too. keep enjoying
| the Kool-Aid.
|
|
| "Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
| news:117fdcplqfa7mb3@corp.supernews.com...
|| 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.

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

Ok great...then let's all bend over and take it up the ass. Hey, like
before...some people just sit back and take it up the ass and get abused and
could care less...while some other's do some thing about it.

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news53nmd$u92$2@ratbert.glorb.com...
> 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"

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

Higher profits is the name of the game. Hiring a person to collect
payments costs more than the other methods. So to maximize profits, you
use the other methods and discourage or plain stop using the higher cost
method. An excellent method of discouragement is to charge a fee of
partially offset the added expense. In my opinion they could and should
charge $10 or more to take a payment by a clerk.

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

the store is already open.
the computer is already on.
the entire system is up and running.
the person is already in the store, operating said computer.

its not a 'special' accommodation. hourly wage, IT processing costs, etc.
all stay the same. there's no 'incremental cost'. do employees get paid
slightly less when a customer calls on the phone with a question as opposed
to appearing in person?

it used to be a service.

now its a service with a fee. it was only made a service with a fee very
recently.

its a new revenue generator to enhance higher profits.

isn't that obvious?

I will ask again: WHAT KIND FEE *WOULD* YOU THINK WAS ABSURD?

I know higher profits are the holy grail and I agree thats the whole point
of business. I'm not questioning that.


"Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:WZVde.6407$BE3.4532@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Higher profits is the name of the game. Hiring a person to collect
> payments costs more than the other methods. So to maximize profits, you
> use the other methods and discourage or plain stop using the higher cost
> method. An excellent method of discouragement is to charge a fee of
> partially offset the added expense. In my opinion they could and should
> charge $10 or more to take a payment by a clerk.

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

Alan wrote:

> what a supreme myopic iditot you are.

This from the person that says "I don't have a problem with the policy" and
then says it's absurd.

--
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" <test@test.com> wrote in message
news:WlWde.1809$5o2.162@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> the store is already open.
> the computer is already on.
> the entire system is up and running.
> the person is already in the store, operating said computer.
>
> its not a 'special' accommodation. hourly wage, IT processing costs, etc.
> all stay the same. there's no 'incremental cost'. do employees get paid
> slightly less when a customer calls on the phone with a question as
opposed
> to appearing in person?

The employee at the computer is paid to sell phones, not collect on bills.
Any time spent taking payments is time that is taken away from selling
phones, which has a bigger impact on the bottom line than collecting on a
due bill- that money is already guaranteed.

>
> it used to be a service.

It still is.

>
> now its a service with a fee. it was only made a service with a fee very
> recently.

Nobody is denying that.

>
> its a new revenue generator to enhance higher profits.

No- its a way to make people use other methods of payment.

>
> isn't that obvious?

Yes, my point was obvious.

>
> I will ask again: WHAT KIND FEE *WOULD* YOU THINK WAS ABSURD?
>

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

I'm not running for student council president. There aren't terms for
discussion and debate here.

The lemmings really make me laugh. Will you pay every fee VZW charges,
gladly, without question, just because they're 'profitable' for Verizon?

It's not a complaint. The original post was intended to draw attention to an
absurd fee. If you don't find it absurd, so be it. I'm not seeking approval,
validation or even agreement.

Its a newsgroup.


"Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd7gne3.h26.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
> SS wrote on [Tue, 3 May 2005 22:31:17 -0600]:
>>
>> "Alan" <test@test.com> wrote in message
>> news:WlWde.1809$5o2.162@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>> isn't that obvious?
>>
>> Yes, my point was obvious.
>>
>
> "Alan" is an idiot and is just looking for more to complain about,
> obviously he doesn't care that he is looking more and more stupid as he
> continues to post.

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

On Mon, 02 May 2005 23:50:56 -0400, The Ghost of General Lee wrote:

>>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).

A reserve is set up each accounting period. The actual write-off is made against the reserve. Over time, if the writeoffs vary considerably from the amounts reserved, the reserves are adjusted resulting in a further profit or loss (and typically the reserve rate might also be adjusted).

But the fact is the $1 sale today does not result in a dollar profit on a P&L statement issued the next day because closing the books also requires an adjustment in the reserve.

Put simply, income is not the same thing as profits (though the two often incorrectly are treated as synonomous).

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

good point. very.


"Philip R. Mann" <prmlaw@NOSPAMnyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cezynjalpeepbz.ifyld12.pminews@news.individual.net...
> On Tue, 03 May 2005 14:08:05 -0400, Isaiah Beard wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>>On what grounds? VZW most certainly does accept cash at their stores.
>>It's the difference between putting your cash into a machine or having a
>>human take your money that differnetiates whether you get assessed the
>>fee or not.
>
> If I have to pay my bill PLUS $2 to pay by cash, then VZW is acting
> improperly because the tender of cash in the amount of my bill satisfies
> that obligation.
>
>

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

You can pay by cash to the kiosk without the fee. Even if you are
paying by check, if you pay to a person, you are charged the fee. Yes
we are obliged to pay our bills, but verizon, like sbc here, is not
obliged to provide a person to pay to. There are several other ways to
pay.

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

If you find it absurd, so be it. You don't need to post about it. If
you were not trying to find approval, validation or agreement, why did
you post?

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

the last time i checked, there was no posting criterea for newsgroup
messages. nor is there a limit to speech either, absurd nothwithstanding.

just what do you think the point of these newsgroups are?



"Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3p2ee.6590$BE3.6190@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> If you find it absurd, so be it. You don't need to post about it. If you
> were not trying to find approval, validation or agreement, why did you
> post?

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

Alan wrote:
| the last time i checked, there was no posting criterea for newsgroup
| messages. nor is there a limit to speech either, absurd
| nothwithstanding.
|
| just what do you think the point of these newsgroups are?

Generally speaking, the point of these NGs is to exchange information and
discuss germane issues.....

You provide no information worthy of note and your "issue" is certainly not
germane....

You are, as you state, free to post whatever you want - just be prepared for
responses you might not like from those of us who are just as free as you
are to post whatever we want......

PC

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

Alan wrote:
> the store is already open.
> the computer is already on.
> the entire system is up and running.
> the person is already in the store, operating said computer.

Yes, and then he has to sit there and deal with YOU and your pedantic
rants, while a line forms for paotential new customers who would like to
start up service. HIS time is being taken up by YOU when it does not
have to be.


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

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

Alan wrote:
> this rationale makes me laugh.

Yes, your rationale IS pretty funny.


> collecting broken phones does not make them money either,

On the contrary. A customer with a broken phone isn't generating
revenue. Therefore it's in Verizon's best interests to make csrs
available to swap out phones under warranty or sell new phones.

Of course, if a better method is developed for swapping out phones that
doesn't require a CSR, then I'm sure Verizon would implement it. And if
it saves customers a trip to the store, then I'm all for it.

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

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

On Wed, 04 May 2005 05:28:21 -0400 (EDT), "Philip R. Mann"
<prmlaw@NOSPAMnyc.rr.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 02 May 2005 23:50:56 -0400, The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>
>>>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).
>
>A reserve is set up each accounting period. The actual write-off is
>made against the reserve. Over time, if the writeoffs vary considerably
>from the amounts reserved, the reserves are adjusted resulting in a
>further profit or loss (and typically the reserve rate might also be adjusted).

Yeah, this 'reserve' is their retained earnings. But that still has
nothing to do with this debate, nor does it dispute my statement.

>
>But the fact is the $1 sale today does not result in a dollar profit
>on a P&L statement issued the next day because closing the books
>also requires an adjustment in the reserve.

Why are you hung up on this irrelevant issue?

>Put simply, income is not the same thing as profits (though the two
>often incorrectly are treated as synonomous).

Funny, I never mentioned the word 'profit'. Why even bring this up to
me?

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

Philip R. Mann wrote:

> If I have to pay my bill PLUS $2 to pay by cash, then VZW is acting improperly

If that's true, why haven't payment fees levied by VZW as well as other
companies inside and outside the cellular industry been challenged in court?

--
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?)

I agree with Alan and I should know because I have an MBA (finance
concentration) along with an accounting degree. We charge fees because
it boosts the bottom line and most of our customers won't leave (I won't
say who I work for).

In this case, VZW has to pay the hourly wage REGARDLESS of whether
anyone pays a bill with a cs rep or not so that argument as well as all
the useless drivel about accounting methods is irrelevant. It isn't a
deterrent, it's just an easy way to boost rev. Heck, if, say, 100,000
people a month pay in person that is $200,000 a month-or $2.4 million,
per year in basically free money. No other cost is incurred because,
again, the hourly worker is essentially a sunk cost (that is, once the
committment is made to have them work for the day, a cost will be
incurred every minute whether 100 people show up or zero people show
up). Of course, some people here, and a lot of companies, don’t really
know what is a cost/cost-driver because there is a disconnect between
things that actually drive revenue/cost and things that only look like
they drive revenue/cost.

And yeah, you CAN expect internet payments to cost a fee eventually
because some bright MBA will figure out that people like the conveniece
and because VZW, Cingular, etc can basically charge a fee for any method
of payment and many of the people will argue things like “if you don’t
like the fee mail it in” or “don’t get a cell phone.”

In fact, the stupidity of such arguments amazes me. Some people will
defend what they see as capitalism, even when it IS really just GREED,
to THEIR last dollar. Yes when ALL methods of payments include some
kind of fee those fools will still be claiming the company is only
doing it because they HAVE to cut cost to survive.

One more thing, CASH is all that matters. The rest of accounting is
mostly nonsense, hence AOL used non-existent "money" or "value" to buy
something real: Time-Warner. Retained earnings, net profit etc are
just accounting terms based on accounting rules. At the end of the
day, that company better have cash or a large credit line. Net profits
and retained earnings DO NOT PAY BILLS.


--
cfj03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Phone Forums: http://cellphoneforums.net
View this thread: http://cellphoneforums.net/t174353.html

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

Bend over Steve...support Verizon's ridiculous fee's to pay a bill. Just
because YOU don't pay a bill a certain way doesn't mean you have to bend
over and agree with fat mouth greed. Stand up for once in your life and make
some waves, will ya.

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news59ffd$u88$4@ratbert.glorb.com...
> Xman wrote:
>> Ok great...then let's all bend over and take it up the ass.
>
> Whatever makes you happy. I'm not one to judge another man's sexual
> preferences; not even yours.
>
> BTW, No one is forcing anyone to pay at the store.
>
> --
> 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" <test@test.com> wrote in message
news:Cz2ee.2085$5o2.1480@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> the last time i checked, there was no posting criterea for newsgroup
> messages. nor is there a limit to speech either, absurd nothwithstanding.

Apparently no limit on acting like a childish moron, either. Your response,
which is certainly not the first one to voice that rather childish approach,
serves no purpose and proves that you don't know the true answer to your
next question.

>
> just what do you think the point of these newsgroups are?
>

Certainly not for children to try to act like adults, and vice cersa.

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

They pay the hourly wage primarily for the person to sell phones. If
they also have to pay hourly wages to add enough people to cover the
bill payers, that is an added expense that should be avoided/curtailed.
Charging a fee to partially offset that expense is justified.

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

cfj03 wrote:
> And finally, how long does it take to pay a bill

Well, so far it has taken days to *talk* about paying
your bill. Not sure how long it will take once you
finally get around to it...

-Quick

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

cfj03 wrote:
> Quick Wrote:
>
>>cfj03 wrote:
>>
>>>And finally, how long does it take to pay a bill
>>
>>Well, so far it has taken days to *talk* about paying
>>your bill. Not sure how long it will take once you
>>finally get around to it...
>>
>>-Quick
>
>
> I'm with Cingular and I use free online bill payment through my bank or
> go directly to the website to pay.

Amazingly enough, Verizon has a website where you can pay your bill, and they
don't charge you for the privilege. (*gasp*)

> customers. Bank One charges 2-3USD to cash a check drawn on them.

> That cost should be covered by the client's -the checkwriter that is-
> account fees or Bank One should stop accepting checking accounts
> because the cost is obviously too much of a burden.

Bull. I should not have to pay an extra $3 just because the guy I paid chose to
cash the check at the bank instead of depositing it at his own bank. If Bank
One is anything like every other bank in the US, they only charge people to
cash a Bank One check *if the payee does not currently have a deposit account
at Bank One.* Otherwise you can cash it for free.

Unless I'm missing something here... is Bank One charging its own customers to
cash checks drawn on Bank One accounts now?

--
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"