Verizon Charging Customers $2 Fee For Paying Their Bills On-Line -- Absolutely Nothing To Do With The Bakken -- Never Mind -- Not Gonna Happen

Update

3:15 p.m., same day, December 30, 2011: Verizon CEO says: "Oh, oh....big mistake....can you spell "NETFLIX"?....oh, oh.....we really didn't mean it.....the $2 fee was just a trial balloon....we won't impose the $2 fee...."

This suggests to me the multi-millionaire/multi-billionaire CEOs (and Congressmen and Senators are in that same group) have lost touch with the general public. Some months ago I was informed by Macy's that they would be charging $2.00 even if the outstanding balance was less than $2.00. They said that if the outstanding balance, for example, was 64 cents, I would be charged $2.00 (to cover the cost of processing).  My outstanding balance happened to be less than $2.00 that month (just coincidental; I was in the process of paying off that credit card). I immediately paid the $2.00 and then wrote to Macy's telling them to cancel my account. They credited my account that $2.00 but by then the account had been canceled in my mind. I followed up with another note, and said, "no, I really meant it. I want the account canceled." 

It's not the $2.00. It's the "principle" of the issue. And that "cost of processing"? That process is completely electronic; whether I have a $100 balance or a 64-cent balance, the cost to process is the same, I would assume, when it's all done electronically.

I find it incredible that companies like Macy's work so hard to attract new customers, and then do something so stupid to lose their customers. It certainly appears the marketing side of the house and the bean-counters in the back offices are not talking to each other.

I see the same thing in the airlines. The CEOs in their airline magazines tell you how great the flying experience is, and then insure that flight attendants don't have an extra bag of snacks (5-cent cost) for folks in coach. (Speaking of which, are those magazines really worth it?)

Original Post

Link here.

Verizon Wireless, which this month angered customers with three separate data service problems, said on Thursday it will add a $2 fee for one-time telephone and online bill payments.

The planned change, to take effect on January 15, was greeted by a storm of criticism.

Consumer blog Engadget said charging customers to pay was "downright ludicrous." Another tech website, cnet.com, said the move "made little sense."

"The fee is designed to address costs incurred by us for only those customers who choose to make one-time bill payments in alternate payment channels (online, mobile, telephone) and who choose not to use the other options available to them ...," Verizon Wireless spokesman Thomas Pica said in an email.

If not "online, mobile, telephone," pray tell, what are the other options: US Postal Service, FedEx, and walk-in? 

In response, Verizon said:

Verizon is adding the fee to address costs it incurs for processing such payments, according to an e-mailed statement from the company. The charge doesn’t apply to customers who enroll in automatic payment plans, use electronic checks, pay at a Verizon Wireless store, send in checks or pay through their online banking website.

Back to mail or paying in person? That is less expensive than month-to-month on-line payments. I must be missing something. Everyone else is going to electronic payment. This does not make sense. If "everyone" does this, one would need to set up a dozen accounts for more to pay bills on-line -- each with a proprietary site. I pay all my bills on-line through one site. Why would I want to go to a dozen separate proprietary sites to pay my monthly bills. This simply does not make sense.

ATT, Sprint, others don't charge folks to pay their bills on-line. 

The article goes on to say that Verizon has admitted to growing pains.

It looks like the new poster child for cellular irritation has passed from ATT to Verizon.

On a separate note, I see T-Mobile is back to advertising on television. I had not seen a T-Mobile ad  in weeks, and last night I saw one. I could have just missed them, but if accurate, the timing makes sense. The Justice department said "no way" to ATT-T-Mobile deal. In the big scheme of things, bad news for consumers: T-Mobile will hold significant amount of bandwidth and ever-increasing number of subscribers. It would be the same as an unused highway lane for no other reason than some folks somewhere trying to slow down traffic.