TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Unlisted Phone Number

Re: Unlisted Phone Number
Mon, 5 Mar 2007 20:24:56 EST

In a message dated 3 Mar 2007 22:52:39 -0800, Steve Crow
<> writes:

> I think the better question is why, for about 100 years, the phone
> companies have been charging subscribers for the privilege of NOT
> listing the number ... is there some sort of additional effort required
> to accomplish this task?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: According to telco there is an
> additional effort involved. Telco estimates a certain time frame
> required for each directory inquiry call. This time frame is
> completely lost when telco has to argue with callers about numbers
> being unlisted and/or unpublished, i.e. time spent listening to
> callers telling the operator how dumb she is, demanding to speak
> with a supervisor, insisting 'party would want to speak with me',
> impersonating a police officer with a 'right to know number', etc.
> All those needless conversations between caller and operator take
> additional time. That, telco says, is where the extra money is
> spent; in dealing with persistent callers. PAT]

Not only that, but the number must be marked as non-published, etc.,
and that mark carried forward continuously. Otherwise it would get
printed in the next directory.

Wes Leatherock

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Neal McLain: "Re: Area Codes and Prefixes, esp. 200"
Go to Previous message: Robert Bonomi: "Re: Unlisted Phone Number"
May be in reply to: Patricia Pascale: "Unlisted Phone Number"
Next in thread: Charles Gray: "Re: Unlisted Phone Number"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page