TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Unlisted Phone Number

Re: Unlisted Phone Number

Wesrock@aol.com
Mon, 5 Mar 2007 20:24:56 EST

In a message dated 3 Mar 2007 22:52:39 -0800, Steve Crow
<steve.crow@gmail.com> 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 being unlisted and/or unpublished, i.e. time spent listening to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
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com

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