Be that as it may, Time Warner Cable isn't alone in levying this fee. AT&T charges its customers $1.25 monthly for an unlisted number. Verizon charges $1.75.
Jon Davies, a Verizon spokesman, said that "there are a lot of costs" associated with not publishing a number in a telephone directory, although he couldn't say what they were.
"There are ongoing processes that we have to observe," he said.
Gordon Diamond, an AT&T spokesman, echoed this sentiment. "The fee is recurring because there are ongoing costs to provide the service," he said, adding that unlisted numbers require "special handling."
Unless telecom companies maintain their records with quills and sheets of papyrus, this is just silly.
Charging people again and again to not be listed in a digitally maintained directory is tantamount to extortion, especially in an age where identity theft is the nation's fastest-growing crime. No one should have to pay extra to protect their privacy.
Moreover, don't phone companies make enough money as it is selling ads for their published listings and charging as much as $2.50 per call for directory assistance?
State Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) introduced legislation -- SB 437 -- that would prohibit telecom companies from charging a fee for unlisted numbers. But she placed the bill on hold until next year amid fierce opposition by phone and cable companies.
"They didn't take it lightly," Pavley told me. "They had a full contingent of lobbyists descend on the Senate."
Former Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) introduced similar legislation last year and was soundly beaten back by industry lobbyists, who argued that any such change would cost them millions of dollars and could lead to increases for other phone rates.
A particularly striking aspect of this whole thing is the wide disparity in the amounts of fees charged. If it costs Time Warner Cable 99 cents a month to keep a customer's number unlisted, why does the exact same service cost AT&T customers $1.25, not to mention $1.75 for Verizon customers?
Could each company's "process" really be that different?
"We've talked to people who work in the industry," Pavley said. "There's no cost to this. They just press a few buttons and it's done."
And here's another wrinkle: Time Warner requires the assistance of no fewer than two other telecom companies to list customers' names and numbers in a phone book. Those other companies do all the heavy lifting.
But when Time Warner collects 99 cents a month for an unlisted number, how much of that fee is shared by the rival telcos?
Nada. Time Warner pockets the entire amount.
Fregoso-Cox said the fee also covers the company's liability should it mistakenly publish a number that a customer wanted unlisted. What if, say, a stalker took advantage of that information?
There's an easy answer to that: Make phone books an opt-in affair rather than opt-out. If someone wants to be listed, fine. You make your preference known and you're in. For everyone else, sweet privacy.
--
David Lazarus' column runs Wednesdays and Sundays.
Send your tips or feedback to david.lazarus@latimes.com.
--
latimes.com/lazarus/number
Poll
Should people be charged monthly for an unlisted number?
