Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

stayfree - Stay Free! | 11 June 2002

stayfree AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Free, promotional email list for Stay Free! print magazine

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Carrie McLaren <carrie AT stayfreemagazine.org>
  • To: stayfree AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Stay Free! | 11 June 2002
  • Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:56:34 -0500

MY NEW FAVORITE THING

A little paper out of Queens, "Three Weeks," is one of those things that makes me glad I'm in New York. Published every 21 days (for "two cents, voluntary"), it's a simple, newsprint circular resembling 19th century elite magazines in design and prose-style.... like McSweeneys, I guess, but without the suffocating irony. It's very sincere and sweet, in fact. Funny, too. I was so taken with the most recent issue that I contacted the editor for permission to reprint the following piece. Hope you enjoy it. --CM


"An Open Letter to Verizon"

(from "Three Weeks," available in finer book stores throughout NYC. Or try sending a self-addressed, 9-inch envelope with a 57ยข stamp to Three Weeks, PO Box 1784, Long Island City, NY 11101.)

April 23rd, 2002

Ivan Seidenberg
Chief Executive Officer
Verizon Communications

Charles R. Lee Chairman
Verizon Communications

Lawrence T. Babbio, Jr.
Vice Chairman and President
Verizon Communications


My Dear Sirs,

It has not escaped my attention that the Verizon Communications Corporation has embarked upon a novel experiment, videlicet, raising the cost of a local pay-phone call in New York City by 100%, from 25 to 50 cents. Calls for Information, formerly offered free of charge-- a gesture which did your conglomeration much credit, as did the free use of pay-phones during the city's tragedy last September--now cost 50 cents as well. Given that your pay-phones offer no alternative method of obtaining information, such as a Yellow Pages directory, it now costs 85 cents (50 cents plus a further connection fee of 35 cents for the call itself) to determine the opening hours of a local restaurant or the nearest gun-shot clinic from a Verizon pay-phone.

I applaud you on the audacity of your decision. Your rate-hike, by defying every law of economic competition, is a naked assertion that your company does not operate in a free market. During a recession--which, gentlemen, I needn't tell you this city is surely experiencing--companies typically consolidate their market share by lowering prices in order to drive out competitors. By raising them instead, you are tacitly acknowledging that you do not, in fact, have any real competitors. When it comes to pay-phones, New York, on its streets and more especially on its subway platforms, is Verizon's company town. The few scattered, downtrodden remains of your competitors' 25-cent pay-phones are, as you yourselves must know only too well, a force insufficient to pose any serious threat to your stranglehold on this most captive of markets. If all Hondas suddenly doubled in price overnight, would that company not be driven out of business within days by Toyota, GM, and other automobile manufacturers? But here there are not enough Toyotas to matter.

May I also congratulate your deft attempts at cloaking your greed by pretending that the 50-cent phone call is actually a new service? Here, I am referring, of course, to the fine print on your new phones that offers the consumer "unlimited" time for the extra quarter. As an "unlimited" local call is a service that nobody using a pay-phone requires or desires, the new terms appear almost marvelously insulting. Indeed, gentlemen, is it not the essence, the very definition of a pay-phone qua pay-phone, that one uses it "on the go," and, therefore, for an inevitably brief and limited period of time? To offer New Yorkers "unlimited" calls on a subway platform, for example, where the call's maximum duration is obviously limited to the time that elapses between trains, is but a hollow gift, a shell game. On a deeper philosophical level, one might well ask if such a thing as an "unlimited" phone call is a logically coherent or empirically verifiable phenomenon. Strictly speaking, would the caller not need to be immortal in order to live up to the possibility of a limitless call? I see nothing in your equivocations except sophistry.

I am willing to grant that, as longstanding beneficiaries of 25-cent pay-phone calls, New Yorkers were being granted an especial dispensation, not enjoyed by the rest of the nation, that could not be expected to endure forever. Indeed, local pay-phone calls, like haircuts, bleacher tickets to Major League Baseball, and dim sum, numbered among an unusual list of goods and services that, in clear violation of the general rule, could be had cheaper in this city than elsewhere. Nevertheless, if this micro-economical climatic inversion had, inevitably, to end, I see no reason why the punishment for our days of grace need be so extreme and patently unfair.

One hundred percent price inflation is something most of us associate with war-torn nations, third-world regimes in hock to the IMF, black markets such as the drug trade, or Weimar Germany. If other industries followed your example, the United States would be on its knees, economically speaking, within days. Were rents doubled, or the price of a bus ride increased to three dollars (with information about their schedules an additional three dollars), protests and riots might ensue, governments could fall. Should you argue that pay-phones are a luxury, not vital to the sustaining of city life, I might pose this question--if the price of diamonds increased by 100%, would there not be fewer marriages, less joy in the world? Is the case not similar with conversation? A fellow returning home to his dearest in the dead of night may be less likely to call ahead while waiting for his train--does the possibility not intrude on your dreams? Why would anyone pay the new tariff when so many other companies continue to operate their phones at the old price? Beloved consumer, Verizon is saying, We know you are too lazy and stupid to bother walking the extra block or two required to save a little change. Oh, you may think that you will resist us, and perhaps you might make the effort once or twice. But perhaps you will not save much money after all. Perhaps your call will go longer than expected, and, having no smaller coins, you will have to use that second quarter anyway. In time, you will relent.

Yet I submit that something more than the inevitable outcome of deregulated cartel piracy is at work in your double-or-nothing ploy, something far more subtle and calculating. Can the 50-cent pay-phone call be regarded as anything but a form of psychological torture and economic intimidation aimed at that sector of the population who as yet have refused to succumb to the increasingly tyrannical "necessity" of owning a cellular telephone? Your logic, doubtless supported by an array of graphs, pie charts, and wistful sales projections, dictates that thousands of consumers, bewildered and indignant at the new price, will finally "give in" and invest in a cellular phone. Ideally, gentlemen, would it not be a Verizon cellular phone, with a multi-year calling plan and all the fixings? While you take with one hand, you can offer solace with the other, and thereby hope to become the beneficiary of your own bad deed. What you are forgetting, my dear sirs, is that many of us are, at present, too impoverished even to contemplate your cellular brinkmanship. We live in a bankrupt city, gentlemen, a city that has seen better days. According to a recent report by the erstwhile consulting firm Appleseed, 110,000 of us have lost our jobs since last September. The United Way says that evictions are on the rise and the lines at food pantries are up. Many younger people, whilst vastly more fortunate than many of their fellows, are, as one report in The New York Times put it, "Educated, Experienced, and Out of Unemployment Checks." Although my own personal experience can only be a matter of anecdote, I can assure you that indulging myself in a cellular telephone has a rather low priority, coming long after potential investments in health insurance, a long-overdue visit to the dentist, Afghan land-mine charities, and other such small matters. In short, gentlemen, much as I might like to oblige your lust for profits, shore up your growth projections, and contribute to the buoyancy of your stock, I can afford neither a cellular phone nor your 50-cent pay-phones. No quarter will be given. Your actions strike me as dispiriting, not to say a little unpatriotic. And their effect is bad for us both: now, I shall simply not call.

Pay-phones were already an indicator of one's lack of social standing, a fact apparent to anyone who would examine the demographics of their use. Talking on the new phones will be an exercise in further public humiliation, ocular proof of one's inability to participate in the wireless world. Just as the uninsured pay more for identical medical care, so too will those least able to afford it suffer most from the price hike. Paradoxically enough, the poor, in this case not so much nickel-and-dimed but quartered, will be double-charged to advertise their poverty to the world.

I am, Gentlemen,
Your Humble Servant,

J. M. Tyree, Esq.




IN CASE YOU MISSED THE NEWS LAST WEEK

"U.S. Is Icing Our Warming Report"
From Newsday (by Bill McKibben)
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0606-02.htm
Some officials in the Bush administration have changed their mind about global warming and are finally acknowledging its existence. But now they're saying the problem is so bad, there's nothing they can do about it.



  • Stay Free! | 11 June 2002, Carrie McLaren, 06/10/2002

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page