‘Shortfall charge’ on phone bill absurd

Published 9:00 pm Wednesday, May 9, 2007

Like many money-wise young professionals, I take care to conserve where possible. So when I opened my telephone bill this month to find a new “shortfall charge” I was incensed.

This charge is a clever way for the phone company to combat losses incurred by so many people using cell phones to make long distance calls. Under the guise of a monthly minimum for unused service, this tactic forces those without long distance service to pay for it anyway.

So, it’s only $2 plus tax – but there’s a principle at stake. I’m bewildered by the notion that I should pay the company an extra $2 per month for not using long distance service. I don’t need or want long distance. Therefore it seems unreasonable, if not illegal, to charge me for the lack of a service – as if, when leaving the grocery store, I am charged for tomatoes I did not buy.

The phone company’s notion assumes that all people are born needing long distance, and therefore anyone opting not to have long distance is burdening the company with a loss for which it should be compensated. The cleverly crafted explanation of this charge indicates that I have $0 “long distance qualifying charges” and should therefore be subject to a minimum fee for not generating any charges. This is absurd. Since I specifically opted against long distance service, there is nothing for which to qualify. I resent this charge, the implication of its defining statement, and the discrimination to which I am subjected for not subscribing to a service that I don’t need.

This strikes at my freedom as a citizen to choose the ways in which I contribute to our economy. If I don’t need the tomatoes, I’m not going to buy them.

Alex Credgington

Arlington