Dissing the directory

In reporting this week that it has successfully gained an injunction against a mobile spammer, Verizon Wireless also provided more fuel in its campaign not to participate in a national directory of mobile phone numbers.

The carrier has said it won't allow any of its customers' numbers to be published because it doesn't want them to be bothered by unwanted calls and messages. Verizon Wireless, in a story in The New York Times this week, said it won't even give up the numbers of its users who actually want to opt in to the directory.

This is a case of taking the wrong action for the right reasons. For any new national directory of wireless numbers to achieve maximum usefulness, it needs as many numbers as possible.

Still, whatever your feelings are about our increasingly isolationist society, people have the right to shut themselves off from the rest of the world as much as they see fit. They should have the choice not to be listed.

However, they also should be allowed to be listed if they want to, and that's a choice that Verizon Wireless appears to be taking out of its own customers hands. The company's attitude is particularly vexing because it seems like it could keep some business owners--who increasingly like to advertise their wireless numbers--from becoming Verizon Wireless customers.

(It's also a curious business move for another reason, since the carrier also operates the Verizon Superpages service, which stands to become more useful and produce more revenue with the creation of a wireless directory.)

The Pierz Group released a study today that suggested that up to 52% of mobile users would allow their numbers to be listed in a public directory. That's not great for advocates of a truly comprehensive directory, but it's not horrible either. That could mean a directory of more than 70 million wireless users.

Mobile spam certainly would increase with such a directory, and the mobile industry will have to work hard with regulators and legislator to make sure that it can be combatted or blocked as customers wish, whether that means the creation of a new "Do Not Call OR Message" list, or some other tactic.

In a world where wireless is starting to replace wireline--really what the wireless industry always has wanted--consumers should be allowed the same choices they were given as wireline customers. And the companies that always have allowed them to make these choices in the wireline world, such as Verizon, shouldn't rescind them for wireless. It goes against the grain and the logic of the wireline replacement trend.

At this point, it doesn't make sense for a company that has offered directory assistance to wireline consumers not to offer it to wireless users--at least to those who want it.

E-mail me at doshea@primediabusiness.com