[Deezul]

"The fee will help allow us to continue to support these single bill payment options ... and is designed to address costs incurred by us for only those customers who choose to make single bill payments,"

Isn't running a for-profit company supposed to address costs associated with taking customers money? Convenience charge could simply be translated to a "because we can charge".

[suresk]

I don't get this explanation at all. It isn't like credit card companies just barely started charging processing fees. And, on the other side, customers who utilize the less expensive payment methods aren't being given a credit for saving Verizon money.

Not only that, but the recurring credit card payments will incur similar processing fees for Verizon, but won't cost you $2.

Part of me sometimes wonders if there is some club where CEOs of large corporations are having a game to see which one can get away with the most ridiculous fee/price hike, with bonus points for using a patronizing explanation for it.

[tsieling]

Not quite. A convenience charge is a naked, unbridled contempt charge.

They do because they can, and nobody will stand up for you. Nationalize. Banish the execs to Monster Island. Start over.

[JoshTriplett]

> They do because they can, and nobody will stand up for you. Nationalize. Banish the execs to Monster Island. Start over.

Right, because having one company works so much better than having several, and because governments do so much better at listening to their "customers", and because you can always stop paying if you don't like the service. Oh, wait, none of those things.