Should your cellphone number be available in a directory?

Only 26% of Americans would participate in a such a directory if it were available, according to a survey published Monday by the Pierz Group, which researches phone directories and people's attitudes toward them.

The first mobile phone directory currently is being compiled, with access scheduled for next year at the earliest.

The cellphone number list will essentially be folded into the current 411 directory assistance service, and people seeking information will pay a fixed fee.

The numbers will not be published in a book or made available over the internet.

Of the six major national mobile phone carriers, five have agreed to participate.

Only Verizon, the largest of the companies, with over 40 million customers, refuses to allow any of them to be listed.

Verizon believes it would be jeopardizing customers' privacy by participating.

The company also points out that customers will be charged for incoming calls, including those from unwanted callers.

Experts say that if Verizon holds to its position, the directory will never get off the ground.

Not only will people be unable to find the number of a Verizon customer, but they will be charged a fee for their fruitless request.

"Without Verizon, you don't have a mobile phone directory," said Seamus McAteer, an analyst with the Zelos Group, a market research firm.

Prediction: Verizon will gain a ton of customers by sticking to their guns.

I'll be right there in line.

As currently envisioned in pending federal legislation, cellphone subscribers would have to actively opt in: companies could not list customers who failed to to request being left out.

The legislation would also make it illegal to charge a fee for keeping a number unlisted.

Once upon a time, everyone was listed except Liz Taylor and Cary Grant and suchlike.

Then the privacy/fear thing started and gained traction; by 2002, only 72% of wired phones were still listed in the white pages.

This year, it's down to 65%, and the number's only gonna keep decreasing.

[via Matt Richtel in the New York Times]