wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (05/23/84)
I am deliberately posting this to net.general, as it is directed to those of you who are responsible for the code used in the operational (billing, routing, etc.) computer systems used by AT&T, Bell, the various BOC's, or whatever the working telcos are called today. On yesterday's (22 May) TV national news, there was yet ANOTHER story of an enormous fraudulent "Calling Card" phone bill to add to the many we have heard over the past few years. This one involved a little old lady who told her calling card number to a motel switchboard operator, who passed it to his girlfriend, who passed it to several others, and it eventually was being used worldwide. The bill is well over $1 million. One network mentioned that AT&T is terminating the usage of calling cards in South Florida for overseas calls to Latin America and some other countries, due to the prevalence of fraudulent usage. I now ask the obvious question, directly to you who program and design the systems that implement this accounting and billing: WHY HAVE YOU NOT ADDED THE FEW LINES OF CODE THAT WOULD CUT OFF THE VALIDITY OF FURTHER USE OF A CALLING CARD WHEN THE UNPAID BILL EXCEEDS A SENSIBLE LIMIT? To me, a residential customer, that limit should be $100. I do not make many long distnce calls, however, so maybe that is too low, but it is where I would want my account to be cut off. The customers should be given this as an option -- cutoffs at $100, $250, $500, $1000, and suchlike levels, to be chosen in line with your normal usage. Pick one when you contract for service, and a one-time retrofit for all who have current service. You could change this with a call to the business office. Such a limit would be trivial to implement in an automated switching and billing environment. Yes, there are areas still not so automated. But getting this code in the automated areas would practically eliminate these extreme cases of fraudulent use. WHY HASN'T THIS BEEN DONE YEARS AGO? Do you feel insulted by the strident tone of this message? You should be. AT&T and Bell have a reputation for performance, skill, and advanced technology, and there is no excuse for something so obvious to have been ignored for so long. The only explanation that comes to mind is that the telcos have some sinister reason for WANTING this fraud and publicity to continue! If I had been responsible for a DoD system that allowed this sort of thing to happen, I would have been hung by my heels by the GAO and Army Audit! What's going on out there? Will Martin