76012.300@compuserve.com (76012,300 Brad Hicks) (05/07/91)
Is it my imagination, or is wire fraud what the Secret Service charges
you with if they don't like you but can't think of anything else?
This item comes out of the 04/01/91 issue of {Electronic Mail and
Micro Systems} (EMMS), vol. 15, no. 7, pages 23 to 24, Eric Arnum
(ed.):
"Lastly, a 23-year-old 'entrepreneur' in Manhattan got himself
a 540 number -- one of the local Dial-It audiotex lines. He
used one of those Demon Dialers that calls a list of telephone
numbers in sequence, and programmed it to call local exchanges
popular with pagers. He then left an alphanumeric message to
call his 540 number.
"The system allegedly called 50,000 pagers and got 2,000
'pagees' to call back. And since his audiotex program was $55
a call, he pocketed over $70,000 in profit. Or so he thought.
One of the victims [note word choice -- JBH] had a friend in
the U.S. Secret Service. The entrepreneur is now facing 50,000
counts of wire fraud."
Note that according to Eric Arnum, in this case an "entrepreneur" has
"victims". Entrepreneurs don't have victims, they have customers or
clients. Only criminals have victims.
The only other place I've seen this particular usage was from a
Communist Party member complaining about the black market in Moscow.
He meant the same thing, too: people paying fair market price for a
good or a service they received.
I see no lies and no coercion. The people who were charged got what
they paid for, a $55 audiotex message. Is there anybody in Manhattan
who can afford a pager who doesn't know that 540 numbers are toll
calls? If there are two thousand yuppie scum who are stupid enough to
return a page to a toll number, and they do this for no reason other
than that they were asked to, how can it possibly be illegal or even
unethical?
(I think Eric Arnum can be reached at either EMMS@mcimail.com or
2735375@mcimail.com; I know that I can be reached preferably at
jbhicks@mcimail.com or at 76012.300@compuserve.com.)
cc: Eric Arnum
Electronic Mail and Micro Systems
MCI Mail: 273-5375trebor@uunet.uu.net> (05/07/91)
76012.300@compuserve.com (76012,300 Brad Hicks) writes: > I see no lies and no coercion. The people who were charged got what > they paid for, a $55 audiotex message. Is there anybody in Manhattan > who can afford a pager who doesn't know that 540 numbers are toll > calls? If there are two thousand yuppie scum who are stupid enough to > return a page to a toll number, and they do this for no reason other > than that they were asked to, how can it possibly be illegal or even > unethical? Oh get real, Brad. There was clear fraudulent intent here. Said "entrepreneur"'s intent was to trick people into calling the 540 number, collect the $55 a call, and abscond with the money. There wasn't coercion, but there was a definite lie. The fact that the intended targets were "yuppie scum" is immaterial (and an ad-hominum argument -- you should be ashamed!) to the issue. And in point of fact, "540" is much less well known that "900." This swine was using the telephone to blatantly defraud people in a callous and totally inexcusable way, and I hope he gets a day in jail on each of the 50,000 counts, served CONSECUTIVELY. I'll admit, he was an ingenious swine, but that's beside the point. If anything, this case points out the need for regulations on charge lines such that 1) they must state up front how much the call will cost, and 2) hangups within a certain grace period are not charged. RESPONSIBLE service providers are already doing this. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp
Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl.mil> (05/07/91)
540 (the one in NYC and NY suburbs, that is) is apparently not as well known as 976 prefix and 900 "area code". Besides, 201-540 is a "regular" prefix in Morristown, NJ, and it's necessary for the ads for New York 540 to state that such programs are not available in NJ. So it would be relatively easy to pull a "fast one" telling people in NY to call a 540 number, right?
"Michael B. Scher" <strange@hercules.acpub.duke.edu> (05/08/91)
cmoore@brl.mil writes: > 540 (the one in NYC and NY suburbs, that is) is apparently not as well > known as 976 prefix and 900 "area code". Besides, 201-540 is a > "regular" prefix in Morristown, NJ, and it's necessary for the ads for > New York 540 to state that such programs are not available in NJ. > So it would be relatively easy to pull a "fast one" telling > people in NY to call a 540 number, right? Quite correct. Actually most of the Morristown, NJ 540 numbers belong to MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, so the scam with beepers was even more pointed. Many of the beeper-holding people could well have been MD's "tricked" into calling in for an emergency. The joke's really a lulu if you begin to think of it like that.
"S. H. Schwartz" <schwartz@nynexst.com> (05/08/91)
> I see no lies and no coercion. The people who were charged got what > they paid for, a $55 audiotex message. Is there anybody in Manhattan > who can afford a pager who doesn't know that 540 numbers are toll > calls? If there are two thousand yuppie scum who are stupid enough to > return a page to a toll number, and they do this for no reason other > than that they were asked to, how can it possibly be illegal or even > unethical? Slow down, hotshot. I didn't know that 540 = toll until an operator told me. In fact, up to a few years ago, 540 was the exchange for automated ringback. And I am most certainly -not- a yuppie, not to mention a "yuppie scum," as any of my colleagues can tell you. :-))) I don't live in Manhattan, and I don't have a pager, but if someone left an apparently local number on my ans machine, I wouldn't think twice about calling back. I won't speculate about the legality of this event, as my employer has a particular interest in telephony, :-) but I hope this guy gets what he deserves. S. H. Schwartz schwartz@nynexst.com Expert Systems Laboratory 914-683-2960 NYNEX Science and Technology Center White Plains, NY 10604 [Moderator's Note: What the guy did was certainly not very nice, but I cannot really see the difference between what he did and someone who calls a large number of people at random with a recorded announcement saying to call a 900 number, then quickly glossing over the cost of the call (to the 900 line). Surely with the recorded voice calls urging one to call a 900 number there will be children who call without permission and people who still are not aware of the cost. If the folks who urge you to call a 900 number don't get prosecuted, then neither should the joker who paged a bunch of people to call his 540 number. PAT]
Charles Bryant <ch@dce.ie> (05/09/91)
In article <telecom11.342.4@eecs.nwu.edu> kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co. jp!trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert J Woodhead) writes: > This swine was using the telephone to blatantly defraud people in a > callous and totally inexcusable way, and I hope he gets a day in jail > on each of the 50,000 counts, served CONSECUTIVELY. I'll admit, he > was an ingenious swine, but that's beside the point. Perhaps we need a sense of proportion. That's 136 years. I don't see how he could be given a more severe sentence. That would mean that you consider it as bad as if he had murdered all of the people he defrauded. Note that it was inevitable that he would be caught so there is no need for a huge penalty to serve as a deterrent to others. A fine should be perfectly adequate. Charles Bryant (ch@dce.ie)
Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com (05/09/91)
> Quite correct. Actually most of the Morristown, NJ 540 numbers belong > to MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, so the scam with beepers was even > more pointed. Many of the beeper-holding people could well have been > MD's "tricked" into calling in for an emergency. The joke's really a > lulu if you begin to think of it like that. I work in a group of 40 pager equipped folks. We range from telecom literate folks who maintain the Wide Area Dialup and PBX, to temps who move machines and plug in cables. We have people who don't understand AOS's, people who don't understand long distance carriers, even people who use (gasp) COCOT's! We work in Santa Clara, in the 408 area (please make a note of it.) One thing we all DO know, is that up about half way through Sunnyvale is an imaginary line separating 408 from 415. If we get a page that says 764- 5003, chances are we'd realize that it's in 408. After all, we work there. We recognize we're being paged from work. I'd imagine it's easier than that when there's a river -- an actual body of water -- that you have to pay a buck or two to get over (or under, for that matter) -- in the way. If I were in NYC, and were paged to my employer, the hospital in New Jersey, my first reaction would be "Oh damn, I have to make a long distance call to find out what they want now." Nonetheless, I want to disagree with the poster who said that the callers who answered their pagers got what they deserve. They _are_ innocent victims by definition, since they didn't know that the call was going to be expensive. I hope they make an example of the perp. It was de---thhhh---picable.
wdh@gatech.edu (Weaver Hickerson) (05/10/91)
In article <telecom11.337.6@eecs.nwu.edu> 76012.300@compuserve.com (76012,300 Brad Hicks) writes: > Is it my imagination, or is wire fraud what the Secret Service > charges you with if they don't like you but can't think of anything > else? Is it my imagination, or is wire fraud what the SS charges you with when you have committed wire fraud? (Description of guy speed dialing exchanges to leave messages on pagers.) > Note that according to Eric Arnum, in this case an "entrepreneur" has > "victims". Entrepreneurs don't have victims, they have customers or > clients. Only criminals have victims. I'd say they were definitely victims, of a lowlife criminal. > The only other place I've seen this particular usage was from a > Communist Party member complaining about the black market in Moscow. > He meant the same thing, too: people paying fair market price for a > good or a service they received. > I see no lies and no coercion. The people who were charged got what > they paid for, a $55 audiotex message. Is there anybody in Manhattan > who can afford a pager who doesn't know that 540 numbers are toll > calls? If there are two thousand yuppie scum who are stupid enough to > return a page to a toll number, and they do this for no reason other > than that they were asked to, how can it possibly be illegal or even > unethical? Brad, this is the most ignorant thing I have ever seen. "Yuppie Scum" as you call them, if having a pager is the data point, might be an ER doctor or nurse, a plumber, a janitor, HONEST WORKING PEOPLE. Some people have a pager so the wife can call them to order Haagen Daas on the way home. Some pagers allow you to dial the last paged number by pressing a button on the pager, without ever looking at the number. The "entreprenuer", in my opinion, is the scum in this picture. And you sir, are running close second. Next time you're in the emergency room and your doctor is paged, imagine if he suddenly stops to think ... "Is that a toll call, or not. Hmmmm??". Nah, couldn't happen as long as your doctor is a "yuppie scum". Weaver Hickerson Voice (404) 496-1358 : ..!edu!gatech!holos0!wdh
sbrack@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Steven S. Brack) (05/13/91)
holos0!wdh@gatech.edu (Weaver Hickerson) writes: >> I see no lies and no coercion. The people who were charged got what >> they paid for, a $55 audiotex message. Is there anybody in Manhattan >> who can afford a pager who doesn't know that 540 numbers are toll >> calls? If there are two thousand yuppie scum who are stupid enough to >> return a page to a toll number, and they do this for no reason other >> than that they were asked to, how can it possibly be illegal or even >> unethical? > Brad, this is the most ignorant thing I have ever seen. "Yuppie Scum" > as you call them, if having a pager is the data point, might be an ER > doctor or nurse, a plumber, a janitor, HONEST WORKING PEOPLE. Some > people have a pager so the wife can call them to order Haagen Daas on > the way home. Some pagers allow you to dial the last paged number by > pressing a button on the pager, without ever looking at the number. > The "entreprenuer", in my opinion, is the scum in this picture. And > you sir, are running close second. If, in this day and age, you are ignorant enough to dial any numbner that comes over your pager, without either recognizing the number, or getting rate information from the operator, then any charges you incur are solely your own fault. Ma Bell is not looking out for us anymore. Steven S. Brack | sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com | Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower | sbrack@bluemoon.uucp | The Ohio State University | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu | 50 Curl Drive. | sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu | Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112 USA | brack@ewf.eng.ohio-state.edu | +1 (011) 614 293 7383 | Steven.S.Brack@osu.edu |
trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert J Woodhead) (05/13/91)
ch@dce.ie (Charles Bryant) writes: > In article <telecom11.342.4@eecs.nwu.edu> I (RJW) wrote. >> This swine was using the telephone to blatantly defraud people in a >> callous and totally inexcusable way, and I hope he gets a day in jail >> on each of the 50,000 counts, served CONSECUTIVELY. I'll admit, he >> was an ingenious swine, but that's beside the point. > Perhaps we need a sense of proportion. That's 136 years. It's nice to see the world is still full of straight men. I was merely expressing my moral outrage with some hyperbole. Actually, a fair penalty would be to pay back each defrauded person double the amount stolen, plus a jail term equal to the number of minutes of their time he wasted. Let's assume one minute per call, that would be 50,000 minutes or a little less that 35 days. Also, I noted Pat's attempt to analogise this with 900 number ads; I think that he is wrong and there is a clear difference. First of all, in 900 ads they tell you WHAT they are selling and how much it will cost (even if it's "twodollarsforthefirstminuteonedollareach additionalminute"). Aforementioned swine didn't do that, and that's probably the law he ran afoul of. Second, there is the issue of "fraudulent inducement," of which he is clearly guilty. The same would be true of the "Kiddies, hold the telephone up to the TV" scam. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp
ken@dali.cc.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (05/13/91)
In article <telecom11.354.2@eecs.nwu.edu> nstar!bluemoon!sbrack@iuvax. cs.indiana.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > If, in this day and age, you are ignorant enough to dial any numbner > that comes over your pager, without either recognizing the number, or > getting rate information from the operator, then any charges you incur > are solely your own fault. Ma Bell is not looking out for us anymore. Okay ... I've had enough. "Gee ... that girl should have *know* better, in this day and age, than to walk in the parking lot at night. Just her fault she got raped." "Gee ... that old lady should have *know* better, in this day and age, than to trust that building contractor. Just her fault she got bilked out of her money." Hey, after all, no one is looking out for us. It's not the criminal's fault that he's taking advantage of our lack of vigilence. That's his job, right? I got a buddy who's a plumber. Gets 30-40 calls a day on his beeper, from all kinds of numbers (he's got a service that forwards the numbers of people who have emergencies). If this guy get's ripped off in the manner we are discussing, is it *really* his fault? Quit balming the *victim*, dammit! ken seefried iii ken@dali.cc.gatech.edu
Gordon Burditt <gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org> (05/14/91)
> [Moderator's Note: What the guy did was certainly not very nice, but I > cannot really see the difference between what he did and someone who > calls a large number of people at random with a recorded announcement > saying to call a 900 number, then quickly glossing over the cost of > the call (to the 900 line). Surely with the recorded voice calls > urging one to call a 900 number there will be children who call > without permission and people who still are not aware of the cost. If > the folks who urge you to call a 900 number don't get prosecuted, then > neither should the joker who paged a bunch of people to call his 540 > number. PAT] This comment is absurd. If you get a call with a recorded announcement asking you to call a 900 number, you usually have a pretty good idea why you might want to call that 900 number (to enter a contest, get sports information, talk to singles, join a travel club, talk sexy with someone, or whatever). You have a pretty good idea it's not one of your patients/clients/customers whose calls you should return, and you know it's a service, even if you don't know it costs money. Glossing over the cost of the call includes revealing it, even if it's left to the end and mumbled. It may be sleazy marketing, but it's recognizable as marketing. If you get the number on a pager, the cost is NOT revealed, and there's no way to tell, assuming you don't know the 540 exchange is special (does the New York City phone book mention this? My phone book (Fort Worth) does not mention 900 numbers as special, although it does mention 976 and the mysterious 703 exchange that's blocked by default) that it's not an important call from an individual you should return. I'd say there is a fairly clear case for intent to fool people in this situation. As marketing, it's pretty lousy marketing, since it doesn't even say what the product is or who's selling it. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
sbrack@cis.ohio-state.edu> (05/14/91)
ken@dali.cc.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes: > In article <telecom11.354.2@eecs.nwu.edu> nstar!bluemoon!sbrack@iuvax. > cs.indiana.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > > [I say that dialing an unknown number w/o checking what > > charges are levied is not such a bright thing to do > > anymore.] > Okay ... I've had enough. > "Gee ... that girl should have *know* better, in this day and age, > than to walk in the parking lot at night. Just her fault she got > raped." There is a *slight* difference between a person, of his own volition, dialing a phone number and taking the consequences, and a rape victim. Besides, if the "young woman" could ask an operator whether that parking lot had a rapist in it, then it would be her fault. All you have to do is ask the phone company, and they'll tell you in what manner the number is billed. > "Gee ... that old lady should have *know* better, in this day and age, > than to trust that building contractor. Just her fault she got bilked > out of her money." No, blind trust is not a good idea. But, in this case, again not related to what wew were discussing, the contractor (I'm assuming) lied. The audiotex vendor, on the other hand, simply asked beeper users to call his number. No lies there. > Hey, after all, no one is looking out for us. It's not the criminal's > fault that he's taking advantage of our lack of vigilence. That's his > job, right? Once again, no. But if a burglar calls you up and asks you to leave your home unlocked, or simply to send him money, and you do, then I don't think the "criminal" is to blame. That situation would be more analogous to the audiotex "scam" everyone thinks is so terrible. > I got a buddy who's a plumber. Gets 30-40 calls a day on his beeper, > from all kinds of numbers (he's got a service that forwards the > numbers of people who have emergencies). If this guy get's ripped off > in the manner we are discussing, is it *really* his fault? If your buddy the plumber doesn't understand such simple concepts as dialing the operator for rate information on unrecognized numbers, then he really shouldn't use any telecom device more involved than a 500 set (not that he couldn't get himself burned there, too 8). If you decide, of your own free will, to call a telephone number, then you are agreeing to pay for the telephone service you have requested, be it a $0.25 local call or a $25.00 audiotex number. > Quit balming the *victim*, dammit! The "victim" acted of his own accord, and got what he requested from the telco. No one represented the call to be anything other than what irt was. If he or she needed more information about the charges attached to the number he or she was dialijng, the information was only a DTMF away. I wasn't "blaming" anyone who didn't voluntarily contract for a service offered them, "dammit." Steven S. Brack | sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower | sbrack@bluemoon.uucp The Ohio State University | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu 50 Curl Drive. | sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112 USA | brack@ewf.eng.ohio-state.edu +1 (011) 614 293 7383 | Steven.S.Brack@osu.edu
TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony Harminc) (05/17/91)
There's been quite a bit of discussion about who's to blame in the "pager calls with chargeable call-back numbers" scam. But I am amazed that it appears that many (all?) US phone systems allow seven-digit calls to be billable. Here there is a rule (unwritten but pretty strong) that you can't be billed for a seven-digit call. You have to knowingly dial 1 (or 0) in order to call a billable number. This applies to 976 as well as long-distance calls. Are you USAers happy with the possibility of paying for seven-digit calls? Why is there no 1+ requirement to let you know ? It seems a little silly that everyone should have to remember a huge list of prefixes in order to avoid placing expensive calls, whether 540 or 976 type, or just normal toll calls within the NPA. Tony Harminc
trebor@uunet.uu.net> (05/17/91)
bluemoon!sbrack@cis.ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > The "victim" acted of his own accord, and got what he > requested from the telco. No one represented the call to be anything > other than what irt was. If he or she needed more information about > the charges attached to the number he or she was dialijng, the > information was only a DTMF away. I wasn't "blaming" anyone who > didn't voluntarily contract for a service offered them, "dammit." I'm getting a little annoyed at your sophilism, sir. Let ME give you an example. I set up a little shop. Outside the shop, I place a sign that says "Please come in." If you think to ask, I will tell you that when you do so, you will be automatically charged a $50 cover charge. Otherwise, as soon as you put one step in the door, bingo, $50, whether you like it or not. Now, do you really think that is fair? Quite frankly, if you do, then you've got your head in the sand. More likely you'd be screaming for the cops! And what about the poor schmuck who misdials the number by accident? The solution, as has been mentioned before, is a description of charges and a grace period. And with that, I will say no more (probably to the relief of everyone, our esteemed Moderator most of all!) Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp
"Henry E. Schaffer" <hes@ccvr1.cc.ncsu.edu> (05/17/91)
In article <telecom11.363.3@eecs.nwu.edu> bluemoon!sbrack@cis. ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > ... All you have to do is ask the phone company, and they'll tell > you in what manner the number is billed. > If your buddy the plumber doesn't understand such simple > concepts as dialing the operator for rate information on unrecognized > numbers, ... I've been getting kind of steamed at some of this discussion - (I think that this scam is wrong, even if technically it is legal) but I think that this poster has shown one type of solution. If *everyone* asks for rate information for *every* number they dial when they don't recognize the area-code/exchange, I bet it wouldn't take too long for the telcos to figure out some better method which doesn't take this much effort! henry schaffer n c state univ
John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> (05/17/91)
Tony Harminc <TONY@mcgill1.bitnet> writes: > Here there is a rule (unwritten but pretty strong) that you can't be > billed for a seven-digit call. No such rule here. You have been able, since the 1950s, been able in the Bay Area to dial some rather expensive 7D toll calls. You used to be able to call Crescent City from San Jose by dialing 7D back when it was all the 415 area. This is a very expensive call. Now you can even cross a LATA boundary by dialing 7D from San Jose. > It seems a > little silly that everyone should have to remember a huge list of > prefixes in order to avoid placing expensive calls, whether 540 or 976 > type, or just normal toll calls within the NPA. What is so silly about it? It would seem that if you, the caller, know who you are calling, that should take care of it, no? If people are going to dial numbers without the slightest clue who they are trying to reach, then they deserve whatever they get. I NEVER return calls to numbers that do not have a name, a company name, and some indication of the purpose of the call attached to them. If I do not already know the location of the AC/prefix, I look it up. This is just common sense. I wonder how many people just dial numbers that are written on the restroom wall, or just appear in the pager without question or thought. I wonder, after having to pay $50, how many of them would do it again. As with everything else in this world, sometimes you have to take care of yourself. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
"Fred R. Goldstein" <goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com> (05/17/91)
In article <telecom11.363.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, bluemoon!sbrack@cis.ohio- state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes... > If your buddy the plumber doesn't understand such simple > concepts as dialing the operator for rate information on unrecognized > numbers, then he really shouldn't use any telecom device more involved > than a 500 set (not that he couldn't get himself burned there, too .. 8). > If you decide, of your own free will, to call a telephone number, then > you are agreeing to pay for the telephone service you have requested, > be it a $0.25 local call or a $25.00 audiotex number. Mr. Brack's argument is truly nitwitted, if that's a word! He seems to think that people who receive calls on beepers shoul CALL THE OPERATOR and ASK THE RATE for every call to a prefix they don't recognize. Now, what's wrong with that picture? 1) Which operator, 0 or 00? 2) Don't we have dial-direct nowadays? Operators aren't "free". 3) Do operators know the price of every "audiotex" call? No. 4) If it's an emergency worth beeping, why should the bozo take several minutes just to verify the cost? Hell, it's a local number (7 digits) and it's not "900", so why should he even suspect that there's a bomb in the envelope? 5) To the vast majority of us, the telephone is a communications tool, not an audiotex access terminal. The cost of a telephone call is well understood. From a home phone to any other phone in NYC proper, it's under 20c/call. The fact that a prefix was assigned to audiotext is an obscure exception that few people care about. > No, blind trust is not a good idea. But, in this case, again > not related to what wew were discussing, the contractor (I'm assuming) > lied. The audiotex vendor, on the other hand, simply asked beeper > users to call his number. No lies there. OF COURSE it's a lie: He lied that there was an urgent need for a callback. There was nothing for the paged party but a recording. Call 911 and ask to play telephone chess with the guy who answers. See how he feels. Beepers are more akin to 911 (emergencies) than to the Naughty Peahen Hotline. 50k counts of wirefraud sounds good to me! Consecutive sentences. Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 952 3274 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation?
Jordan Kossack <JKOSS00@ricevm1.rice.edu> (05/18/91)
Howdy Pat, Am I missing something obvious here? Won't the local Baby Bell erase charges for 900 numbers (and 976, etc.) if one complains? They may force one to get those numbers blocked, but I guess that's a sure way to make sure that one doesn't make the same mistake again. If so, the point is really moot. Too, if someone is returning a call to their pager number, wouldn't they presumably be using a public phone? If so, wouldn't they get a little suspicious when they couln't place the call for a quarter? Or are things differet back east? jkoss00@ricevm1.rice.edu Jordan Kossack | (713) 799 2950 [Moderator's Note: Imagine! (nasal voice saying) "fifty five dollars for the first three minutes please ..." (caller) "wait a minute operator, I am trying to get more change! ... apparently instead of calling from a pay phone, most of these folks were calling back from the customer site where they were working, or waiting until they got back in the car with their cell phone, etc. PAT]
johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) (05/18/91)
In article <telecom11.366.3@eecs.nwu.edu> is written: > Here there is a rule (unwritten but pretty strong) that you can't be > billed for a seven-digit call. When interchangable area codes arrive in about 1995, dial-1-for-money simply won't work any more. The leading 1 will have to mean that an area code follows. Unlucky folks in areas with old equipment will have to dial their own area code for same-area toll calls. I have lived both in New Jersey where a 1 means that an area code follows, and in Connecticut and Massachusetts where a 1 means a toll call. I like the New Jersey scheme better. For one thing, I don't usually care if a call I am about to make will cost me 12 cents or not, and having the phone exchange say "if you'd dialed that call with (or without) the leading 1, I would have completed it" can get rather annoying. For another, dial 1 for money is usually a lie. I have two lines at home here. On one (voice) I have "metropolitan service" which allows me to call anywhere in metro Boston at no per-call charge. On the other (data, mostly) I have local service which allows free calling to towns adjacent to mine and "message units" which are really toll charges to other places in metro Boston. On neither line do I dial a leading 1 for a metro Boston call -- if I dial a seven digit call to my sister in Lexington from the first line it costs nothing, but if I call her from the other it costs a minumum of 20 cents. There are quite a few places where you dial a leading 1 to call some distant metro prefixes, due to old equipment. There are other billing plans in which all metro calls are charged message units, but you get a monthly allowance of free message units. Finally, there is "Bay State East" service which for about $25/month gives you free metro calling and also two hours per month of free calling anywhere in the LATA. I have no idea what in this swamp of billing options one would really call a toll call and what one wouldn't. What the local telco does is to require a 1 before any non-metro call and also before any inter-area code call, even if the call is local. This means that if some evening from my second phone I call Marblehead, which is a 10 cent toll call, I have to dial a 1, but if I call Hull, which is a 27 cent message unit call, I can't dial a 1. I realize that there are still places where the distinction between local and non-local calls appears cast in concrete, but I expect that as time goes on message units and discount plans will fuzz the boundaries to the point where you won't be able to tell what's a toll call anywhere. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl PS: So why does one dial a 1 before an 800 number?
John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> (05/19/91)
"Fred R. Goldstein" <goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com> writes: > He seems to think that people who receive calls on beepers shoul CALL > THE OPERATOR and ASK THE RATE for every call to a prefix they don't > recognize. Now, what's wrong with that picture? As a pager carrier for over twenty years, I cannot imagine that someone in any profession would put his pager number in the hands of the public at large. Whether he be a plumber, doctor, lawyer, radio engineer, or a salesman, his pager number should be only in the hands of his answering service, voicemail system, office, or other screening entity. If an unfamiliar number shows up, a call to the central point that paged would reveal the information about the call. If that info is not available (in other words, the call did not come through the answering service, etc.), then the call could be ignored as a wrong number. Wrong numbers are very common on direct dial pagers. A pager is not a substitute for an answering machine or service. Anyone who uses it as such and blindly calls every number that appears in the display is likely to ultimately get burned. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
roy@cs.umn.edu> (05/19/91)
TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony Harminc) writes: > Are you USAers happy with the possibility of paying for seven-digit > calls? Why is there no 1+ requirement to let you know ? It seems a > little silly that everyone should have to remember a huge list of > prefixes in order to avoid placing expensive calls, whether 540 or 976 > type, or just normal toll calls within the NPA. I used to have to do just that in Alaska. Toll calls from Anchorage did not require a leading 1 when I lived there, and you could as easily be calling across the state as across town. While it didn't have _quite_ the potential for surprise as the 540 scam, it could still be expensive. Alaska used to have abominable in-state rates. It was cheaper to call Los Angeles than to call Nome. I don't know what the rates are, these days. Roy M. Silvernail roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu roy@cybrspc.uucp (maybe!)
Floyd Davidson <floyd@ims.alaska.edu> (05/20/91)
In article <telecom11.376.10@eecs.nwu.edu> cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: > TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony Harminc) writes: >> Are you USAers happy with the possibility of paying for seven-digit >> calls? Why is there no 1+ requirement to let you know ? It seems a >> little silly that everyone should have to remember a huge list of >> prefixes in order to avoid placing expensive calls, whether 540 or 976 >> type, or just normal toll calls within the NPA. > I used to have to do just that in Alaska. Toll calls from Anchorage > did not require a leading 1 when I lived there, and you could as > easily be calling across the state as across town. > While it didn't have _quite_ the potential for surprise as the 540 > scam, it could still be expensive. Alaska used to have abominable > in-state rates. It was cheaper to call Los Angeles than to call Nome. > I don't know what the rates are, these days. The rates are lower, but the ratio is still the same. LA would be cheaper than Nome. I don't know for sure, but isn't intrastate service more expensive than interstate just about everywhere? Part of breaking up AT&T was separating the costs and making each part pay for itself. It used to be that your call to LA was charged at a higher rate than it actually cost, just so that your rate calling Nome could be charged less than what it really cost. Now the interstate rate structure is based on the cost of providing interstate service, and the same with intrastate service. As a result, your call from Anchorage to Nome is no longer being subsidised by calls to LA. Instead the call to Nome is charged a higher rate to help subsidise calls to places like Sleetmute (a small village that will never generate enough revenue to pay 20% of the cost to provide service). That just happens to be one of the "down" sides to breaking up the old system. There are other sides that are very much "up". Floyd L. Davidson | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine floyd@ims.alaska.edu| but not for opinions. |Science suffers me as a guest.
Carl Wright <wright@ais.org> (05/20/91)
I'm not enough of a lawyer to say this with authority, but doesn't it seem clear that the calls to the pagers were made with the intent to defraud those who were paged. Everything else, like in Judge Wopner's court, is irrelevant. It reminds me of an old computer scam where an operation in Texas had invoice forms printed up and rented mailing lists. They mailed out small bills to all the people on the mailing list. Many people paid the bills rather than complain or assumed that their spouse was responsible for the charge. The FBI closed it down eventually. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105
wdh@gatech.edu (Weaver Hickerson) (05/20/91)
In article <telecom11.377.7@eecs.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@zygot.ati. com> writes: > A pager is not a substitute for an answering machine or service. > Anyone who uses it as such and blindly calls every number that appears > in the display is likely to ultimately get burned. John, you are right about this. People are likely to get burned. The fault, however, lies in the perpetrator and not with the victim. Look at these parallels to your statement above: Anyone (little old lady) who blindly contracts with someone to [ patch her roof, help the "FBI" catch a bank embezzler, you name it ] is likely to ultimately get burned. Anyone (yuppie scum) who ever goes into any automobile mechanic anywhere in the world is likely to ultimately get burned. Need I say more. The original poster, in an explosive display of ignorance, seemed to think that it is okay to take advantage of people's trust just because they are trusting, and it it their fault for not being less trusting. I myself blame the [900 number, mechanic, roofing contractor] who take the money and run. I cast my vote that people who would do things like this be used at the Yerkes primate center for drug, ballistic, and cosmetic research -- not necessarily in that order. Weaver Hickerson Voice (404) 496-1358 : ..!edu!gatech!holos0!wdh
sbrack@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> (05/21/91)
goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: > In article <telecom11.363.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, bluemoon!sbrack@cis.ohio- > state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes... > > If your buddy the plumber doesn't understand such simple > > concepts as dialing the operator for rate information on unrecognized > > numbers, then he really shouldn't use any telecom device more involved > > than a 500 set (not that he couldn't get himself burned there, too .. 8). > > If you decide, of your own free will, to call a telephone number, then > > you are agreeing to pay for the telephone service you have requested, > > be it a $0.25 local call or a $25.00 audiotex number. > Mr. Brack's argument is truly nitwitted, if that's a word! > He seems to think that people who receive calls on beepers shoul CALL > THE OPERATOR and ASK THE RATE for every call to a prefix they don't > recognize. Now, what's wrong with that picture? Would you by a product, then give the clerk a blank check, without ever checking how much your purchase cost before purchasing it? Of course not. The situations are analogous. Of course, the telco could still do something to end the confusion: require users to dial 1 before any added-cost number. That's what Ohio Bell did for years. It works quite well. > 1) Which operator, 0 or 00? If the call is intraLATA, "0," if not "00," just like the telcos tell you. > 2) Don't we have dial-direct nowadays? Operators aren't "free". Dialing the operator for dialing charges (and instructions) has always been a free call. The only exception would be a COCOT, which may require a "small" ($10-20 8) deposit. I needed rate information for dialing Cape Town, so I dialed the default operator (Ohio Bell), who transferred me to USSprint. She transferred me to ATT international, who told me she'd "have to call London," dialed her up (I could hear the conversation), and inquired about dialing and rates. I got my rate information, all for a free call. I believe rate information is a mandated free service. (Sorry, his third point disappeared, doesb't this editor doesn't yank back inadvertent cuts.) > 4) If it's an emergency worth beeping, why should the bozo take > several minutes just to verify the cost? Hell, it's a local number (7 > digits) and it's not "900", so why should he even suspect that there's > a bomb in the envelope? That's why telcos should require 1+ dialing for value-added calls. But, *they don't*, so we should be wary of dialing "unknown" numbers. > 5) To the vast majority of us, the telephone is a communications tool, > not an audiotex access terminal. The cost of a telephone call is well > understood. From a home phone to any other phone in NYC proper, it's > under 20c/call. The fact that a prefix was assigned to audiotext is > an obscure exception that few people care about. Saying your phone is this or that doesn't change what, in fact it is. The modern telephone is an access terminal used by people and machines for all forms of telecommunications, including audiotex. The fact that you are ignorant of the fact that some prefixes and telephone numbers entail special costs doesn't negate your ultimate responsibility to pay for all calls you place. > > No, blind trust is not a good idea. But, in this case, again > > not related to what wew were discussing, the contractor (I'm assuming) > > lied. The audiotex vendor, on the other hand, simply asked beeper > > users to call his number. No lies there. > OF COURSE it's a lie: He lied that there was an urgent need for a > callback. There was nothing for the paged party but a recording. > Call 911 and ask to play telephone chess with the guy who answers. > See how he feels. Beepers are more akin to 911 (emergencies) than to > the Naughty Peahen Hotline. A beeper is just a way of telling you that someone wants you to call them. It is **incapable** of telling you anything about the reason he/she wants you to call. Anyone can have you paged for any reason. There is no qualification of urgency necessary. > 50k counts of wirefraud sounds good to me! Consecutive sentences. OK. Let's assume a three month sentance for each count of wire fraud. In truth, the sentence would probably be longer. For this crime, then, the "criminal" would spend 12,500 years (!!!) in prison. No murder has ever commanded such a long sentence. Generally, it's a good idea to give some thought to what you post. wright@ais.org (Carl Wright) writes: > I'm not enough of a lawyer to say this with authority, but doesn't it > seem clear that the calls to the pagers were made with the intent to > defraud those who were paged. The provider just asked pager users to call his number. He made *no guarantee* as to the cost or nature of the service. Where's the fraud in that? > Everything else, like in Judge Wopner's court, is irrelevant. > It reminds me of an old computer scam where an operation in Texas had > invoice forms printed up and rented mailing lists. They mailed out > small bills to all the people on the mailing list. Many people paid > the bills rather than complain or assumed that their spouse was > responsible for the charge. There was an ad in the {LA Times} that used to run about once a month. It would say something to the effect that: LAST DAY TO SEND IN YOUR DOLLAR Mail to: PO Box XXXX Los Angeles, CA The postal inspector shut that one down. I don't see why. If I send 10000 people each a letter asking them to send me money, without promising them anything, then where's the fraud? The people who called that 540 number got what they paid for. "The rest, as Judge Wopner says, is irrelevant." Steven S. Brack | sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower | sbrack@bluemoon.uucp The Ohio State University | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu 50 Curl Drive. | sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112 USA | brack@ewf.eng.ohio-state.edu +1 (011) 614 293 7383 | Steven.S.Brack@osu.edu [Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, Mr. Brack *does* have a valid point about making promises and not keeping them. One of the oldest scams I know about involving the mail is the one where women advertise in 'swinger' magazines with no intention of ever meeting the guys who respond. None the less, they phrase their letters in such a way as to make the guy think the woman really likes him. They ask the guy for a 'donation' or 'token' to show his sincerity. Please note it is always a donation -- never anything (such as photos) for sale. The women who do this (but honestly, it is mostly men posing as women) make out like bandits and the postal inspector is apparently unable to do anything since the letter the 'woman' sends out is absolutely free of any claims or promises of any sort. And if/when our 540 guy goes on trial, I suspect he will get off for the same reason. He could have as easily written his number on a wall somewhere, and several fools would have called it ... but he promised nothing and made no fraudulent claims, and that may very well be what saves him. PAT]
The unknown Florentine <root@surya.uucp> (05/21/91)
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > the public at large. Whether he be a plumber, doctor, lawyer, radio > engineer, or a salesman, his pager number should be only in the hands > of his answering service, voicemail system, office, or other screening > entity. > If an unfamiliar number shows up, a call to the central point that > paged would reveal the information about the call. If that info is not > available (in other words, the call did not come through the answering > service, etc.), then the call could be ignored as a wrong number. > Wrong numbers are very common on direct dial pagers. > A pager is not a substitute for an answering machine or service. > Anyone who uses it as such and blindly calls every number that appears > in the display is likely to ultimately get burned. Some truth to the above, but not every one works it the same way you do. My office takes the number and they page me with the number our client is at. If one of our other engineers needs to talk to me he pages me dirrect. He could be any where, I could be any where. All of the numbers are likely to be unfamiliar. I don't agree that wrong numbers are common on direct dial pagers. I have one, and I very rarely get wrong number pages, perhaps one out of a hundred. People paging for rather trivial items, are another thing entirely. [Moderator's Note: Years ago I had a pager with the number 444-0100. Talk about wrong numbers! Some days there were a dozen. PAT]
Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl.mil> (05/21/91)
Because of the messages about "calling every number that appears in the display", may I repeat an old suggestion: Prefix lists help you to do homework regarding an unfamiliar exchange that comes thru on your display. [Moderator's Note: No truer words could be spoken. Many large companies advertise in such a way that they come very close -- but not quite -- to the point of committing fraud. Don't immediatly assume you *must* call someone, or *must* respond just because something authoritative (such as your pager) says so. Think first! PAT]
Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl.mil> (05/22/91)
What does "audiotex" mean? Just last night, I saw 215-556 listed in the Philadelphia call guide as such (it's blocked by default) for adult conversations, etc.
"Fred R. Goldstein" <goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com> (05/22/91)
In article <telecom11.385.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, nstar!bluemoon!sbrack@ iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes... > Would you by a product, then give the clerk a blank check, without > ever checking how much your purchase cost before purchasing it? Of > course not. The situations are analogous. Of course, the telco could > still do something to end the confusion: require users to dial 1 > before any added-cost number. That's what Ohio Bell did for years. > It works quite well. It is not, of course, in keeping with the North American Numbering Plan, but was an artifact of stepper switches whiched used 1 as the access number to toll offices. Nowadays 1 may mean "area code follows". Time T is coming... >> 1) Which operator, 0 or 00? > If the call is intraLATA, "0," if not "00," just like the telcos tell > you. The NYC exchange has four area codes (516, 914, 212 and 718), and one of them (914) is in multiple LATAs. In any case, the price of a 540 call is not with the operator. >> 2) Don't we have dial-direct nowadays? Operators aren't "free". > Dialing the operator for dialing charges (and instructions) has always > been a free call. The only exception would be a COCOT, which may > require a "small" ($10-20 8) deposit. If everybody dialed 0 for every unknown number, then the rate of operator calling would skyrocket and they'd charge. Some telcos have already suggested dialing 0 should carry a charge. > The provider just asked pager users to call his number. He made *no > guarantee* as to the cost or nature of the service. Where's the fraud > in that? The fraud is that he was intending to sucker people into doing something that they had no intention of doing: Calling a pay-per-call number. As Pat even pointed out in another note (about the 900 number for info on 900 numbers), if the ad doesn't list the price, it's a no-no. At best you can say that the scam artist was "advertising" his 540 number on pagers. But by not divulging the price, he was violating the usual rules (I'm not positive it applies in NYS but it probably does) that ads for these services MUST state the prices. That IN AND OF ITSELF is a violation. Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 952 3274 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation? [Moderator's Note: Thanks to everyone who participated in this thread, but like others, it has really gotten away from telecom, so we have to close it out now. PAT]