Wm Randolph Franklin <wrf@mab.ecse.rpi.edu> (05/17/91)
In article <telecom11.363.3@eecs.nwu.edu> on 14 May 91 18:35:11 GMT 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. The Manhattan White pages do not mention the 900 area code or the 540 exchanges anywhere in the 56 page instructions in front. Neither does the Albany phone book. The only even vaguely relevant indications were these. i) the book says that NYTEL may bill you on behalf of other companies, implying other long distance companies, and ii) a footnote on page 24 says that 976 numbers are mass announcement numbers and cost 35 cents. So exactly how is a new user, even one who scans the over one million words in the phone book intro, to ever learn about the existence of these nasties? I also called the Albany customer service number to ask about these special exchanges. She told me there were no such exchanges in Albany, but that there were a dozen such area codes in addition to 900, including 540 and 976. I double checked this, and according to her, these are not exchanges but long distance area codes. So even if one suspects that some numbers may be booby-trapped, calling Nytel won't get the proper info. I propose that in the interests of unfettered commerce, we make these numbers more flexible. Allow any business to designate any number, at any designated time of the day, to cause the customer to be billed $50. What's the problem? No one's forcing you to call. If you think there's a concealed trap, then call Nytel. If they falsely tell you there is no extra charge, well then they're just imitating the IRS, who penalizes you also if you rely on their erroneous phone advice. Next we can designate special floor tiles in stores. Step on one -- they're unmarked -- and you have automatically bought something, which is nonreturnable, and owe $50. If you have a question about any specific floor tile you can go up to the manager's office and ask about it. Be sure to watch your children in the store -- you owe if they step on the wrong tile. Just because floor tiles have always been used in the past solely to allow foot traffic to get from one place to another doesn't mean that they should be restricted to that in the future. I believe that one of the 900 number business associations is opposing a bill that would require them to state the charge at the start of the call and give the caller a chance to hang up. That says it all about this "business". Maybe we apply old common law about installing booby-traps to stop this scourge. No this is not sour grapes; I've never called such numbers in my life. Wm. Randolph Franklin Internet: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (or @cs.rpi.edu) Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts Telephone: (518) 276-6077; Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: (518) 276-6261 Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180
John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> (05/20/91)
Wm Randolph Franklin <wrf@mab.ecse.rpi.edu> writes: > [A generally amusing piece of whimsy about business traps supposedly > analogous to 900/976/540 IP services.] > So exactly how is a new user, even one who scans the over one million > words in the phone book intro, to ever learn about the existence of > these nasties? Well, how did YOU learn? Please spare us the sophistry that only readers of TELECOM Digest know anything about the telephone, its charges, or its operational quirks. Anyone who has the requisite senses to actually use a telephone instrument cannot help learning about "those 900 numbers", etc. Hell, I know about 540 numbers and it has been years since I have been to New York. > I propose that in the interests of unfettered commerce, we make these > numbers more flexible. Allow any business to designate any number, at > any designated time of the day, to cause the customer to be billed > $50. What's the problem? No one's forcing you to call. None whatsoever. But I suspect that in a relatively short period of time, word would get around and the business would find itself with a silent telephone. No legislation needed; it would be automatic. > Next we can designate special floor tiles in stores. Step on one -- > they're unmarked -- and you have automatically bought something, which > is nonreturnable, and owe $50. And how long would it be before there was an empty store? Again, the situation is self-correcting. > I believe that one of the 900 number business associations is opposing > a bill that would require them to state the charge at the start of the > call and give the caller a chance to hang up. That says it all about > this "business". Before you judge this "business", please learn a little more about which you speak. The bill being opposed has a lot more in it than the "chicken exit" language. It also contains material concerning presubscription which most 900 IPs consider to be certain death. Most IPs voluntarily give the statement of charges right up front. Most IPs run a very respectable ship and have perfectly satisfied customers. If the 900 business is as bad as you imply, then you will find that it will collapse of its own weight. If people are not satisfied, they will not call and the providers will go out of business. Accidental dialings will not support the industry. You might be interested to know that there are people who still call the "telephone company" to complain that they "didn't know the call would cost money", even on those services that have very clear up-front announcements concerning the charges and that an immediate hang up will prevent those charges. No matter what safeguards you propose; no matter how you try to install rubber walls on society there will be some who cannot avoid messing in their pants. > Maybe we apply old common law about installing booby-traps to stop > this scourge. Scourge? A few idiots dial some numbers that cause charges to appear on a phone bill (that are later removed) is a scourge? I can think of a LOT of things in this world that could be classifed as scourges, but the presense of 900 numbers? Really! I would put GTE ahead of 900 numbers any day of the week. > No this is not sour grapes; I've never called such numbers in my life. Then you have had no problem. Why all the stink? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !