belanger_f@wmois.enet.dec.com (04/29/91)
Here's a real good one that I just found out today: I had concerns about third party billing fraud after reading about some instances here, so I called New England Tellyfone today, and here's what the service rep told me. I could put a "block" on my line to prevent third-party billing, for the "amazingly-low-price" (my wording) of $.95 a month per line, and a one-time charge of $11.70 . So, I asked the rep, why should I pay to rectify your lousey security practices regarding third-party billing fraud? (No answer recieved). Then I asked "why can't NET just give everyone a calling card and prohibit third-party billing? (rep says "some people like to do third-party billed calls.) Yea, sure they like to, since it seems easy to rip off the phone company and not pay for the call, rather than use a calling card (which I use). Don't ya just love Ma Bell logic? Fred Belanger [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell gives 'inbound toll restriction' at no charge. My two lines and my distinctive ringing number are configured to automatically refuse collect or third number billing. PAT]
Steve Forrette <forrette@cory.berkeley.edu> (04/30/91)
> [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell gives 'inbound toll restriction' at > no charge. My two lines and my distinctive ringing number are > configured to automatically refuse collect or third number billing. PAT] I asked Pacific Bell about this a few months ago, and they said that they would only do it after I received at least $100 in phraudulent calls. You know, it costs them so much to flip that bit in my account profile. I think the real reason is that having my lines blocked would prevent ME from doing third number billing when that's what I really wanted, thus reducing their revenue. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: IBT was glad to do it; the only thing I disliked was that they did it in the middle of a billing period. The bill which came the next month was a nightmare to read, with every single item pro-rated up to the date of the change, then charged again for the remaining days. They managed to screw up my Reach Out America and Reach Out World account when they stopped it and restarted it on the same day. Apparently 'flipping that bit' requires rebilling the whole account for the month. The brief instant AT&T was not the default carrier was sufficient to get Ma all aggravated and sending me letters about how much I could save by joining one of the plans, etc. It was a messy thing. I nearly always have record changes and service orders done on the cycle billing date to avoid the confusion. PAT]
John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> (05/01/91)
Steve Forrette <forrette@cory.berkeley.edu> writes: > I asked Pacific Bell about this a few months ago, and they said that > they would only do it after I received at least $100 in phraudulent > calls. This is the standard response that the front line is told to give people who casually call in about this. In fact, Pac*Bell will give you billed number screening (as they did me) without one cent of fraud being involved if you simply press the matter with a supervisor. I have both collect call and third number blocking on both my residence and business accounts. Initially, I got the "there has to be a problem before we do this" baloney, but when I started talking tarrifs, we cut through the BS and I got it done. A number of associates have had this same experience: first, denial -- then compliance upon insistence. I suggest you call back and beat them up. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell gave it to me with no questions, and in fact the rep said unofficial company policy is they would love to get rid of third number and collect billing anyway if it were possible; but there are a lot of people who seem to prefer it. PAT]
KATH MULLHOLAND <K_MULLHOLAND@unhh.unh.edu> (05/02/91)
Recently, Belanger noted that New Enland Tel offers: > here's what the service rep told me: I could put a "block" on my > line to prevent third-party billing, for the "amazingly-low-price" (my > wording) of $.95 a month per line, and a one-time charge of $11.70 . UNH uses this toll restriction to prevent students from billing third party calls to our lines from whereever they happen to roam. It works very well, as long as the potential "phrauders" considerately use AT&T or their local RBOC. Calls from any other carrier are often charged, and receiving creidt is difficult to impossible. With the proliferation of 0+ vendors our out there, it promises to get even harder to control. I wish the FCC would rule that third party callling is not allowed -- credit cards and other charging alternatives are so prevalent, it seems silly to keep this "dark age billing technology". Kath Mullhland UNH Durham, NH [Moderator's Note: After having IBT set up my two lines and my distinctive ringing number (three phone numbers total) to automatically deny collect and third-number billing, I tried testing it through a variety of carriers to see what would happen. AT&T, Sprint, MCI and Telecom*USA immediatly recognized the block, and their operators would not even bother to inquire (from me) to see if the calls were accepted. Denial was automatic, as it also was via a couple alternate operator services. I had confederates around the country try to get through using the big three carriers, with no success. Someone tried to get through using ITI, and I was called by their automated system, but I refused the charges. PAT]
Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl.mil> (05/06/91)
If answering service operators answer your phone, you may want to instruct them regarding third-party and collect calls.
David Neal <dan@sun.rice.edu> (05/08/91)
In this month's SouthWestern Bell Bill, there is note explaining that the PUC has ruled that 976/900 calls must be blockable for free on a one time per line basis. The page specifically states you can only turn blocking on or off for both 976 and 900 calls. Subsequent requests for changes in service are billable, but no mention of cost was made. A pre-paid postage ballot is also enclosed for you to check and return should you want to change your current service, ie, to go from non-blocking (the default for 99% of the world, no doubt) to blocking. All in all pretty nice, but it took a PUC ruling :-). David Neal - Unix Contractor at large -- dan@chemsh.uucp
scjones%thor@uunet.uu.net> (05/15/91)
In article <telecom11.350.7@eecs.nwu.edu>, dan@sun.rice.edu (David Neal) writes: > In this month's SouthWestern Bell Bill, there is note explaining that > the PUC has ruled that 976/900 calls must be blockable for free on a > one time per line basis. Here in Ohio, the PUC ruled exactly the opposite -- Cincinnati Bell had been offering one-time-only free 900 blocking and PUCO ordered them to stop! PUCO insisted that they charge a fee sufficient to recover their costs. Ain't regulation grand? Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH 45150-2789 513-576-2070 Domain: scjones@sdrc.com Path: uunet!sdrc!scjones
John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> (05/16/91)
Larry Jones <sdrc!scjones%thor@uunet.uu.net> writes: > Here in Ohio, the PUC ruled exactly the opposite -- Cincinnati Bell > had been offering one-time-only free 900 blocking and PUCO ordered > them to stop! PUCO insisted that they charge a fee sufficient to > recover their costs. Ain't regulation grand? Here in kinder, gentler California, the "free" blocking is picked up by the information providers. In its usual mismanaged way, Pac*Bell originally offered "California 976" without any organization, control, or blocking even proposed. Calls from outside the state could easily reach California 976 numbers and since no billing mechanism was in place, the IP just got stiffed. In fact, a favorite pastime of out-of-staters was to call 976 numbers in CA since they were, in effect, free (except for the toll charges). Then an outcry went up from both telephone customers and the IPs. Customers complained that little Jerry could call the heavy breathing sex numbers and run up the family phone bill. IPs complained that Pac*Bell was graciously removing charges right and left ("recharges") and that it was impossible to get a handle on revenue. Then came blocking. People at Pac*Bell realized that a few characters typed in at RCMAC could prevent calls to 900/976. So they put a grossly inflated price tag on the concept of blocking and then slapped the information providers with the "cost". Pac*Bell became the telcom hero of the day. And it found yet another scam to drain the pockets of Californians. Since the blocking scheme cannot be used except in stored-program-type offices, and the PUC requires blocking be provided to all who request it (if at all available), a cheap and dirty way to get out of a crossbar switch is to order blocking. A friend had a crossbar number in an office that was also served by an ESS. Pac*Bell informed him that the ESS was "closed" (not accepting new lines) even if he wanted custom calling features. I told him to request 900/976 blocking. He now has an ESS-served number, changed at no charge by Pac*Bell. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !