Bill Woodcock <woody@ucscb.ucsc.edu> (04/10/91)
I just watched a short interview with Robert Abrams on CNN.
(2:10pm-2:15pm, PST)
Abrams is the Attorney General for the state of New York. He and a
group of Attornies General from other states with harsh anti-900-
number legislation have formed a committee to pressure the federal
government to pass restrictive legislation dealing with the 900 issue.
It sounded as though his organization had successfully lobbied the
FCC. He said that the FCC had proposed a plan with two major goals:
1) Require every 900 number to air a "preamble" including three things;
a brief discription of the nature of the service, a clear statement of
the cost or charges involved, and the opportunity to hang up without
incurring any charges.
2) Require all telcos to provide free blocking to any customer on
request, and make parents of children who make calls to 900 numbers
not liable for the charges.
This last seems somewhat problematic to me, from an enforcement point
of view. But then I'm sure the telcos can just contact Lotus and
Equifax to find out whether you _really_ have kids. :-)
He went on to describe 900 number operators as "The worst sort of scam
artists and snake oil salesmen," and quoted several statistics: total
income of 900 services in 1990 was between $800 million and $1
billion; projected income in 1991 is likely to be $1.5 billion; more
than 30% of the "victims" of 900-based "scams" are over 65. He made
quite a point of most of the "victims" being minorities, unemployed,
or otherwise disadvantaged.
bill.woodcock.iv woody@ucscb.ucsc.edu
2355.virginia.st berkeley.california 94709.1315Gary W Sanders <gws@cblph.att.com> (04/11/91)
In article <telecom11.282.7@eecs.nwu.edu> woody@ucscb.ucsc.edu (Bill Woodcock) writes: > I just watched a short interview with Robert Abrams on CNN. > (2:10pm-2:15pm, PST) > Abrams is the Attorney General for the state of New York. > 1) Require every 900 number to air a "preamble" including three things; > a brief discription of the nature of the service, a clear statement of > the cost or charges involved, and the opportunity to hang up without > incurring any charges. One other item I think should be included in the preamble is a company name, bussiness mailing address (No PO boxes) and office phone number(that is attended 8-5). This way I have someone to complain to when I call a 900 number and get some garbage line. The latest 900 scam I have been seeing on late nite TV ads is Free 900 calls ... that right free 900 calls for the first minutes $15 for each additional minute ... major $$$$ for a free call. Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio gws@cblph.att.com 614-860-5965
"Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <drears@pica.army.mil> (04/12/91)
Gary Sanders writes: > One other item I think should be included in the preamble is a company > name, bussiness mailing address (No PO boxes) and office phone > number(that is attended 8-5). Why should anything be forced upon the marketers of the calls? The real underlying reason is to protect *STUPID* people from themselves. It's time we let people who do stupid things suffer as a result of their actions. We have parents who can't control their kids dialing actions (among other things) blaming the telephone company for their bills. They want government to protect them from their lack of responsibilty and gullibility. > This way I have someone to complain to when I call a 900 number and > get some garbage line. Should every business be required to have a phone number so that people can complain? Of course not. Why should this be different? Disclaimer: I have no association with any 900 number producer. Dennis
Robert Thurlow <thurlow@convex.com> (04/13/91)
In <telecom11.287.5@eecs.nwu.edu> drears@pica.army.mil (Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)) writes: > Why should anything be forced upon the marketers of the calls? The > real underlying reason is to protect *STUPID* people from themselves. Are you a technology professional? How many people do you know who are not technology professionals? Do you think it is clear to all callers that the '9' after the '1' means they'll get a line item on their phone bill a month later? I know my family wouldn't all know this. I think voiding parents of responsibility for their kid's actions is stupid, too, but I either want free call-blocking so that I can make a blanket decision, or I want a PIN number to permit me to know that the call was not made by an untrusted person. > Should every business be required to have a phone number so that > people can complain? Of course not. Why should this be different? From the business end of things, I demand to be told a non-1-900 method of communicating with said company in the case of a dispute; either a regular phone number or a postal address will do. I do not want to get shafted by a company and have to depend on my telco to tell me how to contact the company, as I think that would place the telco in a conflict of interest that could make things touchy. Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com An employee and not a spokesman for Convex Computer Corp., Dallas, TX
"Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <drears@pica.army.mil> (04/15/91)
Robert Thurlow writes: > In <telecom11.287.5@eecs.nwu.edu> drears@pica.army.mil (Dennis G. > Rears (FSAC)) writes: >> Why should anything be forced upon the marketers of the calls? The >> real underlying reason is to protect *STUPID* people from themselves. > Are you a technology professional? How many people do you know who > are not technology professionals? Do you think it is clear to all > callers that the '9' after the '1' means they'll get a line item on > their phone bill a month later? I know my family wouldn't all know > this. This has nothing to do with technology!!! In this world, there are countless legal schemes that are made to part a sucker with his money. 900 numbers are but one of them. I know I will get plenty of flamage for this but, If a caller does not realize there is a charge for 900 numbers I hope they *GET BURNED AND BURNED BADLY*! What do they think, somone is providing the "service" for free? Each person is responsible for his actions. > I think voiding parents of responsibility for their kid's actions is > stupid, too, but I either want free call-blocking so that I can make > a blanket decision, or I want a PIN number to permit me to know that > the call was not made by an untrusted person. I agree with the call-blocking, but still it is *your* phone, *your responsibility*. If TPC can provide the service great, if not, it is your problem to keep 900 dialers off of it, not TPC. >> Should every business be required to have a phone number so that >> people can complain? Of course not. Why should this be different? > From the business end of things, I demand to be told a non-1-900 > method of communicating with said company in the case of a dispute; > either a regular phone number or a postal address will do. I do not > want to get shafted by a company and have to depend on my telco to > tell me how to contact the company, as I think that would place the > telco in a conflict of interest that could make things touchy. To put it simply, you are in no business to demand, you have nothing to back up your demands with. You can refuse to call them but then again if you didn't call them in the first place you wouldn't have a problem. If you do have a dispute with them, write the TPC and tell them of the dispute. It is then up to the 900 company to collect directly from you. dennis
news@ucsd.edu> (04/16/91)
In article <telecom11.282.7@eecs.nwu.edu> woody@ucscb.ucsc.edu (Bill Woodcock) writes: > Abrams is the Attorney General for the state of New York. He and a > group of Attornies General from other states with harsh anti-900- > number legislation have formed a committee to pressure the federal > government to pass restrictive legislation dealing with the 900 issue. > He went on to describe 900 number operators as "The worst sort of scam > artists and snake oil salesmen," and quoted several statistics: total > income of 900 services in 1990 was between $800 million and $1 > billion; projected income in 1991 is likely to be $1.5 billion; more > than 30% of the "victims" of 900-based "scams" are over 65. He made > quite a point of most of the "victims" being minorities, unemployed, > or otherwise disadvantaged. I find it rather strange that they would be going after services that require _you_ to call them for it to work, rather than after those who invade your own privacy, namely telemarketing operators. All my experiences seem to indicate that the same scam artists and snake oil salesmen are much more likely to be on the calling end, not the recieving end. Neither do the 1-900 operators call you up three times a day and make demands on your time. It's probably because most of these 1-900 lines are of the 1-900-****-ME! variety, so they can hold it up as a campaign against pornography come election time.
"David G. Cantor" <dgc@math.ucla.edu> (04/16/91)
Dennis G. Rears writes regarding 900 service providers: > If you do have a dispute with them, write the TPC and tell > them of the dispute. It is then up to the 900 company to collect > directly from you. If this were true, then most of the problems associated with 900 numbers would simply go way. Unfortunately (and I speak with much experience on this matter), the local telco won't remove the 900 calls from your bills and force the 900 company to collect directly, except after major hassles. If the UNREGULATED 900 providers didn't have force of the regulated telco's behind them, with the implicit threat of cutting off telco service if the bill isn't paid, then the problem wouldn't exist. The sleazy 900 providers wouldn't have a ghost of chance if they had to enforce bill payment in the usual way. While cutting off service in this situation hasn't happened, so far (at least in California), to my knowledge, the hassle in removing these items from the bill is ENORMOUS! A simple solution would be to allow the payer of a telephone bill to specify how much of the payment goes to each billing vendor (long-distance services, 900 providers, etc.) and then make it the responsibility of a vendor to collect his own bills if they are not paid through the telco. The telcos oppose this strongly. In many ways, 900 numbers are a substitute for bank credit cards, with none of the safeguards that are provided for such credit card users by Federal law. David G. Cantor Department of Mathematics University of California Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555 Internet: dgc@math.ucla.edu
dag@uunet.uu.net> (04/17/91)
In article <telecom11.282.7@eecs.nwu.edu> woody@ucscb.ucsc.edu (Bill Woodcock) writes: > He went on to describe 900 number operators as "The worst sort of scam > artists and snake oil salesmen," > He made quite a point of most of the "victims" being minorities, > unemployed, or otherwise disadvantaged. I missed the interview unfortunately. I would be interested, however, in whether or not CNN did one of their 900-number poles to see what the audience thought of the question? darren alex griffiths (415)708-3294 dag@well.sf.ca.us
Ronald Greenberg <rig@eng.umd.edu> (04/23/91)
In article <telecom11.282.7@eecs.nwu.edu>: > He said that the FCC had proposed a plan with two major goals: > 1) Require every 900 number to air a "preamble" including three things; > a brief discription of the nature of the service, a clear statement of > the cost or charges involved, and the opportunity to hang up without > incurring any charges. > 2) Require all telcos to provide free blocking to any customer on > request, and make parents of children who make calls to 900 numbers > not liable for the charges. The plan also includes a provision that the telco cannot cut off ordinary service for failure to pay 900 charges. They also ask for comment on whether their proposals should only apply to 900 numbers or should apply to any number that has extra charges for calling it. (There are certain local exchanges like this, e.g. 976 in DC, and I think 700 numbers, and apparently there is nothing to stop the telcos from giving 800 numbers to things that are not free in every way.) Unfortunately, as the plan is written now, it just applies to 900 numbers. Also, I'm pretty sure the FCC is only able to place restrictions on interstate calls. I found out all this when I called the FCC to complain about getting phone calls from machines asking me to call 900 numbers (and other telemarketing calls) and they sent me a copy of their proposal on 900 numbers. They say they are considering some other sorts of regulation on telemarketing calls, but again it would only apply to interstate calls, and they haven't actually decided to do anything so far. It would be nice if one could get copies of FCC proposals on-line. Also, I'm not really sure how members of the public are supposed to express their comments. There is some information about making comments in the material they sent me, but it seems to involve some annoying bureaucratic requirements, and they use some legal terms I'm not familiar with. I may try to get more information out of them on the phone some time, in which case I will post anything interesting that I learn, but if somebody already knows something, I'd be interested in hearing. Ron Greenberg rig@eng.umd.edu