HAMER524@ruby.vcu.edu (Robert M. Hamer) (09/20/90)
Not to revisit the sleazy-900-number topic too often (Patrick, should we perhaps have a separate Digest on that? Just kidding) a 30-year-old, IQ presumable > 100, or 120 or something like that, graduate student of mine showed me today a postcard she received. One side was blank, except for "URGENT NOTICE. PLEASE RESPOND IMMEDIATELY" printed diagnonally in _large_ block print across the card. The other was a jumble of print, with "FINAL ATTEMPT" in large letters prominently displayed, under which it said, "Dear C. A. Fortner, We are trying to reach you. _Your $5000 credit limit has been approved._ Call 1-900-230-2600* __Now__. (The __Now__ represents that it was double underlined. The asterisk by the phone number referred to _small_ type at the bottom of the card that said, "*1.95 per minute". Various other phrases were scattered across the "busy" face of the card such as "CREDIT APPROVED FOR" above her address, etc. (Except for the print on the first-class-postage-paid notice itself, the price of the phone call was the smallest print on the credit card. The organization was United Productions, Inc., 2300 West Sahara #820/Box 18, Las Vegas, Nevada 89102. Now, this intelligent, post-master's graduate student did not realize that the 900-number was one of the call-and-we-charge-as-much-as-we- want numbers. She brought the card to me just because she got a kick out of the pre-approval of a credit limit for which she hadn't applied, considering she is a poor graduate student. I don't know. As I said before, even being basically a libertarian at heart, I am beginning to think some sort of control is warrented. This card was designed deliberately to mislead, similarly to cards that in the past have come to elderly people in envelopes that looked like the envelopes that Social Security stuff comes in, and containing "bills" for "insurance" that the elderly hadn't requested. I am beginning to harden my position that the only thing that should be allowed to appear on a phone bill is the cost/charge of the phone call itself. Having an RBOC or similar monoply act as the billing agent for anyone it wants to seems to be inappropriate somehow. I suppose it might be problematic to define the "cost of the call itself," but some sort of solution could be worked out. Pat -- of course this sort of stuff is a result of the breakup. One thing I haven't seen mentioned in the discussion of the merits of the breakup of ATT lately is the fact that in many ways, ATT was behind the breakup. They wanted to get into computer/hardware/software/data/ data service etc. sales, and under their tariffs at the time were severely restricted. When they pushed to get the restrictions removed they were basically told they couldn't because they were a monopoly. So they solved that. They agreed to divest themselves of the monopoly portion of their business -- the RBOCs. They started out with some restrictions on what they could do, but my understanding is that some of those restrictions were "sunsetted" and some have been phased out according to a schedule and some are being phased out currently.
Dave Levenson <dave@westmark.westmark.com> (09/22/90)
In article <12371@accuvax.nwu.edu>, HAMER524@ruby.vcu.edu (Robert M. Hamer) writes: [A description of yet another sleazy 900 number practice.] >Pat -- of course this sort of stuff is a result of the breakup. I didn't realize that 900 number sleaze was the result of divestiture! Could somebody please explain this one? There are many effects of divestuture, some are good, and some are bad. There are also many changes in telecommunications technology and in its application. Some are good; some (like 900 sleaze, IMHO) are bad. I don't believe, however, that retention of AT&T's monopoly status would have prevented this sort of application of their services by their customers. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857