David M Archer <v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu> (08/23/90)
A week or so ago, I received a most interesting call on one of my phone lines. For some reason I at least seem to get a lot of wrong numbers on this line, so a wrong number is not at all unusual. What was somewhat interesting was that it was one of those automated collect call handling systems whereby I hear a recorded message along with a recording of the calling party saying his/her name, and am then asked to reply either yes or no. Now, I've heard about these systems for some time, so I wasn't too astonished, except that for some reason I wasn't in the right frame of mind and replied "what?". Luckily it interpreted that as a no, and it said goodbye and hung up. But it does make me wonder how foolproof it is, and just how many people have or will be charged for collect phone calls that they didn't authorize. I'm wondering if there are any readers of this newsgroup who have had troubles with this system and if they have any comments? [Moderator's Note: A few days ago, someone said they recieved such a call, said NO and got billed anyway. Was your call from a telco payphone or from a COCOT, or could you tell? Phone phreaks love the easy way fraud can be committed with this system: When asked to tape record their name, they say, "Call me at xxx-xxxx" or otherwise deliver some message. A live operator would never accept that for a 'name', but the equipment can't tell the difference. It calls and tells me there is a collect call from 'call me back at xxx-xxxx', and will I accept the charges. I say no, but that's okay; the message was delivered! PAT]
jbaltz@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Jerry B. Altzman) (08/24/90)
In article <11243@accuvax.nwu.edu> v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu writes: >[Moderator's Note: A few days ago, someone said they recieved such a >call, said NO and got billed anyway. Was your call from a telco >payphone or from a COCOT, or could you tell? Phone phreaks love the >easy way fraud can be committed with this system: When asked to tape >record their name, they say, "Call me at xxx-xxxx" or otherwise >deliver some message. A live operator would never accept that for a >'name', but the equipment can't tell the difference. It calls and >tells me there is a collect call from 'call me back at xxx-xxxx', and >will I accept the charges. I say no, but that's okay; the message was >delivered! PAT] My freshman year of college, when I was poor and not yet employed by Columbia (who is not speaking for me now, by the way! DISCLAIMER!) I used to call home collect, and my parents would refuse the charge, and call me right back. Well, Bell of PA saw this pattern happening on a regular basis (this was before a cousin's wedding, and we had to talk on an every-other-day basis to get info back and forth) and decided to bill my parents for the *refused* collect call, their (unsaid) reasoning I suppose being "We know what you're doing, so you can't get away with this..." Mom didn't take lightly to this, and raised hell as only a mom can :-) in the local BPA office. The charges were later taken off. Has anyone else seen this? I was giving my full name to the operator, not some code like "yes, my name is 'callmeback Altzman'" As always: DISCLAIMER: This isn't Columbia. This is me. Columbia is them. jerry b. altzman 212 854 8058 jbaltz@columbia.edu jauus@cuvmb (bitnet) NEVIS::jbaltz (HEPNET) ...!rutgers!columbia!jbaltz (bang!)
bill@trace.eedsp.gatech.edu (bill) (08/25/90)
What is this "Automated Collect Calling?" Sounds like a great way to cut down man-hours, sort of... ;-) What Telcos use it and in what areas? Bill [Moderator's Note: It is a method of placing collect calls without operator intervention. The calling party records his name; the person who is being asked to pay for the call hears the recorded message and accepts or rejects the call. Many of the COCOTs (privately owned payphones) currently use this system; in addition, many actual telephone companies have recently experimented with it. PAT]
David M Archer <v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu> (08/26/90)
In article <11309@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bill@trace.eedsp.gatech.edu (bill) writes.. >What is this "Automated Collect Calling?" Sounds like a great way to >cut down man-hours, sort of... ;-) >What Telcos use it and in what areas? Interestingly enough, a day or so after I sent my message, I caught a story on the TV news that apparently some of the local operators are not very happy about these things, and they were on strike, or maybe not on strike, but very unhappy. I never saw the story in the newspaper, so I don't really know. But what I do remember was the phone company claimed it saves somewhere around $7,000 a day (gee, that's almost 2.5 million dollars a year, I wonder if that means they really don't need to raise rates? <snicker>) Actually, come to think of it, one TV station claimed it was automated customer services in general, and another station claimed it was automated directory assistance. Oh, Pat, you had asked if the call I received was from a COCOT or not. I somewhat remember a mention of NY telephone, so I assume it was the phone company itself. And speaking of automated directory assistance, what the heck is that? Don't tell me they've got voice recognition down good enough that I can ask a computer for "Joe Hergesheimer" and it will understand me? Or is it just the system where you tell the human operator who you're looking for, and then the recorded numbers come on the line? I never really considered that automated. [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell operators recently had an 'informational picket' based on their fear of the automated collect calling feature being installed here. They're afraid it will take away their jobs. They should read up on telco history: In the 1940-60 period, as central offices all over the United States were being converted to dial from manual service, the operators raised cain about how the automated stuff would cause them all to get laid off. In fact it did not happen that way. The automated stuff merely made it possible for telco to keep up with increases in calling volume without having to hire, as the saying goes, every female in the world over the age of 18 to be a telephone operator. (Yes, that was someone's mathematical projection fifty years ago.) Regarding automated directory assistance, the only part here that is *not* automated is the typing on the keys at the terminal, to wit: 1) You dial 411. 2) Operator's pre-recorded voice: "Directory, Ms. Brown" 3) You cite your request, the operator sits there silently typing. 4) The number is located, and the cursor moved to it on the screen. 5) Computer says, "The number is xxx-xxxx" (and repeats it). In many (most) directory assistance calls here, the operator never says a word. Her pre-recorded voice greets you; the computer responds with the answer. PAT]
johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) (08/26/90)
In article <11309@accuvax.nwu.edu> Pat writes: >many actual telephone companies have recently experimented with it. PAT] New England Tel is using auto-collect in Massachusetts. You dial 0+number, then at the bong enter 11 for collect or 12 for third party billing, then speak your name and enter the third party's number if needed. The voice prompt only tells you about 11 and 12 on calls from pay phones, but they work everywhere. Experimenting shows that you can hear the callee or third party being asked to accept charges and hear their response, though they cannot hear you, which is nice both to be sure you've got the right number, and for the fraudulently inclined to hear them say that they'll call you back. Besides, it's hard to run up an enormous phone bill making intra-lata calls in Mass. Third party calls from pay phones call the third party to see if they accept, while third party calls from home don't, presumably because they have a number to charge back if the third party refuses payment. If you don't say or dial something at the prompt, it still falls through to a human operator which is important both for non-tone phones and slightly odd calls. When I call the business office in New Jersey to turn on the phone service at the beach house, it answers with a long spiel the end of which says that they accept collect calls. But since the first word isn't "Yes" an automated system can't handle it. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!esegue!johnl
das@cs.ucla.edu (David Smallberg) (08/28/90)
In article <11309@accuvax.nwu.edu> bill <bill@trace.eedsp.gatech.edu> writes: >What is this "Automated Collect Calling?" >[Moderator's Note: ... The calling party records his name; the person >who is being asked to pay for the call hears the recorded message and >accepts or rejects the call. ...] "Rejects" has been what I've done both times I've received these calls. Neither time could I understand the recorded voice of whoever was calling me! The two occasions were widely separated in time, and the voices were different, so their having the wrong number seems unlikely. Have other people had trouble with unintelligible recordings? And why is there no option to replay the name, in case you miss it the first time? And what happens if a non-English speaker answers the phone? In areas where automated collect calls are implemented, can one make a collect call using a live person for situations like the last one? David Smallberg, das@cs.ucla.edu, ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!das
tad@beaver.cs.washington.edu> (08/31/90)
> My freshman year of college, when I was poor and not yet employed by > Columbia (who is not speaking for me now, by the way! DISCLAIMER!) I > used to call home collect, and my parents would refuse the charge, and > call me right back. > Has anyone else seen this? I was giving my full name to the operator, > not some code like "yes, my name is 'callmeback Altzman'" > There is an interesting code that some ham radio operators have used. When you need to alert someone to meet you on the air, you call for a phoney name that rhymes with the "band" that you wish to meet on. 80 = Katy 40 = Morty 20 = Benny 15 = Christine 10 = Ken Then when the called party says "Benny isn't here", you leave a message that (your name) called, and to have Benny call you back at extension 212. Since the 20 meter band is on 14 MHz, this tells the called party to look for you on a frequency of 14.212 MHz. Not legal, but ... it works! Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP