eli@chipcom.com (08/09/89)
[comments here are from me, not my Sprint Rep Buddy] > From: David Albert <albert%endor@husc6.harvard.edu> > > In article <telecom-v09i0278m04@vector.dallas.tx.us> eli@chipcom.com writes: > > > .. "The shutdown was not for all of Port Authority / Grand Central, it > > was just for a few payphones that were causing the trouble. John Doe > > is probably better off being prohibited from using the phone than if > > he did use the phone and someone watched over his shoulder, stole his > > FONcard number, and racked up thousands of calls on his bill." > > I fail to understand why your friend would say something as patently > ridiculous as this and expect anybody to accept it. What's wrong with the truth? If it's too ridiculous for you, I don't know what to suggest. If you want lies, you're talking to the wrong people. Neither my friend nor myself have any reason to lie or make "patently ridiculous" comments. > Since John Doe > is not responsible for those calls, the only reason he is "better off" > is that he saves a few moments of aggravation. Such problems lead to more than a few moments of phone time with US Sprint customer service reps. Though they have been fairly responsive to my latest complaints. I usually use the normal reps rather than my friend there, just so I can keep track of how well they are doing. > Or is the Sprint > spokesman suggesting that John Doe will have a serious problem getting > the calls removed from his bill, presumably because of Sprint's > notorious billing inefficiencies and other problems? John Doe's card will be disabled everywhere and he will be left with no long distance access at all for a few days. This has nothing to do with "notorious billing". It is a direct result of having one's PIN ripped off. > Either way, the comments don't bode well for Sprint. I think they bode just fine. The realities of code abuse can interfere with your long distance service, regardless of your long distance carrier. > David Albert /UUCP: ...!harvard!albert / INTERNET: albert@harvard.harvard.edu > From: Andrew Boardman <amb@cs.columbia.edu> > In article <telecom-v09i0278m04@vector.dallas.tx.us> eli@chipcom.com quoth: > > .. "The shutdown was not for all of Port Authority / Grand Central, it > > was just for a few payphones that were causing the trouble. John Doe > > is probably better off being prohibited from using the phone than if > > he did use the phone and someone watched over his shoulder, stole his > > FONcard number, and racked up thousands of calls on his bill." > Considering that said phones are not *labelled* as such, Mr. Doe would > probably try his call, have his Sprint account ripped off anyway, and > then go through the further inconvienience of having to retry the call > somewhere else... You are assuming that the sprint system would provide Mr. Doe with the normal PIN entry sequence. I don't know exactly how the 'disabling' was carried out, but your assumption that Mr. Doe would get to the point where he would enter his PIN is not necessarily correct. The idea is to prevent the John Doe from ever entering his PIN, so it won't get stolen! To allow Doe to enter his PIN and then to refuse his call provides no benefit to either US Sprint or Mr. Doe, so my guess is that some other method was used to prevent Doe from entering his FONcard PIN. The subject of a few Grand Central payphones and their Sprint access been beaten around enough... I'm quite happy to pass on additional questions to Mr. Sprint Rep, but this issue is a relatively minor one, in my opinion. Enough!