kwc@naucse (01/13/89)
I saw an interested approach to the illegal use of 900 numbers on a T.V. news program the other night. It seems that a man in New York city set up a 900 number for his home and proceeded to place an advertisement in the New York Times to the effect that he had a "free" house for rent in trade for upkeep and maintenance on the house. I can't remember what percentage of the income went to the phone company and what percentage went to the guy in NYC but he got significantly more than 50%. Finally, after enough complaints, the FBI launched an investigation and told this guy to remove the add. He did remove the add but one week later he took out another add for some other deal which was "too good to pass up" using the same 900 number. After several weeks the FBI was again notified and they investigated again. This time the investigation was more significant and the whole affair may eventually go into litigation. But as of the news report that I saw, all money received by this man was still in his possession. It seems to me that the advent of 900 numbers has opened up a whole new category of fraudulent crimes (recall the Portland Santa Claus 900 number discussed on the net not long ago), as well as all of the problems parents have making sure that their teenagers are not running up hundreds of dollars in bills from 900 numbers. Add to that all of the complaints about telephone solicitation and it makes me wonder if the phone company is in the service of the business world rather than individual users. I guess whoever has the most money wins! -- Ken Collier ...arizona!naucse!kwc College of Engineering and Technology Bitnet: collier@nauvax Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, Arizona From: rebel@swbatl.swbt.com To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s Date: 13 Jan 89 15:42:50 GMT Organization: Southwestern Bell Tele. Co. - Advanced Technology Lab - St. Louis In article <1121@naucse.UUCP> kwc@naucse.UUCP (Ken Collier) writes: >It seems to me that the advent of 900 numbers has opened up a whole new >category of fraudulent crimes.... >...and it makes me wonder if the phone company is in the service >of the business world rather than individual users. I guess whoever has the >most money wins! Now exactly who do you think ends up paying for telephone fraud???? The telephone company. When a teenager runs up $2,000 in 900# calls and the parents complain, the phone company ends up footing the bill, the parents aren't about to pay $2,000 and the sure don't want to have to discipline their children or even worse actually "supervise" them!!! (Whats really weird, and of course kinda off the subject, but my parents would have skinned me alive if I had run up that kind of a bill, and probably would have made me pay for it...) The phone company pays for all kinds of fraudulent phone calls. College students from foreign countries who call home and then skip out leaving a bill of about $3,000, stolen calling cards that are used by the thief, etc, etc. I could go on and on. How do I know??? Well I used to work in the Security Department and the toughest thing to do is collect money from customers who aren't responsible for their card being stolen or their kid calling whomever. Businesses stay in business by making money. Plain and simple. Try to run a business that loses money and see how long it lasts. And when the phone company makes money, I make money being an employee. But then I turn around and buy a new car, and that keeps Ford in business, and I rent an apartment, and that keeps the landlord in business, and it goes on and on..... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- \ Sharon Deetz, System Administrator / "The only trouble with / Southwestern Bell Telephone - Advanced Tech Lab \ being in the rat race \ 1010 Pine St. - Room 502 - St. Louis. MO. 63101. / is even if you win / UUCP: {pyramid, uunet, bellcore}...!swbatl!rebel \ you're still a rat!" =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) (01/15/89)
"Now exactly who do you think ends up paying for telephone
fraud???? The telephone company ... Try to run a business that
loses money and see how long it lasts."
This is incorrect. When a customer refuses to pay for thousands of
dollars worth of prefix 976 calls, the telephone company doesn't lose
money. They just don't make more money. They end up with the same
amount of money as though those calls had never been made. The account
that runs the 976 service doesn't get their cut.
It's not as though the telephone company buys telephone calls at
wholesale and resells them at retail. Virtually all their costs are
fixed costs. The incremental cost of placing a 976 call is zip.
The newspapers are full of this "the phone company loses millions of
dollars on fraud" stuff. It ain't so.
(None of the above should be construed as support for perpetrators of
telephone fraud. Especially when they bill to my phone number. Hang
'em high!)
-=- Andrew Klossner (uunet!tektronix!hammer!frip!andrew) [UUCP]
(andrew%frip.gwd.tek.com@relay.cs.net) [ARPA]desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) (01/20/89)
>In article <1121@naucse.UUCP> kwc@naucse.UUCP (Ken Collier) writes: >>It seems to me that the advent of 900 numbers has opened up a whole new >>category of fraudulent crimes.... >>...and it makes me wonder if the phone company is in the service >>of the business world rather than individual users. I guess whoever has the >>most money wins! > >Now exactly who do you think ends up paying for telephone fraud???? >The telephone company. When a teenager runs up $2,000 in 900# calls >and the parents complain, the phone company ends up footing the bill, Wait a minute. The phone company collects for 900# calls and splits the money with the 900 operator. If the bill is legally uncollectable (for instance in some cases when run up by a minor, or when the calls were solicited by illegal means) then the phone company does not LOSE any money, as it never had rights to it in the first case. If the 900 operator was already paid their split, the phone compyany is being dumb. >Well I used to work >in the Security Department and the toughest thing to do is collect money >from customers who aren't responsible for their card being stolen Are you really implying that a customer is fully responsible for all fraudulent use of their card in the event that it is stolen? I can see why it was difficult to collect, and I have no sympathy whatsoever for the difficulties you encountered. Peter Desnoyers [Moderator's Note: Under federal law, any person whose credit card(s) is stolen can be held responsible for the first $50 in charges or the amount incurred until the matter has been reported to the card issuer, whichever is less. Credit extended by a telephone company is not an exception. PT]
dave@rutgers.edu (Dave Levenson) (01/21/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0018m03@vector.UUCP>, kwc@naucse writes: > Now exactly who do you think ends up paying for telephone fraud???? > The telephone company. Let's not forget who _really_ pays for telephone fraud! The telephone company recovers its costs by collecting money from you and me and everybody else who pays a telephone bill, don't they? -- Dave Levenson Westmark, Inc. The Man in the Mooney Warren, NJ USA {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
john@zygot.UUCP (John Higdon) (01/23/89)
In article <296@serene.UUCP>, rfarris@serene.UUCP (Rick Farris) writes: > In article <400@swbatl.UUCP> rebel@swbatl.UUCP (root@swbatl.swbt.com > 5-9080) writes: > : Now exactly who do you think ends up paying for telephone fraud???? > : The telephone company. When a teenager runs up $2,000 in 900# calls > : and the parents complain, the phone company ends up footing the bill, > You gotta be joking. Where do you think the phone company gets it's > money? The RATE PAYERS pay for fraudulent phone calls. Actually, it's the 900 or 976 service provider who takes it in the shorts. If the phone company can't collect from a customer for calls to an information service, do you think that they are going to remit to the provider anyway? Also, if they have already remitted to a service provider, and the bill eventually proves uncollectable, they *charge back* the service provider. -- John Higdon john@zygot ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john