dgc@math.ucla.edu (11/21/88)
I suspect you have never raised children or if you have, they weren't
"problem" chilren.
We were one of the horror stories in Los Angeles. My teen-age son ran
up $1500.00 worth of 976 calls before we knew what was happening. He
had (and has) serious psychiatric problems. I won't detail them, but
they are severe.
In general, the law protects children (minors) and parents:
1. It limits liability against parents for damage by chilren to a
relatively small amount and you can (and we have) purchase insurance
for this (it usually comes with homeowner policies).
2. Contracts entered into by children are, in general, not enforcible.
In particular, such contracts can't be enforced against the parents.
These laws were set up for DAMNED good reason!
Suddenly, the telco in cahoots with the FCC and the PUC invents a way of
violating (2), whereby a child enters into a "contract" (by dialing 976
numbers) with the telco and the 976 vendor and then the latter two want
to enforce this contract against the parents.
As I've said before, 976 service is NOT telephone service any more
than ordering from Sears Roebuck, reserving a room at the Holiday Inn,
subscribing to the Source (all done using the telphone) are.
If someone wants to risk phone orders from an unknown, let him, but
he shouldn't have any right to force the telephone subscriber to pay
(unless the subscriber agrees in advance).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Bell wound up writing off several *million* dollars in
uncollectibles as a good will gesture for parents who were stuck
with phone bills typically in the hundreds of dollars because of
their inability to discipline and or control their children.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I very much doubt if it was "good will". These cases have NEVER been
taken to court and lawyers to whom I have spoken have questioned whether
a court would enforce them. It's quite likely that Illinois Bell and
the 976 vendors would have lost in court and that would have left them
in a much worse position.
The only reason that they have a ghost of a claim to collect on 976
calls is that the PUC "gave" them that right. I have looked at the
California statute that set up the California PUC (probably the Illinois
statute is similar) and the PUC is given authority to regulate TELEPHONE
SERVICE (and various other utilities) NOT information services.
By the way, the 976 vendors are sleezy and they deliberately set out to
entrap sick, lonely people. My son called the "party line" numbers.
What he doesn't know (ar at least believe) is that they are phony. The
interesting people he talks to are shills hired by the 976 company to
keep the line "exciting". (These jobs are advertised in the Los Angeles
Times. They pay a few dollars an hour and can be done from home). So
the 976 servce isn't giving what it claims. The "sex" lines are even
more sleezy. Thank god for them, however, otherwise the 976 service
wouldn't have been put on an optional basis so quickly!
The problem is, of course, that telphone service is essential in this
day and age. I couldn't hold my job without telephone service at home.
You might ask yourself how many children do you know who get blank
signed checks from their parents or unlimited charge accounts, etc.
You might also ask yourself how you would prevent a mentally sick child
who lives at home from using the telphone to call 976 numbers. What
would you do. Lock him up (and make him sicker)? Watch him 24 hours
a day (and not go to work)? Lock up the telephone (not easy with a
teenager who knows how to do simple telephone wiring)? Even though my
son is grown now, and away from home, I await your suggestions. We
finally managed to buy adequate restrictors and put them in a locked box
where the phone-lines first enter my house. Even these have problems.
The batteries run out without warning, they are painful to program, and,
in general a nuisance.
I know that long distance (especially foreign) poses, hypothetically, a
similar problem. But for some reason, it doesn't occur, at least not
very much.
One final thought. Whenever the telco people talk about charges, they
talk in terms of paying for services and for what you receive. They
charge, for example, for touch-tone, as a service, even though using it
saves them money. If there were any consistency or reason, they would
CHARGE a monthly fee for having 976 service available.
dgc
David G. Cantor
Department of Mathematics
University of California at Los Angeles
Internet: dgc@math.ucla.edu
UUCP: ...!{randvax, sdcrdcf, ucbvax}!ucla-cs!dgc