DP Tool Club 19/CD_ASCQ_19_010295.iso/vrac/tc14_401.zip/TC14-401.TXT

Text File | 1994-11-13 | 33KB | 784 lines

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 18 Oct 94 15:25:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue
401

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A.
Townson

     Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO (John Higdon)
     Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO (Steve Kass)
     Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO (Carl Moore)
     Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO (Tom Lowe)
     Re: MCI's 1-800 CALL INFO (Jonathan D. Loo)
     Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO (Phil Ritter)
     Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO (Steve Cogorno)
     Re: Testing 1-800-CALL-INFO (Jeffrey A. Harper)
     Re: Testing 1-800-CALL-INFO (Mark E. Daniel)
     Re: Testing 1-800-CALL-INFO (Steve Cogorno)
     Charging For 800 Calls (was Re: 1-800-CALL-INFO) (Barry Margolin)
     Charges For Calling 800 Numbers (Jeff Buckingham)
     Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be Banned (Lauren Weinstein)
     800-Number Billing (Stephen Tihor)
     Re: Billable 800 Service (Dave Levenson)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the
moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                  * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                     9457-D Niles Center Road
                      Skokie, IL USA   60076
                        Phone: [phone]
                         Fax: [phone]
   ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

**********************************************************************
*
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the
*
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland
*
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)
*
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as
represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.
*
**********************************************************************
*

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your
help
is important and appreciated.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author.
Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 11:01:30 -0700
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO


[e-mail] (Brian Brown) writes:

> FYI, a LD carrier can provide two "information" digits in addition
to
> ANI via digital lines -- although, for some mysterious,
unexplainable
> reason (someone comment please), they must do this via MF, not DTMF.

Any number of carriers, including MCI, will supply DNIS/ANI in FGD
format via DTMF. If your particular carrier claims that it cannot be
done, look at other carriers.

> The two-digit code for payphones is "27".

There are actually two payphone codes. One is for LEC payphones; the
other for COCOTs.

> I would be interested to know what happens when you call from a
> payphone.

The operator asks for billing information. But this has nothing to do
with the status digits. It comes from a check of the screened call
database. All payphones have collect and third-party billing blocked
in a national database that is available on-line to any company that
wants to pay for it.  Residential and business telephones that have
this screening in effect will get the same response when calling
CALL-INFO. Otherwise, the billing is via the collect call mechanism.

> Incidentally, the two MF digits make the ANI-DNIS string look like:
> *AABBBCCCDDDD*EEEFFFF*, a total of 22 digits outpulsed!!!

Question: what is a "*" in MF? Is it KP? KP2? Just wondering.

> Is it possible that MF can outpulse faster than DTMF?  It seems
> strange that MF is necessary for this service, but it definitely is.

I don't know how to break this to you, but I am getting FGD format
(including status) delivered via DTMF. And it is a small reseller, to
boot!

> You may be able to get some employee at a carrier to agree to give
> you this info via DTMF, but they will soon learn that they can't and
> apologize to you.

This is misinformation. The only carrier that promised it to me and
could not deliver was MCI. I believe they now can do it. In any event
there are a number of other carriers who will be happy to provide you
with FGD format DNIS/ANI using DTMF.

> One more thing -- these desription digits can also tell you when the
> ANI represents a hotel, hospital, prison, cellular, business or
> residential site, and who knows what else.

Actually, they don't distinguish between residential and business
POTS.
And if the cellular company is using certain types of
interconnectivity
with the LEC, the status code returns "00" (POTS).

> Please don't ask how I know all this.

Judging from the holes, I don't think I want to know. I got my info
from designing and writing software for such systems.


John Higdon  |    P.O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264
4407

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 01:00:43 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO


Patrick seems to be saying that charging 75 cents for 1-800-CALL-INFO
is in line with using 800 numbers for Western Union or for charges to
a credit card.  I disagree.  No other 1-800 number does (or should)
result in a charge on the telephone bill without some verbal or other
authorization from the caller, nor without some indication from the
called party that a charge will apply.  That was certainly the
situation with Western Union the few times I used it.

Patrick, do you propose that I could set up a phone number within my
exchange, say 201-514-FOOD, to provide a recorded recipe at a $5
charge on the phone bill, offering no indication in the recording of
the charge?  Of course my advertisements would mention the charge.

No.  Calls within an exchange are free (*), though they can result in
a transfer of money from the calling to called parties with a credit
card number and verbal authorization.  The same should be true for 800
numbers.  (*)metered service aside

Does MCI's service have a name?  If you call 1-800-555-1212 and ask
for the number, do you get a recording saying "The toll-free number is
  ..."?  I agree with those who lament the devaluation of 800 service
by
MCI's practice, and I also agree with Patrick that nothing should be
charged to a telephone bill beyond the cost of carrying the call.


Steve Kass/ Math & CS/ Drew U/ Madison NJ/ [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know how far the proprietor of
such services should be required to go to make notification. Even
though
they mention it in their advertising, some people will later insist
that
they did not see it. The operator can mention it in the process of
getting
the customer's lookup request and yet later some people will still
claim
they did not know about the charge.  One information provider gets
around
the later claims of ignorance on the part of users by tape recording
the
opening seconds of conversation where the intake operator advises the
party
of the charge and asks the person's permission to charge it. If the
person
later claims no permission was given, the IP need merely reference the
index or location of the 20-30 second spot on a large reel of tape
where
that particular person consented and provide them with it.   PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Oct 94 11:34:24 GMT
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO


So just what gets printed on the phone bill when a call to
1-800-CALL-INFO gets billed?

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Tom Lowe)
Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 13:40:05 EDT


> FYI, a LD carrier can provide two "information" digits in addition
to
> ANI via digital lines -- although, for some mysterious,
unexplainable
> reason (someone comment please), they must do this via MF, not DTMF.
> The two-digit code for payphones is "27".  In fact, MCI can look at
> the two ANI description digits before deciding to go off hook, and
> simply not answer the call.  I would be interested to know what
> happens when you call from a payphone.

> Incidentally, the two MF digits make the ANI-DNIS string look like:
> *AABBBCCCDDDD*EEEFFFF*, a total of 22 digits outpulsed!!!  Is it
> possible that MF can outpulse faster than DTMF?  It seems strange
that
> MF is necessary for this service, but it definitely is.  You may be
> able to get some employee at a carrier to agree to give you this
info
> via DTMF, but they will soon learn that they can't and apologize to
> you.

The INFO/ANI digits can also be sent via ISDN or SS7.  I don't know
why they can't be sent with the DTMF option.  I'm converting some DTMF
signalled trunks to MF trunks just so I can get the info digits.  This
should happen sometime this week, I hope.

I don't think that MF is any faster than DTMF signalling.  After
listening to some MF circuits and DTMF circuits side by side, the MF
almost sounded slower to me.

The AABBBCCCDDDD*EEEFFFF string you mention is the signalling for
DTMF, and it does not include the info digits (AA in your string).
The MF signalling goes like this:

DMS-250                            PBX

SEIZURE ------------------------>
         <------------------------  WINK
KP + IINPANXXXXX + ST ---------->
KP + DNIS + ST ----------------->
         <------------------------  WINK
         <------------------------  OFF HOOK  (answer)

Where the KP and ST are the MF "Key Pulse" and "Stop" signals
II = Info Digits, NPANXXXXX is the ANI, and DNIS is the dialed number.
The possible values for the Info digits are:
00 - Regular
01 - Multi Party line (ANI not delivered)
02 - ANI failure
06 - Hotel/Motel
07 - Prison
27 - Coin
61 - Cellular

There are slight variations to the contents of the digits, depending
on whether or not full ANI is available and/or configured on the trunk
group and/or 800 number.  If ANI is configured, the you get AT LEAST
the area code.  Also, at least with DTMF signaling, I've been getting
the originating country code on ITFS (International Toll Free Service)
numbers that are terminating on the switch.

I got most of this information from the "Real Time ANI Training
Booklet"
that Sprint publishes.

As far as making calls from cellular phones to 800-CALL-INFO, they
didn't restrict me!  That means that my cellular company got billed
$0.75 for my call plus the toll charges, and all I'll pay for is
airtime for an 800 call.  I also tried it from one hotel and it went
through with no problem (although the hotel tried to charge me $0.65
for that and all of my other 800 calls, but that's another story.

------------------------------

From: Jonathan D. Loo <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 01:59:01 -0400
Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO


TELECOM Digest Editor noted:

> I went out yesterday afternoon and tried it also to see what
payphones
> around here would do. I got through and got the request to provide
> billing information in the form of a credit card number or third
party
> phone number. When I asked why there was a charge for a call to an
800
> number the answer I got was that the call itself is free; what I
would
> be paying for was the information provided as a result. This is
> basically the way all the information providers via 800 phrase their
> answer: carriage itself is indeed 'free' or reverse charged. You pay
> for the information we give you while chatting.

So if you get a non-published number, then it should NOT be billed,
because
you get no information.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Certainly you get information. You were
informed that the person you are trying to reach has chosen to not be
listed. Or perhaps you were informed that the person you are trying to
reach is not listed at all and (by implication) does not have phone
service,
at least in his name. The operator did not just ring off and tell you
nothing at all.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Phil Ritter)
Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO
Organization: AirTouch Cellular, Los Angeles
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 16:14:03 GMT


All "800" services that reverse bill are a special problem for most
cellular carriers (and, presumably, for some smaller telco's and CAPs
that are providing line service) because there is generally no way to
get a bill from the service provider and return it to our customers
the way that the LECs do (it is a really long story, and kinda ugly,
but true).  In most cases, they just get billed back to the cellular
carrier (who refuses to pay...).  Its similar to the reason that most
cellular carriers block all "900/976" calls from cell phones.

Up 'till now, there have been very few of these that are actually
likely to get called by cellular customers (but the ones that exist
sure can be interesting  ;-).  MCIs 1-800-CALL-INFO service, however,
is providing a "legitimate" service that is actually quite attractive
to cellular users (no need to write down the number and re-dial,
something that can be quite tricky while driving).  It is also being
heavily advertised in ways that I would say expressly target cellular
(radio commercials ten to twelve times an hour on news stations in the
LA
area during rush-hour(s) [which are almost all day in LA]).

During the first two or three days that MCI offered this service, I
noticed that they were not blocking calls from cellular (I also
noticed that their database includes, and they will connect call to,
certain international numbers).  This, of course, provides a massive
hole for long-distance fraud (place your calls from a cellular phone,
and never receive a bill for the LD -- better still if you are using a
cloned cell phone, and we particularly dislike any service that might
encourage the airtime bandits).

Anyway, they assumed that they would receive correct ANI-II on all
cellular originiations to identify and screen those calls.  Guess what
  -- they don't.  On the evening of 10/13 they implemented a
"temporary"
fix that forces them to use a LIDB dip on every call and screen based
on the "no collect" class of call screening indicator (I think that
they will be forced to leave this on forever, further crimping their
profit marings with the cost of the LIDB dip [too bad...]).

[On the topic of profit margins, unless their operators and/or
directory
database get faster, they'll never make money at $.75 -- they
currently
have too much "work time" per call.  Of course, they could be counting
on
the un-discounted MCI LD for their profits.  But this is really
another
topic altogether ...].

This, of course, also allows anyone else who wants to block the "800
reverse billing" feature of their service and force them to request a
billing option by asking their LEC to mark their billing telephone
numbers "no collect".  For a PBX, you usually only have to mark your
pilot number(s) and/or billing telephone number(s), since your calls
normally all forward one ANI no matter what line origininated the
call.  You will also not be able to accept collect calls, but that may
not be so bad after all ;-).  And, for most organizations, that would
be preferable to restricting all "800" calls.


Phil Ritter    [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 09:57:56 PDT


Dave Levenson said:

> How about it MCI? AT&T? SPRINT? et al.  You can't have it both ways.
> Either go back to the original design and guarantee the calling
party
> that calls to 800 numbers are toll-free, or don't charge your 800
> customers a premium for using them.

This might be a way to free up 800 numbers since there was mention of
a shortage.  800 could be for no-way-could-there-possibly-be-a-charge-
toll-
free and 8xx could be for toll-free-but-information-costs-extra.


Steve   [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Or just continue using 900/976 for that
purpose. 900 is 'toll-free' to the caller (like 800 the carriage is
charged to the IP who collects it with the charges for his service).

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey A. Harper)


In <[e-mail]> Les Reeves <[e-mail]> writes:

> After giving the operator Pat's name and city, and waiting about 45
> seconds, I was told that there were two listings, one non-published
> and one unlisted.  Hmmm.  I asked for another name and the operator
> informed me that I had used up my two searches.

If you have two numbers, it's still considered one search.  Two
searches
consititutes the operator to clear the screen and input another name
into the database.

Sounds like you were taken advantage of from what you said.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Oct 94 16:22:16 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Mark E Daniel)
Subject: Re: Testing 1-800-CALL-INFO


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Digest Editor noted:

> operator requests it ... but then, how were you to know a call to
> an 800 number costs you money?   <grin> ... remember the astrologers

I was at a COCOT payphone a few weeks ago and had the bright idea of
wanting to call 1 800 555 1212 to find out the 800-number to Greyhound
so I could find out where the local station was (I was in Downtown
Cleveland BTW) and it wanted .75 for the first 3 minutes.  I hung up
and got an Ameritech operator to complete the call for me, which the
phone was gracious enough to call. :) After I got the info, I called
the 800 number.  It let that go through without a problem.  I HATE
COCOTs!  There should be a regulatory body for these people.  Maybe
someone in the know could meet with them once a month and tell them
how to really handle phone calls.  I've half thgought of typing up
something to let people know that they won't be able to use their
voicemail or pagers from these phones.  But sometimes a COCOT is all
there is in an area.  It's depressing.


[e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is a regulatory body for 'those
people'. It is called the Federal Communications Commission. How
effective
it is can be debated. In some matters, the FCC is ineffectual.    PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: Testing 1-800-CALL-INFO
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 10:27:21 PDT


> been different.  I wonder if MCI is using any sort of legitimate
data-
> base from the local telcos or if they have strung together some sort
> of outdated cross-reference books where half the entries are out of
> date and a couple years old.  Sounds like a ripoff to me; best limit
> use of the service to coin phones (Genuine Bell or COCOT, I don't
care)
> and of course be prepared to deposit the 75 cents in coins when the
> operator requests it ... but then, how were you to know a call to

Would this work?  I was under the impression that only AT&T had the
equipment to handle coin calls.  Could an 800 service request coins
from a coin phone?


Steve    [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No it cannot. I was only joking. AT&T
is the only carrier with arrangements to collect coins in payphones,
and that goes back to the relationship they had with the various
Bell Companies for so many years until about a decade ago.    PAT]

------------------------------

From: Barry Margolin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Charging for 800 Calls (was Re: 1-800-CALL-INFO)
Date: 18 Oct 1994 18:38:59 GMT
Organization: NEARnet, Cambridge, MA


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Digest Editor noted
in response to [e-mail] (Jody Kravitz):

> When I asked why there was a charge for a call to an 800 number the
> answer I got was that the call itself is free; what I would be
paying
> for was the information provided as a result. This is basically the
> answer all the information providers via 800 phrase their answer:
> carriage itself is indeed 'free' or reverse charged. You pay for the
> information we give you while chatting.  PAT]

I suppose this makes some sense.

Imagine a law office that provides an 800 number, to make it easier
for clients to reach them from out of state.  If I use that number to
call my lawyer, I wouldn't be surprised to be billed later for the
time that we spent on the phone.

The kicker is that I would also expect to be billed for the time if I
called their normal number.  In fact, I would expect the bill to be
the same in either case -- I'm paying for the lawyer's time, not the
phone service.

The giveaway that the charge in 800-CALL-INFO is for the information
is that they charge by the query, not by the call or minutes.  If you
call and just chat with the operator (asking about the service, as
several of the posters did, or negotiating payment options), you
shouldn't be charged.


Barry Margolin     BBN Internet Services Corp.    [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Buckingham)
Subject: Charges For Calling 800 Numbers
Date: 18 Oct 1994 02:38:33 GMT
Organization: Call America, San Luis Obispo CA USA Earth Sol


I work in the long distance/operator services business and MCI does
not have the right to charge people for calling 800 numbers. The FCC
just clarified this within the last few weeks. My suggestion is not to
block 800 but just refuse to pay any charges to 800 numbers wihen they
appear on the local phone bill. The local phone company will not
disconnect service for these types of charges.


Jeff Buckingham ([e-mail])
Call America 4251 South Higura Street, Suite 800, San Luis Obispo, CA
93401
805-545-5100 (Voice)  805-541-7007 (Fax)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: MCI disputes that they are charging you
for calling their number. They say they are charging you for providing
information.   PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 15 Oct 94 19:50 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be Banned


Greetings.  The wave of publicity for the MCI 800-CALL-INFO nationwide
directory assistance service is putting into sharp focus the utter
stupidity of any 800 numbers being allowed to be charged to the
caller.

Even if one doesn't assume a rash of "caller pays services" being
marketed behind 800 numbers, the mere existence of this one heavily
advertised number will result in consumer confusion ("I thought 800
numbers were free?!") and many businesses being forced to program
their phone systems to block 800 numbers as they currently do 900
numbers.  (Many phone systems do not have the ability to block on
other than a full area code basis -- and many businesses might well
choose to block the entire code in any case out of fear of other
charging 800 numbers popping up without warning).

And of course, most people don't have phone systems with programmable
area code/prefix blocking -- are the telcos going to offer free 800
number blocking now?  And then what about the conventional "callee
pays" 800 numbers that most people have to use on a frequent basis?
How will they reach those and still block the chargeable 800 numbers,
which might have any arbitrary charge associated with them?

I had thought that recent FCC decisions (attempting to crack down on
"adult conversation" lines using 800 recharging schemes) were
requiring
that a formal, pre-existing billing agreement (specifically accepting
such charges) be in place before such charging could be done.  How
does 800-CALL-INFO fit into this?

Having 800 numbers that charge the caller is far worse than 900 or 976
numbers!  At least with the latter two you always knew that calls to
those prefixes would cost the caller.  But if 800 numbers start to
charge callers, with no obvious way for the caller to know which calls
will charge, how much they will cost (is there any limit?), and no
generally available mechanism to block those charging calls, it's a
blueprint for the demise of 800 service.

As far as I can tell, caller charging 800 numbers are simply an
attempt at an "end-run" around 900 blocking, and they should simply be
banned.  The carriers/telcos should not be permitted to use the one
area code that has finally been firmly established in people's minds
as "toll free" for chargeable calls.  Businesses with conventional 800
numbers should be outraged that the value of their 800 numbers will be
reduced by consumer confusion and possible blocking -- and they should
make their feelings known to their local telcos and long distance
carriers.

The telcos, carriers, and the FCC should take action immediately to
put a stop to the entire ill-conceived concept of 800 numbers that
bill to the calling party.


  --Lauren--

P.S.  I have a call in to MCI consumer affairs (800-695-4405) on this
       issue.  I'll report back about what they have to say officially
       about this.  The 102220 operator who gave me the number made
       a point of telling me (after we finished talking about
       1-800-CALL-INFO) that at least the MCI consumer affairs
       number was still a toll-free 800 number.  How wonderful.

  --LW--


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Would you also ban 1-800-CALL-ATT? As
memory serves, you can place long distance calls via that number and
one of the options is 'press (x) to have this call billed to the
number
you are calling from ...'  Would you ban all the long distance
companies
which use some 800 number as a way to reach their switch when other
access is unavailable (such as 10xxx being blocked) under the same
rationale, or is this National Pick On MCI Week?

Unfortunatly, the established method of getting directory assistance
(by dialing areacode-555-1212) is monopolized by AT&T and the telcos
who properly suck up to them. No matter who you have as your
presubscribed
long distance carrier, what happens when you dial areacode-555-1212?
Well, your call goes to AT&T and they charge you 75 cents!  So MCI is
charging 75 cents just like AT&T, for two requests just like AT&T, but
how are they supposed to get access?   I guess they could go on 900
and do it, but the trouble with 900 is its rotten reputation these
days.
Maybe they could use 700 (since all carriers get to use the entire 700
space as they wish).    PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 11:14:20 EDT
From: Stephen Tihor <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800-Number Billing


Given the numebr of toll restrictor schemes that can not easilly block
800 number calls I think what we wought to be petioning the FCC to
establish is the principle that a caller to an 800 number can not be
presumed to have the autority to authorize billing to the calling
number.

If one wants to sell information that way get them to provide some
other billing mechanism.  The current scheme can not be blocked by a
"reasonable man" without heroic efforts and is an unfair burden.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Billable 800 Service
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 14:45:08 GMT


800 service was designed to allow a business to attract prospective
customers by offering something free.  Devices which attract
prospective customers are called advertising.  The called party is
generally billed more for inbound 800 calls than for other calls of
the same distance and duration.  The premium is payment for
advertising.

Pat correctly points out that a toll-free call to an 800 number has
often been used to buy something -- information, merchandise, or
services, paid-for by out-of-band means such as credit cards.  He
also points out that Western Union Telegraph Company has, for many
years, offered its services via 800 numbers, and used in-band
billing to the calling telephone number.  The advertising works!

Today, when we dial a 900 or 976 number, the law requires the
service-provider to announce the cost of the call and to offer the
caller the opportunity to end the call before any service has been
dispensed, to avoid being billed for it.  On my test-call to
800-CALL-INFO, I was merely asked for a city, state, and name to be
looked up.  I was never told that a charge was being applied to my
telephone bill.  After I provided a city and name, and was given a
telephone number, the operator offered to connect me, at
MCI's "regular low rate" or something similar.  Had I not listened
to the radio commercials or read this Digest, I would very likely
have had the impression that charges only applied if the connection
offer was accepted.

I propose that 800 service-providers which apply charges to the
caller's phone bill be subject to the same regulations which apply to
900 and 976 service-providers.  Warn the caller and offer a quick
exit.  Perhaps after a few years, and after the demise of the public
expectation that 800 numbers are free calls, this regulation can be
relaxed.  At that time, the premium price paid by recipients of 800
calls should also dissappear -- the 800 number will lose its
advertisement value.  If it doesn't attract prospective customers,
I'll discontinue advertising an 800 number and simply offer the 908
number which appears below.


Dave Levenson  Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.  UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave
Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For many, many years, calls to 555-1212
were also free. Do the operators there now announce the fact that your
call to that number costs 75 cents?  Local calls to 411 used to be
free
and there is no announcement made when dialing that there is now a
charge ... and yes, in some places directory assistance offers to make
the connection afterward for the low price of thirty cents or
something
like that.

People, you can protest all you want and say you are not going to pay
for a call to 800-CALL-INFO but in the case of 555-1212 the 75 cent
charge is tariffed. If 800-CALL-INFO is also tariffed by MCI, and I
have no reason to suspect it is not, then you will pay for that also
or risk disconnection of service. The rule about being allowed to
renege
on payment to information providers only applies with 900/976 and
probably with non-tariffed guys on the 800 side like the astrologers
and the sex lines. Whenever a service is tariffed then the law says
you pay. Ignorance is not an excuse, although it is probably
sufficient
one time for a goodwill writeoff.

The only answer, as Lauren and others point out, is to disallow any
so-called 'in-band' billing to telephone numbers via 800. You have to
have a 900/976 number if you want telco to bill, or conversely, you
must do credit card or open account or prepayment if you want to give
information on 800 (or make no charge at all, such as airlines, etc).
I would also require everyone who wishes to bill to a telephone number
to subscribe to the national database of 'no collect' or 'billed
number
screening' subscribers, and require AT&T/MCI/Sprint (the three joint-
proprietors of that database) to make it available fairly at arms-
length
to all subscribers.     PAT]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #401
****************************