Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wugate!wuarchive!swbatl!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: chipcom.com!eli@eecs.nwu.edu Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: US Sprint Code-abuse Policies Message-ID: Date: 18 Jul 89 11:50:51 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 61 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 245, message 1 of 8 > But I will suggest that if for no other reason than their size, anything > US Sprint gets, the Mother Company gets four times as much of. And how does > AT&T handle fraud? Certainly not by red-lining certain parts of cities where > fraud is prevalent, as Sprint has done with NY Port Authority or Grand > Central. I guess they just eat the cost, right? There is basically no way to catch these guys who sell FONCard numbers. I think we all know why ATT can afford to eat the cost of code-abuse. They are rolling in cash. YOUR CASH. > Suppose I was a Sprint customer, and innocently took the bus to New York > and got off at the terminal. Ah yes, I am supposed to call home right away > and let the folks know I arrived okay....but at the last minute, in quite > an inappropriate way, I find out *my* calling card won't work there either. Just off the bus in New York City :) You aren't trying to elicit empathy here, are you Patrick... I know that Sprint used to block the direct-dial access from Port Authority and Grand Central. I wonder if one can go through a US Sprint operator manually? I will check with my pal at Sprint and verify their current policies at those two sites. The 'advanced' code-abuse detection that I referred to is the circuitry and software which enables Sprint to detect when hundreds of calls are being placed with the same FONCard number, and then to shut off the number. > Sprint may choose to say, 'so what'....but that is simply indicative > of their attitude in general toward their customers. So you say. I contend that ATT's attitude towards their customers is not much better. ATT just has had more money and time to blow on PR. Though Sprint seems to buy a bit of PR, themselves. > If AT&T pulled something like that, > they would be immediatly censured by the FCC. So you contend that the FCC is forcing ATT to live up to higher standards than the other long haul carriers? Would you care to cite some more examples? (I'm sure you can.) > Sprint is not the only offender. US Telecom in Cedar Rapids, IA is another > bunch that makes up the rules as they go along. Their thing is, if they > do not like what you say on the phone, they refuse to extend *paid* calls! > I kid you not. They block all calls on their network terminating at the > phone number in Chicago of a BBS which they suspect of being a phreak hive. > So as a BBS user, I sign up with US Telecom for long distance, only to find > after the fact that I cannot call certain BBS' if the Cedar Rapids gang > has not approved. US Telecom is US Sprint. Each has bought the other out at one time or another... So your enemy is the same! > AT&T is running some ads in Chicago right now which say it all: "You've > tried all the rest -- now come back home to the best." A matter of opinion. Cliff Robertson usually plays an evil genius in the movies, you know!