Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: dgc@math.ucla.edu (David G. Cantor) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers Message-ID: <11337@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 25 Aug 90 07:32:08 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: dgc@math.ucla.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 63 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 595, Message 3 of 8 [Moderator's Note: In this message and the one which follows, Cantor and Higdon share correspondence between themselves with the rest of the Digest readers. I've re-arranged part of Cantor's comments to make them follow Hidgon's response. PAT] John Higdon writes > "The whole point of 900/976 service is to provide a convenient > 'casual' means of billing for information providers . . . > Obviously, the moment you require a credit card, you have just > excluded a significant number of people. . . A lot of people . > . . have concocted objections to the CONCEPT of 900/976. I find > this intellectually dishonest. . . . If you are afraid of small > children accidently dialing and running up your bill, you've got > more than 900/976 to worry about. Give me fifteen minutes with > your telephone and I'll run up charges that will curl your hair > WITHOUT dialing a single 900/976 number." Mr. Higdon doesn't understand the concept of "contracts" and especially "adhesion" contracts. The 976 and 900 services (claim to permit) anyone who has access to my telephone to impose a charge upon me. By special provision of the state laws, telcos can impose such charges (for "telephone service") and, as a consequence, are heavily regulated. I don't consider 976 service nor 900 service to be telephone service. It won't be long before you can order flowers delivered, groceries, etc. using these services. I doubt that if the State laws that permit telco charges would, upon test in court, apply to 976 and 900 services. I wouldn't object to these services if the usual laws of contract applied, in particular: 1. The charge is to the one who enters into the contract-- i.e., not the "owner" of the telephone line. 2. Minors are exempt (contracts that minors make, except for necessities of life, may usually be voided). 3. The usual protections againts fraud and misrepresentation applied. 4. Protections provided to bank card holders apply here, also. As with such cards, before the sercvice is provided the user should request it and sign a contract for it. The argument that a service is "convenient" doesn't justify it. According to high-level staff of the California PUC, no California resident has ever lost telephone service by not paying 976 or 900 charges, and I've never head of anyone being forced to pay them by lawsuit. Most likely, for the reasons I've given, Courts won't enforce these charges. As for children running up lond distance bills: While they do it, it's much less of a problem. However, Mr. Higdon has given me fair warning: If he's ever near a phone for which I'm responsible, I'll watch him like an owl :-). David G. Cantor Department of Mathematics University of California at Los Angeles Internet: dgc@math.ucla.edu