Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nih-csl!lhc!adm!husc6!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Burglar Alarm Problems
Message-ID: <12671@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 26 Sep 90 17:28:30 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 22
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 684, Message 10 of 11


Moderator writes:

>Our [Chicago] city officials
>said they have no intention of jeopardizing a citizen actually in
>distress because of a history of malfunctioning alarms at the same
>location. Instead, the offending alarm owner is sued or fined by the
>city after the second or third time around.

So no redlining here?  Apparently, in areas which are redlined for a
history of phone (credit card?) abuse, it is harder to identify who is
committing the fraud.


[Moderator's Note: You are correct. No redlining by the City of
Chicago where false alarms are concerned. *Nor should AT&T be
permitted to do it.* Maybe they will get sued to make them stop
redlining. Instead of punishing the whole community, punish the guilty
persons. Imagine the confusion AT&T's policy must cause for the
unsophisticated but legitimate user of their 'Universal Card' --
universal that is except for calls to several countries from several
neighborhoods they (AT&T) don't like doing business in.  PAT]