Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!hayes.fai.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: jhultman@beethoven.helios.nd.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls
Message-ID: <13209@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 9 Oct 90 08:18:37 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: University of Notre Dame,  Notre Dame
Lines: 16
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 725, Message 9 of 13


In article <13166@accuvax.nwu.edu> dhepner@hpcuhc.cup.hp.com (Dan
Hepner) writes:

>Why not, assuming one had the evidence in hand that a particular call
>attempt was probably fraudulent?  It seems hard to believe that any
>carrier would dissallow entire classes of calls unless presented with
>evidence showing genuinely massive fraud.
 ^^^^^^^^ 

This may be a stupid question, but has anyone actually *SEEN* any
reports docuenting fraud based on ethnic origin from *ANY* carrier?
Or are the LD companies just claiming that fraud exists, when in
actuality there is some other (equally arbitrary) reason for (dubious
legality) redlining? I think what we might have here is garden-variety
discrimination.