Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!umich!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: TK0JUT1@niu.bitnet (jt)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Query About Long Distance Blocking of BBS
Message-ID: <13617@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 16 Oct 90 07:40:00 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 47
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 741, Message 1 of 14


I was one of those who, in 1988 and early 1989, had numbers I
regularly dialed blocked by Teleconnect. Whatever the legality of the
practice, Pat Townson's comment on the (lack of) ethics of this
practice should be underscored. When the blocked numbers were dialed,
a brief pre-recorded message announced that the number could not be
reached. It took a number of persistant calls through the hierarchy
and eventually into security and management divisions before they
*finally* admitted that the calls were being blocked. I found only two
persons in that organization who were relatively undeceptive in
initially acknowledging the practice. When I first began my inquiries,
I was repeatedly told that it was "probably" a technical bug and the
service folk would look into it. On one occasion, after repeated
calls, I was told that a particular number would be unblocked, and it
was, for about 12 hours, then it was re-blocked. Some of the numbers
were "underground" boards, but one was a public BBS.
 
Initial attempts to deal calmly, politely, and reasonably with
Teleconnect were unsuccessful. I found them to be arrogant, deceptive,
and insensitive. In bureaucratic "polite speak," they essentially said
"screw you." Their rationale for blocking was not that the numbers
themselves were a problem, but that some users were using "codez" to
call, so they stopped *all* calls.  Neither the callers nor the sysops
were not notified of this practice.
 
Whether blocking is legal or not, it certainly raises ethical
questions.  Although I unequivocally oppose the practice, I would have
better feelings about Teleconnect if they had been upfront from the
beginning and warned potential modem users that some numbers would be
blocked, or if they had been forthright about their practice.
 
At that time, they also had inferior service to a number of areas, a
problem I have never had with either ATT or Sprint. Needless to say,
they lost a customer amidst considerable rancor.
 
If anybody is litigating, I still have some copies of the
correspondence laying around if they want them.
 
A final thought -- there was an article on the founder of Teleconnect
in a recent trade journal. Funny, they mentioned nothing about the
blocking practice in the glowing tribute they paid him.


[Moderator's Note: But at least they didn't give you the traditional
excuses AT&T uses to block calls: (1) the local telco does it, not us;
(2) the subscriber receiving the calls asked us to not pass the
traffic.  :)   PAT]