Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: 10 Apr 91 02:49:59 GMT From: Bill Woodcock Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: 900 Discussion on CNN Message-ID: Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Open Access Computing Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 282, Message 7 of 11 Lines: 37 I just watched a short interview with Robert Abrams on CNN. (2:10pm-2:15pm, PST) Abrams is the Attorney General for the state of New York. He and a group of Attornies General from other states with harsh anti-900- number legislation have formed a committee to pressure the federal government to pass restrictive legislation dealing with the 900 issue. It sounded as though his organization had successfully lobbied the FCC. He said that the FCC had proposed a plan with two major goals: 1) Require every 900 number to air a "preamble" including three things; a brief discription of the nature of the service, a clear statement of the cost or charges involved, and the opportunity to hang up without incurring any charges. 2) Require all telcos to provide free blocking to any customer on request, and make parents of children who make calls to 900 numbers not liable for the charges. This last seems somewhat problematic to me, from an enforcement point of view. But then I'm sure the telcos can just contact Lotus and Equifax to find out whether you _really_ have kids. :-) He went on to describe 900 number operators as "The worst sort of scam artists and snake oil salesmen," and quoted several statistics: total income of 900 services in 1990 was between $800 million and $1 billion; projected income in 1991 is likely to be $1.5 billion; more than 30% of the "victims" of 900-based "scams" are over 65. He made quite a point of most of the "victims" being minorities, unemployed, or otherwise disadvantaged. bill.woodcock.iv woody@ucscb.ucsc.edu 2355.virginia.st berkeley.california 94709.1315