Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1991 14:46:29 GMT From: Robert Thurlow Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: 900 Discussion on CNN Message-ID: Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx. 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 292, Message 6 of 10 Lines: 32 In drears@pica.army.mil (Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)) writes: > Why should anything be forced upon the marketers of the calls? The > real underlying reason is to protect *STUPID* people from themselves. Are you a technology professional? How many people do you know who are not technology professionals? Do you think it is clear to all callers that the '9' after the '1' means they'll get a line item on their phone bill a month later? I know my family wouldn't all know this. I think voiding parents of responsibility for their kid's actions is stupid, too, but I either want free call-blocking so that I can make a blanket decision, or I want a PIN number to permit me to know that the call was not made by an untrusted person. > Should every business be required to have a phone number so that > people can complain? Of course not. Why should this be different? From the business end of things, I demand to be told a non-1-900 method of communicating with said company in the case of a dispute; either a regular phone number or a postal address will do. I do not want to get shafted by a company and have to depend on my telco to tell me how to contact the company, as I think that would place the telco in a conflict of interest that could make things touchy. Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com An employee and not a spokesman for Convex Computer Corp., Dallas, TX