Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Mon, 15 Apr 91 22:12:31 GMT From: Ron Dippold Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: 900 Discussion on CNN Message-ID: Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA 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 297, Message 5 of 15 Lines: 29 In article woody@ucscb.ucsc.edu (Bill Woodcock) writes: > 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. > 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. I find it rather strange that they would be going after services that require _you_ to call them for it to work, rather than after those who invade your own privacy, namely telemarketing operators. All my experiences seem to indicate that the same scam artists and snake oil salesmen are much more likely to be on the calling end, not the recieving end. Neither do the 1-900 operators call you up three times a day and make demands on your time. It's probably because most of these 1-900 lines are of the 1-900-****-ME! variety, so they can hold it up as a campaign against pornography come election time.