Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Tue, 16 Apr 91 09:31:45 +0100 From: "David G. Cantor" Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: 900 Discussion on CNN Reply-To: dgc@math.ucla.edu Message-ID: Organization: TELECOM Digest 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 6 of 15 Lines: 35 Dennis G. Rears writes regarding 900 service providers: > If you do have a dispute with them, write the TPC and tell > them of the dispute. It is then up to the 900 company to collect > directly from you. If this were true, then most of the problems associated with 900 numbers would simply go way. Unfortunately (and I speak with much experience on this matter), the local telco won't remove the 900 calls from your bills and force the 900 company to collect directly, except after major hassles. If the UNREGULATED 900 providers didn't have force of the regulated telco's behind them, with the implicit threat of cutting off telco service if the bill isn't paid, then the problem wouldn't exist. The sleazy 900 providers wouldn't have a ghost of chance if they had to enforce bill payment in the usual way. While cutting off service in this situation hasn't happened, so far (at least in California), to my knowledge, the hassle in removing these items from the bill is ENORMOUS! A simple solution would be to allow the payer of a telephone bill to specify how much of the payment goes to each billing vendor (long-distance services, 900 providers, etc.) and then make it the responsibility of a vendor to collect his own bills if they are not paid through the telco. The telcos oppose this strongly. In many ways, 900 numbers are a substitute for bank credit cards, with none of the safeguards that are provided for such credit card users by Federal law. David G. Cantor Department of Mathematics University of California Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555 Internet: dgc@math.ucla.edu