Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 04:35:32 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer Message-ID: Organization: University of California, Berkeley 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 320, Message 7 of 11 Lines: 29 > [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell gives 'inbound toll restriction' at > no charge. My two lines and my distinctive ringing number are > configured to automatically refuse collect or third number billing. PAT] I asked Pacific Bell about this a few months ago, and they said that they would only do it after I received at least $100 in phraudulent calls. You know, it costs them so much to flip that bit in my account profile. I think the real reason is that having my lines blocked would prevent ME from doing third number billing when that's what I really wanted, thus reducing their revenue. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: IBT was glad to do it; the only thing I disliked was that they did it in the middle of a billing period. The bill which came the next month was a nightmare to read, with every single item pro-rated up to the date of the change, then charged again for the remaining days. They managed to screw up my Reach Out America and Reach Out World account when they stopped it and restarted it on the same day. Apparently 'flipping that bit' requires rebilling the whole account for the month. The brief instant AT&T was not the default carrier was sufficient to get Ma all aggravated and sending me letters about how much I could save by joining one of the plans, etc. It was a messy thing. I nearly always have record changes and service orders done on the cycle billing date to avoid the confusion. PAT]