Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Sat, 18 May 91 18:25:58 GMT From: James Deibele Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: 900 Number Fraud on My Line Message-ID: Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix 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 370, Message 4 of 9 Lines: 30 In article Bob_Frankston%Slate_ Corporation@mcimail.com (Bob Frankston) writes: > are even some useful 900 services. Rather than blanket call blocking, > some capability for password (PIN?) protection would make more sense. Given the "personal 800" service, where the last four digits actually signal where the call should go, this seems like something that does make sense. As you say, there are 900 numbers that are actually useful, and should the industry get the reforms it needs, there might be more useful numbers. Right now I would think that the costs of running a 900 service would be high: the phone company has to charge a high fee to cover the administration costs of handling all the chargebacks from angry consumers. Given more reasonable terms, there should be fewer chargebacks and problems, meaning that there should be lower transaction fees to the 900 vendor. Given enough time, the fundamental usefulness of the 900 (it's a lot cheaper to have the caller punch in the 10 digits plus a four-digit PIN than it is to have a person answer the call) might overcome the nasty repuation 900 numbers have gotten. I tend to regard any 900 number, and any institution associated with that number, as somewhat suspect. Voice: +1 503 646-8257 FAX: +1 503 248-6320 jamesd@pdaxcess.techbook.com Public Access UNIX site: +1 503 644-8135 1200/2400, N81