Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Sun, 19 May 91 23:48 PDT From: John Higdon Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Phone Books Do Not Mention 540 Numbers Reply-To: John Higdon Message-ID: Organization: Green Hills and Cows 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 384, Message 1 of 11 Lines: 74 Wm Randolph Franklin writes: > [A generally amusing piece of whimsy about business traps supposedly > analogous to 900/976/540 IP services.] > So exactly how is a new user, even one who scans the over one million > words in the phone book intro, to ever learn about the existence of > these nasties? Well, how did YOU learn? Please spare us the sophistry that only readers of TELECOM Digest know anything about the telephone, its charges, or its operational quirks. Anyone who has the requisite senses to actually use a telephone instrument cannot help learning about "those 900 numbers", etc. Hell, I know about 540 numbers and it has been years since I have been to New York. > I propose that in the interests of unfettered commerce, we make these > numbers more flexible. Allow any business to designate any number, at > any designated time of the day, to cause the customer to be billed > $50. What's the problem? No one's forcing you to call. None whatsoever. But I suspect that in a relatively short period of time, word would get around and the business would find itself with a silent telephone. No legislation needed; it would be automatic. > Next we can designate special floor tiles in stores. Step on one -- > they're unmarked -- and you have automatically bought something, which > is nonreturnable, and owe $50. And how long would it be before there was an empty store? Again, the situation is self-correcting. > I believe that one of the 900 number business associations is opposing > a bill that would require them to state the charge at the start of the > call and give the caller a chance to hang up. That says it all about > this "business". Before you judge this "business", please learn a little more about which you speak. The bill being opposed has a lot more in it than the "chicken exit" language. It also contains material concerning presubscription which most 900 IPs consider to be certain death. Most IPs voluntarily give the statement of charges right up front. Most IPs run a very respectable ship and have perfectly satisfied customers. If the 900 business is as bad as you imply, then you will find that it will collapse of its own weight. If people are not satisfied, they will not call and the providers will go out of business. Accidental dialings will not support the industry. You might be interested to know that there are people who still call the "telephone company" to complain that they "didn't know the call would cost money", even on those services that have very clear up-front announcements concerning the charges and that an immediate hang up will prevent those charges. No matter what safeguards you propose; no matter how you try to install rubber walls on society there will be some who cannot avoid messing in their pants. > Maybe we apply old common law about installing booby-traps to stop > this scourge. Scourge? A few idiots dial some numbers that cause charges to appear on a phone bill (that are later removed) is a scourge? I can think of a LOT of things in this world that could be classifed as scourges, but the presense of 900 numbers? Really! I would put GTE ahead of 900 numbers any day of the week. > No this is not sour grapes; I've never called such numbers in my life. Then you have had no problem. Why all the stink? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !