Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: 24 Jun 91 06:16:53 GMT From: "John G. DeArmond" Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel Message-ID: Organization: Dixie Comm, The South's First Commercial 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 488, Message 5 of 7 Lines: 57 john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > In a five-day period, Thrifty Tel whisked a "Hacker Tariff" through > the CPUC without comment, showing, documentation, or any justification > WHATSOEVER. This tariff, which provides for "charges" that are around > three hundred times the company's going rate for services, is then > used in civil suits to claim damages. I consider that tariff a stroke of genius. I think that is the way to handle most similiar problems. > Concerning point two, let me give you an analogy. Let us suppose that > I have decided to go into the banking business, but find that the cost > of constructing a vault is prohibitively expensive. So I leave all the > cash sitting around in the tellers' drawers. Word gets around that my > bank is an easy mark, and consequently I find that frequently the cash > has been cleaned out by thieves the night before. To combat this, I > install a very sophisticated intrusion detection system with cameras > and the like. I am now able to identify the theives and I manage to > get a law passed that allows my bank to claim damages against the > burglars at about three hundred times the value of the cash stolen. > Obviously, a bank vault would solve the lion's share of my problem, > but why should I have to pay for a vault when it is "criminals and > thugs" that are at the root of my "losses"? This is precisely the > argument that TT uses when it is suggested that it upgrade its > equipment and use FGD instead of FGB. > Of course, FGD would not allow it to skim intraLATA traffic from You analogy of a bank vault is a good one but it makes the case more forcefully for ThriftyTell. Assuming that all bank robbers had the net worth to permit such a system to work, consider what positive effects there would be for the regular legitimate customers. I as a legitimate customer could simply walk in and get my money without having to hassle with a teller. I would find that to be much more convenient. Yet if a scumbag grabbed money that was not his or even if a customer accidently took too much, the bank could recover it and in the case of the scumbag, could punish him. In other words, the scumbags get punished and the regular customers get less hassles. What a refreshing concept! In the case of ThriftyTell, if you never hack their system, you'll never encounter that tariff. A perfect solution, all the blather about attractive nuisance notwithstanding. To me the concept of an attractive nuisance really means "I can't manage my {life, kids} so I want the law to do it for me." If you don't do the hack, you don't catch the flak :-) I don't see the problem. John