Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxi.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxi!snafu
From: snafu@ihuxi.UUCP (Dave Wallis)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.flame
Subject: Re: Fraudulent use of AT&T Calling Cards
Message-ID: <893@ihuxi.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-May-84 10:36:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxi.893
Posted: Fri May 25 10:36:03 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 31-May-84 20:28:56 EDT
References: <3004@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Technologies, Inc., Naperville Il.
Lines: 88

Will Martin says (about automatic phone calling-card limits):

       .
       .
       .
> I now ask the obvious question, directly to you who program and design
> the systems that implement this accounting and billing: WHY HAVE YOU
> NOT ADDED THE FEW LINES OF CODE THAT WOULD CUT OFF THE VALIDITY OF
> FURTHER USE OF A CALLING CARD WHEN THE UNPAID BILL EXCEEDS A SENSIBLE
> LIMIT?
       .
       .
       .
> 
> Such a limit would be trivial to implement in an automated switching
> and billing environment. Yes, there are areas still not so automated.
> But getting this code in the automated areas would practically eliminate
> these extreme cases of fraudulent use. WHY HASN'T THIS BEEN DONE YEARS
> AGO? 
       .
       .
       .
> 
> Do you feel insulted by the strident tone of this message? You should be.
> AT&T and Bell have a reputation for performance, skill, and advanced
> technology, and there is no excuse for something so obvious to have
> been ignored for so long. The only explanation that comes to mind is that
> the telcos have some sinister reason for WANTING this fraud and publicity 
> to continue! 


I can't say much for your knowledge of computers, but you sure are
good at left-field accusations!  My qualifications, you ask? I work for
ATT designing billing systems programs for large computerized
switches.  I don't disagree that your suggestion would be a good idea,
but you should be careful about nasty generalizations - trivial
indeed! 

First of all, the switches only collect data for billing - they have
absolutely no idea how much a phone call costs.  Billing is actually
done at a Regional Accounting Office on a large mainframe computer,
and such an office can serve many switches. There is no direct
connection between the switch and the regional accoutning office in
most cases, (data is transferred via mag. tape) and in the rest
data can flow only from the switch to the RAO via phone lines.
Most RAO mainframes process enough data that they
must run in a batch environment - they simply cannot process billing
information on a call-by-call basis. Nor can the switch itself afford
the luxury of transmitting data to the RAO one phone call at a time.
The switch must buffer the data until low traffic times (like at
night) when it has enough spare time to do things other than process
phone calls.  A large office can spend up to 10 hours each day
transmitting billing data to the RAO!

Implementation of a credit limit as you have suggested would require
some type of national on-line database. Throughout the country, tens
of millions of calls are made every day, and undoubtedly hundreds of
thousands of those are credit-card calls. Think a database that can
handle that many on-line transactions is trivial? Care to guess how
long you would have to wait for an ok to make your credit-card call?

Also, the capability for one switch to talk to another for purposes
other than setting up a phone call has only been possible since 1976,
and is still not universal - it takes time to implement a new
capability on over two thousand switches( and this is only the tip of
the iceberg for what you want).

Just because something is obvious doesn't mean it's feasible! Anyway,
why do you care? AT&T has never required anyone to pay for long
distance calls they didn't make - AT&T eats the loss. Have you ever
considered the possibility that this problem has already been
investigated, and that the solution would be more costly than the
fraud it is intended to eliminate?

Should I go on? Note that I have not said that the idea is a bad one,
but trivial it aint.

I really wish that you would refrain from wild ranting and finger
pointing until you've thought about what you're saying!


-- 


                              Dave Wallis
                           ihnp4!ihuxi!snafu
                         AT&T Technologies, Inc.
                            (312) 979-5894