Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!netsys!vector!nobody From: dgc@math.ucla.edu Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: New way to donate money Message-ID: Date: 18 Jan 89 06:41:10 GMT Sender: chip@vector.UUCP Lines: 70 Approved: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-Submissions-To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 19, message 7 Will Martin called attention to the enormous potential for abuse of donations by telephone. The moderator dimisses this problem with the statement: I think the answer to this is that most telcos allow blocking of 900/976 numbers, to prevent abuse of any kind, which would presumably include the abuse described by Mr. Martin. I suspect also that there would be some cancellation clause in the telco's contract with the charity, which gives the telco total recourse for uncollectibles. This cries out for a reply! 1. In fact, over their strong opposition, telcos were ORDERED to allow blocking of 976 numbers by the State PUC's (and, at least, in California, out-of-state 976 numbers cannot be blocked). Initially, the telcos charged for the blocking! Now the FCC is going to permit 900 numbers with similar charging privileges to come on line and there is no plan to allow blocking them. 2. Any sort of cancellation clause will be nothing but a major problem for the subscriber. 3. There are services dedicated to providing charging and billing services, both electronically and physically (e.g., Visa, MasterCard, American Express, etc.). Numerous abuses by these companies have caused Congress to pass rigid laws regulating them. These companies already permit donating to charities by telephone calls. Next time there's a telethon, call one of the 800 numbers and you will be asked for a credit card number to charge your donation to. 4. The key point is that as long as telephone service is an essential public utility, without competition (and this is the case for local service) the telcos' regulated services should be separated from inessential other services. If they desire to provide charging and/or billing services, these should be provided separately, subject to the usual regulations that govern such services, with the same power of enforcement of payment (civil suit), AND NO MORE. In particular, in no way should failure to pay for these other services be allowed to interfere with telephone service. dgc David G. Cantor Department of Mathematics University of California at Los Angeles Internet: dgc@math.ucla.edu UUCP: ...!{randvax, sdcrdcf, ucbvax}!ucla-cs!dgc [Moderator's Note: A quick comment on a couple points Mr. Cantor raises: He says the telcos were *forced* by the PUC's to allow blocking. Maybe his telco was: Illinois Bell voluntarily implemented 900/976 blocking. They did it after consultation with the Illinois Commerce Commission, but there was no strong arm tactics involved; nor did they do it when it was apparent the Commission would force the issue. Mr. Cantor incorrectly notes that interstate 976 calls cannot be blocked. MCI has always blocked them. Calls to AC-976-anything via MCI return an intercept message saying 'at the present time, MCI does not complete calls to 976...' It is true that AT&T does not block the calls; however it is also true the charges billed to *intrastate* callers do not apply. 415-976-4297 costs 13 cents per minute at night via Reach Out. Callers within California pay $2 for three minutes. By 'telco having total recourse on collectibles' I was saying that when telco cannot collect from a customer, a chargeback is made to the IP. Mr. Cantor says the problems for phone subscribers would be horrible. What is so hard about calling your service rep and saying you refuse to pay for something? Patrick Townson]