One five-second component of my own OGM has always been:
> "No collect or 3rd party billings, please."
> Perhaps that's because my first answering machine purchase was for
> the purpose of putting an end to multiple 3rd party billings
> "authorized" during moments when no one was actually at home to
> authorize them. :-) (That strategem worked, BTW.)
It shouldn't have to be there at all since you can tell your LEC to put blocks on your line to prohibit third party billing or collect.
The only addition you might want to add to your outgoing announcement might be to inform your caller how to immediately go direct to leave a message on your voicemail (or if you have an answering machine.)
So I thought too, back around 1967, when that problem (and solution) first arose. But SNET, my local loop provider at that time, begged to differ, on the grounds that they were always willing simply to credit back the charges. Easier than arguing with them was getting the TAD.
Thanks for that thought. But my OGM manages to include the quote above, a request for name, number, and purpose of call, and faxing instructions, all in one twelve-second message, which I'd rather keep that short, lest I confuse the auto-transfering fax machine that shares that line too :-) .
I agree, but this hasn't worked since 1984. IXCs and CLECs either don't know about your prohibition or just ignore it, and nothing can be done.
Similarly, when AT&T issued "one number cards" (supposed to be good only for calls to you, the card owner), IXCs and CLECs could accept them for calls to any number. I believe for this reason, AT&T no longer issues them.
This gaping hole in financial security is unacceptable. Therefore, the FCC needs to make these types of billing opt-IN (by the billed party).
In my opinion humble, the problem exists from deliberate national telecom policy. After divesture, it was determined that policy would be to foster competition and encourage new carriers to enter the business. The existing local companies, who did the billing, were _required_ by this policy to accept all newcomers and essentially not ask any questions. As a result, many unscrupulous companies got involved.
Thus, consumers got hit with ridiculous AOS (alternative operator service) charges, such as $25 for a minute call. Further, consumers found that their long distance carrier was switched without their consent. Then there were the problems Mr. Galt described in his post.
Throwing out the baby with the dirty bath water is idiotic public policy, as this situation clearly illustrates.
You simply 'serve notice', formally, in writing, to the LEC that you forbid them, in accordance with {appropriate regulatory cite), to apply any such charges to your account.
Then, if/when such a charge occurs, you (a) notify the carrier you will not pay the charge, (b) demand it be removed from your account, (c) file a formal complaint with the State, _and_ Federal regulatory authorities, and last, but not least, if they take part of a payment made for _their_ services and send it to the scam biller (d) swear out a _criminal_ complaint against the LEC. Charges like: "theft by deception" (name the scam biller as well on this), 'accomplice before, during, and after the fact", "theft by conversion", not to mention the 'obvious' like 'fraud', 'bunco', etc.
NOTIFYING the LEC that you 'intend' to do (d) if they fail to do (b), does tend to get 'corporate' attention. *Don't* make the mistake of sending these missives _with_ a bill-payment -- the _only_ thing that goes with the payment is the statement that those charges are 'disputed'. Send the other demands _separately_, to 'customer service', _with_ a duplicate, 'mailed under separate cover' (to use the traditional phrase), addressed to the 'legal' department. Remind 'legal' that you _did_ 'serve notice' on such- and-such date, per {regulatory cite}, that they _are_ in violation, and that they have now caused you 'actionable harm' by their negligence. Conclude on a 'conciliatory' note -- the you hope this situation can be remedied _before_ the damages you suffer are such that legal action becomes necessary.
***** Moderator's Note *****
IANAL.
Crammers get away with their thefts because most users are too busy to even read the detailed part of their phone bills, let alone engage in a complicated and time-consuming complaint process that might or might not suceed.
The FBI and Secret Service have been so overwhelmed by electronic fraud that they now refer complaints to a web site where they take reports automatically. I'd bet that neither the crammers nor the LEC's nor the IEC's are very afraid of individual consumers threatening legal action.
I must respectfully disagree. Crammers and similar sleazoids get away with this because of collusion, whether by commission or ommission, with the billing telephone entity.
Yes, the telco may have the legal requirement to grant "equal access" to their billing systems (and I'm not sure that's even the case) ...
.. but, there's nothing to stop them from including language similar to the following when they sign those papers:
"In the event there's a verified complaint rate of greater than X percent, this agreement is subject to immediate termination".
Simple, objective, and standard business practice. The reluctance of the telcos to include this says quite a bit about their true intentions.
-- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key snipped-for-privacy@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
***** Moderator's Note *****
I once coded PL/I in a NYNEX shop that billed over Six (B)Billion dollars per year. Setting up and terminating a billing agreement isn't something that would be subject to that kind of termination: it costs too much to start the process, and to maintain it, for the LEC involved to terminate it without an external authority such as the FCC being involved.
I don't know what standard business practice is, but please remember that LEC's aren't a standard business: they don't get to choose their customers. All of their procedures and belief systems are based on the notion that they _Must_ take all comers.
It is my understanding that most LECs will not bill for 3rd party billing without prier permission. I found a couple of charges from a prison located in New York on my bill, [and] I contacted ([what was] at the time) SBC and disputed the charges: they removed them right at first request and that was the end of it. On my voice mail system it now clearly states that I don't accept collect calls, not that it would make any difference since most calls are made by voice robots.
-- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, inc, A Rot in Hell. Co.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I sometimes feel that Ma Bell's co-operative billing agreements are revenge for all the years she put up with we ungrateful wretches scamming her in ways both subtle and gross. ;-)
My grandfather had a code book filled with hundreds of names, and he'd call his office at least once per day to find out if his pressence was required. If wasn't available for a person-to-person call, he knew that nothing was going on. If his secretary said that wasn't available, but was, he knew that he had to rearrange his schedule to go see .
My grandfather was a state representative, and chair of the committee that oversaw New England Telephone & Telegraph, so I suppose he had a wider lattitude than many others, but such scams were common in the days when a "long distance" call could cost an average worker a day's pay.
I remember calling home from where I was and would ask for myself, that way my parents would know where I was. Later when I worked for GTE I was able to make calls from the office when I was out of area, they later gave us calling cards top use for both personal and business. Deregulation ended that. In 1984 we were given cell phones by the company and that was before the calling plans, but they also put a set amount on the account each month to cover our use; I never went over the amount.
But, the only "relief" the FTC offers is to advise you to hire an attorney and sue the offending party in state court. All the FTC does is gather statistics. The Do Not Call list is a farce.
(No) thanks to the paranoia related to the "anthrax letters", all mail going to the Washington offices of Congress and to many other federal agencies gets diverted and processed through the super duper radiation zappers.
This easily adds a week to the delivery time.
Hence it's often better to send material to your rep's local office.
I disagree. Last year I had to present some material (printed and duplicated as searchable PDFs on CDs) to SCOTUS and several other agencies and they arrived at their destinations in Washington DC within 48 hours after being mailed using the USPS from my (small) town in Silicon Valley.
It _is_ the case. If the LEC let _any_ LD carrier submit items for inclusion with the LEC billing, they had to offer that service to _any_ carrier who met the same qualifications.
Actually, that is -not- true. One of the down-sides of being a "common carrier" is that you _have_ to do business with anyone who can pay. You simply _cannot_ "pick and choose" based on your "dislike" of the nature of their business.
"Common carrier" status is a sword that cuts both ways. While it protects you from liability for a lot of things, it also
*prevents* you from taking a number of kinds of actions that people 'want/demand' you to do.
Both my home and cell phones are registered. My home phone gets about
10 junk calls per day, many with obviously spoofed numbers (all-zero area codes or office codes, office codes beginning with 0 or 1, etc.)
My cell phone gets about 2 junk calls per week. I thought there was a blanket prohibition against junk calls to cell phones. I even get text messages from my cellphone company (Tracfone) advertising specials.
I get about the same number of junk calls and they are for... auto warranties!
The latest issue of "2600" has an article about how you can get money out of these creeps. It's a royal pain, but if you do it right you can win a settlement worth thousands.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.