Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA19997; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 09:20:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 09:20:57 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199712071420.JAA19997@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #342 TELECOM Digest Sun, 7 Dec 97 09:20:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 342 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson First Slamming, Now Cramming (Tad Cook) Slamming in Oklahoma (Tad Cook) In Search of Streaming Audio ISPs (Mark Weiss) MCI Cancels Toll-Free Service in California (Anthony Argyriou) Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges (Linc Madison) Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges (Adam Kerman) AT&T Call Organizer (Tad Cook) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: First Slamming, Now Cramming Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 17:04:11 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) New Long-Distance Ripoff Plagues Phone Customers By David Hayes, The Kansas City Star, Mo. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Dec. 6--Just when regulators thought they had a handle on all the ways that some long-distance telephone companies swindle consumers, a new ripoff has popped up. The latest billing scam, known as cramming, is being used to add charges to telephone bills for services that customers may not receive, according to the Federal Communications Commission and the National Consumers League. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. officials said they were getting an increasing number of calls from consumers who say they are being billed for products and services they never ordered and often never received. It's being called "cramming" because the extra charges are being crammed onto long-distance bills. Consumers are being billed for such services as prepaid calling cards, personal toll-free phone numbers, paging service and voice mail, Southwestern Bell officials said. Often the charges are hidden under innocuous names, such as "enhanced services," that make the charges difficult for customers to detect and decipher. Cramming is only one telephone billing problem facing consumers. Complaints about slamming also are on the rise. Slamming is a technique some long-distance companies use to switch a consumer from one long-distance company to another without the consumer's approval. Slamming complaints have increased this year by 44 percent in Kansas and 34 percent in Missouri, Southwestern Bell said. The problem is worse in other states. In Texas, for instance, complaints are up 136 percent this year. "Unfortunately, without continuing education of consumers and strengthened rules by state and national lawmakers, slamming and cramming will continue to grow as competition increases in the telecommunications industry," said Cliff Eason, president of Southwestern Bell Telephone. Southwestern Bell officials said they would handle more than 550,000 fraudulent billing complaints in the company's five-state service area this year. The company handled 378,000 customer complaints last year. The telephone company, based in St. Louis, bills customers on behalf of long-distance companies and has a responsibility to help resolve complaints. Cramming and slamming are growing problems across the United States, said Linda Golodner, president of the National Consumers League. A Louis Harris and Associates poll conducted in September in four cities -- Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit and Grand Rapids, Mich. -- found that slamming was the No. 1 consumer fraud complaint. About 30 percent of those polled said either they, or someone they knew, had been slammed. Golodner said she was concerned that some long-distance companies were turning to cramming because of the increased public awareness about slamming. "We're hearing from people about all kinds of mysterious phone charges suddenly popping up on bills," Golodner said. "It's not a lot of money and may not be noticed by the consumer at first, but charges can add up." Golodner said the charges can range from $4.95 to $30 a month. ------------------------------ Subject: Slamming in Oklahoma Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 17:11:54 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Phone Service `Slamming' Not on Hold in Oklahoma By D.R. Stewart, Tulsa World, Okla. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Dec. 5--Customer complaints about unauthorized switching of long-distance and local telephone service and billing for services not authorized have not abated, say state regulators and telephone company executives. It fact, the abuses could increase in the future, according to the officials. Although the problem of unauthorized billing apparently originated with long-distance service providers, it has spilled over into local telephone service and optional service packages, said a spokesman for Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. In October, Southwestern Bell resolved nearly 57,000 long-distance "slamming" disputes in the company's five-state service area, a slight increase compared with September, said company spokesman Jennifer Merritt. Slamming is the unauthorized changing of a customer's telecommunications provider. "We're not interested in pointing fingers; we're more interested in helping customers protect themselves," Merritt said. "Often, we're competing with these companies, and we can't compete and regulate them at the same time." Industry officials said the chief culprits in the slamming controversy are resellers of long distance service. These small companies buy bulk air time from larger carriers, such as Southwestern Bell, AT&T, MCI and Sprint, and resell it, often at higher rates. In September, Southwestern Bell proposed that the Federal Communications Commission adopt a three-part penalty system that would be enforced whenever more than two percent of a carrier's change-orders for new customers are disputed in a given month. To date, neither the FCC nor the Oklahoma Corporation Commission have adopted Southwestern Bell's proposal. Oklahoma Corporation Commission spokesman Pat Petrie said the commission has heard plenty of "horror stories" about slamming and a new scam, known as "cramming," which is a related problem involving unauthorized billing for products and services not ordered by the customer. "The commission has said it hoped the phone companies would clean up their own act without the commission becoming more involved," Petrie said. "So far, we have adopted no rules or issued any orders." But that could change, said commission chairman Ed Apple. Apple said he recently noticed, ten months after he authorized a long-distance carrier to switch his service from another company, that he was still being billed for long-distance service from his original provider. "Company A started billing me $3 a month for the privilege of not using their long-distance service," Apple said. "I switched long-distance service in November 1996, and I paid $3 a month for Company A's line for ten months." Apple said the dispute eventually was resolved by Company A giving him a refund for the ten months' unused service, but he said it makes him wonder if that would be the treatment afforded an ordinary citizen. "I want every citizen of Oklahoma to have their (telecommunications) problems rectified without resorting to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission," Apple said. Merritt said Southwestern Bell advises phone customers to carefully review their bill each month and question any unusual or unexplained charges. The company also cautions people to read carefully any form or contest entries to make sure they are not authorizing any changes. Cliff Eason, president and chief executive of Southwestern Bell, said in a statement that stronger rules and penalties are needed to punish the few rogue providers who give the entire industry a bad name. "Unfortunately, without continuing education of consumers and strengthened rules by state and national lawmakers, slamming and cramming will continue to grow as competition increases in the telecommunications industry," Eason said. Merritt said Southwestern Bell expects to intervene with regulatory authorities on behalf of nearly 554,000 customers whose local or long-distance service was switched without authorization in 1997. Through October, Southwestern Bell has received 41,635 long-distance slamming complaints in Oklahoma, an 88 percent increase compared with the same period last year. In Texas, the company received 316,505 complaints during the first 10 months of the year, a 136 percent increase. It received 31,937 complaints from Arkansas customers in the January-through-October period this year, an 81 percent increase. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 00:18:25 -0500 From: mweiss7401@aol.com (Mark Weiss) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: In Search of Streaming Audio ISPs Hello everyone, I seek information on service providers that offer low or no-cost streaming audio to the internet. What I wish to do is move a non-comm, non-profit radio station's operation on to the 'net. I have one service in mind, but they cater to disc jockeys for dance music, and as such, I might have to go elsewhere. In that event, I thought it would be prudent to cast my net more widely. I understand that fan out is no longer the problem it used to be, and that I can upload a stream to a provider, where they then provide the fan out to 10,000 or 100,000 streams. I'd like to hear any suggestions regarding the best way to locate a service provider who offers this streaming as a humanitarian/ arts gesture, rather than at a commercial rate. Also, if there is a newsgroup that directly topics this issue, please post the name of it for me. Thanks! Mark SPAM-Pruf http://users.aol.com/amn92/amn.htm ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: MCI Cancels Toll-Free Service in California Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 08:44:27 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com MCI Stops Flat-Fee Service 25,000 customers to lose cheap, local calling plan Jonathan Marshall, Chronicle Staff Writer MCI is telling local phone customers in California that, effective January 1, they will no longer enjoy the cheap, flat phone rates that lured many to switch from Pacific Bell. Last fall, MCI began marketing a service plan that let new customers place unlimited calls anywhere within a large region for $24.95 a month. In Northern California, the region extended from Gilroy to the Oregon border. Boasting of the plan's savings and simplicity, the company quickly signed up 25,000 customers statewide before capping the program in the spring. But last month, MCI informed those customers that they will have to accept new pricing in January. Instead of flat rates, customers will pay a basic monthly charge of $10.75 per residential line, which gives them free local calling within a 12-mile radius. Outside of that area, toll charges will apply. MCI never said its flat rate was a limited-time promotion, and some customers feel betrayed. ``I'm up to my ears in aggravation,'' said Rick Ackerman, a Mountain View financial analyst. ``I switched away from Pacific Bell to take advantage of this plan. Now MCI is abandoning it.'' MCI's promotional material promised ``an alternative to Pac Bell's complicated local calling service'' and ``unlimited local and local toll calls for one low monthly charge,'' Ackerman said. Since Ackerman had been paying Pacific Bell about $100 a month in toll calls, he jumped at MCI's offer. Before signing up, though, Ackerman interrogated MCI's sales people to make sure there were no catches or time limits. ``I asked hard questions when I signed up, thinking it was too good to be true,'' he recalled. ``I took the MCI local service knowing flat-rate calling would be a big loser for them, at least on my account.'' Brad Burns, a spokesman for MCI, conceded as much. ``The profitability hasn't been there, and for us to maintain a presence in the marketplace we had to change our pricing,'' he said. Competition for residential customers has not developed as fast as MCI originally expected, he added, so the company feels less pressure to keep rates low. Under MCI's new pricing plan, toll charges for calls outside the 12-mile radius will be 4 cents per minute during off-peak hours -- weekends, evenings after 7 p.m. and mornings before 7 a.m. During business hours, toll rates will be 10 cents a minute, no better than on some long-distance plans. The rates are still slightly better than those offered by Pacific Bell. It charges $11.25 per month for basic residential lines and its average toll rates are 12 percent higher, MCI claims. But MCI admits that some local phone calls will cost more under its new plan. Burns said some of MCI's local customers were signed up on the more traditional toll charge plan. Their rates won't change in January. (submitted by) Anthony Argyriou http://www.alphageo.com ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 13:38:26 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM In article , ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) wrote: > Let me take a controversial position here (you knew I would, didn't > you?): > I see nothing wrong with property owners attempting to maximize the > revenues they get from COCOTs. I see nothing wrong with property > owners screwing potential users of these phones. I disagree completely with your last statement. > A property owner SHOULD be in the business of attempting to earn the > highest posssible revenues from his site. What is morally wrong is > that our society tends to subsidize inefficient land users. A property owner SHOULD NOT be engaged in business practices that are predatory. Your comment about subsidies to inefficient land users is irrelevant and off-topic, as it does not relate to payphones in any way. > If the property owner annoys too many people with his COCOT policies, > his revenues from other uses of his site will decrease. Let the > marketplace prove him wrong. (Before anyone blasts me for allowing > public facilities, such as airport terminals, set COCOT policies with > impugnity, let me remind you that I think ANY landowner, particularly > the government, should pay site value taxes.) WHAT MARKETPLACE?? The "marketplace" for payphone calls is tiny and well shrouded in mystery. Further, your assumption that there will be a meaningful relationship between the site owner's COCOT policies and his revenues from other uses of the site is questionable at best. The readers of this Digest are among the few who would know or care enough to make a connection there. Furthermore, there is no way to develop a truly open marketplace for payphone calls. It cannot be done, period. Market forces only work well in an open marketplace. > As a consumer, I can influence those policies. But, the person to > complain to is not the FCC, the COCOT operator, or your long distance > carrier. Complain to the site manager. I question your claim that you can influence those policies. > I was in a restaurant the other day. The food was decent, it's > convenient to me. I attempted to interrogate my answering machine, but > the pay phone refused to generate DTMF after the call was placed. I > lost 35 cents. I explained to the restaurant manager that I didn't > approve of his business practices, and would never return. > > I would grow old waiting for the FCC to crack down on him, when I can > more easily and effectively take matter into my own hands. More easily, certainly. More effectively, I seriously doubt it. Do you REALLY think the manager cared in the least about your comment? > In my view, it is far more serious that pay phones get the > compensation despite [NOT] having to establish that their phones will not > block calls routed via the IXC of the customer's choice, using any > established dialling method (950-XXXX, 10(10)XXX-0+). On many COCOT's, > it is impossible to reach the LEC operator or directory assistance > bureau. The providers don't have to prove that their phones can place > calls to any toll-free number, accept callbacks, display the > telephone's number, or the company that operates the phone. There is no requirement that a payphone accept callbacks. There should at least be a requirement that the payphone clearly so indicate if it doesn't accept callbacks. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 16:18:53 CST From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges > In article , ahk@chinet.chinet.com > (Adam H. Kerman) wrote: >>I see nothing wrong with property owners attempting to maximize the revenues >>they get from COCOTs. I see nothing wrong with property owners screwing >>potential users of these phones. > I disagree completely with your last statement. >> A property owner SHOULD be in the business of attempting to earn >> the highest posssible revenues from his site. > A property owner SHOULD NOT be engaged in business practices that are > predatory. By definition, all practices of a person who controls a site are predatory; control of a location is a monopoly. He is under no obligation to do business with just anyone as long as he violates no civil rights laws. Let's suppose the developer of a shopping center made a deal with a natural gas transporter to accept gas a wholesale prices and resell it to his retail tenants. A shop owner approaches the developer and attempts to negotiate a lease. The shop owner feels that he can get a better deal from local gas utility than from the developer. Can he demand that developer let him buy his gas from the utility? Of course not. Is it immoral? No. >> If the property owner annoys too many people with his COCOT >> policies, his revenues from other uses of his site will decrease. Let >> the marketplace prove him wrong. > WHAT MARKETPLACE? We agree that someone in control of a site has a monopoly; I am not suggesting that there is payphone rate competition. The marketplace I am speaking of is nearby locations with similar uses. > Further, your assumption that there will be a meaningful > relationship between the site owner's COCOT policies and his revenues > from other uses of the site is questionable at best. COCOT policies are a general reflection of the attitudes of the person in control of the location. It's his reputation at stake. Is the shopping center bright and attractive? Is litter dealt with promptly? Can you find employees to ask questions? Is security fair and efficient? Are the grounds kept planted? I suggest that if the shopping center develop has a broad committment to public service, and attracting customers to his shopping center who will pay more for better treatment, he'll have reasonable policies on his payphones. > Furthermore, there is no way to develop a truly open marketplace for > payphone calls. I agree. But, it's unimportant. > Market forces only work well in an open marketplace. There will never be an open marketplace with respect to a specific location. Someone controls it, and if you want to do business there, you are at his whim. Payphones are not separate and distinct from his other powers. >> As a consumer, I can influence those policies. Complain to the site >> manager. > I question your claim that you can influence those policies. >> ... the pay phone refused to generate DTMF after the call was >> placed. I lost 35 cents. I explained to the restaurant manager that I >> didn't approve of his business practices, and would never return. >> I would grow old waiting for the FCC to crack down on him, when I >> can more easily and effectively take matter into my own hands. > More easily, certainly. More effectively, I seriously doubt it. Do > you REALLY think the manager cared in the least about your comment? I was 100% effective. He gets no more of my money. I assume that the way the payphone is programmed is illegal; you are prevented from dialing anything that would enable you to route your call via your IXC. What can I expect from the government enforcement bureau? Someone at the FEC or state PUC will file my complaint. Nothing will be done. > In my view, it is far more serious that pay phones get the > compensation despite [NOT] having to establish that their phones will > not block calls routed via the IXC of the customer's choice, using any > established dialing method (950-XXXX, 10(10)XXX-0+). On many COCOT's, > it is impossible to reach the LEC operator or directory assistance > bureau. The providers don't have to prove that their phones can place > calls to any toll-free number, accept call-backs, display the > telephone's number, or the company that operates the phone. > There is no requirement that a payphone accept callbacks. I know that. If I had been paying attention at the time the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was being debated, I would have testified in favor of such. While I dispute Linc's notion of morality, it's quite another thing to COMPENSATE a payphone operator for screwing the public. ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Call Organizer Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 21:16:56 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) I ran across a neat service from AT&T called Call Organizer that is helping me and my roommates keep our toll calls separated. Whenever we dial an inter-LATA toll call, a voice comes on and says "Please enter your calling code." In advance I have submitted to AT&T a list of five-digit codes, one for myself and each of my roommates. When the bill arrives, it puts the roommates first name next to each call. AT&T allows codes of any length from two to six digits, but they must all be the same length. I am not sure if the code digits can be dialed in a continuous string with the dialed number, but when sending a fax with WinFax, I just entered a couple of commas between the dialed number and the code and it went through fine. I checked with US West to see if they could do the same thing with the same codes for our intra-LATA toll calls, and they said they could, but that it would only be four digits. So we just used the first four digits of our AT&T codes with US West. Now I have discovered that the US West service is actually optional. You are not required to dial the code as part of the call as you are with AT&T. For US West, if you wish to use the code, you must dial it as a zero-plus instead of a one-plus call. AT&T used to charge for Call Organizer, but now it is free. They apparently do not actively market or publicize the service. AT&T subscribers can sign up for the service by calling 800-566-2464. Allegedly the number is answered around the clock. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com Seattle, WA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #342 ******************************