Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 29 : Issue 69 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: Slammed and crammed Re: Apple Sues HTC for Patent Infringement TiVo Prevails in Patent Rights Case Against Dish Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears Line length and other matters of style [NFP] emergency use of phone in car Re: emergency use of phone in car Re: emergency use of phone in car Re: emergency use of phone in car Re: emergency use of phone in car Smartphones will make mobile security a challenge Re: Slammed and crammed Re: Slammed and crammed Re: NY's Sen. Schumer re: phone cramming and slamming ====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ====== Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest. Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:40:08 -0800 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Slammed and crammed Message-ID: <hn4fuo$obc$1@news.eternal-september.org> Sam Spade wrote: > tlvp wrote: >> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:45:26 -0500, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>> I haven't had phone service from the telephone company in a number of >>> years. I had new service installed February 2. Got my first bill >>> today. >>> >>> It's the 1980s! I was both slammed and crammed! >>> >>> Slammed: The phone company itself billed me a recurring fee for >>> international calling service. >>> >>> Crammed: A company with the innocuous name of Network Connections USA >>> billed me a recurring charge for "discount" directory assistance plan. >>> >>> The clerk at the phone company couldn't explain how either of these >>> charges were authorized, and claimed that the international calling >>> plan was ordered on the initial service order. But the service didn't >>> begin for 11 days after installation and it wasn't mentioned in the >>> confirmation letters I received in the mail, so that's not true. >>> >>> Nor could he tell me who authorized the directory assistance plan. >>> >>> He put cramming protection on the line. For slamming protection, I >>> have to fill out the form and mail it back in. >>> >>> A quick Google search turns up a few complaints about Network >>> Connections USA going back to 2007. Anyone know who is behind the >>> fraud? >> >> >> Must be the season of the witch! In early February I received January >> bills, both from my local loop AT&T and from AT&T Consumer Services, >> with third party or calling card charges for calls from a Cayman >> Islands number to various phone numbers in NYC, some made with an AT&T >> calling card, issued in my name, and using my billing address, that I >> never requested, others as bill-to-third calls. >> >> Latest bills now show those call charges have been reversed, but it >> took hours on the phone, through implacable IVR systems, advice to >> "call back during normal business hours", reports from my local loop >> AT&T that they have no business relationship with "Legacy AT&T", as >> they style AT&T Consumer Services, and other frustrations both too >> numerous to mention and too annoying to care to recall. >> >> "Legacy AT&T" reports that a LD account was established with my >> billing credentials, back in the late '80s, to show AT&T as my Dial-1 >> carrier (when my Dial-1 carrier back then was, in fact, MCI), and that >> the LD calling card was first issued in the late '90s, linked to that >> LD account, at the request of a person with a woman's name (and >> unknown to me). >> >> Late '80s? Late '90s? And not used until just late this past December, >> appearing first on a January bill? Sounds to me like a little clever >> account-creation and surreptitious back-dating, with the aim of >> selling someone in the Cayman Islands a cheap calling card in time for >> Christmas. >> >> Is that "slamming"? "cramming"? just plain fraud on the part of some >> personnel in whatever organization AT&T has outsourced its billing >> operations to? ... other? >> >> Anyway, both "Legacy" and local loop AT&Ts have now been requested to >> close whatever LD account and/or calling cards they show, >> respectively, as issued with my name/address/phone as billing data >> ... we'll see whether that marks an end to the story. >> >> Cheers, -- tlvp >> -- >> Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP >> > > I got so burned out by all the bad stuff that went on with cramming, > slamming, and worse, even with blocking, I gave up my LEC wireline > service for a period of time. > > I am back, because of the reliability and the 911 "anchor," but I have > everything blocked, toll restriction (I pay for that), and no designated > inter-LATA carrier. As I progressed through this I was confronted by > uncooperative and/or unknowlegeable representatives. But, I persisted. > > As I have said before, we have used Vonage for our outgoing toll line > since its inception. > > The AT$T wireline phone is for incoming calls and real 911. > > I would think you retired troops from the pre-divest Bell System would > be saddened by how crummy your former august companies have become. > > I have to wonder about maintenance as the end-office switches and local > loop gain ever more idle capacity. > The switches seem to be fine, I'm in and out of offices all the time, its the outside plant that is a mess and they really don't seem to be interested in fixing it since the plans are to replace a lot of it with fiber. -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co. Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:36:58 -0800 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Apple Sues HTC for Patent Infringement Message-ID: <4B95D06A.6070203@thadlabs.com> On 3/5/2010 8:01 PM, Monty Solomon wrote: > Apple Sues HTC for Patent Infringement > > CUPERTINO, California-March 2, 2010-Apple today filed a lawsuit > against HTC for infringing on 20 Apple patents related to the > iPhone's user interface, underlying architecture and hardware. The > lawsuit was filed concurrently with the U.S. International Trade > Commission (ITC) and in U.S. District Court in Delaware. > > ... > > http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/03/02patents.html " Patents' growing role in battle of mobile " " Apple's patent lawsuit last week against Taiwanese smart phone " manufacturer HTC was just one complaint aimed at a rival trying " to outdo the iPhone. " " But the case shines a new light on the growing use of technology " patents to mark turf and battle competitors in the fast-growing " field of mobile. " " Experts are unclear on Apple's ultimate intent in suing HTC, whether " it's to explicitly stamp out what it calls theft by HTC or to sound " a warning to the entire smart phone industry - including newfound " rival Google - that it could be coming for them next. But analysts " and observers agree that intellectual property litigation in this " arena is heating up, and consumers could eventually be affected " by the growing friction. Story continues here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/07/BUD11CBFSR.DTL Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 07:56:10 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: TiVo Prevails in Patent Rights Case Against Dish Message-ID: <p0624081ac7bbf57f9d1d@[10.0.1.4]> TiVo Prevails in Patent Rights Case Against Dish By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS The New York Times March 4, 2010 Filed at 3:03 p.m. ET TiVo Inc. prevailed yet again in a long-running dispute with Dish Network Corp. over patents for digital video recorders, as a federal appeals court cleared the way Thursday for TiVo to collect hundreds of millions of dollars. TiVo shares jumped more than 50 percent. Despite repeatedly losing, however, Dish said it will seek a review of the three-judge panel's decision by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. TiVo said the decision, if it stands, would let it collect at least $300 million from Dish -- about $100 million in damages and interest, and the rest in contempt sanctions that TiVo already has been awarded. That would be on top of about $100 million in damages that Dish had already paid TiVo in earlier litigation. TiVo has struggled with being consistently profitable, and being able to collect such an amount would help get it into the black. TiVo came out with its DVR in 1999 and ''TiVo'' became a verb synonymous with recording TV, but it has faced intense competition from generic DVRs offered by Dish and other subscription TV providers. The company also has sued AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., charging them with infringing on certain DVR patents. Microsoft Corp. has waded into the fight on AT&T's side. ... http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/03/04/business/AP-US-TEC-TiVo-Dish.html Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:21:42 +0000 (UTC) From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears Message-ID: <hn5sim$qbg$1@reader1.panix.com> The better analogy is sprinklers. If Hazel Homemaker runs her sprinklers, and some 90 F day, the guy walking by pauses on the sidewalk to enjoy the spray; she has nothing to whine about. If he turns them on, then she does. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:02:14 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears Message-ID: <E6ydnX2gHLvqTgvWnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@speakeasy.net> On 3/9/2010 11:21 AM, David Lesher wrote: > The better analogy is sprinklers. If Hazel Homemaker runs her > sprinklers, and some 90 F day, the guy walking by pauses on the > sidewalk to enjoy the spray; she has nothing to whine about. > > If he turns them on, then she does. Analogies to the "brick and morter" world don't always carry well into cyberspace. If I were to compare an open WiFi Access Point to a sprinkler, it would be a situation where Hazel Homemaker objects to the neighborhood kids running through the spray along with her own. Bill Horne -- (Filter QRM for direct replies) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:48:46 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Line length and other matters of style [NFP] Message-ID: <E1NorN8-0005jg-Pm@billhorne.homelinux.org> I don't generally allow "Meta" discussion, i.e., posts about the Digest itself, but I'm breaking my own rule in this case. Here's why: one of the readers has objected to my practice of re-formatting submissions to achieve a standard "look and feel", i.e., he feels that the Moderator should reject posts which are badly formatted, instead of changing them. I'm curious if the other readers agree, so I'll ask that you respond OFF-LIST to these questions: 1. Do you feel that a consistent "look and feel" in posts benefits the Telecom Digest? 2. Would you object to your post(s) being edited so that - a. Lines are a consistent length (now 70 characters)? b. Quote marks are changed if they're not the customary right arrow ">"? c. Quote marks are always followed by a space? 3. Is grammar and spelling important? Would you like to have spelling errors corrected automatically? Should the Moderator attempt to improve bad grammar? Please send your answers to format@timesucker.homelinux.org. Thank you. Bill Horne Moderator Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:22:24 -0500 From: "Moore, Carl (Civ,ARL/SLAD)" <carl.moore2@us.army.mil> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: emergency use of phone in car Message-ID: <E37E0CCA58337B4195F363C78573E732932155@ARLABML03.DS.ARL.ARMY.MIL> Next paragraph has a quote from a news article. Reaction from me: Uh-oh, what does this say about having a phone in your car? (You know by now about cell-phone-while-driving laws in some jurisdictions, as well as a whole new set of courtesies kicking in -- in churches, theatres, etc. -- due to cell phone availability and usage.) "Prius driver James Sikes called 911 about 1:30 p.m. after accelerating to pass another vehicle on Interstate 8 near La Posta and finding that he could not control his car, the CHP said." Prius is apparently one of the Toyota brands which has been having pedal trouble. The Interstate 8 highway runs across southern California, heading east from San Diego. CHP stands for California Highway Patrol, one of whose officers (the story goes on to say) helped get that runaway car to a safe stop. Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:39:50 -0800 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: emergency use of phone in car Message-ID: <4B96B216.5020503@thadlabs.com> On 3/9/2010 8:22 AM, Moore, Carl (Civ,ARL/SLAD) wrote: > Next paragraph has a quote from a news article. Reaction from me: Uh-oh, > what does this say about having a phone in your car? > (You know by now about cell-phone-while-driving laws in some jurisdictions, > as well as a whole new set of courtesies kicking in -- in churches, > theatres, etc. -- due to cell phone availability and usage.) > > "Prius driver James Sikes called 911 about 1:30 p.m. after accelerating to > pass another vehicle on Interstate 8 near La Posta and finding that he could > not control his car, the CHP said." > [...] California law permits driver cell phone usage in an emergency; I use mine frequently to call 911 reporting road hazards. However, as can be read here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/03/08/national/a193031S51.DTL " [...] " "I pushed the gas pedal to pass a car and it did something kind of " funny ... it jumped and it just stuck there," the 61-year-old driver " said at a news conference. "As it was going, I was trying the brakes " ... it wasn't stopping, it wasn't doing anything and it just kept " speeding up," Sikes said, adding he could smell the brakes burning he " was pressing the pedal so hard. " " A patrol car pulled alongside the Prius and officers told Sikes over " a loudspeaker to push the brake pedal to the floor and apply the " emergency brake. " "They also got it going on a steep upgrade," said Officer Jesse " Udovich. "Between those three things, they got it to slow down." " " After the car decelerated to about 50 mph, Sikes turned off the " engine and coasted to a halt. " [...] There's more to this than what's being reported publicly. Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:10:27 -0600 From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: emergency use of phone in car Message-ID: <CeKdneEUT8UdkArWnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@posted.visi> Moore, Carl (Civ,ARL/SLAD) wrote: > Next paragraph has a quote from a news article. Reaction from me: Uh-oh, > what does this say about having a phone in your car? > (You know by now about cell-phone-while-driving laws in some jurisdictions, > as well as a whole new set of courtesies kicking in -- in churches, > theatres, etc. -- due to cell phone availability and usage.) > > "Prius driver James Sikes called 911 about 1:30 p.m. after accelerating to It doesn't really say anything about that stuff. Bona fide emergencies should always trump other laws (and courtesies) in this regard. The trick is to define those emergencies in such a way that telling Aunt Myrtle that you'd like apple pie for dinner doesn't qualify. I'd suggest, any bona fide call that is requesting emergency equipment to roll should be exempt from not only prohibitions, but our snark. And you know what? I suspect it already is. Dave Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:21:31 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: emergency use of phone in car Message-ID: <pan.2010.03.09.22.21.28.338812@myrealbox.com> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:22:24 -0500, Moore, Carl (Civ,ARL/SLAD) wrote: > Next paragraph has a quote from a news article. Reaction from me: Uh-oh, > what does this say about having a phone in your car? (You know by now > about cell-phone-while-driving laws in some jurisdictions, as well as a > whole new set of courtesies kicking in -- in churches, theatres, etc. -- > due to cell phone availability and usage.) > > "Prius driver James Sikes called 911 about 1:30 p.m. after accelerating to > pass another vehicle on Interstate 8 near La Posta and finding that he > could not control his car, the CHP said." ......... Emergency use of a phone while driving is totally irrelevant to banning everyday use of these things. Crossing to the other side of the road is banned (along with many other things), but if an emergency traffic situation forces you to do it then it is highly doubtful that the action will cause a debate on whether the road rule is valid. -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have. Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 19:26:33 EST From: Wesrock@aol.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: emergency use of phone in car Message-ID: <3147d.76c380cd.38c84139@aol.com> In a message dated 3/9/2010 1:52:00 PM Central Standard Time, carl.moore2@us.army.mil writes: > "Prius driver James Sikes called 911 about 1:30 p.m. after accelerating to > pass another vehicle on Interstate 8 near La Posta and finding that he could > not control his car, the CHP said." > > Prius is apparently one of the Toyota brands which has been having pedal > trouble. The Interstate 8 highway runs across southern California, heading > east from San Diego. CHP stands for California Highway Patrol, one of whose > officers (the story goes on to say) helped get that runaway car to a safe > stop. If you've followed the somewhat overwrought videos on TV, it would seem to be a matter of life and death in this case overriding the general rule. The CHP would never have known he was in trouble if he hadn't called. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:33:23 -0800 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Smartphones will make mobile security a challenge Message-ID: <4B96E8D3.9020404@thadlabs.com> The increasing use of smart phones in the workplace opens new vulnerabilities as the smart phones become hacked and run malware. Think of the smart phones as open conduits to the company/corporate LANs and other infrastructure per: " [...] " ... mentioned SexyView.D, what he described as the first " iPhone worm targeting an English-speaking audience. The " virus, which only affected "jail-broken" iPhones (devices " modified to work with other phone service providers), " spreads through text messages containing malicious links " and re-sends itself to the victim's list of contacts once " inside. " " In November, F-Secure found in the Netherlands another " iPhone virus called Duh, which substituted a bank's log-in " Web site for a fake one designed by criminals to steal the " victims' credentials. The scam was not easy to detect with " the naked eye since Internet addresses often don't show in " their entirety in mobile devices. " [...] Complete story here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?entry_id=58757 Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:26:35 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Slammed and crammed Message-ID: <hn6lfb$9g$4@news.albasani.net> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >Slammed: The phone company itself billed me a recurring fee for >international calling service. >The clerk at the phone company couldn't explain how either of these >charges were authorized, and claimed that the international calling >plan was ordered on the initial service order. But the service didn't >begin for 11 days after installation and it wasn't mentioned in the >confirmation letters I received in the mail, so that's not true. An update: The woman at the AT&T executive office (a higher level customer service representative) thinks that it is possible for the "business international calling service" to have been ordered during account creation... but during account creation of an unrelated account. So if my telephone number were inadvertently entered, it could get added to my existing account. Normally the billing system requires use of phone number plus customer code to prevent such errors from occurring, but as the customer code isn't assigned during account creation but after the account is active, it's possible for such errors to occur. You'd think the system would be able to prevent errors like that, like an attempt to bill to an active account when setting up a new account, but it seems not. Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:43:17 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Slammed and crammed Message-ID: <hn6mel$9g$5@news.albasani.net> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote: >A letter to your State Attorney General, with a copy to the FTC, >would take 10 minutes and 88 cents (44 cents each). Using their >web based forms would be cheaper. fwiw, I filed complaints about Network Connections USA discount directory assistance plan with both the attorney general of my state and FTC. The FCC, whose regulation requires telephone companies to bill on behalf of third party entities, even when fraud is likely, couldn't have been less interested in learning about their contribution to a type of fraud that simply didn't exist prior to this regulation. >(I prefer letters. Oh, and for good measure, I cc my Congressman >and Senators pointing out that many of these groups have >had lots and lots of complaints, and it's about time the FTC, etc., >got off their asses). My Member of Congress also got a letter, so I expect to see Section 202 of the vile Telecom Act revised any day now with consumer protection from cramming. Any day now... Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:47:18 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: NY's Sen. Schumer re: phone cramming and slamming Message-ID: <hn6q6m$nj0$1@news.albasani.net> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote: >[Schumer press release] > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 8, 2010 > SCHUMER REVEALS: MYSTERY CHARGES ADDED TO NY'ERS CELL PHONE BILLS > WITHOUT THEIR NOTIFICATION - COSTS COUNTLESS NY PHONE USERS HUNDREDS > EVERY YEAR > Scam Called "Cramming"-- Bogus Charges for Calling Services NY'ers > Never Signed Up For Added to Bills but Bills So Complex Most NY'ers > Never Even Notice the Charges - Loophole in Phone Deregulation Allows > Scammers to Add Charges No Questions Asked > .... > Schumer to Call for Federal Crackdown on "Cramming", Require > Notification Before Any New Charges Are Added to a Phone Bill > .... > "Consumers and businesses are being swindled by cramming charges and > it's time to put a stop to it," Schumer said. "Cramming is an annoying > scam that is not only costing people thousands of dollars in bogus > fees, but countless hours of valuable time trying to get those charges > removed. > ........ > According to a recent FTC filing, cramming has become a significant > area of increasing consumer complaint. The FTC received over 3,000 > complaints over the last year regarding unauthorized charges on > telephone bills, including landline, mobile wireless, and VoIP > services. > ----------- >rest: >http://www.schumer.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=322880& >- so the FTC has received over 3,000 complaints. One Would Think > that they'd actually, you know, do something useful. The FTC might be able to take some action against these companies, but FTC cannot prevent similar frauds from being falsely billed. That's on the FCC. But Section 202 of the Telecom Act seems not to have any consumer protection features whatsoever. Apparently, legislation with weak or nonexistent consumer protection features is the fault of federal agencies, never Congress. >My rec's: >a: any telco agreement to allow for third party billing must >include something like "if there's more than a one percent >complaint rate, this agreement is dead". There are no agreements. By FCC regulation, the phone company is obliged to bill on behalf of the third party if it bills for a similar service or product of its own. To submit the bill, the third party needs to know nothing about the phone company subscriber than the phone number. I don't even know if it needs to be the main billing phone number or any phone number associated with the account. The third party does not need to know the the customer code or the billing name or address. What I'd like to find out: Is there a telephone industry billing clearlinghouse that these third party entities bill through? How do they know which phone company to submit charges through? If fraud is discovered, does the clearinghouse note this information? If one phone company receives a signficant number of subscriber demands to reverse charges back to the third party, how does it let other phone companies know that fraud is likely occurring? Can the experiences of several phone companies with this third party be combined in order to detect fraud? I wonder if phone companies could simply join with credit card companies. Seems similar, since little identifying information about the shopper is known than an account number. Don't credit card companies have a joint fraud bureau? >b: the telco's must agree to handle customer complaints >directly and not tell customers they have to find that elusive >third party. Well, the third party shouldn't be allowed to obtain billing information from the phone company if the charges are reversed back to it if fraud is likely. >c: fraud by these companies, and the telcos, should be treated >as the theft and crime it is. Including criminal charges. What, you mean arresting and prosecuting the owner of the third party entity before he sets up another entity to commit fraud in a new name? >d: customer accounts should have a default setting of no >third party billing allowed on them, with an option of >allowing "just direct phone related" charges. Yup. >Oh, and let's not forget the complicity of the various gov't >agencies in creating these charges in the first place. Such >as the "Gore Tax" and lots and lots of other fees and "911 >surchages" and all sorts of other taxes and non tax taxes... Hehehe. I'd like to reverse those taxes and mandatory fees, too. But it might make John Levine's phone bill rise. TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne. Contact information: Bill Horne Telecom Digest 43 Deerfield Road Sharon MA 02067-2301 781-784-7287 bill at horne dot net Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 fifty 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. End of The Telecom digest (15 messages)