Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 20:00:56 -0800
From: udi@cs.washington.edu (Udi Manber)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: University Telephone System (and Integretel in General)
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 43, Message 6 of 12

[PAT writes]:

> Yours won't be the first call Integratel has received from young men
> who were similarly situated (or dirty old men for that matter), nor
> will it be the last.  Next time, read the fine print closer in the ad
> or listen to the message played out when you first call! :)   PAT]

I must take strong exception to the tone of the moderator's reply,
which automatically assumed that Integretel was right and that student
was "guilty."  (Although in fairness, I probably would have reacted
the same way had I not been on the opposite side recently.)
Intergretel will not win any awards for precision or customer service.
They make mistakes.  Lots of them.

In many cases, the "companies" Integretel represents *rely* on the
fact that it is extremely difficult to complain against them.  A great
part of that difficulty is that everyone assumes that you are "a dirty
old (or young) man" automatically.  So, complaining is not only
difficult, it is also embarrassing.

As I detailed in a message a couple of weeks ago, it took me two
months and dozens of phone calls to successfully remove their charges
of $3.95 for one minute call, which occurred through an 800 number
call (which I assume was made in error; Integretel would not tell me
or even the utility commission the 800 number).  It was easier for me
to argue that a one-minute call to an 800 number was made in error and
I never agreed or intended to have any business with these outfits;
but if the charges were $395, I am sure no one would have believed me.

900 numbers provide a reasonable mechanism. There are holes, but if
you dial 1-900 you should know that "buyer beware."  All the other
schemes (call back, call collect, 800 number forwarding, etc.) are
there mainly to circumvent blocking.  In my opinion, 99% of the time
(and I am not sure about the 1% either) the main purpose of such
schemes is to defraud someone.  The fact that no reasonable
regulations exist and these kinds of frauds still flourish is an
outrage in my opinion, especially when the victims are then labeled as
dirty old men.


Udi Manber


[Moderator's Note: You say 'the main purpose of such schemes is to
defraud someone ...'  Who, may I ask, is attempting to defraud whom?
800 numbers being forwarded is one thing, but the willful acceptance
of a collect call when you were notified by the operator that so and
so was calling collect and the charge would be so much per minute is
quite another.  If it were as simple as has been suggested, to simply
make the claim 'someone accepted the charge' when in fact no one was
contacted or made that statement, then why hasn't Integretel done that
to everyone?  If all they have to do in this 'scam' is punch up some
information on billing tapes and pass it along to telco, then why
don't we see much more of it than we do?  

I do not stand up for the way Integretel handles customer service, and
I agree that by and large their clients are sleaze.  But if you choose
to deal with their clients then you should plan on paying their
clients. You say 'all the other schemes are there to circumvent
blocking ...'; of course they are. The LD carriers use 1-800 numbers
as a way to circumvent 10xxx blocking.  Some customers use 800/ANI as
a way to circumvent Caller-ID blocking.  Everyone uses something to
circumvent the blocking of something else when it suits their
requirements. Why should sex-by-phone providers be any different?

Integretel may use sleazy business practices, but I am quite sure they
do not commit fraud. If people want to argue with the company and
insist they did not make the call, that is fine. Maybe they did, and
maybe they did not, but be assured there was *some basis* for the
charges. Let's cut out the old BS which goes "I am an injured consumer
defrauded by <name of> company" unless that really happened, and in
most cases it did not happen. If anything, it is far more common for
people to try and weasel out of paying for 'information and services'
provided over the phone than it is for the IP to just send out fraud
billings at random.  PAT]