Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA13084; Sat, 4 Feb 89 00:25:36 EST Message-Id: <8902040525.AA13084@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Sat, 4 Feb 89 0:11:51 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #45 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Sat, 4 Feb 89 0:11:51 EST Volume 9 : Issue 45 Today's Topics: MCI Horror Tales Moderator's gratuitous Greene-bashing Re: Equal Access?? My foot!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 2 Feb 89 02:12:11 EST From: ll-xn!columbia!dasys1!ecorley@cucard.med.columbia.edu (Eric Corley) To: bu-cs.bu.edu!telecom@cucard.med.columbia.edu Subject: MCI Horror Tales THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS REPRINTED FROM THE WINTER 1988-89 EDITION OF 2600 MAGAZINE, A PUBLICATION THAT DEVOTES MUCH OF ITS SPACE TO THE STUDY OF COMPUTER HACKERS. QUESTIONS CAN BE DIRECTED TO 2600@dasys1.UUCP or 2600, POB 752, MIDDLE ISLAND, NY 11953, OR 516-751-2600. It all started with what sounded like a friendly phone call in October: "Hello, this is Patricia from MCI. We noticed that you presently have an account with MCI and we wanted to let you know that we'll be offering 'one plus' service in your area starting December 10th. We'd like to verify your address." The nice lady then read us our address, which was one hundred percent correct. She then said another person would call us to confirm this information. That call came within minutes and was almost identical in content. A couple of weeks later we got another one of those calls on another of our lines that had an MCI account attached to it. But this time the second call never came. In early December, equal access came to our phone lines. We decided to check the status of those two lines that had gotten the calls. We dialed 1-700-555-4141. And guess what? They had both been claimed by MCI. Surprised? We weren't. In fact, when those calls come in, we EXPECTED them to try and pull this scam we'd heard so much about. They made one big mistake though -- they tried it on us. We always listen very carefully when phone companies call us. And we can say very definitely that MCI never asked us if we wanted to choose them as our long distance carrier. All they asked us to do was to verify our address. OK, so it was a sloppy representative. Maybe even a corrupt one. How can you condemn an entire company because of the actions of one person? That's quite easy. It happened more than once. Different representatives called different phone numbers and gave the same little speech. And we've found out that other people have gotten the same treatment. This indicates to us that these representatives are reading a script that tells them NOT to ask the customer whether they actually WANT MCI's "one plus" service. Address verification, after all, is a much less controversial issue. Perhaps MCI feels they're taking a calculated risk here. They only seem to make these calls to people who already use MCI in some form. Maybe they feel these people won't raise a fuss when they discover who their long distance company is. In fact, they may never even discover that MCI is their carrier since they most likely have been getting MCI bills in the past. Remember, these are people who have already been using MCI's services. Regardless of whether or not it pays off, it's distressing to see such dishonest tactics on the part of a major company. This isn't our only gripe with MCI. We had been using an account on MCI's 950-1986 dialup. In November we paid the bill a few days late (it was under $10). Well, lo and behold, they disconnected our code without ANY warning. When we asked them to reconnect it, they said they would have to handle our payment for 10 days first. Ten days went by and the code was still down. We asked again. This time, they said they were phasing out that service, so they couldn't reconnect us. But they came up with a bright idea. We could use our 14-digit MCI Card code instead of our old 5-digit code. "It's just as easy to remember," they said. Clearly, they have the right to phase out their services and replace them with less desirable ones. But once again, it's the way in which they did it. MCI jumped at the first opportunity to take away our old code instead of being up front and letting their customers know that as of a certain date this service would be terminated. Being sneaky about it doesn't do anyone any good. The Real Scam We've saved the best for last. When we discovered that MCI had selected themselves as our long distance carriers, we decided to experiment a little. One of our experiments involved trying to make an operator assisted call ("zero plus") on an MCI line. MCI doesn't offer operator assisted services. So we were curious as to what would happen when we tried to do this. What happened was a big surprise. We got the same little fading dial tone that we got on AT&T -- in other words, the prompt to enter our AT&T calling card number. We entered the card number and were astounded to hear a recording say, "Thank you for using NTS." NTS? Who the hell were THEY?! And what were they doing accepting AT&T calling card numbers on MCI lines? We'll skip all of the drama and simply tell you what we found out. NTS is an Alternate Operator Service (AOS) company. They handle calls from hotel rooms and privately owned payphones. Their rates are often double those of AT&T. And it seems that in various parts of the country, MCI has a clandestine relationship with these people. We say clandestine because we're in the habit of reading all of the literature from every phone company that serves our area. And nowhere has this little "service" been mentioned. We have yet to find anyone in MCI who is even aware of this arrangement. On the other hand, NTS (based in Rockville, Maryland) is quite proud of the MCI connection. All of the NTS operators (who can trick anyone into believing they're really from AT&T) are aware that they provide service for MCI "zero plus" customers. Why does MCI use an AOS? We can't imagine. But we can tell you the effects. If you decide to call someone collect from your phone and MCI happens to be your long distance carrier, the person who accepts on the other end will wind up with one hell of a surprise when they get the bill. You'll be the one getting the surprise if you forget that MCI doesn't have operators and you attempt to place an operator-assisted or calling card call through them. The most likely scenario, though, would be something like this: you visit a friend and need to make a phone call from his house. Since you don't want to make your friend pay, you dial it "zero plus" and bill it to your calling card. How are you to know that your friend selected MCI as his long distance carrier and that you've just been swindled by an AOS? Perhaps MCI's new slogan can be: "We bring the thrill of hotel phones right into your own home!" Now we should point out that this "NTS Connection" doesn't work everywhere. In some areas you get recordings when you try to make "zero plus" calls using MCI. We need to know where it does work. You can find out at no charge by dialing 10222-0 followed by a ten digit phone number (you can use your own). If you hear a fading dial tone, it means you're about to be connected to NTS. You can stay on and ask a whole lot of questions if you want. Let us know if it works in your area. (You can do the above even if MCI isn't your primary carrier -- the 10222 routes the call to MCI. You must have equal access in your area in order to try this.) There's really not much more to add. We are demanding a public statement from MCI addressing the issues of signing up unsuspecting consumers and billing their own customers exhorbitant rates for operator-assisted calls without telling them. We don't expect to ever get such a statement. Several years ago, we printed a story about MCI's electronic mail system, MCI Mail, which had a policy of terminating accounts that had received mail not to MCI's liking. We called it a flagrant invasion of privacy to peruse the mail of their own paying subscribers. The president of MCI indicated that he couldn't care less. So all we can say right now is that it would be a very good idea to boycott MCI for all of the above reasons. A company that resorts to such devious methods of making money and that treats its customers so shabbily is not worthy of the historical significance its founders achieved. We would appreciate it if this article was spread around in whatever ways possible. ------------------------------ From: goldstein%delni.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388) Date: 2 Feb 89 09:35 To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Moderator's gratuitous Greene-bashing Time to set flame on. >From: Marvin Sirbu >Subject: Don't blame Judge Greene >Peter Pavlvcik complains about ITI providing misleading information regarding >pay telephone charges and service and the Moderator suggests Peter write to >Judge Greene. Don't waste your time. The outrageous charges are the result of policy decisions taken by the FCC prior to divestiture (e.g. deregulating >resale). If you want to complain to anyone, it should be to the FCC or to the >local PUC. I note that ITI has been banned from operating in Ohio by the Ohio >PUC because of the type of misleading practices Peter describes. Marvin knows what he's talking about! Unfortunately, a young whippersnapper who has nicely volunteered to moderate this newsgroup has totally confused cause & effect with the following gratuitous bash at his Honor, Judge Harold Greene: >[Moderator's Note: But it was Harold who opened the door to this kind of >abuse. Certainly the FCC played a role in it; but everyone, including the >FCC, took the lead from His Onery, Judge Greene. PT] Let's get the facts straight. The FCC ordered AT&T to remove its tariff prohibition against sharing and resale in the late 1970s. This led to the immediate elimination of Full Business Day WATS and (with some struggle) Telpak. The Department of Justice sued AT&T for antitrust violations in the 1950s. A 1956 Consent Decree forced Western Electric out of commercial markets but left the "Bell System" monopoly intact. AT&T was not happy with this as they wanted to sell 3B computers, etc. The DOJ reopened the AT&T case in the late 1970s because AT&T was still displaying questionable behavior vis a vis antitrust law. The Reagan administration, ideologically motivated, allowed AT&T to put on its "Bre'r Rabbit" hat and dictate the terms of its being thrown into the briar patch. AT&T got rid of the marginally-profitable (then) BOCs and was freed to sell all the 3Bs they could. (Turns out the briar patch was pretty dead, but that's justice.) Judge Greene changed the agreement to make it better for consumers. He allowed the BOCs to keep yellow pages. He allowed the BOCs to sell equipment. He made sure that the BOCs and consumers had a fighting chance. The BOCs were allowed to perform billing on behalf of long distance carriers, as they had done all along for their previous-parent, AT&T. In fairness, any LD carrier could pay for billing service. The FCC and NOT the Judge permitted totally unregulated resale. The FCC authorized AOSs. The FCC authorized COCOTs. Since COCOTS could use AOSs, and anybody could pay the Bells to bill (this was meant for MCI et al), unregulated AOSs put obscene charges on your phone bills. Some states prohibit BOCs from putting bills for unauthorized vendors on their bills. Complain to your state DPU/PUC/whatever. The FCC should put a stop to it, but they won't so long as the current regime is in control and there's no pressure. The Judge is the only defense we have. STOP BASHING HIM! fred (I speak for me.) ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@ames.arc.nasa.gov From: claris!edg%bridge2.3Com.Com@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Ed Greenberg) Subject: Re: Equal Access?? My foot!! Date: 3 Feb 89 02:30:39 GMT ... posters tale of trying to get the AT&T operator deleted >(i.e. 01-288) did not work either. So I asked the ITI > > Peter Pavlovcik, > att!iexist!peter > Peter, Next time, please try 10288 rather than 01288. -edg -- {decwrl|sun|oliveb}!CSO.3com.com!Edward_Greenberg Ed Greenberg -or- 3Com Corporation {sun|hplabs}!bridge2!edg Mountain View, CA 415-694-2952 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest *********************