Date: Fri, 24 Apr 92 19:01:13 CDT
From: Jim Thomas <
[email protected]>
Subject: File 1--COCOT Scam or Simple Exploitation?
Telephones and long distance service are crucial to modemers, and most
of us have become accustomed to the abuses of providers, especially
COCOTS and smaller long distance carriers. COCOTs, Customer-Owned
Coin-Operated telephones, are bad enough when they rip-off the general
public, but when they exploit a captive population, they can be
unethical, perhaps illegal. The scenario of one example of COCOT abuse
and a high-rate long distance carrier illustrate the problem.
A caller (C), recently released from a federal prison, was sent to the
Salvation Army Freedom Center (SAFC) (a community corrections center
at 105 S. Ashland in Chicago) to serve out the final months of his
sentence. He made two collect calls to a friend (JT) on March 24
(10.20 pm) and March 31 (9.29 pm). Believing these were routine
calls, JT accepted them. The two calls were for $10.40 (for 20
minutes) and $5.23 (for five minutes). Neither charge includes taxes.
The phone at the SAFC is a COCOT, and the long distance carrier is
U.S. Long Distance.
When prisoners are released from the custody of a prison to a
community center, they normally immediately call their family and
close friends to assure them they are fine and to provide a new
address and other information. Released prisoners are generally not
likely to have long distance credit cards or to be consumer-literate
on the nuances of long distance billing. Newly released prisoners
rarely have sufficient financial resources, and in Illinois, most come
from low-income backgrounds. Consequently, excessive phone costs are
being imposed on those least-able to afford it. The SAFC is taking
advantage of the importance of communication with the outside and with
the lack of consumer literacy to exploit ex-offenders and their
families. Their stated purpose to "help" prisoners is not served by
these excessive rates of which the SAFC receives a substantial
flat-rate portion and perhaps an additional percentage.
Whatever the ethics of the SAFC COCOT, it seems aided by apparently
deceptive practices of the long distance company, USLD, which may
be illegal.
JT received his March telephone bill from GTE, his local carrier. He
noticed that the charges were billed by Zeroplus dialing, a billing
agent that handles calls for a number of long distance carriers. He
called his local GTE representatives to complain, and was told by two
supervisors that GTE could do nothing, that they only collected the
fees *for* other carriers, and that consumers should be consumer
literate and be aware of who the long distance carrier is *before*
accepting a call. They indicated that customers should also inquire
about the toll charges before accepting. Even when raising the issue
of possible fraud, GTE personal were indifferent. Although
acknowledging that they received "many" complaints, they emphasized
that it was the consumers' responsibility to educate themselves.
JT obtained the number for USLD's customer service, which turned out
also to be Zeroplus Dialing. So, he called Zeroplus to further
investigate the charges. Zeroplus indicated that they, too, were
merely a billing agent (as well as customer service representatives),
and that the carrier was U.S. Long Distance (USLD) out of San Antonio,
Texas. They indicated that they were powerless to adjust a billing
and suggested calling USLD directly. They also indicated that GTE was
able to adjust billings. GTE vehemently denied this, but a return
call to Zeroplus prompted two supervisors to check, and they indicated
that, according to their contract, GTE personnel were mistaken.
(Another call to GTE to ask for an explanation in the discrepancy
between the claims led to another denial.
A call to USLD was initially less than satisfactory. A representative
there indicated that they had nothing to do with the billing. They
only set the rates, and JT must take billing problems up with
Zeroplus. JT again called Zeroplus, who indicated that USLD's claim was
nonsense, and USLD was the only company who could provide information
about the bill, the COCOT, and handle the complaint. The information
about billing procedures provided by supervisors seems confusing. As
near as JT could determine from the conflicting information provided,
USLD claimed only to set rates, not involve itself with billing or
rate adjustment. Zeroplus Dialing claimed only to process and collect
the charges, not adjust billing. GTE claimed only to serve as billing
agent, and claimed to have no authority to adjust billing. Each
organization referred JT to the others.
Neither USLD nor Zeroplus were willing or able to provide information
about the identity of the COCOT or the location of the telephone,
although GTE was able to identify the location (but not the owner) in
about 60 seconds. According to C, the caller, there was no information
on the telephone itself identifying it as a COCOT, and the only marker
on it was a sticker that indicated a repair number, but no
other identifying information.
JT's recollection was that when he accepted the calls in March, the
long distance operator *did not* identify with a company, but said
only: "Long distance operator with a collect call from C. Will you
accept it?" This seemed to be a normal inquiry and was sufficiently
close to the "AT&T long-distance" format that the call was
unquestioned. But, because of time that had elapsed, it was possible
that JT's recollection of the March calls was flawed. To be sure, JT
arranged for C to call several times in late evening of April 24. C
made three collect calls to JT with the following results. The ensuing
dialogue was written as it transpired and was heard by both JT and C:
Call 1, about 11:30 pm -- The phone rang:
JT: Hello?
Op1: long distance operator with a collect call from C.
Will you accept?
JT: Which long distance operator?
Op1: This is the long distance operator.
JT: I mean, which long distance company are you the long distance
operator for?
Op1: U.S. Long Distance.
JT: How much will accepting the call cost?
Op1: What?
JT: How much will it cost me to accept these charges? What are
your rates?
Op1: I don't know. I'll have to connect you to my supervisor.
The operator then disconnected, although in talking with his
supervisor later, the disconnection seemed a legitimate accident. On
disconnect, C immediately called back.
Call 2 -- This call came through an automated voice message system in
which a pre-recorded male operator's voice announced that a company
called "American" had a long distance call from (pause for caller to
identify himself). The pre-recorded voice then continued: Dial 5 to
reject the call, 0 to accept, otherwise stay on the line. Believing
that "stay on the line" meant that a live operator would answer, JT
stayed on the line, but the original message repeated several times.
Wondering if dialing a 9 would connect to a live operator, JT dialed
9. Whether through inadvertent dialing or through the system's failure
to recognize the 9, the call went through as "accepted." Both JT and
C immediately disconnected. The GTE supervisors' earlier advice to
inquire about LD tolls is rather difficult when it is not possible to
speak with an operator. Legal? Apparently. Shady? Deceptively so! On
disconnect, C called JT a third and final time.
Call 3, about 11:50:
JT: Hello?
Op2: Long distance operator with a collect call from C. Will you
accept the call?
JT: Which long distance company are you with?
Op2: U.S. Long Distance.
JT: How much will the call cost if I accept?
Op2: What?
JT: What are your rates? Will this be expensive?
Op2: I don't know. Just a minute, I'll have to check with my
supervisor.
(placed on hold for about 15 seconds)
Op2: The first eight minutes will be $7.46, and 42 cents for each
additional minute. Do you accept the call?
JT: What if we only talk for five minutes?
Op2: It's a flat rate.....do you accept the call or not?
JT: Even for a short call?
Op2: (pause) The first minute would be $5.92. Do you accept
the call?
JT: Just a minute, I'm calculating....
A little over a minute of discussion interspersed with the operator's
insistance that JT make a decision on accepting, even though it was
made clear that he was calculating, created pressure to accept, so JT
asked to speak to a supervisor. The operator said "just a moment,"
and disconnected him. However, the phone rang about 30 seconds later,
and the USLD supervisor was on the line apologizing for both accidental
disconnects. The supervisor was helpful and courteous, and not
unsympathetic to the situation. She discussed the billing policies and
the USLD system for about 20 minutes. However, she indicated that the
USLD policy was to indicate immediately that the call was from U.S.
Long Distance when the operator connected with the charged party, and
seemed concerned that their operators failed to do so.
What is to be made of this?
1. USLD's DECEPTION: The failure of multiple operators to immediately
identify themselves and their company when connecting with the party
called may or may not be intentional, but the result is deceptive.
Whatever the stated policy of USLD, there is unequivocal evidence that
their operators, either by informal norm or by tacit operator
procedures, violate what all supervisors indicated to be a legal
requirement to self-identify when connecting with customers. The
introductory words ("long distance operator with a collect call
from...") are said quickly and are glossed over, and normally the
party called doesn't listen with sufficient care to determine that
"long distance operator" isn't preceded with a company name. The
focus is generally on *who* is making the call, not with the need to
pay cautious attention to a quickly-spoken carrier name (or whether
the name is spoken at all). Further, the dialogue reveals that the
initial words were "Long distance operator" and not "This is the long
distance operator," which removes the second or so that listeners
require to get their audio bearings that an extra word or two would
provide. If AT&T's claim to be *THE* long distance company has merit,
then one would normally associate the initial words "long distance
operator with a collect call from..." with an established company.
Whatever the motivation, USLD's operators seem to employ a deceptive
method by which a small long distance carrier that charges
exceptionally high rates can confuse and mislead a customer.
2. GTE'S "RESPONSIBILITY:" GTE distanced itself from what it agreed
can be abusive practices of those for whom it serves as a billing
agent: a) It claimed "nothing can be done" because it's only the
billing agent; b) It claimed that abusive policies of others are
unfortunate, but not their problem--it's the fault of deregulation
(akin to saying people don't rip-off people, opportunities do); c) It
"blamed the victim" by saying that it is consumers' responsibility to
be consumer-literate. Let's look at this rationale:
a) NOTHING CAN BE DONE: If an LD carrier for whom GTE is a billing
agent is alleged to engage in deceptive practices in violation of
either law or policy, GTE is under no obligation to treat that carrier
"neutrally" as GTE personnel claim. If they uncritically accept the
responsibility of collecting for any company that repeatedly engages
in deceptive practices, then it effectively acts in collusion with the
offender. One would hope for a more ethical response from an
enterprise such as GTE that claims to be a staunchly reputable
company. If they are actually saying they can do nothing in the face
of alleged deception other than shrug their shoulders and collect
their cut, then they promote deceptive practices. Even a sympathetic
"we'll look into it" response would be better than blowing off the
complaining customer with a "tough luck kid, ya shoulda knowed better"
attitude.
b) DEREGULATION'S THE PROBLEM: Telling a ripped-off customer that
it's deregulation, not peoples' behaviors, that cause problem is
akin to the Secret Service telling BellSouth that the Legion of Doom
wasn't guilty of breaking into their computers--it was the
computer's weak security that was at fault. Len Rose, Craig Neidorf,
and Shadowhawk learned that this line of reasoning has little currency
when a teleco alleges victimization. Unethical behaviors are the
problem, not deregulation. For GTE to use this excuse to distance
themselves from their obligation to assure that they do not promote
rip-off by serving as a collection agent for those ripping-off is
merely another form of denying both the problem and their obligation
to investigate complaints for which there is evidence of deception.
Instead of aligning themselves with an ethical position, GTE aligns
with the problem.
c) THE CUSTOMER SHOULD KNOW BETTER: Should consumers be
consumer-literate? Absolutely! Is it possible to be consumer literate
in this situation? No way! The problems of collecting information
after the problem occured were difficult, and JT still lacks answers
to the questions he posed to over a dozen teleco personnel in as many
day-time, full-rate long distance calls. Consider just a few of the
problems in becoming "consumer literate:"
When a long distance carrier is less than forthcoming about its
identity when connecting with a collect call, and when it's initial
spiel to a customer gives the impression that it is a familiar,
common, company rather than one that charges high rates, consumers are
put at a disadvantage. When asked about billing costs, operators do
not have this information readily available, and one operator
(operator 2) gave rates different from those given by a
supervisor--the operator gave inaccurate information. Further, when
an *automated* system connects with a consumer, there is no
opportunity to investigate the rate structure. If there is no obvious
way to connect with on-line personnel, it is impossible to
self-inform.
The multi-tiered billing structure and, in this instance, the initial
unwillingness of each company to accept responsiblity for the billing
policy creates further difficulties in obtaining information. Queries
to operators and supervisors on a number of basic issues led to "I
don't know," "We don't have that information," or "we can't give that
information out." It is unreasonable to expect the average consumer to
be functionally literate when there are so many barriers to obtaining
information. Ironically, a GTE supervisor who strongly argued that
consumers should familiarize themselves with teleco policies gave out
significant erroneous information: JT asked whether there were some
higher authority than this supervisor to whom he could appeal in
discussing the problem. She claimed unequivocally and absolutely that
she was the ultimate arbiter, and there was no one higher.
Subsequence calls indicated she was in error. Although she did not
intend to deceive and simply coded the question in a limited way
(despite multiple rephrasings), she nonetheless misinformed. Her
information would lead one to believe that there were no other channels
to be pursued at GTE, which would deter most customers from additinal
inquiry. Further, either GTE personnel or Zeroplus personnel were in
substantial error when identifying GTE's contractual ability to
adjust charges. If teleco supervisors and managers cannot sort out
fundamental responsibilities, how can consumers be expected to be
"consumer literate?" Although the GTE supervisor was otherwise
cordial, her error provides a significant example of the distorted
information given to consumers even when they try to inform
themselves.
3. THE ETHICS OF THE SALVATION ARMY FREEDOM CENTER: The SAFC should
be held to account for exploiting those people it ostensibly is
contracted to serve. The SAFC reportedly receives a portion of the
initial connect charge in two separate categories. One figure was
$1.40, and the other $1.75. The USLD personnel providing these figures
did not know if they were combined or if the SAFC receives an
additional percentage of the toll over the initial connect charge.
Whatever the details, the SAFC is being compensated by people who can
ill-afford such exorbitant rates. It is not clear whether there are
COCOTS for personnel who are not recently released prisoners in the
area of the facilities for employees or "civilians." Nor is it known
whether coin-operated phones elsewhere in the facilities have carriers
with more traditinal rates. SAFC personnel with whom JT spoke
claimed to have no knowledge of the telephone policies, who was in
charge, who collected the money, or who made the decisions for
selecting specific carriers. Whatever the reasons, the SAFC is
engaging in a practice that questions both their integrity and their
stated purpose of facilitating ex-offenders' return to society.
4. WHAT IS THE CUSTOMER'S RESPONSIBILITY? Judging from this incident,
it is impossible for consumers to inform themselves of the nuances of
teleco policies. It is not that there are too many separate policies
created by deregulation (as GTE personnel and others claimed). Rather,
there are too many teleco-created obstacles to obtaining information
and too many levels for the intrusion of misinformation, some given
intentionally, some inadvertently. In a sad and rather ironic way, the
consistent misinformation or deception of telecos partially supports
the contention of phreaks and hackers that unauthorized intrusions
into industry computers are necessary to help provide information on
corporations that seem unaccountable for their actions.
The telephone has long been a semi-friendly device that we come to
accept as part of everyday life. Most consumers do not expect
answering a ringing telephone to be an occasion for potential rip-off
by telecos that claim to serve, rather than abuse, us. Unfortunately,
given the behavior of those acting on behalf of some telephone
companies, the telephone is becoming a potential enemy and instrument
of abuse. Rather than serving as an instrument that brings people
closer, the actions of telephone abusers, including teleco personnel,
are making us more distrustful.
WHAT IS TO BE DONE? Readers of Pat Townson's TELECOM DIGEST
continually identify teleco abuses and relate how they can be resisted
(Telecom Digest is available on usenet). In cases such as this,
several responses might be useful. First, those receiving collect
calls should question the operator to determine the identity of the
carrier if not initially given. Parties should also request a
detailed rate structure that includes the cost of the initial
connection, the cost-per-minute, and any additional charges. Second,
when alleging abuses, filing complaints with appropriate agencies,
such as the state's public utilities/commerce commission, is crucial
to bring to legislators' attention the problems of COCOTS,
questionable carrier practices, and other issues. Third, letters to
the telecos involved, legislators, and others also increases the
visibility of the problem. Finally, if otherwise legitimate
organizations, such as the SAFC, are utilizing carriers or COCOTS that
abuse public trust, the matter should be brought to their attention.
If they are under contract to another organization, as the SAFC is to
the Illinois Department of Corrections, then the contracting
organization should also be notified. It also is often possible to
involve watchdog or consumer advocacy groups (in Illinois, Citizen's
Utility Board and others) to provide suggestions for responding.
When telecos challenge the ethics and social competency of hackers,
they claim to hold the moral highground and object to what they
perceive as predatory behavior when their own ox is gored. When their
own practices are challenged, they are far less willing to apply the
same standards of behavior to themselves that they expect from others.
Like Woody Guthrie said, "Some rob ya with a six-gun, some with
a fountain pen."
Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253
