Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls

  • From: Richard A Steenbergen
  • Date: Thu Aug 18 03:55:52 2005

On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 12:19:25AM -0700, William C. Devine II wrote:
> Just about all of the ISP's in my area, even those I've worked for, had
> a 'disclaimer' on their user agreement that said that some of the local
> phone numbers might be long distance and that the user should call the
> operator to verify it is a local call before placing the call.  
> Is that warning enough, or are they saying the ISP must keep a database
> of users' addresses and specifically warn that user that out of the 10
> local call-in numbers, based on their zip code, these three (A, B, C)
> could be long distance?

To quote the original pasted article:

> Consumers, however, must act on the warning that Internet providers must 
> soon post by contacting their phone companies to find out whether a 
> number is truly local.
> Many service providers already post such warnings. America Online Inc. 
> agreed to do so in 1989, while the New York Attorney General's Office in 
> 2001 secured similar agreements with 25 New York-based Internet 
> providers including AT&T Worldnet.

Sounds like the standard notice that all reputable ISPs are probably 
already giving. Given the very real potential for grandma and grandpa to 
pick a number off a list which looks like it is in their area code and end 
up with a multi-thousand dollar phone bill the next month, I'm surprised 
consumer protection folks haven't asked for such a requirement sooner.

On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 03:07:57AM -0400, Eric A. Hall wrote:
> Seems to me the appropriate response is for the AG office to pursue the
> people who are running the toll scams, not to push enforcement out to  
> uninvolved third parties. Having dealt with AGs in the past, I know that's
> just whistling dixie, but still the notion of introducing liability is
> kind of spooky.

I'm not sure which part of "this seems to have nothing to do with toll 
scams" wasn't clear the first time around, but this response still seems 
to have no basis given the facts...

Richard A Steenbergen <>
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)

Discussion Communities

About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home

Merit Network, Inc.