New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls
Must be fun days in NY State with Eliot Spitzer as AG. Lots of "(mumble) war on cyber (mumble) crime (mumble) national security (mumble)".... :-) Actually, I kind of like the guy for taking some disreputable companies to task An AP newswire article by Michael Gormley, via Yahoo! News, reveals that: [snip] A new law that's apparently the first in the nation threatens to penalize Internet service providers that fail to warn users that some dial-up numbers can ring up enormous long-distance phone bills even though they appear local. A long distance call even within the same area code can cost 8 to 12 cents a minute, adding up to hundreds, even thousands of dollars a month. Companies face fines of up to $500 for each offense, and consumers could pursue civil action claiming an unfair business practice. The National Conference of State Legislatures said it knows of no similar law elsewhere. [snip] http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050818/ap_on_hi_te/techbits_isp_charges - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg@netzero.net or fergdawg@sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
On 8/17/2005 10:04 PM, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
A new law that's apparently the first in the nation threatens to penalize Internet service providers that fail to warn users that some dial-up numbers can ring up enormous long-distance phone bills even though they appear local.
aka, make ISPs liable for other people's fraud. What's the thinking here, anybody know? -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 02:44:59AM -0400, Eric A. Hall wrote:
On 8/17/2005 10:04 PM, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
A new law that's apparently the first in the nation threatens to penalize Internet service providers that fail to warn users that some dial-up numbers can ring up enormous long-distance phone bills even though they appear local.
aka, make ISPs liable for other people's fraud. What's the thinking here, anybody know?
Erm... Requiring that ISPs notify customers that phone numbers in the same area code may not be "local" has WHAT exactly to do with making ISPs liable for other people's fraud? Sounds like a disclaimer requirement to me, nothing related to fraud just good business practice. You must be confusing this with exotic 900# and international locations which are used to scam people. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
On 8/18/2005 2:59 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 02:44:59AM -0400, Eric A. Hall wrote:
On 8/17/2005 10:04 PM, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
A new law that's apparently the first in the nation threatens to penalize Internet service providers that fail to warn users that some dial-up numbers can ring up enormous long-distance phone bills even though they appear local.
aka, make ISPs liable for other people's fraud. What's the thinking here, anybody know?
Erm... Requiring that ISPs notify customers that phone numbers in the same area code may not be "local" has WHAT exactly to do with making ISPs liable for other people's fraud?
If there's a penalty for failing to ~adequately track and notify customers then that's a liability, by definition. 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. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 02:44:59AM -0400, Eric A. Hall wrote:
On 8/17/2005 10:04 PM, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
A new law that's apparently the first in the nation threatens to penalize Internet service providers that fail to warn users that some dial-up numbers can ring up enormous long-distance phone bills even though they appear local.
aka, make ISPs liable for other people's fraud. What's the thinking here, anybody know?
Erm... Requiring that ISPs notify customers that phone numbers in the same area code may not be "local" has WHAT exactly to do with making ISPs liable for other people's fraud? Sounds like a disclaimer requirement to me, nothing related to fraud just good business practice. You must be confusing this with exotic 900# and international locations which are used to scam people.
You mean something like: "N2Net is not responsible for tolls or long-distance charges incurred while dialing any of our access numbers. It is the customers responsibility to verify with their local telephone provider whether a particular number is a chargeable call. N2Net can not guarantee that a particular number is local to you. To determine whether or not one of our dialin numbers is local, dial '0' from the phone line you will use to call N2Net; give the operator your number, and give the operator the N2Net dialin number you want to use, and ask if it is a toll call. There may be times when a call is billed as a "Local Plus" call or as part of an extended calling area. In cases like this, while you don't get charged as much as a normal long-distance call, you still are charged PER MINUTE by the phone company. Please check with your phone company if you have questions about any of our numbers." PUCO (Public Utilities Commision of Ohio) Local Call Finder - Use this application to help you pick a dialup number, but still verify that the number is a local call by dialing your operator. -- Vice President of N2Net, a New Age Consulting Service, Inc. Company http://www.n2net.net Where everything clicks into place! KP-216-121-ST
participants (4)
-
Eric A. Hall -
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) -
Greg Boehnlein -
Richard A Steenbergen