Cellular Phone Forum / General / General Topics / March 2005
OT: Landline Phone Service Scams?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
(Pete Cresswell) - 07 Mar 2005 00:46 GMT Just got an interesting item on my Verizon (Philly area) bill:
Six bucks for a six-minute call to a number in Maryland/DC (301-293-4014) on January 17th. Some outfit called "Integretel, Inc.".
Aside from the fact that I had long distance service blocked/removed from all my land line phones prior to that date, and the fact that when I tried calling the number it was not in service, the amount jumped out at me. A dollar a minute for a call to Maryland or DC?
There's just me and my wife in the house and neither has accepted any collect calls.
Does this sound familar to anybody in the context of scams?
 Signature PeteCresswell
danny burstein - 07 Mar 2005 00:53 GMT >Just got an interesting item on my Verizon (Philly area) bill:
>Six bucks for a six-minute call to a number in Maryland/DC (301-293-4014) on >January 17th. Some outfit called "Integretel, Inc.". Integretel has been cited again and again by the Feds, etc. Do the usual searching of the internet and you'll find plenty.
My recommendation: send a note (paper...) to the Pa. Public Service Commission asking _them_ to relay your complaint(s) to Verizon that you're being misbilled. And that Verizon, despite all the complaints to them about Integretel, is still acting as a collection agent for them.
Oh, Verizon can NOT shut off your local phone service if you don't pay this addon.
 Signature _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Steve Knight - 07 Mar 2005 02:57 GMT http://www.google.com/search?q=Integretel+inc&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&st art=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
http://tinyurl.com/7yndv check it out.
 Signature Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.
(Pete Cresswell) - 07 Mar 2005 16:58 GMT Per danny burstein:
>Integretel has been cited again and again by the Feds, etc. Do the usual >searching of the internet and you'll find plenty. I just got off the phone with Verizon support.
Requested collect call blocking. Verizon said, "Sure, but we cannot guarantee 100%".
I said "Huh?...how about some background on that?"
They replied to the effect that technologically, there are many ways to get a collect call through and that technology is changing (by that, I take them to mean that new creacks in their logical firewall are being found...) and they are always trying to stay ahead...but sometimes people find new ways to get them through.
I said something like "That suggests to me that collect calls are a widely-used means of perpetrating fraud." Verizon laughed good-naturedly and replied to the effect of "Rest assured...".
As far as I could determine from talking to Verizon, there's no hardcopy or digital record confirming how or by whom the call was accepted.
Seems like a good situation for the perpetrator: the victim's word against theirs. Keep the attacks against any one person below a certain "convenience price" level, apologize profusely and credit the occasional person who questions a call... and pocket the rest.
 Signature PeteCresswell
(Pete Cresswell) - 07 Mar 2005 17:42 GMT Per (Pete Cresswell):
>>Integretel has been cited again and again by the Feds, Just a little additional info for those who may share my concerns.
The Verizon was *not* forthcoming about all the blocks needed/available to protect the account. Once I asked, no problem....but you have to know what to ask for.
What I *think* is needed (maybe they're still holding out something...) is:
1) Long Distance block 2) Collect Call block 3) Third Party block 4) Miscellaneous block
Per the last Verizon rep I spoke with, with those four blocks in place the account should wrapped up as tight as it can be - noting the earlier disclaimer about the Collect Call block not being 100% effective...
 Signature PeteCresswell
(Pete Cresswell) - 07 Mar 2005 22:06 GMT Per (Pete Cresswell):
>the context of scams? A strawman:
This is probably *not* a scam because ----------------------------------------- - The amount is so piddling. Six bucks and change. - Integretel sounds like a sort of clearinghouse for small entities what want tb able to bill through people's phone bills. - Given above, whoever did the deed wouldn't even get six dollars after Integretel's cut. I'd think five absolute max...maybe less. - At five dollars a hit, to get a thousand dollars, you'd have to attack 200 people. - Not to sound arrogant, but in the context of prison time, a thousand dollars is chickenfeed. - To get enough money to hire decent lawyer, how many bogus charges would you have to generate? 200,000? a half-million? - At 200,000 or a half-million you're into the territory where you're virtually assured of angering somebody who either knows somebody in a regulatory agency or is so psycho that they'll pursue to the ends of the earth over less than ten bucks. --------------------------------------------
Thoughts?
 Signature PeteCresswell
danny burstein - 07 Mar 2005 22:56 GMT >This is probably *not* a scam because >----------------------------------------- >- The amount is so piddling. Six bucks and change. >- Integretel sounds like a sort of clearinghouse for small entities what want tb >able to bill through people's phone bills. err, once again, I advise you to take a look through the various FTC settlements against Integretel. And then at all the other court actions.
Hold your nose, first.
 Signature _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
(Pete Cresswell) - 07 Mar 2005 23:50 GMT Per danny burstein:
>err, once again, I advise you to take a look through the >various FTC settlements against Integretel. And then >at all the other court actions. > >Hold your nose, first. I've been through a few of them. But if these guys are just the middlemen ("agregators"?) for millions of transactions I'd think that being the fall guy for the bad guys just goes with the territory - sort of like an ISP getting hit because some of it's clients send emails with obscene content...going after the source is like trying to attack a swarm of gnats with a hammer...but going after the middleman gives a more workable target.
I'm not trying to stand up for these guys...I was one of the targets....just trolling for all sides of the picture.
I also think there's plenty room for a middle-ground scenario.... analogous to a fence, stolen goods, and thieves. The fence doesn't steal anything - and doesn't want to know where the stuff came from....but you know that in his heart he knows.... but he's making good money, the thieves have a place to unload their stuff... and the fence can stand up and indignantly proclaim that he knows nothing.... but really he's in it right up to his neck.
 Signature PeteCresswell
clifto - 08 Mar 2005 18:08 GMT > This is probably *not* a scam because > ----------------------------------------- > - At five dollars a hit, to get a thousand dollars, you'd have to attack 200 > people. How long do you think it would take a properly set-up machine to dial 200 pagers?
My impression is that Integretel, among others, specializes in this sort of thing; "hosting" for outrageously overpriced "call services".
(Pete Cresswell) - 08 Mar 2005 20:06 GMT Per clifto:
>How long do you think it would take a properly set-up machine to dial >200 pagers? > >My impression is that Integretel, among others, specializes in this sort >of thing; "hosting" for outrageously overpriced "call services". I'd like to hear a lawyer weigh in on this.
After reading Cranky Dude's account, it sounds like free money to me.
 Signature PeteCresswell
Cranky Dude - 08 Mar 2005 18:22 GMT About two years ago I had a 30 minute blank message on my answering machine. It was weird and I erased it. At the end of the month I got a bill from Verizon for a 30 minute collect call from Washington, DC from Zero Plus Dialing for over $100. It was something like $4 a minute. I wrote to Zero Plus Dialing and called them and explained that no one ever accepted any collect calls from DC. They refused to erase the bill and threatened to sue and/or ruin my credit rating if I didn't pay. I searched the Internet and discovered that they have had endless complaints that their collect call service has an automated "press any key to accept this call" and the beep of an answering machine is an accepted key press even though it doesn't match any dialing tones. I threatened a class action lawsuit against them and they stopped billing me.
CD
(Pete Cresswell) - 08 Mar 2005 19:59 GMT Per Cranky Dude:
>I searched the Internet and discovered that they have had >endless complaints that their collect call service has an automated >"press any key to accept this call" and the beep of an answering >machine is an accepted key press even though it doesn't match any >dialing tones. Bingo!.... That would explain how my phone "Accepted" that collect call.
I've got to wonder who they're paying off that they're still in business.
 Signature PeteCresswell
Odeal51 - 30 Mar 2005 06:18 GMT This is my experience with Integretel and SBC in Michigan. After readin your posts, I realize that I may have yet more work to do to avoi these people
Cind
I have managed to have all charges from Integretel removed and sen back to the "carrier" by SBC. Furthermore, they have placed a thir party block on my line so that Integretel cannot bill us again. Or an other biller of like "products.
Of course, I have spent many hours on the phone being told things b SBC that were not true. Or they were less than forthcoming in thei solutions. That is, their representatives told me that they *could not block third parties from billing, that they *could not* reverse th charges, that I had to deal with Integretel itself to resolve th problem
Today, I talked to four different people. They sent me twice to billin because I now had a deliquent bill because Integretel's charges had no reached 84.00. Billing asked me when I was going to pay the 84.00. said "never.
I told each person that I talked to that Erin did not sign up for thi service. She is autistic with a severe spelling disability. Each perso that I talked to was told that Integretel has been the target o lawsuits from the state attorney generals of Connecticut Massechusetts, and New Jersey. When I talked to customer care, I tol them that I wanted all extra services dropped from my phone bill (cal waiting, caller ID, etc.). And further, that if something wasn't don about this, I would be forced to sever my relationship with SBC. I the told them that I wanted an itemized statement of my bill from August 1 2005. They then sent me to a "specialist." *The specialist told me tha Integretel was a "nasty outfit." He then sent all of the charges bac to the carrier and placed the block on all third party billers. I wil be getting an itemized statement of my charges from August 1st.
I am telling all of you this so that you will not be faced with week of denials of help from SBC if this kind of thing pops up on you telephone bill. I guess thirteen years of advocating for my kids ha had some additional benefits
Have a great day
Cindy Cleave
|
|
|