Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsGSMBluetooth
Providers
AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizon
Manufacturers
EricssonNokiaMotorola
Country Specific
Australian GroupUK Group
Related Topics
PocketPCPalmMore Topics ...

Cellular Phone Forum / General / General Topics / March 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

OT: Landline Phone Service Scams?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.