TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Oct 94 15:25:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 401 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO (John Higdon) Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO (Steve Kass) Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO (Carl Moore) Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO (Tom Lowe) Re: MCI's 1-800 CALL INFO (Jonathan D. Loo) Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO (Phil Ritter) Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO (Steve Cogorno) Re: Testing 1-800-CALL-INFO (Jeffrey A. Harper) Re: Testing 1-800-CALL-INFO (Mark E. Daniel) Re: Testing 1-800-CALL-INFO (Steve Cogorno) Charging For 800 Calls (was Re: 1-800-CALL-INFO) (Barry Margolin) Charges For Calling 800 Numbers (Jeff Buckingham) Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be Banned (Lauren Weinstein) 800-Number Billing (Stephen Tihor) Re: Billable 800 Service (Dave Levenson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ********************************************************************** * * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ********************************************************************** * Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 11:01:30 -0700 From: John Higdon Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO bfbrown@teal.csn.org (Brian Brown) writes: > FYI, a LD carrier can provide two "information" digits in addition to > ANI via digital lines -- although, for some mysterious, unexplainable > reason (someone comment please), they must do this via MF, not DTMF. Any number of carriers, including MCI, will supply DNIS/ANI in FGD format via DTMF. If your particular carrier claims that it cannot be done, look at other carriers. > The two-digit code for payphones is "27". There are actually two payphone codes. One is for LEC payphones; the other for COCOTs. > I would be interested to know what happens when you call from a > payphone. The operator asks for billing information. But this has nothing to do with the status digits. It comes from a check of the screened call database. All payphones have collect and third-party billing blocked in a national database that is available on-line to any company that wants to pay for it. Residential and business telephones that have this screening in effect will get the same response when calling CALL-INFO. Otherwise, the billing is via the collect call mechanism. > Incidentally, the two MF digits make the ANI-DNIS string look like: > *AABBBCCCDDDD*EEEFFFF*, a total of 22 digits outpulsed!!! Question: what is a "*" in MF? Is it KP? KP2? Just wondering. > Is it possible that MF can outpulse faster than DTMF? It seems > strange that MF is necessary for this service, but it definitely is. I don't know how to break this to you, but I am getting FGD format (including status) delivered via DTMF. And it is a small reseller, to boot! > You may be able to get some employee at a carrier to agree to give > you this info via DTMF, but they will soon learn that they can't and > apologize to you. This is misinformation. The only carrier that promised it to me and could not deliver was MCI. I believe they now can do it. In any event there are a number of other carriers who will be happy to provide you with FGD format DNIS/ANI using DTMF. > One more thing -- these desription digits can also tell you when the > ANI represents a hotel, hospital, prison, cellular, business or > residential site, and who knows what else. Actually, they don't distinguish between residential and business POTS. And if the cellular company is using certain types of interconnectivity with the LEC, the status code returns "00" (POTS). > Please don't ask how I know all this. Judging from the holes, I don't think I want to know. I got my info from designing and writing software for such systems. John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 01:00:43 EDT From: SKASS@drew.edu Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO Patrick seems to be saying that charging 75 cents for 1-800-CALL-INFO is in line with using 800 numbers for Western Union or for charges to a credit card. I disagree. No other 1-800 number does (or should) result in a charge on the telephone bill without some verbal or other authorization from the caller, nor without some indication from the called party that a charge will apply. That was certainly the situation with Western Union the few times I used it. Patrick, do you propose that I could set up a phone number within my exchange, say 201-514-FOOD, to provide a recorded recipe at a $5 charge on the phone bill, offering no indication in the recording of the charge? Of course my advertisements would mention the charge. No. Calls within an exchange are free (*), though they can result in a transfer of money from the calling to called parties with a credit card number and verbal authorization. The same should be true for 800 numbers. (*)metered service aside Does MCI's service have a name? If you call 1-800-555-1212 and ask for the number, do you get a recording saying "The toll-free number is ..."? I agree with those who lament the devaluation of 800 service by MCI's practice, and I also agree with Patrick that nothing should be charged to a telephone bill beyond the cost of carrying the call. Steve Kass/ Math & CS/ Drew U/ Madison NJ/ skass@drew.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know how far the proprietor of such services should be required to go to make notification. Even though they mention it in their advertising, some people will later insist that they did not see it. The operator can mention it in the process of getting the customer's lookup request and yet later some people will still claim they did not know about the charge. One information provider gets around the later claims of ignorance on the part of users by tape recording the opening seconds of conversation where the intake operator advises the party of the charge and asks the person's permission to charge it. If the person later claims no permission was given, the IP need merely reference the index or location of the 20-30 second spot on a large reel of tape where that particular person consented and provide them with it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Oct 94 11:34:24 GMT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO So just what gets printed on the phone bill when a call to 1-800-CALL-INFO gets billed? ------------------------------ From: tomlowe@netcom.com (Tom Lowe) Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 13:40:05 EDT > FYI, a LD carrier can provide two "information" digits in addition to > ANI via digital lines -- although, for some mysterious, unexplainable > reason (someone comment please), they must do this via MF, not DTMF. > The two-digit code for payphones is "27". In fact, MCI can look at > the two ANI description digits before deciding to go off hook, and > simply not answer the call. I would be interested to know what > happens when you call from a payphone. > Incidentally, the two MF digits make the ANI-DNIS string look like: > *AABBBCCCDDDD*EEEFFFF*, a total of 22 digits outpulsed!!! Is it > possible that MF can outpulse faster than DTMF? It seems strange that > MF is necessary for this service, but it definitely is. You may be > able to get some employee at a carrier to agree to give you this info > via DTMF, but they will soon learn that they can't and apologize to > you. The INFO/ANI digits can also be sent via ISDN or SS7. I don't know why they can't be sent with the DTMF option. I'm converting some DTMF signalled trunks to MF trunks just so I can get the info digits. This should happen sometime this week, I hope. I don't think that MF is any faster than DTMF signalling. After listening to some MF circuits and DTMF circuits side by side, the MF almost sounded slower to me. The AABBBCCCDDDD*EEEFFFF string you mention is the signalling for DTMF, and it does not include the info digits (AA in your string). The MF signalling goes like this: DMS-250 PBX SEIZURE ------------------------> <------------------------ WINK KP + IINPANXXXXX + ST ----------> KP + DNIS + ST -----------------> <------------------------ WINK <------------------------ OFF HOOK (answer) Where the KP and ST are the MF "Key Pulse" and "Stop" signals II = Info Digits, NPANXXXXX is the ANI, and DNIS is the dialed number. The possible values for the Info digits are: 00 - Regular 01 - Multi Party line (ANI not delivered) 02 - ANI failure 06 - Hotel/Motel 07 - Prison 27 - Coin 61 - Cellular There are slight variations to the contents of the digits, depending on whether or not full ANI is available and/or configured on the trunk group and/or 800 number. If ANI is configured, the you get AT LEAST the area code. Also, at least with DTMF signaling, I've been getting the originating country code on ITFS (International Toll Free Service) numbers that are terminating on the switch. I got most of this information from the "Real Time ANI Training Booklet" that Sprint publishes. As far as making calls from cellular phones to 800-CALL-INFO, they didn't restrict me! That means that my cellular company got billed $0.75 for my call plus the toll charges, and all I'll pay for is airtime for an 800 call. I also tried it from one hotel and it went through with no problem (although the hotel tried to charge me $0.65 for that and all of my other 800 calls, but that's another story. ------------------------------ From: Jonathan D. Loo Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 01:59:01 -0400 Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > I went out yesterday afternoon and tried it also to see what payphones > around here would do. I got through and got the request to provide > billing information in the form of a credit card number or third party > phone number. When I asked why there was a charge for a call to an 800 > number the answer I got was that the call itself is free; what I would > be paying for was the information provided as a result. This is > basically the way all the information providers via 800 phrase their > answer: carriage itself is indeed 'free' or reverse charged. You pay > for the information we give you while chatting. So if you get a non-published number, then it should NOT be billed, because you get no information. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Certainly you get information. You were informed that the person you are trying to reach has chosen to not be listed. Or perhaps you were informed that the person you are trying to reach is not listed at all and (by implication) does not have phone service, at least in his name. The operator did not just ring off and tell you nothing at all. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pritter@nit.AirTouch.COM (Phil Ritter) Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO Organization: AirTouch Cellular, Los Angeles Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 16:14:03 GMT All "800" services that reverse bill are a special problem for most cellular carriers (and, presumably, for some smaller telco's and CAPs that are providing line service) because there is generally no way to get a bill from the service provider and return it to our customers the way that the LECs do (it is a really long story, and kinda ugly, but true). In most cases, they just get billed back to the cellular carrier (who refuses to pay...). Its similar to the reason that most cellular carriers block all "900/976" calls from cell phones. Up 'till now, there have been very few of these that are actually likely to get called by cellular customers (but the ones that exist sure can be interesting ;-). MCIs 1-800-CALL-INFO service, however, is providing a "legitimate" service that is actually quite attractive to cellular users (no need to write down the number and re-dial, something that can be quite tricky while driving). It is also being heavily advertised in ways that I would say expressly target cellular (radio commercials ten to twelve times an hour on news stations in the LA area during rush-hour(s) [which are almost all day in LA]). During the first two or three days that MCI offered this service, I noticed that they were not blocking calls from cellular (I also noticed that their database includes, and they will connect call to, certain international numbers). This, of course, provides a massive hole for long-distance fraud (place your calls from a cellular phone, and never receive a bill for the LD -- better still if you are using a cloned cell phone, and we particularly dislike any service that might encourage the airtime bandits). Anyway, they assumed that they would receive correct ANI-II on all cellular originiations to identify and screen those calls. Guess what -- they don't. On the evening of 10/13 they implemented a "temporary" fix that forces them to use a LIDB dip on every call and screen based on the "no collect" class of call screening indicator (I think that they will be forced to leave this on forever, further crimping their profit marings with the cost of the LIDB dip [too bad...]). [On the topic of profit margins, unless their operators and/or directory database get faster, they'll never make money at $.75 -- they currently have too much "work time" per call. Of course, they could be counting on the un-discounted MCI LD for their profits. But this is really another topic altogether ...]. This, of course, also allows anyone else who wants to block the "800 reverse billing" feature of their service and force them to request a billing option by asking their LEC to mark their billing telephone numbers "no collect". For a PBX, you usually only have to mark your pilot number(s) and/or billing telephone number(s), since your calls normally all forward one ANI no matter what line origininated the call. You will also not be able to accept collect calls, but that may not be so bad after all ;-). And, for most organizations, that would be preferable to restricting all "800" calls. Phil Ritter pritter@la.airtouch.com ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 09:57:56 PDT Dave Levenson said: > How about it MCI? AT&T? SPRINT? et al. You can't have it both ways. > Either go back to the original design and guarantee the calling party > that calls to 800 numbers are toll-free, or don't charge your 800 > customers a premium for using them. This might be a way to free up 800 numbers since there was mention of a shortage. 800 could be for no-way-could-there-possibly-be-a-charge- toll- free and 8xx could be for toll-free-but-information-costs-extra. Steve cogorno@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Or just continue using 900/976 for that purpose. 900 is 'toll-free' to the caller (like 800 the carriage is charged to the IP who collects it with the charges for his service). ------------------------------ From: NetWerks@ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Harper) In Les Reeves writes: > After giving the operator Pat's name and city, and waiting about 45 > seconds, I was told that there were two listings, one non-published > and one unlisted. Hmmm. I asked for another name and the operator > informed me that I had used up my two searches. If you have two numbers, it's still considered one search. Two searches consititutes the operator to clear the screen and input another name into the database. Sounds like you were taken advantage of from what you said. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Oct 94 16:22:16 EDT From: mark@legend.akron.oh.us (Mark E Daniel) Subject: Re: Testing 1-800-CALL-INFO In article TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > operator requests it ... but then, how were you to know a call to > an 800 number costs you money? ... remember the astrologers I was at a COCOT payphone a few weeks ago and had the bright idea of wanting to call 1 800 555 1212 to find out the 800-number to Greyhound so I could find out where the local station was (I was in Downtown Cleveland BTW) and it wanted .75 for the first 3 minutes. I hung up and got an Ameritech operator to complete the call for me, which the phone was gracious enough to call. :) After I got the info, I called the 800 number. It let that go through without a problem. I HATE COCOTs! There should be a regulatory body for these people. Maybe someone in the know could meet with them once a month and tell them how to really handle phone calls. I've half thgought of typing up something to let people know that they won't be able to use their voicemail or pagers from these phones. But sometimes a COCOT is all there is in an area. It's depressing. mark@legend.akron.oh.us [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is a regulatory body for 'those people'. It is called the Federal Communications Commission. How effective it is can be debated. In some matters, the FCC is ineffectual. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Testing 1-800-CALL-INFO Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 10:27:21 PDT > been different. I wonder if MCI is using any sort of legitimate data- > base from the local telcos or if they have strung together some sort > of outdated cross-reference books where half the entries are out of > date and a couple years old. Sounds like a ripoff to me; best limit > use of the service to coin phones (Genuine Bell or COCOT, I don't care) > and of course be prepared to deposit the 75 cents in coins when the > operator requests it ... but then, how were you to know a call to Would this work? I was under the impression that only AT&T had the equipment to handle coin calls. Could an 800 service request coins from a coin phone? Steve cogorno@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No it cannot. I was only joking. AT&T is the only carrier with arrangements to collect coins in payphones, and that goes back to the relationship they had with the various Bell Companies for so many years until about a decade ago. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Charging for 800 Calls (was Re: 1-800-CALL-INFO) Date: 18 Oct 1994 18:38:59 GMT Organization: NEARnet, Cambridge, MA In article TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to kravitz@foxtail.com (Jody Kravitz): > When I asked why there was a charge for a call to an 800 number the > answer I got was that the call itself is free; what I would be paying > for was the information provided as a result. This is basically the > answer all the information providers via 800 phrase their answer: > carriage itself is indeed 'free' or reverse charged. You pay for the > information we give you while chatting. PAT] I suppose this makes some sense. Imagine a law office that provides an 800 number, to make it easier for clients to reach them from out of state. If I use that number to call my lawyer, I wouldn't be surprised to be billed later for the time that we spent on the phone. The kicker is that I would also expect to be billed for the time if I called their normal number. In fact, I would expect the bill to be the same in either case -- I'm paying for the lawyer's time, not the phone service. The giveaway that the charge in 800-CALL-INFO is for the information is that they charge by the query, not by the call or minutes. If you call and just chat with the operator (asking about the service, as several of the posters did, or negotiating payment options), you shouldn't be charged. Barry Margolin BBN Internet Services Corp. barmar@near.net ------------------------------ From: jbucking@pinot.callamer.com (Jeff Buckingham) Subject: Charges For Calling 800 Numbers Date: 18 Oct 1994 02:38:33 GMT Organization: Call America, San Luis Obispo CA USA Earth Sol I work in the long distance/operator services business and MCI does not have the right to charge people for calling 800 numbers. The FCC just clarified this within the last few weeks. My suggestion is not to block 800 but just refuse to pay any charges to 800 numbers wihen they appear on the local phone bill. The local phone company will not disconnect service for these types of charges. Jeff Buckingham (jbucking@callamerica.com) Call America 4251 South Higura Street, Suite 800, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-545-5100 (Voice) 805-541-7007 (Fax) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: MCI disputes that they are charging you for calling their number. They say they are charging you for providing information. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Oct 94 19:50 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be Banned Greetings. The wave of publicity for the MCI 800-CALL-INFO nationwide directory assistance service is putting into sharp focus the utter stupidity of any 800 numbers being allowed to be charged to the caller. Even if one doesn't assume a rash of "caller pays services" being marketed behind 800 numbers, the mere existence of this one heavily advertised number will result in consumer confusion ("I thought 800 numbers were free?!") and many businesses being forced to program their phone systems to block 800 numbers as they currently do 900 numbers. (Many phone systems do not have the ability to block on other than a full area code basis -- and many businesses might well choose to block the entire code in any case out of fear of other charging 800 numbers popping up without warning). And of course, most people don't have phone systems with programmable area code/prefix blocking -- are the telcos going to offer free 800 number blocking now? And then what about the conventional "callee pays" 800 numbers that most people have to use on a frequent basis? How will they reach those and still block the chargeable 800 numbers, which might have any arbitrary charge associated with them? I had thought that recent FCC decisions (attempting to crack down on "adult conversation" lines using 800 recharging schemes) were requiring that a formal, pre-existing billing agreement (specifically accepting such charges) be in place before such charging could be done. How does 800-CALL-INFO fit into this? Having 800 numbers that charge the caller is far worse than 900 or 976 numbers! At least with the latter two you always knew that calls to those prefixes would cost the caller. But if 800 numbers start to charge callers, with no obvious way for the caller to know which calls will charge, how much they will cost (is there any limit?), and no generally available mechanism to block those charging calls, it's a blueprint for the demise of 800 service. As far as I can tell, caller charging 800 numbers are simply an attempt at an "end-run" around 900 blocking, and they should simply be banned. The carriers/telcos should not be permitted to use the one area code that has finally been firmly established in people's minds as "toll free" for chargeable calls. Businesses with conventional 800 numbers should be outraged that the value of their 800 numbers will be reduced by consumer confusion and possible blocking -- and they should make their feelings known to their local telcos and long distance carriers. The telcos, carriers, and the FCC should take action immediately to put a stop to the entire ill-conceived concept of 800 numbers that bill to the calling party. --Lauren-- P.S. I have a call in to MCI consumer affairs (800-695-4405) on this issue. I'll report back about what they have to say officially about this. The 102220 operator who gave me the number made a point of telling me (after we finished talking about 1-800-CALL-INFO) that at least the MCI consumer affairs number was still a toll-free 800 number. How wonderful. --LW-- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Would you also ban 1-800-CALL-ATT? As memory serves, you can place long distance calls via that number and one of the options is 'press (x) to have this call billed to the number you are calling from ...' Would you ban all the long distance companies which use some 800 number as a way to reach their switch when other access is unavailable (such as 10xxx being blocked) under the same rationale, or is this National Pick On MCI Week? Unfortunatly, the established method of getting directory assistance (by dialing areacode-555-1212) is monopolized by AT&T and the telcos who properly suck up to them. No matter who you have as your presubscribed long distance carrier, what happens when you dial areacode-555-1212? Well, your call goes to AT&T and they charge you 75 cents! So MCI is charging 75 cents just like AT&T, for two requests just like AT&T, but how are they supposed to get access? I guess they could go on 900 and do it, but the trouble with 900 is its rotten reputation these days. Maybe they could use 700 (since all carriers get to use the entire 700 space as they wish). PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 11:14:20 EDT From: Stephen Tihor Subject: 800-Number Billing Given the numebr of toll restrictor schemes that can not easilly block 800 number calls I think what we wought to be petioning the FCC to establish is the principle that a caller to an 800 number can not be presumed to have the autority to authorize billing to the calling number. If one wants to sell information that way get them to provide some other billing mechanism. The current scheme can not be blocked by a "reasonable man" without heroic efforts and is an unfair burden. ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Billable 800 Service Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 14:45:08 GMT 800 service was designed to allow a business to attract prospective customers by offering something free. Devices which attract prospective customers are called advertising. The called party is generally billed more for inbound 800 calls than for other calls of the same distance and duration. The premium is payment for advertising. Pat correctly points out that a toll-free call to an 800 number has often been used to buy something -- information, merchandise, or services, paid-for by out-of-band means such as credit cards. He also points out that Western Union Telegraph Company has, for many years, offered its services via 800 numbers, and used in-band billing to the calling telephone number. The advertising works! Today, when we dial a 900 or 976 number, the law requires the service-provider to announce the cost of the call and to offer the caller the opportunity to end the call before any service has been dispensed, to avoid being billed for it. On my test-call to 800-CALL-INFO, I was merely asked for a city, state, and name to be looked up. I was never told that a charge was being applied to my telephone bill. After I provided a city and name, and was given a telephone number, the operator offered to connect me, at MCI's "regular low rate" or something similar. Had I not listened to the radio commercials or read this Digest, I would very likely have had the impression that charges only applied if the connection offer was accepted. I propose that 800 service-providers which apply charges to the caller's phone bill be subject to the same regulations which apply to 900 and 976 service-providers. Warn the caller and offer a quick exit. Perhaps after a few years, and after the demise of the public expectation that 800 numbers are free calls, this regulation can be relaxed. At that time, the premium price paid by recipients of 800 calls should also dissappear -- the 800 number will lose its advertisement value. If it doesn't attract prospective customers, I'll discontinue advertising an 800 number and simply offer the 908 number which appears below. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For many, many years, calls to 555-1212 were also free. Do the operators there now announce the fact that your call to that number costs 75 cents? Local calls to 411 used to be free and there is no announcement made when dialing that there is now a charge ... and yes, in some places directory assistance offers to make the connection afterward for the low price of thirty cents or something like that. People, you can protest all you want and say you are not going to pay for a call to 800-CALL-INFO but in the case of 555-1212 the 75 cent charge is tariffed. If 800-CALL-INFO is also tariffed by MCI, and I have no reason to suspect it is not, then you will pay for that also or risk disconnection of service. The rule about being allowed to renege on payment to information providers only applies with 900/976 and probably with non-tariffed guys on the 800 side like the astrologers and the sex lines. Whenever a service is tariffed then the law says you pay. Ignorance is not an excuse, although it is probably sufficient one time for a goodwill writeoff. The only answer, as Lauren and others point out, is to disallow any so-called 'in-band' billing to telephone numbers via 800. You have to have a 900/976 number if you want telco to bill, or conversely, you must do credit card or open account or prepayment if you want to give information on 800 (or make no charge at all, such as airlines, etc). I would also require everyone who wishes to bill to a telephone number to subscribe to the national database of 'no collect' or 'billed number screening' subscribers, and require AT&T/MCI/Sprint (the three joint- proprietors of that database) to make it available fairly at arms- length to all subscribers. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #401 ****************************