[Asterisk-Users] Re: Teliax billing question

[trixter aka Bret McDanel]

On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 10:13 -0800, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
> >>     from: http://www.trac.org/news/2005/tracnotes-vol-3-22.html
> >
> > The scam isn't new, and its certainly not limited to home 800 numbers.
> > The same basic principles were used by some of the 900 number folks
> > a few years ago as well.
> 
> My fear wasn't that someone would stuff phony charges on my bill (like
> charges for 900 calls that were never made).  I was more afraid of the
> case where someone in bad faith war-dials the 800 number so they can
> collect the 60-cent (???) per call payphone charge.  Will VOIP
> providers let your dispute this charge because the calls were made in
> bad-faith or is this simply a grin-and-bear it type situation?
> 

That could be covered under 18 USC 1343 (wire fraud).  afaik there has
not been a single case that was prosecuted, and for the payphone
operator (providing they meet the compensation requirements of the FCC
rules - 13.65 comes to mind but I havent owned a payphone business since
1998 so I may not remember correctly) to make up some wild story about
how it was a kid or something (which doesnt negate the payphone
operators claim to compensation).  An elligible payphone must be
available for the general public to get access to it.

All payments are typically made through clearinghouses as opposed to
inidvidual carriers processing the billing.  This makes fraud tracking
slightly easier since all the calls are there.  They have kept averages
of total calls by a payphone to compensatable numbers, carrier averages
(ie mci, sprint, at&t, etc) and stuff that way.  

If someone were to use an auto dialer to call a tollfree they violate at
least 47 CFR 64.1200 and I think a criminal statute too (I dont remember
where in the USC it is anymore, but there is one for that).

According to the FCC rules back in 1997-98 on this matter even if fraud
is suspected you must pay the payphone operator.  They also talk about
civil damages being sought, but that doesnt preclude criminal charges,
only gives you easy rights to sue, which of course costs money and the
burden of proof is then upon you.


> I understand that within the PSTN there is a 2-bit value associated
> with the class of phone that the call is placed from (normal,
> payphone, prison-phone).  If voip/pstn gateways started passing this
> on it might make it easier for folks to guard against payphone scams
> by configuring their asterisk to only answer the 800 calls made from
> normal residential phones.

Any reasonable provider should be able to block those calls, however in
a blocking situation its all or nothing.  If you have ani you can look
for the same number calling over and over and reject it that way.  You
should have ani with a tollfree.  

The additional info is commonly not sent and afaik there is no
'standard' way to send that.  SIP IM might work (that is how verisign
sends SS7 info in their SIP-7 product so doing something in this case
shouldnt be *too* hard but the provider has to agree to it).


-- 
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com     Bret McDanel
UK +44 870 340 4605   Germany +49 801 777 555 3402
US +1 360 207 0479 or +1 516 687 5200
FreeWorldDialup: 635378
http://www.sacaug.org/ Sacramento Asterisk Users Group
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20051219/0218d30f/attachment.pgp