Caller Charged When Calling 1-800-555-5555
Mike Morris
> VERY INTERESTING! I've heard all about various proposals to
> allow blocking of caller ID in general (whether on a per line or per
> call basis) as part of the proposals for caller ID here in California.
> Am I to guess that we already have caller ID on calls we place to 800
> numbers? Does the general public know this? (I didn't) This must get
> kinda complicated when we go thru an alternate long distance carrier
> (using 950 or 800 access). I've also seen ads for equipment/software
> that ties caller ID in with your customer database so you know all
> about the customer when you answer the phone. Are "mail order"
> companies currently doing this with 800 numbers?
Yes. I have had a couple customer disservice persons ask me "Have you
moved recently?" when I've called them from work. All my credit
cards, including American Express fall into this category.
It's obvious that they have my account up on the screen before they
answer the call.
Mike Morris WA6ILQ 818-447-7052 evenings
PO Box 1130 Arcadia, CA. 91077
All opinions must be my own since nobody pays
me enough to be their mouthpiece ...
Charlie Mingo
> It's obvious that they have my account up on the screen before they
> answer the call.
According to the {Wall Street Journal}, AmEx used to answer the
phone with "Hello, Mr. Morris," but that freaked too many customers
out. ("How did you find my name? Are you watching me?" etc.) Now
they feign ignorance.
Robert Virzi
800-number to access {USA Today's} information line may function the
way it does. This is pure speculation on my part -- I have no
knowledge of the particulars of the situation.
What happens is this -- Whether you call their info line via
800.555.5555 or 900.555.5555 you get the same recorded message telling
you that the call will cost 95 cents per minute. Controversy raged in
this forum over how they (or anyone) could charge for an 800-call.
{USA Today} has been offerring this service via a 900-line for some
time now. I think it is safe to say that very few service providers
are making money charging for information access, particularly in the
residential market. It is possible that {USA Today} is also finding
it difficult to sell telephone access to information.
If this is in fact the case, they may be taking either of two
approaches. First, they may try giving the information away for free
for a while, just to get people hooked. Once enough people are
hooked, the 800 number could be yanked, leaving the info-junkies no
choice but to pay the 900-number rates.
A second possibility is that this is a precursor to the introduction
of advertisements to the system. {USA Today} may give the service
away to callers, providing they are willing to listen to ads. {USA
Today} would then make their money by selling ads to other companies
interested in reaching their callers. This is more in line with the
newspaper's modus operandi anyway. Advertisers provide the major
revenue stream, readers do not.
For either scenario, the reason for the "billed at 95 cents per
minute" message may simply be that they have only got one system, and
no matter how you call that system, the opening message warns you
about the charge. Don't forget, the message is not provided by the
network, it is delivered by CPE (USA Today's, in this case). If there
were a regular old telephone number to call, I bet it would also warn
you about the 95 cent charge.
As I said earlier, these are only my guesses as to what's going on. I
don't know anything about the particulars of this case. I might as
well add that GTE, GTE Labs, or anyone else takes no responsibility
for what I have said, nor do they necessarily agree with it.
Bob Virzi rv...@gte.com