> From: Steve Atkins <steve blighty.com>
> Subject: Re: Hey, SiteFinder is back, again...
> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:07:14 -0800
>
> On Nov 6, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> >> From: Barry Shein <bzsworld.std.com>
> >> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:05:26 -0500
> >> Subject: Re: Hey, SiteFinder is back,
again...
> >>
> >> Since this is verizon, one wonders why this
has never been tried on
> >> wrong, non-working phone numbers?
> >>
> >> Visit your local chevy dealer, no
interest for 12 months! We're
> >> sorry, the number you have reached....
> >>
> >> is it illegal?
> >
> > Before they could do it, they'd have to file --
and get approved -- a
> > tariff with the public utilities commission in
each state.
> >
> > I'm not at all sure how well such a proposal would
fly there.
>
> There are already companies offering advertising
funded
> long distance service. And advertising funded VoIP
dialtone.
>
> It's not like this is a hypothetical that's bizarrely
out there.
Then there was the day, circa 20 years ago now, that the
ILEC modified
'ring no answer' handling to insert a voice ad for their
call-back service
on every call that hadn't been answered after some small
number (4??) of
rings -- while continuing to ring the line. We had a large
outgoing faxmodem
bank to estabished clients, that would alarm and abort if it
encountered
'VOICE' on a _known_ data-only line.
That was an 'interesting' day.
*VERY* strong words were said to the telco -- to the effect
of 'remove that
misbegotten feature _RIGHT_NOW_, and never, *never* put any
additionnal
'feature' on any of our lines without our specific approval
in writing.'
We weren't the only people expressing extreme displeasure at
the tactic.
I don't know of any lawsuits actually filed -- I do have
direct knowledge
that several were under serious consideration.
I believe that the State regulatory authority made them
remove it as a
'default', and deploy it only for lines where the owner made
specific
request for it to be added.
|
