- Previous message: Martin Hannigan: "Re: Hey, SiteFinder is back, again..."
- Maybe in reply to: David Lesher: "Hey, SiteFinder is back, again..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: Robert Bonomi (no email)
Date: Tue Nov 06 2007 - 18:41:33 EST
> From: Steve Atkins <>
> 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 <>
> >> 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.
|
|
|