Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Communications The Almighty Buck United States News Your Rights Online

Telephony Fraudster Gets Lifetime Ban from Telecom Business 116

Posted by Zonk from the consider-things-before-you-cram-them dept.
coondoggie passed us another NetworkWorld link, this one discussing the banning of a shady telecom tycoon convicted for 'cramming'. "The owner of three companies that billed more than $30 million in bogus collect call charges, an activity known as cramming, to millions of consumers throughout the country, has been banned forever from all billing on local telephone bills. Willoughby Farr agreed to the lifetime ban as part of a federal court order settling Federal Trade Commission charges that he directed a massive unauthorized billing scam for more than two and a half years. The settlement contains a monetary judgment of $34,547,140, which will be partially satisfied by Farr's transfer to the Commission of all but $7,500 of his frozen assets, the FTC said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Telephony Fraudster Gets Lifetime Ban from Telecom Business More

Telephony Fraudster Gets Lifetime Ban from Telecom Business

Comments Filter:

  • Market prices (Score:4, Funny)

    by KublaiKhan ( 522918 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @04:25PM (#22655402) Homepage Journal
    So what's it cost to set up a 419-scam workshop in a west African country these days? About $7000?

    • Re:Market prices (Score:5, Funny)

      by DahGhostfacedFiddlah ( 470393 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @05:53PM (#22656542)
      YES IT COSTS US$7000 TO SET UP GUARANTEED MONEY MAKING SCAM. WE WISH TO START SUCH A SCAM. HOWEVER, BY VIRTUE OF OUR POSITION AS CIVIL SERVANTS AND MEMBERS OF THIS PANEL, WE CANNOT ACQUIRE THIS MONEY IN OUR NAMES. I HAVE THEREFORE, BEEN DELEGATED AS A MATTER OF TRUST BY MY COLLEAGUES OF THE PANEL TO LOOK FOR AN OVERSEAS PARTNER INTO WHOSE ACCOUNT WE WOULD TRANSFER THE SUM OF US$21,320,000.00(TWENTY ONE MILLION, THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND U.S DOLLARS). HENCE WE ARE WRITING YOU THIS LETTER. WE HAVE AGREED TO SHARE THE MONEY THUS; 1. 20% FOR THE ACCOUNT OWNER 2. 70% FOR US (THE OFFICIALS) 3. 10% TO BE USED IN SETTLING TAXATION AND ALL LOCAL AND FOREIGN EXPENSES. IT IS FROM THE 70% THAT WE WISH TO COMMENCE THE SCAM.

      PLEASE,NOTE THAT THIS TRANSACTION IS 100% SAFE AND WE HOPE TO COMMENCE THE TRANSFER LATEST SEVEN (7) BANKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE RECEIPT OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATIOM BY TEL/FAX; 234-1-7740449, YOUR COMPANY'S SIGNED, AND STAMPED LETTERHEAD PAPER THE ABOVE INFORMATION WILL ENABLE US WRITE LETTERS OF CLAIM AND JOB DESCRIPTION RESPECTIVELY. THIS WAY WE WILL USE YOUR COMPANY'S NAME TO APPLY FOR PAYMENT AND RE-AWARD THE CONTRACT IN YOUR COMPANY'S NAME.

      WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO DOING THIS BUSINESS WITH YOU AND SOLICIT YOUR CONFIDENTIALITY IN THIS TRANSATION. PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER USING THE ABOVE TEL/FAX NUMBERS. I WILL SEND YOU DETAILED INFORMATION OF THIS PENDING PROJECT WHEN I HAVE HEARD FROM YOU.

      YOURS FAITHFULLY,

      DR CLEMENT OKON

      NOTE; PLEASE QUOTE THIS REFERENCE NUMBER (VE/S/09/99) IN ALL YOUR RESPONSES

  • That's a fine? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IronChef ( 164482 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @04:28PM (#22655442)
    The settlement contains a monetary judgment of $34,547,140, which will be partially satisfied by Farr's transfer to the Commission of all but $7,500 of his frozen assets, the FTC said.

    He billed about $30M in false charges... and it seems like that money is being used to pay the fine.

    Please, someone tell me I am wrong.

    • Re:That's a fine? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by raju1kabir ( 251972 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @05:08PM (#22655956) Homepage
      Unfortunately, he only had about $700K in assets, so he's really repaying about 2% of it. The rest went up his nose or something.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Mr. Underbridge ( 666784 )

        Unfortunately, he only had about $700K in assets, so he's really repaying about 2% of it. The rest went up his nose or something.

        You may seize my assets, but you can't erase the memories of night after night spent with mountains of coke and all the hookers my Viagra-riddled knob can handle!


    • so...he screws us (meaning consumers) and the Feds take his ill gotten boodle? He is in reality a revenue stream generator for money to a fed alphabet soup? this trend is common in many fields; Steal, relinquish money to a Fed fine, plea bargin, released; start new company, mix and repeat

  • give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @04:30PM (#22655468)
    So, lets see... If i smoke a joint in some states i go to jail. If i bilk millions of people out of tens of millions of dollars i get.... probation, and a fine.

    This is so bs, asswipe(s) should be thrown in jail. Sounds like someone's back got scratched.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.

    • So, lets see... If i smoke a joint in some states i go to jail. If i bilk millions of people out of tens of millions of dollars i get.... probation, and a fine.
      There has never been any national hysteria over white collar crime in the same way that there has been over drugs. National condemnation of white collar crimes... yes. Hysteria, no.

      Don't forget that this case is being settled, not taken all the way to a jury verdict.

    • Wrong prespective (Score:4, Interesting)

      by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland@y[ ]o.com ['aho' in gap]> on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @05:29PM (#22656216) Homepage Journal
      What he got was fine for the crime. Basically fines of all the money, not allowed to work in the industry.
      Punishment fits the crime, and taxes don't go into keeping him in prison.

      The problem is that smoking a joint laws are too tough.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nexuspal ( 720736 )
        The punishment surely does not fit the crime. No jail time? This is absurd, and absurd you would support this obvious miscarriage of justice due to appearant cronyism. The hurt caused by this mans actions far exceed whatever value he had to society. He should get 10 years minimum...
        • And not in some cushy, white-collar joint.

        • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

          by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

          The hurt caused by this mans actions far exceed whatever value he had to society. He should get 10 years minimum...

          Could you please explain how locking this guy up for ten years will aid society?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by nexuspal ( 720736 )
            It's called the Punishment part of our legal system. It helps society because it shows that if you hurt x number of people, you will be hurt back proportionally, not just fined for 2 percent of what you stole. Sentences like this make me want to rip people off as well, because the consequences of getting caught are low, and if caught, the punishment will be nill. Punishment is meant to deter this from happening again, and absense of punishment will just add fuel to the fire. Hope that answered your ques

            • It's called the Punishment part of our legal system. It helps society because it shows that if you hurt x number of people, you will be hurt back proportionally, not just fined for 2 percent of what you stole.

              Studies have shown that it doesn't do this. Even the death penalty doesn't deter crime. Nice try, though.

              Sentences like this make me want to rip people off as well, because the consequences of getting caught are low, and if caught, the punishment will be nill.

              It's spelled nil, and let's see if you can get away with it. Besides, this is how the WHOLE WORLD IS RUN.

              How do you think the bushes GOT their money? "Behind every great fortune is a great crime."

              (they're just an example)

              Hope that answered your question.

              It does explain to me that you don't know what you're talking about, and are just another typical punishment type.

              • Between "Behind every great fortune is a great crime." and "just another typical punishment type." I am at a loss of words... Your world view is highly convoluted to say the least. Also, thanks for letting me know how to spell nil, that was awesome...
              • Even the death penalty doesn't deter crime.

                We don't have a Death Penalty.

                We have a IF-you-kill-enough-people-(or-a-cop),-in-a-bad-enough-way,-AND-you-live-in-a-Death-Penalty-state,-AND-they-have-enough-evidence-to-go-for-the-DP,-AND-the-prosecutor-wants-to-go-for-the-DP,-AND-the-accused-doesn't-plea-bargain-it-down,-AND-there-are-no-mistakes-during-the-trial,-AND-if-the-jury-is-convinced-to-kill-you,-AND-if-the-numerous-mandatory-appeals-all-fall-thru,-AND-if-the-governor-doesn't-need-the-minority-vote-to-

              • Even the death penalty doesn't deter crime.
                Perhaps that says more about the (quite small) range of offences it can be applied to than it does about deterrence in general.

                One thing's certain, when it comes to financial crimes just making the offender hand back his ill-gotten gains isn't much of a deterrent; worst the crook can do is break even.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by rocca ( 61281 )
            You mean _other_ than preventing him from ripping off thousands of others for millions of dollars next month?

            Captcha: undergo

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AuMatar ( 183847 )
        He didn't pay nearly what was lost, so no it doesn't fit the crime. In addition it lends no reason why others shouldn't do it in the future- why shouldn't I commit massive fraud if there's no real punishment other than returning to square 1 at the end?

        He should e forced to work on a chain gain and like in a 6x8 box until he's paid off the 30M plus a major fine. At minimum wage, I expect that to take him a few centuries.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          He should e forced to work on a chain gain and like in a 6x8 box until he's paid off the 30M plus a major fine. At minimum wage, I expect that to take him a few centuries.

          I'd say something more constructive is in order. Let him pay back as much as he can to the victims (plus 30% interest for the 'loan' and a signifiicant penelty for taking out that 'loan' without asking). The rest he can work off mowing their lawns, sweeping their roof, washing their cars, etc.

          Once he has paid back all of that, he can

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rtechie ( 244489 )
        While I agree that smoking a joint laws are too tough, I disagree that a fine (which he won't pay) and being told not to do it again is sufficient penalty for the theft of $30 million. He's almost certainly going to run more scams given this slap on the wrist. I think a felony conviction for fraud, and 6 months in jail is sufficient penalty. That might actually deter him (and others).

      • Refunding the money isn't enough. The fine has to be the at least the maximum conceivable profit from one instance of the crime, divided by the probability of any instance of the crime being discovered. Anything less is not a deterrent, but merely regulatory complicity: The selling of a license to steal.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by xj ( 958167 )
        Rather than complaining that joint smoking laws are too tough why don't you consider alternative forms of recreation that have a more favorable risk benefit analysis say crack for example.
        You might end up as mayor of D.C.
    • He should go to jail, but to be honest all he took was money. There are certain murderous criminals that have caused the death of thousands who still have their job, and money. Just saying, seeing as we have a finite amount of prison space, lets save it for people for whom it is dangerous to be around. Taking everything this guy has is a good start.
      • So when I kick down your door and wave a pistol in your face but walk away with only money, "all I took was money"? And I get off with just a fine?

        I think the pass that's given to white collar crooks in the U.S. is just sad; all it does is promote the bullshit technical legalism that passes for morality as well as furthering the business philosophy that technical manipulation of markets and the financial system is the same as real business, let alone industry.

        • Did he say that? Or did say the complete opposite? I think anyone that kicks down a door and waves a pistol about with the intention of robbing someone is in the "dangerous" group he implied should be put in prison. Having $5-8 dollars taken from you through unfair call charges might spoil your day. What you describe might affect the victim for their whole life. I'm not defending this guy, but to group him with armed robbers is a bit of a stretch.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by swb ( 14022 )
            You're making my point -- the "crime" isn't defined by the monetary loss, which means white collar crimes like this should not be treated simply as someone stealing some almost-negligible amount of money.
            • Putting a gun to my face is a far cry for a phone scam. I was just making a point that only money was lost, and to remember that perspective. And why can't I treat this as someone simply stealing an almost negligible amount of money a couple million times?
      • I always find it odd that most people have a much stronger reaction to crimes that do a lot of damage to one person (rape, kidnapping, murder, arson etc) than to crimes that do a small ammount of damage each to a very large groups of people (like this one) even though the total damage in this case is massive and by some calculations is more significant than a single murder.

        lets say the average salary is $30000 that means he stole a THOUSAND YEARs worth of average salery. If we assume a working lifetime is 5

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by psychodelicacy ( 1170611 )
          How frightened are you of being scammed out of $10? What would that do to your life? How frightened are you of being attacked, raped, beaten, or murdered? The answers you would get to those questions from most people should tell you why they may react less strongly to someone who has stolen little amounts of money from millions of people.
      • That was a sneaky way to make a crack about our Commander and Chief!!!!
        • Actually, I originally did write that we should save the space for those who cause the death of thousands and live safely at home, I guess my subconscious still got the message through ;)

    • on 03-05-08 01:30 PM (#22655468) So, lets see... If i smoke a joint in some states i go to jail. If i bilk millions of people out of tens of millions of dollars i get.... probation, and a fine. This is so bs, asswipe(s) should be thrown in jail. Sounds like someone's back got scratched.

      I strongly disagree. The solution is to not send stoners to jail. Nonviolent criminals should not be sent to prison. The US has more people behind bars than any other country in the world, including China. We also lead the

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dissy ( 172727 )

        I strongly disagree. The solution is to not send stoners to jail. Nonviolent criminals should not be sent to prison. The US has more people behind bars than any other country in the world, including China. We also lead the world in prisoners per capita; over 1% of our population is behind bars.

        I do believe in what you said 100%, and all but two words are painfully true.
        But please don't try to make it sound like the US is worse than china.

        Yes, the US system is broken very very badly. It desperately needs fixed. Many laws should be relaxed if not totally removed.

        But the reason we have more people in prison than china is because that same number of people in china are simply killed, if not by sentence, then directly on the spot with nothing close to a trial.

    • really, how nice to let him keep $7500. Most divorced dads would like to keep that much money after they divorce but the state takes it... or how about that kid with the joint when they take the last $100 as "criminal proceeds" so he can't make bail.

      Remember boys and girls.. steal BIG! Then you don't go to jail.
  • What a great "call" on the judge's part.

    It was even "collect."

    Classic.
  • Why are all but $7,000 of his assets being seized? I'd take everything he had, including his underwear.

    • Re:Can someone explain? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by spleen_blender ( 949762 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @04:37PM (#22655556)
      Because he is a human being who still needs a means to be a productive member of society unless you want him to fall into the shady underbelly of crime as most other people in prison do when they are released.

      • My guess is that this person has no morals and he has thus been alloted $7500 to start another scam business.

        Most people in prison are there not because of bad morals but because of factors relating to drug use. Unlike the vast, immoral fraud committed here, drug use is treated as a crime punishable by prison and is not treated as a health issue [cnn.com], as it should be. If these fraudsters were sent to prison, they might not reform, but they certainly would pay for their crime. When was the last time a judge sa

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by spun ( 1352 )

          When was the last time a judge said to a drug addict "spit it up and we'll let you go"?
          Last Friday. Wait, a judge? Well, the talking camel did claim to be a judge, but the chocolate fish said he was more of an arbitrator...

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Jawnn ( 445279 )
        "Because he is a human being who still needs a means to be a productive member of society unless you want him to fall into the shady underbelly of crime..."

        Too late.

        Jeebus... What part of "he stole over 30 million dollars" did you not get?

      • Insightful? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by HornWumpus ( 783565 )

        I know lots of human beings, including me, that have at one time or another worked crappy jobs with no more then $20 in the bank at the end of the month.

        So can this scumbag. For the rest of his life. Losing most of his paltry check to garnishment every pay period. Hopefully he can find a nice refrigerator box to live in for all I care.

        Let him suck it up. He's lucky he's not in 'pound him in the ass prison'. He would be if I were in charge. The prisoners families get financially raped every time they ma

        • And that accomplishes nothing as we can clearly see by the recidivism rates of today's criminal justice system. Two wrongs do NOT make a right.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AuMatar ( 183847 )
            The recidivism rate on this kind of crime is 100% anyway. This isn't a kid who did something stupid and will grow out of it- its someone with no morals who knowingly bilked people out of millions of dollars. This is exactly the kind of person we need to get permanently off the streets- because he'll do the same exact thing again.
          • Taking all the stolen money back is not a wrong. No matter how much you say it.
        • Also, you probably did this with already having a mode of transportation and a place to stay. You weren't dropped into the workforce with NOTHING, you at least had some infrastructure supporting you, even if it was meager, and $7,500 goes away VERY quickly when it is used to get yourself on your feet.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jekler ( 626699 )
      That sounds just like something Tobias would say. You sure stuck your johnson in your mouth that time.

  • How much to the Consumer? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Farakin ( 1101889 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @04:34PM (#22655526)
    Why isn't this money being refunded to the consumer? When I read stories like this, and the ones where the FCC levies fines for unacceptable practices I see the consumers that were affected getting screwed. I may be missing something here, but I AM ANGRY!!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by plague3106 ( 71849 )
      Well, personally if a collect call appeared on my bill I'd dispute it. I would hope others do the same. If you can't be bothered to look at your bill, oh well.
      • I would assume this only applies to land lines, as you can't collect call a cellphone (can you?).

        • Re:How much to the Consumer? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by veganboyjosh ( 896761 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @05:33PM (#22656300)
          I checked this out a while ago. My sister spent some time locked up, and I wanted to be able to receive collect calls from her. She tried calling my cell number a few times, but was told the number wouldn't accept them. I never got a call. I called T-Mobile to "activate" a collect call um...authorization/ability/whatever, and was informed that I couldn't accept collect calls on my phone. Even if I wanted to. The CSR told me they didn't have the ability to allow it, due to customers denying collect call charges once they appeared on the bill. I couldn't tell if it was just a policy to turn collect call receiving off to begin with, and with a little pushing they'd allow them, but after 30 minutes of going up their chain of command, and no different answer, I gave up.

          I'm sure someone else here knows more about this than me (or the not-so-helpful T-Mobile CSR's.)
          • Thanks for the input. I'm also a T-mobile customer, and since I asked my question on Slashdot, did about 20 minutes of research on the web. It appears almost all major cellphone providers in the US disallow collect calls. I understand that there are limited situations in where someone would need to make a collect call, but as you've illustrated, those cases still exist and need to be accommodated.
  • Does claiming to be Detective John Kimble count as fraud?

  • Whose lifetime, his or the industry's? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by davidwr ( 791652 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @04:45PM (#22655678) Homepage Journal
    The "Local telephone bill" as an entity probably won't around in another 10 or 20 years.

    Either he's turned a new leaf or he's hasn't. If he has, the ban is moot. If he hasn't, he'll find another way to be a crook.
  • I mean, the man's nearly destitute now. How's he supposed to start up a different set of fraud companies with just $7,500?

    What's the world coming to?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )
      fraud companies are cheep to set up.
      No legal paper work, leases on equipment based on the credit of your new sham company.

      A motivated could set up a phone scheme fraud for nothing, not pay any of the bills, and make a lot of money in a month and then disappear.

  • Why is this legal? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by og_sh0x ( 520297 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @05:08PM (#22655972) Homepage
    Can someone tell me why it's even legal to put these charges on the phone bill? On more than one occasion I've had to deal with services being crammed this way, and I don't even think it was from this guy, the service that billed me was not mentioned in TFA. Why should we allow this sleaze to continue? Does anyone know of a way to opt out of this, similar to declining long distance and 1-900 calls on your phone?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by tompaulco ( 629533 )
      I once had a bogus charge on my local bill. It was for a sports hotline. I have not interest in sports, so obviously did not call it. I called and complained to the phone company, who said they could not remove the charge (why not. you put it there.) They said I had to call the company directly. Why? I have no relationship with them. So I called them and they said that basically computers don't make mistakes and if it says I called then I called. I told them I wouldn't pay, and they said that they would put

  • Why not the death penalty? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wytcld ( 179112 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @05:12PM (#22656018) Homepage
    When someone commits theft on this level, why not kill him? In some states we have "three strikes, you're out" laws, with a lifetime in jail for the third crime. This guy committed literally millions of crimes. To keep things in proportion, he should be killed. That's presuming he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt, of course.

    Now, you could say the "three strikes" thing is three convictions, not three crimes. But there's nothing to stop the prosecutors from prosecuting each crime singly. Get to the third conviction, jail him for life; get to the Xth, kill him. Simple. Fair. Proportional.
    • We disagree as to whether killing people is an appropriate response to crime (c'mon, you can do better: gulags can be a punishment worse than death!). But even when you believe that capital punishment is an appropriate response, he's only inconvenienced people, not killed anyone. Nor has he physically harmed anyone. You could even argue that the crammed bills are most often accepted as legitimate and paid in full, making his work near to victimless. But $34m in funds not due him was collected, and his anti-

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )
      First off, nobody gets killed for fraud, not should they.
      Second, there is no reason to spend more money locking him up for this on convictions.
      Third, it's three convictions, not crimes.
      Forth, no individual crime is worth prosecuting them individually.

      "Simple. Fair. Proportional."
      It's none of those.

      • First off, nobody gets killed for fraud, not should they.
        True, we need to keep a sense of proportion here. How about a strike with a split bamboo cane? Per victim, of course.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AuMatar ( 183847 )
        Yes, there is- because he'll commit fraud again. Lock him up for life to protect the rest of society. People like that should never be let out.
        • Why make the general population pay for his crime? Put him under house arrest (he's allowed to go to a job, to purchase the basic necessities like food and clothing, to court if he's called, and that's it) for a LONG time. Make him pay for someone to monitor his house arrest on his dime. Instead of or in addition to house arrest, deny him the tools he used in his crime -- a permanent ban from using the telephone.
    • Much as I find this guy's behaviour odious (and consider that he probably got off lightly), why do I get the feeling that your allegedly "Simple. Fair. Proportional." solution to this problem is in fact just the usual Slashdotter's pseudo-logic being used to justify your underlying bloodthirsty desire to see this guy hang?

      Or let me put it another way. You felt that the guy deserved to die for what he'd done and *then* you tried to justify it "logically"- I'm damn willing to bet that it wasn't the other wa
      • I believe he was using a somewhat uncommon tactic of bringing a concept to its absurd extreme.

        3 strikes and prison for life. 10 strikes and death. Stuff like that.

        However, I'm the kind of person who says that people who do violent crimes that we DO kill them for should not be killed. People who do acts of serial murder or other mass killings are by definition mentally instable, and capitally punishing insanes is unconstitutional.

        I'm still for capital punishment for treason though. I've yet to see a reasonab

    • It just ain't the way we do things in a civilized country. Three strikes and your out that way? My god man I couldhave you on the chair in an hour. Just observe you in traffic I am sure you commit more then three violations on a single trip, it is almost impossible not too.

      The legal system ain't perfect, a sure sign of it is that there are so many different systems.

      The difference between for instance the dutch system and the US is that the dutch system doesn't have consecutive sentences. For instance in a

    • Because it costs about the same amount of money for the court system to go through the mandatory appeals process for any death penalty case. Besides, I much prefer a mandatory true life sentence - you die in prison, period. Instead of a short stay and then he's beyond pain, he gets to be beaten up, bullied and generally abused for decades in an overcrowded, highly hostile group. Think of it as a version of hell that even atheists can believe in.
  • You mean to tell me that there are authorized billing scams ? I get it, that must be my monthly cellphone bill.
    • You mean to tell me that there are authorized billing scams ? I get it, that must be my monthly cellphone bill.

      Monthly phone bill, period. It's not like the Telcos manage their landline billing practices any more honestly than the cell phone companies do. Hell, a few years ago I moved, and had SBC come out to hook up my new lines. I got a bill for $350 for "installation" (after having been promised a thirty dollar charge.) According to SBC, the technician spent almost a whole day "wiring" my house. Which

      • I went out and bought a punchdown block and did it myself the right way, after spending three hundred and fifty bucks to have them not do it.

        You should have threatened to sue and sic the FCC on them. The FCC loves to crawl up telcos' asses looking for places to attach a fine.

        • I did ... they didn't seem to care. "Go ahead, make my day" was the attitude I got from SBC's people. The government does have QOS standards in place for the RBOCs, and they can get fined for failing to meet them. As I understand it, the Telcos find it cheaper to just pay the fines and continue to do business as usual.
        • I have no desire to carry that mental image any further, but its hard for FCC or anyone else to crawl up telco's arses looking for places to attach a fine simply because there is so much stinky traffic going the opposite direction all the time.

  • Great, who's next? (Score:4, Funny)

    by TClevenger ( 252206 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @06:04PM (#22656686)
    Now can we go after the scumbags that charge eight bucks a minute for collect calls without warning about it?
  • Lets see, he had employees?
    He directed them to commit a crime?
    He committed that crime how many times?

    Sounds like a RICO charge should be filed, but then again this is the FTC not the justice system.

    You see FTC is administrative, not judicial, they just think they are.
     
  • I'm not quite willing to say that what they do adds up to a murder, I'm not some golem that can stand to compute that sort of thing, but it is despicable. It's little bits of evil that end up hurting the world.
  • http://www.seebs.net/log/archives/000237.html [seebs.net]

    Hundreds of comments on that one. Gives you a pretty good picture of the nature and scope of the operation.

Slashdot Top Deals

Over the shoulder supervision is more a need of the manager than the programming task.

Close