Miss-Delectable
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 17,160
- Reaction score
- 7
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051119/NEWS/511190315/1001
As providers of Internet-based phone relay service for the deaf seek new ways to keep fraudulent callers from preying on their businesses, South Dakota's senators have pledged to investigate the problem.
Republican Sen. John Thune said he would contact the Federal Communications Commission about the problem.
"The reports of abuse circulating right now are extremely disturbing," Thune said. "Taking advantage of our deaf community and the men and women who serve them is offensive and wrong. ... If a change in the law or regulation is needed, then we will strongly consider it."
Since its inception in 2002, Internet relay service for the deaf has been plagued by illegitimate users. Scammers in Africa discovered the service as a means to place free, untraceable calls to businesses in the United States, using bogus credit-card numbers to order large amounts of merchandise.
By logging onto Web sites run by Sprint, AT&T and others, scam artists pose as deaf people, using operators legally obligated to put voice to their typing as middlemen. Communication Service for the Deaf, headquartered in Sioux Falls, operates call centers for Sprint's relay service, including one here with 250 to 300 operators.
Once communication is established between an Internet user and the call center, the call cannot be disconnected by the operator, with few exceptions. The Americans with Disabilities Act established the relay system more than a decade ago, but the Internet service is relatively new.
"What that whole law stands for is functional equivalence," CSD spokesman Rick Norris said of the ADA. "And that's what we are striving for."
That means the relay provider's goal is to allow deaf Americans to use the phone system on an equal basis with everyone else. Operators are not listening for potential fraud during normal, nonrelay phone calls, Norris said, so the relay service must not monitor the phone calls of the deaf and hard of hearing.
Julianne Fisher, communications director for Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., said he is concerned about the situation and has two staff members gathering information on the issue.
"It's a complex issue," Fisher said. "You don't want to take away somebody's ability to communicate with the outside world."
South Dakota also has a native at the FCC's highest level. Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein is a Rapid City native and the son of a state legislator.
"I take reports of abuse of our relay services very seriously," Adelstein wrote in an e-mail. "The FCC must ... explore any changes to our rules that can shut down abuses without undercutting these very critical services."
Relay providers such as Sprint say they are constantly looking for ways to stop the system's abuse. Barbara Narvaez, a business development manager in Sprint's telecom relay service group, said her company is working on technological innovations to keep the fraudulent Internet calls from reaching relay centers such as CSD.
"We have an internal system where it can identify the foreign IP addresses," she said. An IP, or Internet Protocol, address is a unique network identification number.
But the IP mapping was effective for only a month, according to a memo to CSD call center employees, before "those using the service for less than desirable reasons found another way around the system."
Narvaez confirmed that but said Sprint has other proprietary technology that helps to keep the calls out.
"It's still effective to some degree," she said of the IP blocking. But "there's still the potential for them to have another IP address the next day."
Narvaez said that Sprint's relay operation is profitable. Providers get money for all relay services on a per-minute basis. But people on all sides of the issue agree that fraud is confined to the Internet-based calls, and Narvaez said Sprint's share of the Internet relay market is relatively small.
How much providers are paid for relay service is confidential, said Jackie Williams of the National Exchange Carriers Association, which administers the fund used to pay providers. That fund is collected from interstate communications companies, but the cost is typically passed on to consumers in fees on their long-distance bills.
Narvaez said Sprint is working to make businesses aware of the problem. A notice from Sprint to business owners outlined tips for avoiding fraud on the relay system.
Large orders requiring very fast shipping, items being referred to as pieces, a buyer who doesn't care about price and a lack of knowledge about the products being ordered all should warn business owners that the person speaking through the operator might not be deaf and might be attempting to commit fraud, Narvaez said.
As providers of Internet-based phone relay service for the deaf seek new ways to keep fraudulent callers from preying on their businesses, South Dakota's senators have pledged to investigate the problem.
Republican Sen. John Thune said he would contact the Federal Communications Commission about the problem.
"The reports of abuse circulating right now are extremely disturbing," Thune said. "Taking advantage of our deaf community and the men and women who serve them is offensive and wrong. ... If a change in the law or regulation is needed, then we will strongly consider it."
Since its inception in 2002, Internet relay service for the deaf has been plagued by illegitimate users. Scammers in Africa discovered the service as a means to place free, untraceable calls to businesses in the United States, using bogus credit-card numbers to order large amounts of merchandise.
By logging onto Web sites run by Sprint, AT&T and others, scam artists pose as deaf people, using operators legally obligated to put voice to their typing as middlemen. Communication Service for the Deaf, headquartered in Sioux Falls, operates call centers for Sprint's relay service, including one here with 250 to 300 operators.
Once communication is established between an Internet user and the call center, the call cannot be disconnected by the operator, with few exceptions. The Americans with Disabilities Act established the relay system more than a decade ago, but the Internet service is relatively new.
"What that whole law stands for is functional equivalence," CSD spokesman Rick Norris said of the ADA. "And that's what we are striving for."
That means the relay provider's goal is to allow deaf Americans to use the phone system on an equal basis with everyone else. Operators are not listening for potential fraud during normal, nonrelay phone calls, Norris said, so the relay service must not monitor the phone calls of the deaf and hard of hearing.
Julianne Fisher, communications director for Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., said he is concerned about the situation and has two staff members gathering information on the issue.
"It's a complex issue," Fisher said. "You don't want to take away somebody's ability to communicate with the outside world."
South Dakota also has a native at the FCC's highest level. Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein is a Rapid City native and the son of a state legislator.
"I take reports of abuse of our relay services very seriously," Adelstein wrote in an e-mail. "The FCC must ... explore any changes to our rules that can shut down abuses without undercutting these very critical services."
Relay providers such as Sprint say they are constantly looking for ways to stop the system's abuse. Barbara Narvaez, a business development manager in Sprint's telecom relay service group, said her company is working on technological innovations to keep the fraudulent Internet calls from reaching relay centers such as CSD.
"We have an internal system where it can identify the foreign IP addresses," she said. An IP, or Internet Protocol, address is a unique network identification number.
But the IP mapping was effective for only a month, according to a memo to CSD call center employees, before "those using the service for less than desirable reasons found another way around the system."
Narvaez confirmed that but said Sprint has other proprietary technology that helps to keep the calls out.
"It's still effective to some degree," she said of the IP blocking. But "there's still the potential for them to have another IP address the next day."
Narvaez said that Sprint's relay operation is profitable. Providers get money for all relay services on a per-minute basis. But people on all sides of the issue agree that fraud is confined to the Internet-based calls, and Narvaez said Sprint's share of the Internet relay market is relatively small.
How much providers are paid for relay service is confidential, said Jackie Williams of the National Exchange Carriers Association, which administers the fund used to pay providers. That fund is collected from interstate communications companies, but the cost is typically passed on to consumers in fees on their long-distance bills.
Narvaez said Sprint is working to make businesses aware of the problem. A notice from Sprint to business owners outlined tips for avoiding fraud on the relay system.
Large orders requiring very fast shipping, items being referred to as pieces, a buyer who doesn't care about price and a lack of knowledge about the products being ordered all should warn business owners that the person speaking through the operator might not be deaf and might be attempting to commit fraud, Narvaez said.
