Eric Zorn’s recent columns on pay-per-call services (Metro, July 28-29) raised some important issues. Unfortunately, his discussion of Ameritech’s billing for these services was off the mark and warrants clarification.
First, why do we bill for pay-per-call services? It is because customers like these services and want access to them. In addition, customers also want the convenience of paying one bill for all of their phone charges. Nevertheless, should a customer have a dispute with the pay-per-call charges, we are always willing to do whatever is necessary to satisfy their concerns.
A bit more disconcerting is Mr. Zorn’s suggestion that our service representatives should have intimate knowledge of every call or service on a customer’s bill. Although we’re always anxious to help our customers, it is preposterous to suggest that we should peer over their shoulders and sit in judgment of the services they use. We have not done that nor will we start to do that anytime soon.
Even though we monitor to ensure that services on our bill are legitimate, trying to screen all pay-per-call services up front would effectively put us in the role of censor. It is somewhat surprising to see that suggestion coming from the media establishment, a traditional defender of 1st Amendment freedoms. Giving people the freedom to access information over the phone requires us to maintain an open network. It also requires us to maintain a degree of openness in our billing system.
The need to balance our desire to protect customers from fraudulent operators and the need to provide people with the freedom to access information has placed difficult demands on us. But we will continue to do everything we can to maintain this balance in a way that benefits all of our customers.
One thing we won’t do, though, is put ourselves in the role of an intrusive arbiter regarding services our customers use. That would be an insult and just plain wrong.
