Talk:Phone fraud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Crime (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Telecommunications (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

Copyleft violation[edit]

(Some of the) Content literally lifted without attribution on a link farm site: http://www.fraudwatchernetwork.com/website/phone-fraud.html JavaWoman 04:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Marketing copy[edit]

The phrase "up to x percent" is marketing copy and has no business in an Encyclopedic article. Editing accordingly. [this anon edit] replaced with a simple supportable statement. --Elvey 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Style / "'Phone"[edit]

To write "phone" as 'phone (with an apostrophe before the word) is bizarre. "Phone" is a word that has been in common usage for many decades, and I've never before seen it apostrophed to clarify (to whom?) that it is an abbreviation of "telephone." 97.123.72.154 (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

AIT[edit]

Artificially Inflated Traffic - needs to be included somewhere in the fraud against telecom suppliers. There is a definition on the BT page http://www.btwholesale.com/pages/static/Pricing_and_Contracts/Contract_Reviews/Artificial_Inflation_of_Traffic.html but this can't be directly copied into WP. John a s (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Bottom Line[edit]

"A carrier's bottom line is significantly impacted by billing fraud." is very strong and unsupported. Should this even be under the article's main area without support? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.200.149.30 (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd be wary of unsourced claims like "$2.88 Billion (USD) – By-Pass Fraud", which fail verifiability (no source, and no evidence international callers would be willing to pay an extra $2.88B to call these places were VoIP shut down - they might just not call at all). The "fraud" label is also hugely POV in that a grey route call is one that's actually been paid for at full local mobile rates. The only sites I can find which call this "fraud" are vendors selling software to detect VoIP calls gated to mobile - and they have a vested interest here. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:783 (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)