john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (03/17/91)
AT&T's current TV ad compaign is probably the biggest waste of money
Madison Avenue has ever experienced. It is the one that says, "To be
sure you get AT&T, dial 10-ATT-0 and then your number."
What is wrong with this? It does not work. There is not (to my
knowledge) a COCOT on the planet that will allow a call of the form
'10288+0+10D' and actually route the call through AT&T. So what is all
of this advertising buying the company? A lot of ill will from
confused and frustrated customers who discover that there is no way to
do what the ads say, is what.
If AT&T will not accept the real world of COCOTs and provide something
other than 10288 access, then it should at least save its advertising
money for a better campaign, no?
John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395
john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !dmr@csli.stanford.edu (Daniel M. Rosenberg) (03/18/91)
In <telecom11.210.5@eecs.nwu.edu> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > AT&T's current TV ad compaign is probably the biggest waste of money > Madison Avenue has ever experienced. It is the one that says, "To be > sure you get AT&T, dial 10-ATT-0 and then your number." > What is wrong with this? It does not work. There is not (to my > knowledge) a COCOT on the planet that will allow a call of the form > '10288+0+10D' and actually route the call through AT&T. So what is all I'd venture to say that it does not *always* work. John may have already noticed that many Genuine Local Bell Operating Company phones don't always use AT&T as the default carrier, but someone else clearly marked on the instruction card. (The phones at the Palo Alto Veterans Administration Hospital, genuine Pac Bell, for example, use NTI or somesuch, and 10288 works fine.) And there are a few reputable COCOT's I've encountered in airports and hotels (okay, not many) where 10288 works. Moreover, imagine if a lot of people run into phones where 10288 does *not* work. It should, right? Which could very well help to focus attention on dishonest COCOT service providers. Daniel M. Rosenberg Stanford Univ CSLI Opinions here are my own dmr@csli.stanford.edu {apple,ucbvax}!labrea!csli!dmr BIT:dmr%csli@stanford [Moderator's Note: I think AT&T's strategy may well be to keep promoting 10288, getting everyone primed up for it, then start suing on a case by case basis those COCOT operators who refuse to allow it. AT&T will of course have the full authority of the FCC behind them in any such suits they choose to bring. PAT]
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/18/91)
TELECOM Moderator Notes: > [Moderator's Note: I think AT&T's strategy may well be to keep > promoting 10288, getting everyone primed up for it, then start suing > on a case by case basis those COCOT operators who refuse to allow it. > AT&T will of course have the full authority of the FCC behind them in > any such suits they choose to bring. PAT] In the meantime they're continuing to lose money from the many consumers, like me, who carry around a FONcard (or MCI card or whatever) because AT&T refuses to sell us a service we need. Classic AT&T marketing. If it wasn't the fact that they *owned* the phone service to begin with, it would have gone the way of their computer systems division by now. peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com
tcora@pica.army.mil (Tom Coradeschi) (03/18/91)
John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> writes: > AT&T's current TV ad compaign is probably the biggest waste of money > Madison Avenue has ever experienced. It is the one that says, "To be [...] > If AT&T will not accept the real world of COCOTs and provide something > other than 10288 access, then it should at least save its advertising > money for a better campaign, no? Well, John, you certainly have a valid point there, but I think you're missing what I (and I suspect AT&T) see as the more likely scenario. Joe LD Caller walks up to COCOT. Dials 10288+0+xxx and bombs out. Tries again. Bombs again. Gets really pissed off. At who? NOT AT&T. At the COCOT. After all, 10288+ worked just fine at the (name your favorite telco) payphone at work, just yesterday. Rips COCOT off the wall (well, probably not). At least calls the COCOT's information number and gives them hell. Lots of folks do that, and (this is the improbable part) COCOT allows equal access, just to keep from hearing all them nasty cuss words. Just my opinion... tom coradeschi <+> tcora@pica.army.mil <+> tcora@dacth01.bitnet [Moderator's Note: I really think you are correct. I think AT&T's strategy will include keeping the public inflamed at the COCOT people; while employing legal tactics of their own to keep pressure on the COCOT owners; and hope that before long the situation will change as the private owners eventually cave in from the pressure. I really doubt they will let them off by getting an 800/950 number. That would be too easy on the private owners, who everyone loves to hate anyway. PAT]
oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov (03/19/91)
In article <telecom11.210.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > AT&T's current TV ad compaign is probably the biggest waste of money > Madison Avenue has ever experienced. It is the one that says, "To be > sure you get AT&T, dial 10-ATT-0 and then your number." I have seen several COCOTs that do accept 10xxx dialling, but I think that AT&T is mostly still unaware that COCOTs exist and that they blithly ignore the FCC regulations on this in many (most) cases. The real point is for REAL COTs that have MCI or Sprint or some such as default carrier. And, for those, it works! R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955 Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything. [Moderator's Note: Quite honestly, I think AT&T knows *quite well* about the large number of COCOTS infesting the cities of America. And I think they are going to begin pushing the matter very soon, suing the owners of these devices for lost revenue, etc. PAT]
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/20/91)
Even if AT&T gets rid of every COCOT in the country, I will need to retain my FONcard for calls from private FONs. I really think they're cutting off their nose to spite their face. These are the people who killed the AT&T 7300, a computer so good it still has a cult following years after being orphaned twice over. If they had one competant marketer in any sort of controlling position, they would *still* own long distance lock, stock, and AOS. peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com
Bob Yazz <yazz@prodnet.la.locus.com> (03/21/91)
One other point about AT&T's 10288 campaign and potential lawsuits: I've heard a lot more than one AT&T person say that the company doesn't have a history of doing all that well when it goes to court. Why? Public opinion. (The judiciary isn't even Supposed to be immune to it.) Well before the divesta-chewer, Everything that the public could possibly hate about phones would weigh against "the phone company". Maybe now the courts will see fit to insert the cyanoacrylate of public outrage into the insatiable coin slots of COCOTery. Permanently. My latest COCOT experience was Very atypical: the COCOT claimed AT&T as the carrier and lo and behold, AT&T WAS the carrier! The phone still wanted $1.05 for an 800 number tho. BUT, the Pacific Bell operator said that that was one of the few things she could actually do something about -- she could place the 800 call for me. Alas, when I hit the first touchtone button to beep my answering machine the entire phone hung up. As a public service to those in California I'm adding Pac Bell's Own COCOT Complaint 800 number to my .signature file. I only wish their Business Office Reps and Operators knew about it -- they always Love it when I tell them there's somewhere in Pac Bell itself that they can direct angry callers to. Payphone ripoff problems in California? Call 800/352-2201 M-F, 8-5 Bob Yazz -- yazz@lccsd.sd.locus.com
oberman@rogue.llnl.gov (03/22/91)
In article <telecom11.221.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, peter@taronga.hackercorp. com (Peter da Silva) writes: > Even if AT&T gets rid of every COCOT in the country, I will need to > retain my FONcard for calls from private FONs. I really think they're > cutting off their nose to spite their face. Excuse me, but I don't get the point. I can use 10Nnnn dialing either with a "0" for credit card calls or a "1" for billed calls from private phones. In fact, I've never known it to fail since private phones never block anything (except 900 and such). Is there something special about FON cards that I don't know about? R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955
ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) (03/23/91)
In <telecom11.225.6@eecs.nwu.edu> oberman@rogue.llnl.gov writes: > Excuse me, but I don't get the point. I can use 10Nnnn dialing either > with a "0" for credit card calls or a "1" for billed calls from > private phones. .. if they have Equal Access, which is mandated for BOC's. Is it mandatory for independent carriers? Are there still areas in the country that are, er, unEqual? And there's still a problem if you're inside somebody else's PBX system, many of which really don't appreciate 10XXX. Anecdote warning: For a long time, our analog Centrex system at UNL permitted the 10xxx override in a roundabout way. LD calls have to be dialed as 9-area code-number. I took a guess that the '9' was getting passed on as a '1' to the outside world, so I used 90xxx-1-area code-number... and the (700) number reported the right carrier. The Telecommunications Office billed me AT&T rates regardless, but the point was to get on a better line (yes, there was a region where an alternate carrier had better lines than AT&T during that time). When the Centrex was upgraded from an analog switch to a digital switch, the 0xxx1 trick magically failed to work. (This is how it was described to me, so I may be wrong about the switches.) UNL also goofed up the billing that month, during which they 1) failed to apply an AT&T rate cut and 2) forgot how to perform answer supervision, leading to a whole slew of one-minute calls. They rectified both a couple of months later. Michael Ho, University of Nebraska Internet: ho@hoss.unl.edu Disclaimer: Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be applied to any university agency.
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/24/91)
I said: > > Even if AT&T gets rid of every COCOT in the country, I will need to > > retain my FONcard for calls from private FONs. I really think they're > > cutting off their nose to spite their face. I think I should clarify, because there has been some question about this comment... I'm talking about business phones. PBXes in offices rarely allow anything but 1+, and some of them (like the place I now work) won't even allow that unless you have an employee code. But I can call 1-800-877-8000 from anywhere, and get dialtone I can depend on. peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com
merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal L. Schwartz) (03/25/91)
In article <telecom11.234.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, ho@hoss (Tiny Bubbles...) writes: | In <telecom11.225.6@eecs.nwu.edu> oberman@rogue.llnl.gov writes: | > Excuse me, but I don't get the point. I can use 10Nnnn dialing either | > with a "0" for credit card calls or a "1" for billed calls from | > private phones. | .. if they have Equal Access, which is mandated for BOC's. Is it | mandatory for independent carriers? Are there still areas in the | country that are, er, unEqual? GTE here in the Northwest has "select your own 1+ carrier", but no 10XXX dialing. I won't switch from AT&T because of that. I'd really hate to be stuck on a busy traffic day when some undercapicitized carrier is out of lines and not be able to let Ma Bell handle the call. Call me a relic of the past, when there was just one company. :-) Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (03/25/91)
"Randal L. Schwartz" <merlyn@iwarp.intel.com> writes: > GTE here in the Northwest has "select your own 1+ carrier", but no > 10XXX dialing. I won't switch from AT&T because of that. I think that most people, if faced with the prospect of having to select not only a default carrier but the ONLY carrier, would select AT&T. The "big outage" and all the tapdancing by the OCCs notwithstanding, AT&T is still THE most reliable carrier and has the most services available. AT&T is the one carrier, in my experience, that can and will connect you to repair service of another LEC in another area. AT&T still operates its network as if it was the only company providing the nation's long distance service. But while I have cheers for AT&T, GTE gets my jeers. Leave it to GTE to PARTIALLY implement FGD. There is no ambiguity about it: 10XXX dialing is an intregal part of the Feature Group D specification. Most of the people I know or work with use AT&T as PIC and have accounts with other companies using 10XXX. A system that denys 10XXX should not call itself "equal access". > I'd really hate to be stuck on a busy traffic day when some > undercapicitized carrier is out of lines and not be able to let Ma > Bell handle the call. Or the victim of a long distance company that uses Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-ways such that every train accident shuts down the service for miles around. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/27/91)
merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes: > I won't switch from AT&T because of that. I'd really > hate to be stuck on a busy traffic day when some undercapicitized > carrier is out of lines and not be able to let Ma Bell handle the > call. Call me a relic of the past, when there was just one company. :-) Who said I switched from AT&T? AT&T is still my 1+ carrier ... it's just that most of my long-distance calls are from the office and I use my FONcard for those. (And, yes, I occasionally use 10333 when I remember it, and it gets charged to my FONcard account. SPRint is my secondary carrier). peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com)
scott@hsvaic.boeing.com (03/30/91)
"John Higdon" <john@zygot.ati.com> writes: > I think that most people, if faced with the prospect of having to > select not only a default carrier but the ONLY carrier, would select > AT&T. > AT&T is still THE most reliable carrier and has the most services > available. I have to differ with you here. My experiences may not be representative of everyone's, but I have used MCI exclusively for four years now (after having tried out AT&T and US Sprint) and would not want any other company as my 'only carrier'. scott@hsvaic.boeing.com