wah@zach.fit.edu (Bill Huttig) (03/03/91)
What I understand about the various long distance companies would lead me to believe that 950/800 access is different from 10xxx. 950/800 calls require you to have an account with that long distance company and have one of their calling cards. 10xxx calls can be billed to the telephone you are calling from. Therefore most LD Companies need both 950/800 and 10xxx. In the case of AT&T it would be the same calling card since the BOC data base is shared with AT&T (When you ask for an AT&T card they ask the BOC for the number). I don't know why the other companies can't check their calling card data bases like AT&T checks their Universal Card database. When 10xxx started here you had to use the card from that company. They could say something like press 1 to use you Local Phone Company Calling Card press 2 to use your MCI Card or whatever. Now the problem with the Call Me card is that some LD companies other then AT&T do not check the type of card and will accept it for any call. The good thing about 800 personal service is that it is available from phones were there is blocking of 950 and 10xxx dialing. There is no need to have touch tone (If you don't have tone you would have to read you card number to the operator and people could overhear you). [Moderator's Note: Actually, with 10xxx service, neither 800 or 950 is required. After the 10xxx of choice is entered, you can then dial using 1+ or 0+. Everything 950/800 can do, 10xxx can do better. In addition, 10xxx allows billing to the phone being used, something you do not get with 950/800. The main reason these guys do not want to have 10xxx available is because (a) some people would actually use AT&T thus depriving the phone operator of a commission structure they like better than what AT&T will pay, and (b) they would have to program their switches to disallow 'sent-paid' calls over AT&T (if that was their choice) while still allowing 'sent-paid' on the carrier they did want to use. I'd say that's their problem. 10xxx is the method preferred by AT&T. PAT]
Barton.Bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) (03/04/91)
950 access is over the older feature group B trunks, and it is really silly to perpetuate what was ideally a temporary measure. It means PHYSICALLY different trunks and switching equipment. This is wasted dollars which translates to higher prices. The only valid reason 950 must exist is in the few places that don't yet have equal access. 10xxx access is over the same feature group D trunks that equal access uses and should be ALL that is needed. If the carriers would arrange for a suitable selection of screening codes to be universally available FREE, it would be simple and safe to allow 10xxx0+ type access, as you would KNOW that only "bill elsewhere" traffic would be accepted. You would order the screening service that fits your needs. Between the ones available for hotels and ski condos for weekend rent and assorted others, there is a good start. Perhaps a simple variant would be to ONLY screen if 10xxx is explicitly dialed (even if it selects the default carrier), and this would let a smart switch use the same trunks for all traffic. Any 10xxx0+ traffic would be safe. 0+ from restricted extensions would get 10xxx (of the default carrier) prefixed, and non restricted stations can get 0+ to bill the BTN. The big single group objecting to 10xxx universal access was the lodging industry that has a LOT of older equipment that would be expensive to convert to allow 10xxx codes. Their dumb-dumb mode hardware sees 10xxx as some sort of billable call, and 950 as a vanilla local like call. If one flavor of screening simply disallowed ANYTHING on 10xxx access except 10xxx0+ bill elsewhere traffic, a hotel could allow 10xxx traffic without further understanding it because any attempt to bill to them, even 10xxx1+ would be blocked. Normal 1+ could work optionally, and would be handled by existing call accounting hardware. I have been told that screening is 'honored' by the AT&T/MCI/SPRINT class carriers, but what of telesleeze type ones?
rhyre@cinoss1.att.com (Ralph W. Hyre) (03/13/91)
In article <telecom11.170.1@eecs.nwu.edu> the Moderator notes: > [ Everything 950/800 can do, 10xxx can do better. In addition, 10xxx allows > [billing to the phone being used, something you do not get with 950/800.] I have to disagree here. 950 and 800 (feature group B) access give me grater control over billing than 10XXX implementations, since I can enter an account # to bill the call to. Yes, it's more work (have to remember/ memorize code, requires tone dialing), but I can use phones at other locations (like my parent's house) and not worry about trying to pay them for the call when the bill comes (they never want to take my money.) Additionally, one of my 950-based carriers doesn't have the $.75 surcharge for using the card - I just pay the per/minute rate. So I actually save money over what an equivalent equal access call would cost using the larger concerns calling cards. In article <telecom11.181.1@eecs.nwu.edu> Barton.Bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 181, Message 1 of 9 > 950 access is over the older feature group B trunks, and it is really > silly to perpetuate what was ideally a temporary measure. Except that 950 technology is [?? truncated line ?? PAT] > 10xxx access is over the same feature group D trunks that equal access > uses and should be ALL that is needed. If the carriers would arrange > for a suitable selection of screening codes to be universally > available FREE, it would be simple and safe to allow 10xxx0+ type > access, as you would KNOW that only "bill elsewhere" traffic would be > accepted. You would order the screening service that fits your needs. As a CONSUMER of LD services, my only concern is getting good service at a fair price. The screening mechanisms you mentioned, which try to force my traffic onto the establishment's chosen provider, are at odds with this goal. This influences my selection of businesses to patronize. For example, at the Parker Ranch Lodge, in Waimea, HI, I used 950 access to make a local, toll-free (and hotel surcharge-free :-) call to my provider's switch. Other establishments added 50-100% surcharges to toll calls, and charged twice the coin rate for local calls, forcing me to find a RBOC (well, GTE) payphone to avoid their surcharges. These places are listed prominently (next to COCOT sites) in my 'places to avoid if possible' book. Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: rhyre@attmail.com UUCP: attmail!cinpmx!rhyre Snail Mail: 45150-0085 [ZIP code] or: att!cinoss1!rhyre Phone: +1 513 629 7288
bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) (03/17/91)
In article <telecom11.199.7@eecs.nwu.edu>, "Ralph W. Hyre" <rhyre@ cinoss1.att.com> writes: > As a CONSUMER of LD services, my only concern is getting good service > at a fair price. The screening mechanisms you mentioned, which try to > force my traffic onto the establishment's chosen provider, are at odds > with this goal. Sorry, I must not have made myself clear. I think 10xxx should always work, and should be free as long as the call is being billed elsewhere. I also think 950 should quietly die, but don't really care all that much. What I was suggesting was for one purpose. The purpose was to have the telcos make life easy for the Hotels that are trying to protect themselves from toll fraud and from expensive equipment purchases. THEIR lobby groups were at the front of the battle trying to KILL 10xxx universal access. 950 they probably are handling 'ok'. 10xxx presented problems. I was simply suggesting that the TELCOs could have made the hotel's life easier (for a small and affordable charge - ha!) and then just maybe the lodging industry wouldn't have done battle with 10xxx. I simply want the hotel to be able to safely let you use 10xxx access without vast expense on their part, and NO risk to them of toll fraud. The only 10xxx traffic the telco could allow on such a screened trunk would be bill elsewhere type. If the hotel wanted dual use trunks, telco could allow 1+ (and yes optionally 011+ for the nit-pickers) of bill to the BTN traffic where the hotel's call accounting box could handle it. All this latter type traffic could ONLY be to the default carrier. > This influences my selection of businesses to patronize. As well it should! And DO let them know why wou will not be back. Better yet ASK EXPLICIT questions before you make hotel reservations. You then get to tell them why you are not booking with them. There is a sleazoid mall north of here in Woburn MA. Though I do like a few of the stores in it, I use their other branches and tell them why. That mall has sunken to COCOT level. A local supermarket's landlord had installed COCOTs. I told the supermarket's central management that it made them look bad especially when the (BIGGER + BETTER) market just down the street has better parking, a free (rather than 50 cents) bank machine, and 10 cent NYNEX coin phones. He was clearly already sensitive to all issues, could do nothing about the parking acreage, or the cash machine service charge, but he quickly did fix the COCOTs. Both phones are now NYNEX 10 cent ones. And it was HIS remote CA base mega-pig absentee landlord that had done it. Do complain loud and long. If they think it hurts their business they may well change it.