lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) (01/24/91)
In article <16295@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jack Dominey writes to address the complaint that ATT does not provide access to its long distance service via 950-0288 or an 800-number: > The issue > of access to the network via 800 and 950-XXXX numbers is being fought > by the lodging industry. Hotel owners hate the idea of reprogramming > their PBX's to provide free 10-XXX access. They (generally) allow > free 800 and local calls, so they want AT&T to use those methods, too. > AT&T's position, as I understand it, is that 10-XXX is the agreed-upon > universal access method (through Bellcore?), and hotels will have to > live with it. To answer the inevitable, "All the other carriers use > 800 and 950 access, why can't AT&T?": Other carriers built their > networks to operate in a non-equal-access environment, so 800 and 950 > access are integral to their design. AT&T's network was always the > default, so the other access methods were never included. I haven't > seen any official estimates of the cost of building such access now, > but I doubt it would be either cheap or easy. While this is a nice try from the PR department, it just does not cut it. The argument is technically flawed, two ways: (1) 10288 is indeed the standard access method, but there seems to be no way for ATT to provide access without billing the calls back to the originating line. The reason the PBX operators are blocking 10XXX is not to make trouble, but to prevent getting billed for unauthorized calls. I am sure this could be alleviated by ATT by defining a class of service for designated subscriber numbers, that disallow calls without third-party billing. (I think there is enough processing power in the POP to manage this). (2) It would be trivial for the end office to deliver the 950-0/1XXX calls to the same routing as 10XXX calls with an appropriate type-of-service indication. This may in fact already be implemented in the software. I think the 950-YXXX numbers are predefined so that the last three digits map directly to the same carrier codes as 10XXX selector codes. But there may well be tariff barriers to this solution. It would be more elegant for ATT to push for the second solution, thus putting the burden of software changes nominally on the LECs. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM
jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com (01/24/91)
Responding to Lars Poulsen <lars@spectrum.cmc.com> in Digest V11, #62. >(1) 10288 is indeed the standard access method, but there seems to be >no way for ATT to provide access without billing the calls back to the >originating line. The reason the PBX operators are blocking 10XXX is >not to make trouble, but to prevent getting billed for unauthorized >calls. You can certainly make third-party billed calls using 10288-0. I've done it from COCOT's on several occassions. Why can't hotels block 10XXX-1 and allow 10XXX-0? Hotel lines can be identified to the operator, who would not allow calls to be billed directly. Better still, hotels could allow 10XXX-1 calls and charge them directly to the room. Maybe I'm too honest by nature, but I really don't understand where the unauthorized billing problem comes from. >(2) It would be trivial for the end office to deliver the 950-0/1XXX >calls to the same routing as 10XXX calls with an appropriate >type-of-service indication. This may in fact already be implemented in >the software. I think the 950-YXXX numbers are predefined so that the >last three digits map directly to the same carrier codes as 10XXX >selector codes. But there may well be tariff barriers to this >solution. I'm probably wading in over my head here, but ... isn't there a difference in the class of access between 950-YXXX and 10XXX? I refer to the access the LD carrier purchases from the local exchange company. The LEC's would probably be more than happy to provide 950 access for AT&T - as long as AT&T pays for it. If I'm right - please correct me otherwise - then AT&T winds up paying for extra access capacity specifically for this purpose. My own opinion is that AT&T should provide as many methods to reach the network as possible, including 950 and 800 access. As a lowly salesdrone, I have only a hazy comprehension of all the issues involved, I admit. But aren't we talking about software changes throughout the routing system and large-scale changes to billing systems (both AT&T's and the LEC's - AT&T would pay for both)? I still maintain that it wouldn't be cheap or easy, however desirable.
Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com (01/25/91)
Lars Poulsen <lars@spectrum.cmc.com> writes: > The reason the PBX operators are blocking 10XXX is not to make > trouble, but to prevent getting billed for unauthorized calls. I am > sure this could be alleviated by ATT by defining a class of service > for designated subscriber numbers, that disallow calls without third- > party billing. (I think there is enough processing power in the POP > to manage this). Actually, 10xxx processing takes place at the RBOC (or other operating company) facility. There already _is_ a class of service that would allow this ... a coinless public phone, for example. There are other classes of service, including a predefined hotel/motel class of service that allowed the hotel industry to serve the travelling community for years. The hotel switches could also be programmed to allow 10xxx+0+ dialing, but not 10xxx+1+ dialing. Bally's in Las Vegas has this programming. They charge .50/call for access of this nature. It may be expensive, considering what you're paying for the room, but at least you know how much it will be, and can reorder the line with '#' afterwards for another call. It should also be remembered that the hotel isn't sunk if a call gets ticketed on AT&T. After all, they have a record of the call on their call detail recorder, and can add it to your hotel bill. The reason (IMHO) that hotels won't allow this sort of dialing is that they'd rather route the calls through their contracted Alternative Operator Service (AOS) which will (a) rape the customer and (b) kick back a significant portion of the proceeds to the hotel. Occasionally I find a hotel that has dial tone in their pairs, rather than sleeze tone. In fact, the number of such hotels is increasing. The majority I've experienced however, treat the phone as a profit center, and have jumped firmly on the newest telecom bandwagon -- "caveat emptor as long as we can get away with it." In my post about Las Vegas, I neglected to mention (so will mention here) that the sets in the hotel had RJ-11's in them marked Data port. A nice touch. Ed_Greenberg@HQ.3Mail.3Com.COM
Barton.Bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) (01/25/91)
In article <16367@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) writes: > In article <16295@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jack Dominey writes to address the > complaint that ATT does not provide access to its long distance > service via 950-0288 or an 800-number: >> The issue >> of access to the network via 800 and 950-XXXX numbers is being fought >> by the lodging industry. Hotel owners hate the idea of reprogramming >> their PBX's to provide free 10-XXX access. They (generally) allow > (1) 10288 is indeed the standard access method, but there seems to be > no way for ATT to provide access without billing the calls back to the > originating line. The reason the PBX operators are blocking 10XXX is > not to make trouble, but to prevent getting billed for unauthorized > calls. I am sure this could be alleviated by ATT by defining a class > of service for designated subscriber numbers, that disallow calls > without third-party billing. (I think there is enough processing power > in the POP to manage this). There ARE standard types of screening available that only allow calls to be billed to credit cards, third party or collect, but NEVER to the calling line. This kind of screening typically allows 1+ dialing anywhere, but kicks in on 0+ because local call accounting equipment can't tell what service the operator will be asked to provide. This sort of screening comes in several variations and has been available for a LONG time. This whole mess the hotels were fighting could have been simplified IF the LECs would have provided a modification to that standard screening that would do the following. As before, 1+ could do anything. 0+ would go to the presubscribed IXC and be screened. 10xxx1+ would be blocked because the hotel customer has NO business rerouting 1+ calls. 10xxx0+ calls would be screened and would be allowed only to IXCs that honored the screening class mark. I assume the FCC should tolerate blocking calls to IXCs not honoring the screening. The hotel's modifications would be minimal.