dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) (09/04/90)
It surely is frustrating when someone who has to read email and netnews on his own time finds, in a single session's reading, that a subject newly reaching his attention (or having just reached his attention a day or two before without a chance to respond yet) has already generated so much reply traffic that Pat has proclaimed it closed. Very briefly, one thing about the problem that a PBX wouldn't allow 10XXX dialing to override the MCI default on an international call that MCI couldn't handle in the first place: if AT&T had an 800 dial-up number available for placing outgoing calls (instead of holding dearly to their belief that they are THE long-distance company and that use of AT&T should be automatic, with use if the competition requiring extra work), the matter would be strictly theoretical. The employee who found that the PBX blocked 102880 would still have a way to reach an AT&T operator. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com
pacolley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Colley) (09/07/90)
In article <11761@accuvax.nwu.edu> dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 622, Message 8 of 12 > [...] if AT&T had an 800 >dial-up number available for placing outgoing calls > [...] the matter would be strictly theoretical. The >employee who found that the PBX blocked 102880 would still have a way >to reach an AT&T operator. Maybe not. For no apparent reason (at least no reason discernible to non-bureaucrats), the phone system at University of Waterloo blocks 800 numbers (in addition to long distance). However, trying it out just now, they have made one improvement in the last six months: Dialing "banned" numbers now gives re-order, instead of the switchboard. Hmmm ... maybe they got 800 and 900 numbers confused? Anybody know some interesting 900 numbers? :-) Paul pacolley@violet.waterloo.edu or .ca