TELECOM Moderator <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu> (09/03/90)
TELECOM Digest Sun, 2 Sep 90 23:50:00 CDT PBX Blocking 10xxx - Part 2
Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson
PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls - Part 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 90 23:05:46 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
Subject: PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls - Part 2
This is another topic which really created an overflow of messages in
recent days. A special issue was put out a couple days ago on this
topic. While it was in distribution, some additional messages arrived;
then the comments in the special issue itself brought some additional
rebuttal from readers. Here, greatly edited in order to get in as much
as possible are some final comments on the topic of 10xxx blocking.
PT
---------------------
From: John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com>
On Aug 31 at 22:39, TELECOM Moderator writes:
> But show me where
> in your routing tables you allowed for Directory Assistance in some
> far-away country? PAT]
In the 16 or so years I have consulted with this company, NO ONE has
had that need. If it ever happens, the attendant can place the call.
After hours, all outside calls are blocked anyway.
> [Moderator's Note: You do not consider it illegal or unethical for a
> PBX to have 10xxx blocked, but do you consider it *stupid* for them to
> do so? If they want employees to pay for their personal calls, why not
> allow 10xxx so that the employee can put it on his AT&T Card or Sprint
> Card if desired? PAT]
If employees want to make personal calls and pay for them, I allow 0+
(goes on AT&T by the switch appending 10288), 800 (Sprint F(O)ON
Card), and 950. That pretty well covers the ground for alternate
billing, no? What can you do with 10XXX in the world of alternate
billing that cannot be done with 800, 950, and 0+?
> And if
> you are giving the use of the phone to your employees as a fringe
> benefit, then that would sort of be tantamount to selling the service,
> no? If the slaves don't provide you with their labor, they won't have
> a desk to sit at any longer to make calls.
But wait a another minute. From Campbell to Stockton (70 miles) calls
are a rip. But there is an FX available. So when someone dials a
number in Stockton, the switch selects what amounts to a local route.
What you are saying is that the proprietor must allow the all
deserving employee the opportunity to derail the tables and cause the
call to go full toll on someone's network. No employer can be expected
to be that generous (or stupid).
> [Moderator's Note: Are you saying that if someone using the phone in
> an AT&T office dials 9 (or whatever for an outside line) that New York
> Telephone blocks 10xxx access at that point? Or is the 9-level call
> completely processed internally before the switch ever lets it out of
> the system and into NYT's hands?
On an automatic routing PBX, you dial 9 for "outside" not for an
"outside line". In fact, technically "9" means "give me ARS". A dial
tone from the switch itself then says, "ARS ready". Then you dial your
number. In full-blown ARS, the PBX switch does not even select a
trunk until the user dials the complete number. Then and only then, it
checks the full and complete number against the ARS programming. Based
on the match, the switch selects a trunk and outpulses the entire
number as well as any access or accounting codes required. It is no
problem at all to obtain LD service that will receive a number
appended on the end of the called number that identifies the
extension. I even have some numbers fully modified before
retransmission (such as my cellular phone number -- I give the client
a phony one and the switch translates it into the correct one, but no
can use the number I give outside the office). At no time in a fully
automatic routing PBX does the caller dial directly on an outside
trunk.
So let's turn it around. Am I required to add to the complexity of the
ARS by working out the protocol for "allowing" 10XXX calls?
> [Moderator's Note: Well fine. Maybe someday you will need directory
> assistance in the middle-east somewhere also.
For the once-per-century this may be required, I think the attendant
wouldn't mind putting the call through.
From: Dave Levenson <dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net>
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
> [Re: AT&T employee phone calls: I can't see why they would want to
> use MCI. There is nothing MCI can offer them, unlike the other way
> around. PAT]
It may be an extreme example, but it is real.
I would like to clarify:
I am not an AT&T employee, but I have spent a significant amount of
time consulting for AT&T Bell Laboratories at several locations in New
Jersey. The telephone service at the Bell Labs facility in Whippany,
NJ, is provided by NJ Bell. It is Centrex service provided by the
local 5ESS switch. Important people at the labs get ISDN feature
phones, with multiple call-appearances, caller-id display (name and
number, on calls within the centrex group, number-only for other
intra-lata calls) and AUDIX voice mail coverage. Less important
people get 2500 sets with typical centrex features.
POTS customers in the Whippany area are served by the same switch, and
some use the same prefix (201-386) as the labs centrex group. These
customers are given equal access and may use 10xxx to select a carrier
on both inter- and intra-lata toll calls.
Within the centrex group, however, 9+10xxx is blocked. Inter-lata
calls may be made by simply dialing 9 1 aaa ppp nnnn in which case the
call is billed to the labs. Calling-card calls may be placed by
dialing 9 0 aaa ppp nnnn and then entering an AT&T calling card or
Universal Card(sm) number. In this way, personal calls or non-AT&T
business calls may be billed to the appropriate party. It is not
possible, however, to place such a call on the carrier chosen by the
party paying for it, unless that carrier is AT&T (or NJ Bell, for
intra-lata toll.)
> There is nothing MCI can offer them, unlike the other way around. PAT]
Compare the calling-card rates of AT&T and MCI. That is the only
place in the rate structures of these two carriers where there is a
significant difference. MCI's calling-card surcharge is approximately
50% of AT&T's surcharge. The Universal Card, with its 10% discount,
helps to equalize things if the call duration is such that the 10% off
the time-sensitive portion of the cost exceeds the premium paid for
the per-call surcharge. But the Universal Card is only offered to
individuals, not businesses.
The number of non-AT&T business calls I need to make from their
premises is small enough that we're talking about only a couple of
dollars' worth of savings per month. Not worth making a stink about
it. My point, for purposes of this discussion, is that in this case,
the party paying for the toll call is not free to choose the carrier
he pays. At AT&T locations served by PBXes, they block 10xxx calls
within the PBX. At locations served by Centrex, they apparently have
the telco do it for them.
My original question was: is this legal? I haven't heard any lawyers'
opinions on this. Our Moderator says it is not.
From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook)
I know that 10XXX blocking at payphones is illegal, but is it illegal
from a PBX at a private business? My employer also blocks 10XXX
dialing, but I figured that was their right.
A couple of years ago there were a few numbers that I would try to
call via AT&T (our carrier at work) and the connection was quite
noisey. For fun, I tried using my Sprint 800 access, just letting the
other end ring once so I could hear the quality of the connection. The
difference was astounding ... much better via Sprint. I would have
preferred to put those calls via Sprint, but I suspect that if I had
been able to dial 10333 I would have annoyed the folks in accounting.
These days it isn't an issue, as voice communications over AT&T seem
to be as good as Sprint most of the time. But it would be nice to be
able to dial 10XXX. Is it really illegal for a business owner to
block this access from a PBX?
From: Macy Hallock fmsystm!macy@usenet.ins.cwru.edu
Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, OH
A few things to consider in this discussion:
- Many PBX's our there just do not understand 10XXX dialing. In the
case of the systems I maintain, software installed prior to a certain
date (sometime in 1987, I think) did not have modifications to deal
with 10XXX properly. North American Dialing Plan did not anticipate
the 10XXX function prior to the advent of Equal Access. On many
systems, the owner does not wish to spend the money to upgrade to
later system software due to the substantial costs involved. Most
businesses and hotels do not consider software that does not allow
10XXX to be broken and will not pay to fix something that is not a
problem they recognize.
In fact, at least two key systems presently on the market do not deal
with 10XXX calls properly in their toll restriction feature. I
wouldn't be surprised to learn of others.
950-XXXX dialing is often permitted on most systems that are not
"table-driven". On "table-driven" Automatic Route Selection PBX's,
950 is often blocked because it is not viewed as a local exchange.
(Look in your phone book dialing instructions and see if 950 is
mentioned as a dialable local exchange code...)
Did you know that there are provisions for ANI on 950-XXXX Feature
Group B access trunks for carriers? This means a carrier could bill
the caller for 950-XXXX calling without a security code ... rough on
hotels ... This is seldom done in practice, but since it is possible,
should a hotel block 950 access?
- Very few users understand 10XXX dialing, even after having it
explained to them in simple terms. Its just not something they are
used to thinking about and they do not recognize it as something they
"need to know". Ditto for 950-XXXX access.
- At least one phone company I know of has stated that 10XXX type
calls consistute a miniscule percentage of their calls and takes 10XXX
less than seriously. Their surveys show almost all 10XXX and 950-XXXX
calls are from automated equipment ... ARS equipped PBX's, OCC dialers
and COCOT's. They have accidently wiped out 10XXX access to carriers
on occasion and received almost no complaints.
In fact, Litel, a regional carrier in Ameritech territory has a
continuing problem with having their 10432 access wiped out by GTE in
exchanges during GTD-5 database upgrades, with very few complaints
about it ... Litel doesn't like it much, though. Note that this
problem seems not ot affect their customers with Litel as their
selected 1+ carrier, only 10XXX access.
I like 10XXX and 950 access. I program nearly all my PBX's to use
these codes. Since the phone company views these codes as revenue
threatening to their intra-LATA calling traffic, I suspect they have
little concern for educating users. Their fears may be well founded,
since this is a state that both allows intra-LATA calls to carried by
all carriers and the BOC intra-LATA rates are high. I use 10XXX and
950-XXXX to route all my PBX cusotmers' intra-LATA calls through their
carrier of choice.
From: "Barton F. Bruce" <BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com>
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.
I think there is a simple solution to the 10xxx PBX problem that will
solve almost everyone's problems. First some background, though.
I certainly sympathise with anyone who wants to use 10xxx access to
place a 0+ call they are paying for with their own credit card, or are
calling collect or 3rd party billing.
I also totally believe that a switch's owner should be able to BLOCK
10xxx access for calls that will be billed to him.
I also totally believe that a switch's owner has a serious problem
with 0+ calling, because his SMDR call logging/pricing gear has NO
idea what is being said to the operator. It could be a request for
expensive person-to-person service, it could be verbally changed to a
totally different number, or anything else.
To cater to operator handled services, but to eliminate any risk of
customer call fraud, HOBIC type service has been available to hotels
and certain other classes of businesses. The operator KNOWS it is a
hotel guest, and knows that time and charges need to be reported back.
HOBIC service is provided on special seperate trunks that are
generally outgoing ONLY. They are simply NOT available to everyone,
are definitely expensive (but not rip-off AOS class expensive), and
depend on some place to immediately report back time and charges to.
More recently, there has been available another type of service
sometimes called 'screening-94'. There are several related offerings,
and I am unaware of all the differences there are between them. In
some cases the order code only differs by the type of institution
served. Curiously school dorms and prisons share the same code!
Any local or 1+ calls that can be captured on a call accounting box
are allowed, BUT the operator gets a console indication that won't let
her take 0+ calls that are billed to that phone number. She is allowed
to provide any service as long as it paid for elsewhere. Another
version is particularly good for time-share condos, and anyone renting
their summer home. This one blocks toll calls unless they are billed
elsewhere.
In the real world of PBXs there exists a WIDE range of call analysis
and routing smarts. What is needed is a simple way for the owner of
any PBX, but especially ones catering to customers who will be long
gone the next day, to provide 10xxx0+ calling at NO risk, while being
able to linit 10xxx1+ dialing to his choice of carrier. This should be
able to be acheived without his buying a whole new smarter switch and
paying for someone to program it at some unreasonable price.
A simple solution, that IMHO solves all the problems, would be for the
LEC to provide an enhanced version of the screening that would allow
10xxx0+ calls but flag them to the operator as 'bill-elsewhere-only'
(obviously BLOCKING carriers unwilling to provide this service...),
and DISALLOW 10xxx1+ calls (the switch owner's equal access choice
must stay for calls he pays for). Also, 976 type blocking should work
regardless of areacode dialed first, not just in the home NPA. The
owner of a fairly smart switch might only use a few of these for
10xxx0+ calls, and retain 10xxx capability for his own use on other
trunks, but the owner of a dumb switch would have this on ALL outgoing
trunks guests could access.
Does anyone see his valid rights/needs trampled on by this? I think it
should work. KNOW full well that the hotel industry is lobbying
AGAINST 10xxx access, not so much that they insist on selling you
service (they may well charge for your placing a credit card call from
your room anyway), but simply because they legitimately fear having to
BUY and program smarter switches. If they could give you the 10xxx
access you want safely on their existing trunks with the LEC solving
their problems, many would not object.
This also hastens total conversion to feature group-D trunks for the
IXCs (because feature group-B 950 traffic will drop), and obviates the
need for AT&T to provide 950 access (which they won't do anyway) for
AT&T card users stuck in an MCI hotel.
BTW, does anyone know all the 'screening 94' class USOC codes and what
features they provide?
From: Craig Jackson drilex1 <drilex!dricejb@husc6.harvard.edu>
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA
Why would be *illegal* to block 10xxx in a private PBX? Surely it
would be within a business' rights to restrict the long distance
carriers used from their phones, which are obviously only used to
further company business? (Wasn't the personal-call issue just
discussed here?)
-----------------
[Moderator's Note: And there you have it. The consensus seems to be
that if subscriber blocking of 10xxx is illegal, it should not be. I
think the ideal solution, as noted by one writer above, would be to
allow 10xxx in all cases, but force such calls to HOBIC lines.
However, as noted before, HOBIC has problems also at times; it is not
a perfect solution. Thanks to all who wrote in response. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest Special: PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls - Part 2
******************************