telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) (09/01/90)
TELECOM Digest Fri, 31 Aug 90 22:34:00 CDT Special: Blocking 10xxx
Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson
PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls [Various writers, responding to Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
Subject: PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls
Date: 31 Aug 90 19:00:00 CDT (Fri)
A few days ago in the Digest, a reader wrote to explain the difficulty
encountered when trying to make a call to International Directory
Assistance from his office PBX. For some reason (I will leave it to
your imagination what it was), the company had all long distance
service blocked except via MCI. No doubt at some point, someone told
them the BIG LIE about 'how much money they would save' by using MCI
as their long distance carrier exclusively. Rather than ask their
employees to use the default carrier as much as possible and only make
exceptions as needed, they simply blocked the switch from all 10xxx
access.
Then came the day an employee needed to call International Directory
Assistance in some country MCI does not serve. MCI kept telling him to
use AT&T (for the free, directory only portion of the call, mind
you!), but his switch would not permit the connection. The MCI rep
suggested calling AT&T at the International Information Center and
lying about it, telling them they were a customer of AT&T. Finally the
suggestion was made to use a nearby payphone!
Aside from being amused at the folks who never yet have realized that
you get what you pay for; and that for years, MCI was famous -- or
infamous perhaps -- for skimming the cream while leaving
heavily-regulated AT&T to carry the losers, I was amazed that after
such an experience, the company with the PBX would still persist in
thinking that MCI was such a great deal ... or do they? The few cents
they 'saved' on the call -- once it was made, if it was finally
accomplished -- were more than offset by the time wasted by employees
trying to manipulate the phone and PBX to get the call through!
So AT&T is to handle directory assistance calls to India, Pakistan,
Venezula, and similar countries where the phone service is poor, you
can wait for five minutes of ringing before the operator answers and
another ten minutes after she answers and goes to look up your number
all the while MCI handles the very profitable east coast corridor
traffic in the USA. Is that the way it works? If you ever wonder why
MCI gives discount rates, consider all the expenses they *do not*
have: i.e. a very expensive to operate international center in
Pittsburg, a toll free international information center, etc. If you
want quality, you have to pay for it. One AT&T supervisor told me it
is routine to spend 10-15 minutes on the line with one customer if
that customer is calling Directory Assistance in certain countries I
will not name here. Actually, we regular users of AT&T International
Service have the MCI abusers to thank for the fact that the Pittsburg
IOC is clamping down on placing directory assistance calls without an
actual call -- which they place for you -- immediatly following.
But I digress ...
Is it legal to block access to 10xxx from any phone? According to both
Illinois Bell and AT&T, 10xxx access may not be denied from any
phone. Likewise, 911 may not be denied from any phone, although
perhaps you would not be so foolish as to want to do that. Illinois
Bell will, on request, set your default carrier to NONE, meaning you
must dial 10xxx on every call, but they will not do away with 10xxx
itself.
And in the example before us, its a dumb thing to do anyway ... at
least if you are expecting the OCC which gives you such low rates to
actually handle the drudge jobs only AT&T is *forced* to handle at
present.
Here are some replies received in the past couple days:
From: John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com>
On Aug 29 at 1:33, TELECOM Moderator writes:
> [Moderator's Note: While you are at it, why not call in whoever does
> your PBX programming and ask him when he can get his act together and
> correct the *illegal* blocking of 10xxx. PAT]
Wait a minute. Didn't we just conclude that the owner of a PBX had the
right to control it in regards to his business? At the customer's
request, I have programmed an ITT 3100 to block 10XXX access. The
proprietor subscribes to no less than three different carriers and has
a complex routing table to select via trunk or access code the carrier
that provides the least cost at that particular time to the particular
destination. He does NOT want someone, employee or otherwise, to
select his own carrier and in effect override the (laboriously worked
out by me) tables for his own purposes or convenience.
10XXX blocking may be "illegal" from COCOTs, but it is certainly up to
the business owner to determine how his business calls are being
routed. If they are not business calls, then maybe a final check is in
order.
[Moderator's Note: AT&T claims it is illegal. Certainly, the average
employee will dial the PBX's LD access code, and then just dial the
number, letting the routing tables do their thing. But show me where
in your routing tables you allowed for Directory Assistance in some
far-away country? PAT]
From: <jnelson@tle.enet.dec.com>
How can this be illegal? If the equipment is owned and operated by
INMOS, aren't they free to program it as they see fit? If not, how is
it different from the lawsuit pending against Epson, where the Telecom
Moderator advocates the position that "what the Company owns (for its
own use), the Company can do what the Company wants"? If INMOS were in
the business of providing public phone service, I'd agree with the
Telecom Moderator. As it stands, though, while it may be inconvenient,
it certainly isn't illegal.
Jeff E. Nelson | jnelson@tle.enet.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corporation | Affiliation given for identification purposes
From: Kian-Tat Lim <ktl@wag240.wag.caltech.edu>
I don't believe that it's illegal (or unethical) for a private
business owner to block the use of 10XXX on the business' PBX. This
is not a public telephone, after all. In fact, with outgoing WATS
trunks and lowest-cost routing, 10XXX may not even make sense on a
PBX.
Kian-Tat Lim (ktl@wag240.wag.caltech.edu, KTL @ CITCHEM.BITNET, GEnie: K.LIM1)
[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]
From: Jim Budler <jimb@silvlis.com>
Pat,
I don't understand how it can be illegal for a Company owned
PBX to block access to 10xxx on it's own phone lines, when the lines,
use of the lines, and payment of the bills is completely provided at
the discretion, if not pleasure of the Company.
I realize that such blocking can prevent an employee using his
own credit card for billing a call, thus encouraging petty
embezzlement, but the right to use the phone itself is under the
control of the Company.
jim
Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com +1.408.991.6061
Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086
From: Colin Plumb <colin@array.uucp>
Excuse me? If it's the company's dime, it seems they can do anything
they like with it. It's only illegal if you're selling the service.
Or is it unfair to the carriers, and do those rulings bind PBX's as
well as LEC's?
Please elaborate. And remember the recent condemnation of non-company
calls on company telephones.
Colin
[Moderator's Note: My understanding is that yes, it is illegal to
block 10xxx from any phone technically equipped to handle it. 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.
And yes, I remember the condemnation of non-company calls on company
phones. What does that have to do with a *business call* to some
country where MCI will not connect you with directory assistance? PAT]
From: Dave Levenson <dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net>
I'm curious about this claim ... I understand that it is illegal for
a public telephone, or one in a public place such as a hotel room or
an airport, to block access to 10xxx. I was not aware that it is
illegal to block such access from non-public phones, such as those
provided by a company for the use of its employees on company
business. Is this actually the case? Is AT&T legally required to
allow its employees to select MCI when calling on company business
or from company-provided telephones? (They don't.)
Just curious!
Dave Levenson Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857
Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave
[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? No company is required to 'allow'
its employees to select anything. You say to your employees, "Don't
let us catch you making calls over carrier 'x' ... ", and if they do
it, you make them justify it. But how can you deny the employee the
right to use his own calling card of the company of his choice? Yours
is an extreme example. I can't see why they would want to use MCI.
There is nothing MCI can offer them, unlike the other way around. PAT]
From: "Jeffrey J. Carpenter" <jjc@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
I really don't think this is a case of illegal blocking, Pat. Don't
you think his company can choose what long distance company they want
to use? If you were the telecom manager, and you had selected MCI for
your calls, would you want people using AT&T anyway?
Here were I work, 10xxx is also blocked, but only because our PBX
determines which carrier has the lowest rate for my particular call and
routes it accordingly.
Jeff Carpenter, University of Pittsburgh, Computing and Information Services
600 Epsilon Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15238
jjc+@unix.cis.pitt.edu, jjc@pittvms.bitnet,
+1 412 624 6424, FAX +1 412 624 6436
[Moderator's Note: Well fine. Maybe someday you will need directory
assistance in the middle-east somewhere also. If the nearest payphone
is on the corner be sure when you come back to advise the telecom
manager how much money you saved that day by having carrier 'x'. PAT]
From: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Our esteemed moderator writes:
I'm not so sure about this. I know that it is illegal to block 10+
access from public phones, but I don't think this applies to a company
who owns its own PBX. Can anyone clarify this one way or the other.
If I owned a PBX which was for "official company use" I might want to
make sure employees don't use any carrier but the one I selected.
Since I pay the bill, I think I should be in control of such things. I
realize this is not clear-cut because of credit card calls.
R. Kevin Oberman
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov
(415) 422-6955
From: Hofer <mkn@mace.cc.purdue.edu>
I don't see why this blocking of alternate carriers is illegal. In a
post several days ago you asserted that a business has the right to
control the phones which it pays for. If it is OK for the company to
evesdrop on employee phone calls and the like, why isn't it OK for the
company to control what LD carriers the employees can access?
Personally, I value the right to privacy more than the right to choose
LD carriers.
Doug Hofer
mkn@mace.cc.purdue.edu
[Moderator's Note: A company has the right to control the phones it
pays for, as long as it does not attempt to place illegal controls on
the use of the phones. As an example, a company does not want its
employees to call 911, so it blocks it out. That is illegal. To the
best of my knowledge and belief, blocking 10xxx is also illegal.
It is not illegal to 'eavesdrop' on employee business calls because a
tariff along the way says it is not illegal, and makes provision for
supervisory monitoring in the conduct of the company's business. And
the company *can* tell the employees what long distance company to use
for *business* calls. If the company allows personal use of its
phones, then it cannot legally block the personal user from using a
credit card of his choice, or a third number call, or collect call, or
whatever, and placing it on the carrier of his choice. To say you
value privacy over the right to choose a long distance carrier is a
very strange comment. The two have nothing to do with each other. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest Special: PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls
******************************