"DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu> (08/16/90)
Hi! Quick question: Why do you get the recording: "Your call can not be completed as dialed..." when you call a working/valid Canadian 800 number that doesn't serve the US, while if you call a working/valid US number from the US, but which doesn't serve your band/area code/whatever, you will get the message: "You have dialed an 800 number which can not be reached from your calling area." Wouldn't it make more sense for AT&T to extend that "out of area" message to Canadian 800 numbers as well, so that US callers will realize that they must dial direct to Canada, rather than fall under the impression that the firm in Canada which they are trying to contact no longer exists? Just wondering... Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: I think you will find the recordings vary from one office to another as to their precise wording. Someone who set up the recordings on your end simply was not consistent with the verbiage used in other areas. I don't think there is any special intent behind the version you hear versus what Canadians hear in reverse. PT]
kabra437@pallas.athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) (08/17/90)
In article <10915@accuvax.nwu.edu> DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu) (DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN) writes: >Why do you get the recording: "Your call can not be completed as >dialed..." when you call a working/valid Canadian 800 number that >doesn't serve the US, while if you call a working/valid US number from >the US, but which doesn't serve your band/area code/whatever, you will >get the message: "You have dialed an 800 number which can not be >reached from your calling area." >Wouldn't it make more sense for AT&T to extend that "out of area" >[Moderator's Note: I think you will find the recordings vary from one >office to another as to their precise wording. Someone who set up the >recordings on your end simply was not consistent with the verbiage >used in other areas. I don't think there is any special intent behind >the version you hear versus what Canadians hear in reverse. PT] What Pat says is true but that doesn't really explain the difference that the poster refers to. First this is not an AT&T issue. The screening of 800 happens in the end offices (operating companies) and not in AT&Ts LD network (or any other carrier's network, for that matter). The difference has to do with the traditional "banding" of wats calls and the fact that Canada does not have a "band" in that scheme. BELLCORE keeps us updated on new 800 codes and advises us which band they belong in IF THE CODES ARE ASSIGNED TO AT&T FOR U.S. USE. There is no such mechanism to keep us updated on Canadian codes that are used only within Canada so as far as we are concerned (in the U.S.) those codes are simply unassigned as opposed to being "out-of-band". I agree with you that the out-of-band announcement would probably be better but there doesn't seem to be any practical way to administer it, partly because of the communication problem between countries and partly because there really isn't a band for Canada. Not a defense of the situation, just an explanation. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965
Linc Madison <rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu> (08/23/90)
Two years ago, I was in western Canada, and placed a couple of calls to the 800 number for the ATM-locator service on my ATM network. They use the same 800 number for calls from anywhere in the US/Canada. From Vancouver, B.C., the calls completed fine, but then when I tried from Victoria, B.C., I got a recording that NNX-XXXX is not a working number. I didn't get a chance to look up to see where the particular prefix was located, but it seemed that the mapping of the 800 number to a POTS line was very specific, or else the switch on the island was out of date in its database. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu