Allen Jensen <allen%audiofax.com@mathcs.emory.edu> (06/26/90)
I would like to find out how International calls are made using the equal access LD Carriers. Does one just, for example, dial 10222011+ and if this is so, where does the credit card number go ? How about alternate overseas vendors - 101XX codes ? Anyone have any examples ??? Thanks, P. Allen Jensen AudioFAX, Inc. / Suite 200 allen@audiofax.com 2000 Powers Ferry Rd. emory!audfax!allen Marietta, GA. 30067
"John R. Covert 26-Jun-1990 2109" <covert@covert.enet.dec.com> (06/27/90)
From: Greg Monti Date: 26 June 1990 Subject: International Calls Using Credit Card and Equal Access Allen Jensen <allen%audiofax.com@mathcs.emory.edu> writes: First of all,it's 10XXX, not 10NXX. The "N" means "digits 2 thru 9 only". In fact, any combo, from 000 to 999 is valid after "10", providing a long distance company with that code exists and serves that area. > I would like to find out how International calls are made using the > equal access LD Carriers. Does one just, for example, dial 10222011+ > and if this is so, where does the credit card number go ? No. You would not dial 011. It would be 10222 + 01 + country code + city code + local number + #. Immediately after the # sign, you would receive the "calling card tone" and would dial your USA 14-digit calling card number (the one issued by your LOCAL phone company, not the one issued by MCI, which is LD company 10222; the MCI card number is for 950- and 800-access calls only). Assuming the call and card number were both valid, and that MCI accepts card calls to that country and provided that that country accepts carded MCI calls, you would hear "thank you for using MCI" or somesuch and it would ring through. You would pay MCI card usage charge (probably around $0.75) plus the direct dialed MCI per-minute rate for the call itself. It would appear on the MCI "casual usage" page of your LOCAL phone bill. > How about alternate overseas vendors - 101XX codes ? Anyone have any > examples ??? There are no "different" vendors for overseas calls and for domestic calls. US regulations (the Modified Final Judgment) state that, from any US phone, the whole world is divided into just two areas: intra-LATA and inter-LATA. Overseas calls are obviously in the second category. Therefore, competitive long distance companies carry them. The heirarchy for dialing instructions with and without 10XXX being appended first is (supposedly) exactly the same. Note that the above will not work from a *pay* phone *owned by the local operating company* if you dial 10222 + 011 + etc. "011" from a pay phone of necessity implies that this is a CASH call. The only LD company that handles cash calls from LOC payphones is AT&T. More than likely, if you try this, the "10222" will be ignored and you will be routed to the AT&T recording saying how much money to put in (bring your rolls of quarters!). Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work +1 202 822 2633
PCI@cup.portal.com (07/07/90)
Greg Monti states: >There are no "different" vendors for overseas calls and for domestic >calls. US regulations (the Modified Final Judgment) state that, from >any US phone, the whole world is divided into just two areas: >intra-LATA and inter-LATA. Overseas calls are obviously in the second ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >category and therefore the long distance companies carry them. ^^^^^^^^^ This is not quite accurate. LEC's are not allowed to provide inter-LATA service. They are allowed to provide intra-LATA and International service. This situation in very familiar to the carriers that serve the Hawaii market. One of the largest IRC's (International Record Carriers) in the region is GTE Hawaiian Telephone (HawTel) the local LEC. When competing for service between Hawaii and other Pacific points (including U.S. points of Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas and American Samoa) we find our LEC (which has a monopoly for local service ... both dialup access and leased line local loops) is also the IRC competing with us. In order to prepare a bid, we must notify our ... [Moderator's Note: This is the way I received the above message. It appears the last sentence or two have been truncated. PT]
covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert 09-Jul-1990 1654) (07/10/90)
From: Greg Monti Date: 9 July 1990 Subject: Re: International Calls Using Credit Card and Equal Access (Regarding what kind of carrier, inter-LATA or intra-LATA, carries international toll calls. I had stated that international calls were inter-LATA): PCI@cup.portal.com writes: > This is not quite accurate. LEC's are not allowed to provide > inter-LATA service. They are allowed to provide intra-LATA and > International service. > This situation in very familiar to the carriers that serve the Hawaii > market. One of the largest IRC's (International Record Carriers) in > the region is GTE Hawaiian Telephone (HawTel) the local LEC... > ...we find our LEC (which has a monopoly for local > service) ... competing with us. You are right, I wasn't clear enough. The Modified Final Judgment which governed the breakup of AT&T affected (and still affects) only AT&T and the *Bell* Operating Companies (BOCs) which were once *majority*-held by AT&T. Technically speaking, the concept of a LATA applies only to *BOC*s. "Independent" LECs can either be "associated with" a nearby BOC's LATA or can be in their own "area" which acts like a LATA, like the "Rochester Area" referred to in New York Telephone directories. There are states that have no BOCs operating anywhere within them. Alaska and Hawaii are two of them (the only two?). GTE, since it is not a BOC, but is an "independent" does not have the same line-of-business restrictions on it that the MFJ has over a BOC. That's why companies like GTE can do international service, why Centel can run cable TV service (which broadcasters and cable operators are trying to keep BOCs out of) and why Contel can run a competitive domestic satellite data company (Contel ASC). I believe that GTE is subject to a different (non-MFJ) consent decree which *does* require it to offer equal access, even where its one-time long distance company (Sprint) was one of the equal competitors. So the same restrictions don't apply to BOCs and independents. Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work +1 202 822-2633
John Cowan <cowan@marob.masa.com> (07/13/90)
In article <9550@accuvax.nwu.edu>, covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert 09-Jul-1990 1654) writes: >There are states that have no BOCs operating anywhere within them. >Alaska and Hawaii are two of them (the only two?). The other obvious candidate would be Connecticut. I know a tiny portion of CT (Greenwich/Byram) is served by New York Telephone (it's part of the New York Metropolitan LATA) but I believe the whole rest of the state is SNET. Any Connecticutensians have more definite information? (A quick check of the list of BOCs as of breakup time suggests that every other state contains at least one BOC-owned LEC.) cowan@marob.masa.com (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)