paul@uunet.uu.net (Paul S. Sawyer) (06/26/90)
In article <9224@accuvax.nwu.edu> wrf@mab.ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin) writes: >Before writing my letter, I telephoned both ATT and FCC to determine >the law. FCC said unequivocally that the hotel phones must handle >10xxx properly. However ATT waffled; they commiserated with me but >didn't they that the hotel had to connect me to them. Why would they >not assert their rights? Maybe it's because ATT's PBX's (e.g. System 85) can't handle 9-10288, etc.... Paul S. Sawyer uunet!unh!unhtel!paul paul@unhtel.UUCP UNH Telecommunications attmail!psawyer p_sawyer@UNHH.BITNET Durham, NH 03824-3523 VOX: +1 603 862 3262 FAX: +1 603 862 2030
rlf@mtgzy.att.com (Ronald L Fletcher) (06/29/90)
In article <9224@accuvax.nwu.edu> wrf@mab.ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin) writes: > >Before writing my letter, I telephoned both ATT and FCC to determine > >the law. FCC said unequivocally that the hotel phones must handle > >10xxx properly. However ATT waffled; they commiserated with me but > >didn't they that the hotel had to connect me to them. Why would they > >not assert their rights? In article <9341@accuvax.nwu.edu>, unhd!unhtel!paul@uunet.uu.net (Paul S. Sawyer) writes: > Maybe it's because ATT's PBX's (e.g. System 85) can't handle 9-10288, etc.... Of course they can. They can dial any number they have been allowed to dial by the dial plan and routing administration. If there was an equal access number that had been restricted through hard-coding, I can assure you it would not be 10288. Ron Fletcher att!mtgzy!rlf
paul@uunet.uu.net (Paul S. Sawyer) (07/03/90)
In article <59819@bu.edu.bu.edu> you write: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 462, Message 4 of 10 >In article <9224@accuvax.nwu.edu> wrf@mab.ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph >Franklin) writes: >> >Before writing my letter, I telephoned both ATT and FCC to determine >> >the law. FCC said unequivocally that the hotel phones must handle >> >10xxx properly. However ATT waffled; they commiserated with me but >> >didn't they that the hotel had to connect me to them. Why would they >> >not assert their rights? >In article <9341@accuvax.nwu.edu>, unhd!unhtel!paul@uunet.uu.net (Paul >S. Sawyer) writes: >> Maybe it's because ATT's PBX's (e.g. System 85) can't handle >> 9-10288, etc.... >Of course they can. They can dial any number they have been allowed to >dial by the dial plan and routing administration. If there was an >equal access number that had been restricted through hard-coding, I >can assure you it would not be 10288. Well, that was MY reaction, too, (as a mostly innocent bystander who just keeps the billing computers going) but if you know how, I wish you would tell our telecom specialist who administers the switch, our ATT account rep, and Carmine at RMATS who have all been trying to figure it out for some time now. ATT says it's the switch software, and the best they have done is suggest some kludgey workarounds using speed numbers, which so far are not of a kind which the user community would adapt to. Thanks. Paul S. Sawyer uunet!unh!unhtel!paul paul@unhtel.UUCP UNH Telecommunications attmail!psawyer p_sawyer@UNHH.BITNET Durham, NH 03824-3523 VOX: +1 603 862 3262 FAX: +1 603 862 2030