Bob Goudreau <goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com> (06/12/90)
In article <8869@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mitel!spock!grayt@uunet.uu.net (Tom Gray) writes: > >>In a perfect world I could dial "+44 81 676 XXXX" to reach my number > >>in London from *anywhere* in the world, including the UK (where + > >>means 010). Similarly it would be nice to be able to dial 011 1 415 > >>XXX XXXX to reach San Francisco from anywhere in the US. > >>I was originally going to post this with lots of ":-)", but seriously > >>though folks, why should it be difficult with modern switches? > The main problem with this proposal would be the size of the data base > required inside of each switch. Think of the routing problems which > would occur when any digit sequence could be used to identify a trunk > route. Each switch would be required to maintain the telephone number > of all of the subscribers in the world. Even small CDO's would require > gigabytes of disk storage. Say what? No one was proposing that arbitrary numbers be allowed for persons in any part of the world. All he was saying is that switches that are smart enough to route direct-dialed international calls should also be smart enough to recognize an "international" call to inside their own country code, and handle this special case appropriately. In the UK, the telco would just translate a "010-44" prefix to a "0" prefix; in the US, "011-1" would become simply "1". However, I think this capability would be of little utility unless the international access code were truly standardized world-wide; otherwise, you still run into the same old problem of having to dial a number differently depending on your current geographical location. Another poster has already mentioned that "00" will eventually be mandated in all of the EC (including, presumably, Britain). Someone else suggested several months ago that there was no technical reason that the NANP couldn't also use "00" (with a timeout to distinguish a call to the long-distance operator from an international call, similar to the current setup for "0", which can either be a call to the local operator or a prefix to an operator-assisted long-distance call). Of course, another alternative is to add a "+" key and tone to everyone's phone world-wide :-). Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation 62 Alexander Drive goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau USA
Bill Huttig <la063249@zach.fit.edu> (06/13/90)
In article <8890@accuvax.nwu.edu> goudreau@larrybud.rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: >that the NANP couldn't also use "00" (with a timeout to distinguish a >call to the long-distance operator from an international call, similar >to the current setup for "0", which can either be a call to the local >operator or a prefix to an operator-assisted long-distance call). >Of course, another alternative is to add a "+" key and tone to >everyone's phone world-wide :-). Whats wrong with using the # key... ie.. 00# or a timeout.. The # key is used this way in international calls. [Moderator's Note: Actually, many central offices can do just that right now. Here in Chicago, 00# times out fast for the long distance operator, and PIN# forces a fast time out on credit card calls to the number where the card is assigned. PT]
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (06/14/90)
On Jun 13 at 23:06, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Actually, many central offices can do just that > right now. Here in Chicago, 00# times out fast for the long distance > operator... Are you sure that the "#" is necessary for timeout elimination for the LD operator? "00" is unambiguous, in that no additional digits would be expected by the switch. Indeed, when I dial "00" or "00#", the timing is the same. On the other hand, if I dial "0#" rather than just "0", the Pac*Bell operator answers much more quickly. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Actually, you are correct. I meant 0# gets through faster to the local IBT operator. PT]
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) (06/14/90)
In article <8914@accuvax.nwu.edu>, la063249@zach.fit.edu (Bill Huttig) writes: |> Whats wrong with using the # key... ie.. 00# or a timeout.. The # |> key is used this way in international calls. |> [Moderator's Note: Actually, many central offices can do just that |> right now. Here in Chicago, 00# times out fast for the long distance |> operator, and PIN# forces a fast time out on credit card calls to the |> number where the card is assigned. PT] Nothing's wrong with it; I'm well aware that it can already be used to signal number termination. (As the Moderator points out, this is a general feature, not just for international calls.) Remember though, there's a big difference between *allowing* a certain way of doing things, and *requiring* that way. Until POTS (Plain Ole' Telephone Service) has advanced to the state where pulse dialing is no longer in use, telcos will still have to provide a way for their non-touch-tone customers to dial. Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation 62 Alexander Drive goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau USA
"Spyros C. Bartsocas" <SCB@brownvm.brown.edu> (06/25/90)
>[Moderator's Note: Well, *when* do you enter it, after the >international number has been dialed as you would on a domestic call? >With international numbers of variable length, how is it known where >the international number ends and the credit card number begins? Do >you enter the international number, then hit the pound to terminate >the dialing and then enter the card number following the bong? On It uses timeouts just like calling from home. To call number 234-5678 in Athens, Greece using a calling card you would enter: 01-30-1-234-5678-[Timeout or #] {bong AT&T or whatever} [Calling card number] {Thanks for using AT&T or whatever} On a related question, although I have been successful doing the above in the past, I recently tried it from a Boston payphone. To my surpise after the thanks for using AT&T recording, an AT&T operator answered the phone. She said that I could not use my calling card to dial that country from that payphone. So I moved to another one, tried again, same thing. This time the operator said that the country I am calling has disabled calling card calls. This does sound right to me. Trying the same thing from a hotel room was successful. Can anyone explain the above? Spyros Bartsocas scb@brownvm.brown.edu scb@cs.brown.edu
normt@ihlpy.att.com (Norman R Tiedemann) (06/27/90)
-The Moderator writes:
-On 01 calls, at least in Chicago, the credit
-card number cannot be entered via the tone pad, but is passed orally
-to the operator who answers.
-John Covert responded:
-I'm not sure why it didn't work for the Moderator; I just tried 01+
-from an exchange in the Chicago Loop area and was presented with the
-"bong" and was able to enter a calling card number. TSPS has a
-database of which phones have TT service; the bong is presented to
-those phones, and not to phones that don't have TT service, but you
-should see the same behaviour on 0+inter-LATA and 01+overseas.
-[Moderator's Note: Well, *when* do you enter it, after the
-international number has been dialed as you would on a domestic call?
-With international numbers of variable length, how is it known where
-the international number ends and the credit card number begins? Do
-you enter the international number, then hit the pound to terminate
-the dialing and then enter the card number following the bong? On
I'll comment on a few of the above claims based on personal experience,
On 01 calls in almost all cases you will be electronically requested
for the card number with the bong. This all assumes your long distance
carrier is AT&T. It may be different for others. This does not matter
if you are set up for TT or dial pulse. I have only Dial Pulse at home
and I always get the bong. (At which time I flip the little switch on
my phone and touch tone in my card number.)
(Yes I do do this from home sometimes to charge to different number).
The digit collector mechanism has a timer which will time out when no
more digits are entered (normally this is about 5 seconds). This is
how the switch knows to start collecting the credit card number
instead of the number to call. You may also hit the # key, which will
terminate the number immediately.
This may not work for the moderator, since Northwestern University has
their own "goofy" PBX system, which allows and doesn't allow some
strange things. (My wife is a graduate student there, so this is based
on her experiences.) Also if the default LD carrier is not AT&T, this
may be the reason why the "bong" is not heard.
Norm Tiedemann AT&T Bell Labs IH 2G-419
att!ihlpy!normt 2000 Naperville Rd.
normt@ihlpy.att.com Naperville, IL 60566
[Moderator's Note: But I don't use NU's phone system in any way,
except to call into the dialups ... I am served out of the
Chicago-Rogers Park office. But international calls like that are rare
for me: Either I dial direct or I call via my employer's
call-extender, and bill it to the office that way. That's why I
reallt didn't know. PT]covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert 26-Jun-1990 2059) (06/27/90)
From: Greg Monti Date: 26 June 1990 Subject: Re: Uniform International Dialing "Spyros C. Bartsocas" <SCB@brownvm.brown.edu> writes: (Regarding trying to call Greece via calling card from a pay phone in Boston:) > To my > surprise after the thanks for using AT&T recording, an AT&T operator > answered the phone. She said that I could not use my calling card to > dial that country from that payphone. So I moved to another one, > tried again, same thing. This time the operator said that the country > I am calling has disabled calling card calls. This does sound right > to me. Trying the same thing from a hotel room was successful. Can > anyone explain the above? Because other countries (and long distance companies in the United States) *do* have the right to reject, out of hand, the credit of callers from or to certain other countries. I guess that Greece does it because of previous problems with fraud, in which they spent money to complete calling card (01+) calls into Greece and then found that the LD company(ies) which sent the calls had been defrauded and that no money was ever collected so they never got their share. If you call AT&T International Long Distance Information (800 874-4000) (this is *information*, not *directory assistance*) they can probably send you a booklet on international calling. There's a chart in it showing, for every country on earth, whether they accept direct dialed calls to or from the USA and whether the countries accept calls made with calling cards from each other's country. Last version I saw was being given out at an AT&T booth at a convention center in early 1990, but the instructions in it seemed to be several years old (like no direct dialing to Soviet Union). The hotel probably used an AOS to take your card number, direct dialed the call itself, and then paid the bill for direct dialed call from the money it got from you when you paid the AOS charge as part of your local phone bill. There's a lot less fraud in direct dialed calls than in calling card calls, so the direct dialed call was accepted by Greece. You could have probably gone home and direct dialed (011+) the call a lot cheaper from there; but you give up the convenience of using the calling card. Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work +1 202 822 2633 Addendum from John Covert: Actually, the AT&T operator who stated that it was the other country that wanted the calls stopped is mistaken. Since it was AT&T calling cards that were involved, there is no bilateral agreement involved. What's actually going on is that AT&T (and other carriers) are red-lining certain exchanges and countries because of a high volume of calling card fraud from those areas to those countries. AT&T accepts the AT&T (or local telco) calling cards for calls to all countries served by AT&T without exception. At least from non-coin phones. Bilateral agreements only affect whether the AT&T card can be used to call back home from those countries, or whether the distant country's calling card is accepted by AT&T for calls from the U.S. to the distant country. Specific example: last fall, as I was trying to call Hong Kong from JFK airport, I discovered that the exchange containing the NYTel payphones was red-lined. However, the AT&T Card Caller phones nearby were on a different exchange which was not redlined, thus the calls could be placed. /john
telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) (06/27/90)
John Covert and Greg Monti, in the message before this one, discuss the rationale behind AT&T's refusal to honor their own credit agreement with their subscribers when they 'red-line' certain countries or certain prefixes from the use of the Calling Card. When you encounter a situation like this, from an AT&T coin phone, my suggestion is that you SUE them. They have lost in the past on this, and they will lose on your case. And they will settle with you. There is NOTHING in any tariff which gives AT&T the right to refuse Calling Card service on a prefix by prefix basis. There is NOTHING in the tariff which says any given country can be excluded from receiving outgoing calls from the United States via the Calling Card. They refer to the Calling Card as universal. They have never sent you, or me, or anyone else the written explanation required by the Federal Trade Commission when they deny you credit after having previously authorized said credit. In their own literature, they claim their phone card is good *everywhere*. Sprint used to get sued all the time for pulling this sort of stunt from the payphones at the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York City. AT&T was sued in one case by someone who attempted to call Iran from (I think) JFK in New York. AT&T refused to accept his Calling Card *which had a credit balance* on it. He sued AT&T for fraud, and filed complaints with both the Federal Trade Commission (relating to denial of credit) and the Federal Communications Commission (relating to lack of authority by tariff for AT&T's posture in the matter.) AT&T settled with him for $1000; sort of an expensive item for what would have been a $15-20 call to Iran! You might try the same sort of aggressive stance, until they get off their tangent. PT
alans@hp-ptp.hp.com (Alan_Sanderson) (06/28/90)
While traveling in the San Diego area, I attempted to use a pay phone
to call into Mexico using a calling card. Instead of a "bong", I was
connected to an operator, who informed me that I could not make a
calling card call to Mexico from a pay phone, because the pay phone
was located in a "high fraud area", and suggested that I find a
residence phone to use.
Alan Sanderson Hewlett-Packard AMSO alans@hpams0a.HP.COM
US Snail: 1266 Kifer Rd. MS102F MaBell: 408-746-5714
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 FAX: 408-746-5571
Disclaimer: <Standard Disclaimer Applies>
[Moderator's Note: I wonder what made the idiot operator think that if
you had had a choice of residence or payphone to use you would have
chosen to stand in their filthy phone booth instead of sitting in
comfort in your home? This odious practice -- of denying credit card
calls willy-nilly from payphones, particularly after phone credit
cards were advertised as a way to use public phones without having to
worry about having change -- will only stop, eventually, once the
telco in particular has been sued often enough and had to answer
enough Federal Trade Commission and FCC complaints.
Please note telcos have *no authority by tariff* to make a blanket
denial of credit based on the location or type of service (coin
phone). They are violating Federal Trade Commission rules everytime
they issue you a credit card and then refuse to honor it without
sending you a written letter of denial explaining why. Of course, they
are not about to explain in writing why they will serve the UK without
question and why they refuse to serve callers to (for example), Iran
on the same basis.
Telcos *hate* Small Claims Court (hint, hint). They consider it
beneath them. Take them there whenever you are denied credit in a
discriminatory way by an operator and inconvenienced as a result.
Force one of their attornies to have to spend the morning there, or
responding to an inquiry about illegal credit practices from the FTC.
AT&T has already settled with at least one customer on this. PT]
P A T R I C K A. T O W N S O N (The Cheerful Iconclast)
ptownson@cs.bu.edu ptownson@chinet.ch.il.us ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu
Unique Zip Code 60690-1570 MCI Mail: 222-4956 AT&T Mail: !ptownson