drl@uunet.uu.net> (05/29/90)
In article <8143@accuvax.nwu.edu> contact!djcl@uunet.uu.net (woody) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 377, Message 7 of 7 >During a recent trip to Buffalo, I made the following observations: >1) Dialing 10XXX + 1 700 555.4141 generally didn't work too well. > For instance, 10333 (Sprint) or 10222 (MCI) + 1 700 555.4141 got > AT&T's long distance network recording. 10555 (Telesphere) just > got a fast busy signal. >2) You can't dial 10222 + 1 800 888.1800, which is supposed to be one > of MCI's numbers! (Presumably, 1 + 800 888.1800 should do it). > Of course, mixing and matching various 10XXX on 800 number calls > would only get the recording that the number could not be dialed > with the selected carrier. >3) At least the 10555 0# worked to get a Telesphere operator... I recently made a trip to Eau Claire, Wisconsin, where I tried to make a call from a Wisconsin Bell payphone which was clearly labeled "The long distance carrier for inter-LATA calls from this phone is (very large type) AT&T". Wrong! Dialing 1 502 244 xxxx (ka-bong) followed by my AT&T card number produced a recording: "MCI is unable to process your card number. Please enter a valid card number." After a moment's pause, I tried 10288 1 502 244 xxxx (ka-bong) card-number, which got me "Thank you for using AT&T" and a completed call. I don't have an account with MCI, and my AT&T card is a student card, which is not associated with any specific phone number. I assume from previous messages to the Digest that if I had a normal AT&T card (one associated with my home phone number) MCI would have completed my call and billed me for it. I'm interested in how common this type of sleazy diversion is, and how Wisconsin Bell can get away with claiming that calls are routed by default through AT&T when in fact they go through MCI. Can my calls get routed through another long distance carrier when I use 10288? If MCI had completed my call, would I have been liable for the charges? Dan Lance / Corpane Industries, Inc. / Louisville, KY / drl@corpane.uucp
John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> (05/30/90)
Dan Lance <mailrus!citi!gatech!ukma!corpane!drl@uunet.uu.net> writes: > I'm interested in how common this type of sleazy diversion is, and how > Wisconsin Bell can get away with claiming that calls are routed by > default through AT&T when in fact they go through MCI. Can my calls > get routed through another long distance carrier when I use 10288? It was probably just an error on someone's part that the wrong default carrier appeared on the card. The owner or operator of the property where the phone was located could have requested some change and not updated the card, or Wisconsin Bell could have made a mistake in placing the card or programming the default. Probably nothing sinister here. If the phone in question is an LEC pay phone, then 10288 should get you AT&T. If the phone is a COCOT, then anything goes. More than likely in that event, your call would just be blocked. > If MCI had completed my call, would I have been liable for the charges? Of course. If you mistakenly buy a ticket on United instead of USAir and fly to LA, you will still have to pay your Amex when the bill comes. When it comes to long distance, it is Caveat Emptor. It is up to you to learn how to tell if your call is being handled by the carrier of your choice. Now if you could prove fraud... John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
bakerj@ncar.ucar.edu> (06/01/90)
In article <8398@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mailrus!citi!gatech!ukma! corpane!drl@uunet.uu.net (Dan Lance) writes: > I'm interested in how common this type of sleazy diversion is, and how > Wisconsin Bell can get away with claiming that calls are routed by > default through AT&T when in fact they go through MCI. I wouldn't jump to conclusions about WisBell being sleazy. They most likely are just responding to a Greene requirement that equal access be provided through pay phones. WisBell probably had all pay phones going through AT&T at one time, and has recently switched over a certain number of them to use alternate carriers by default, while still allowing the subscriber to select a carrier via 10XXX. > Can my calls get routed through another long distance carrier when I use 10288? Not legally. > If MCI had completed my call, would I have been liable for the charges? I would suppose so. But, when using a pay phone, I suggest always using 10XXX carrier selection just so you know who you're dealing with.
brian@c3pe.c3.com (Brian O'Donoghue) (06/03/90)
Jon Baker (asuvax!gtephx!mothra!bakerj@ncar.ucar.edu) writes: > [When] using a pay phone, I suggest always using 10XXX carrier > selection just so you know who you're dealing with. I wish it were that easy. In Delaware and Virginia, I have found BOC payphones which reject 10xxx selection of the default carrier, with the recording: "This call may be made using easy dialling. Please hang up, and dial again." (Sigh) brian@C3.COM {decuac.dec.com,cucstud}!c3pe!br
S M Krieger <smk@attunix.att.com> (06/04/90)
In yesterday's (June 3) (Plainfield - Somerville, NJ) {Courier News},
there was a feature article on pay phone confusion and private pay
phones. Among the points mentioned about private pay-phones were:
1. The warning about getting charged much higher rates than
NJ Bell or United Telephone charges for calls within 201
and what AT&T charges for other calls.
2. The status/legality concerning 10XXX selection.
3. Why private pay phones don't allow incoming calls.
Concerning 10XXX selection, one sentence in the article said that
where it was possible, there were cases where people could end up
making international calls and having it billed to the payphone owner
(I wonder if it's because the phone, seeing 10288-0, assumed it was an
operator assisted call, instead of looking for 10288-01). Also, even
though customers have the right to choose an LD carrier, to the phone
owners, having their operator splash you over to an AT&T operator, or
having you have the local telco operator do it, is considered
sufficient; it doesn't mean they have to explicitly support 10XXX
dialing (or pushing).
One point raised on both 10XXX and incoming calls is that to the phone
owners, the phone is their business, and having to allow either of
these types of calls means that their business resource is being used,
and they aren't getting any revenue from it. It was implied that if
they must support 10XXX from their phones, then they are entitled to
share in the revenue from the call.
Stan Krieger Summit, NJ
...!att!attunix!smkbakerj@ncar.ucar.edu> (06/05/90)
In article <8582@accuvax.nwu.edu>, brian@c3pe.c3.com (Brian O'Donoghue) writes: > > [When] using a pay phone, I suggest always using 10XXX carrier > > selection just so you know who you're dealing with. > I wish it were that easy. In Delaware and Virginia, I have found BOC > payphones which reject 10xxx selection of the default carrier, with > the recording: "This call may be made using easy dialling. Please > hang up, and dial again." (Sigh) A Greene ruling some time ago mandated that 10XXX carrier selection (equal access) be allowed from all pay phones. If not deployed yet in your area, it should be soon. You might contact your local telco or Utility Comission for details.
Bill Fenner <WCF@ecl.psu.edu> (06/07/90)
I was playing around at a newly installed Bell o' PA phone the other day, and got some funny responses: 10288-1-700-555-4141 gave the expected (ring ring) Thank you for using AT&T. 1-700-555-4141 gave a slightly unexpected "Your call cannot be completed as dialled." 10333-1-700-555-4141 gave an extremely unexpected (ring ring) Thank you for using AT&T. Um ... is this legal? Could it have been a simple mistake because the phone was recently installed, or am I giving Bell too much credit? Should I try to do something about this? I've had no luck getting a FON card, 'tho I tried twice (once from WD40, once from a promotion at a local mall; maybe I'm on their **it list), so I can't try dialling a calling-card call with 10333 and see if it works... Anyone have any other suggestions as to what to try? Bill
carols@husc6.harvard.edu> (06/07/90)
Bill Fenner writes in Volume 10, Issue 417, about unexpectedly getting a "Thank you for using AT&T" when he dials 10333-1-700-555-4141. He adds: >I've had no luck getting a >FON card, 'tho I tried twice (once from WD40, once from a promotion at >a local mall; maybe I'm on their **it list), so I can't try dialling a >calling-card call with 10333 and see if it works... Anyone have any >other suggestions as to what to try? A Sprint FONcard number wouldn't work with 10333 anyway; these only work when you've gone through the special 1-800 number. If you have an AT&T or BOC calling card, you can use 10333 along with that number. If things work right then Sprint will bill you for the call via your Bell of Pa. phone bill, the same way AT&T does. Believe me, Sprint will recognize a "standard" calling card number just fine. If, having entered such a number after dialing 10333 and the phone number you're calling, you then hear a "Thank you for using AT&T," you'll know you're in trouble. Carol Springs carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com
"John R. Covert 07-Jun-1990 2243" <covert@covert.enet.dec.com> (06/08/90)
From: Greg Monti Subject: Re: 10XXX Bugs Bill Fenner <WCF@ecl.psu.edu> writes: > I was playing around at a newly installed Bell o' PA phone the other > day, and got some funny responses: > 10288-1-700-555-4141 gave the expected (ring ring) Thank you for using > AT&T....10333-1-700-555-4141 gave the unexpected (ring ring) Thank you > for using AT&T. > Um ... is this legal? Far as I know, yes. Unlike your home phone (or maybe LIKE your home phone, dunno), BOC pay phones can have a DIFFERENT default LD carrier for 1+ and 0+ calls. Look carefully at the LD company references on the instruction card(s) on that phone. It probably says that 1+ out of LATA toll calls are handled by AT&T and that 0+ out of LATA toll calls are handled by either AT&T or someone else. Far as I know, only one LD company allows (or has facilities for) cash payment for 1+ calls: AT&T. Try dialing 10333-0-700-555-4141 and I'll bet it will thank you for using US Sprint. Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work +1 202 822-2633
"Andrew M. Boardman" <amb@cs.columbia.edu> (06/09/90)
In Volume 10, Issue 419, Message 11 of 11, Carol Springs wrote: >A Sprint FONcard number wouldn't work with 10333 anyway; these only >work when you've gone through the special 1-800 number. If you have >an AT&T or BOC calling card, you can use 10333 along with that number. Sprint has created this service solely for the usage of *other* companies calling cards? Am I the only person who sees something wrong with this? This discussion has come up before, and like all TELECOM discussions, will come up again (and again, and again, and again...) but I never noticed an actual answer: will AT&T and the RBOC's ever have the ability to keep their calling card numbers to themselves, and is the availability of this information mandated by the FCC/MFJ/<favourite TLA here>? Andrew Boardman amb@cs.columbia.edu ...rutgers!columbia!amb amb%cs.columbia.edu@cuvmb.bitnet