Steve Elias <eli@pws.bull.com> (03/15/90)
According to a tariff writer for NE Tel, using call forwarding in order to avoid toll charges is explicitly illegal. I don't know where such a law is listed. Perhaps it is written into the tariffs somewhere. ; Steve Elias ; work phone: 508 671 7556 ; email: eli@spdcc.com ; voice mail: 617 932 5598 ;
lws@comm.wang.com (Lyle Seaman) (03/21/90)
eli@pws.bull.com (Steve Elias) writes: >According to a tariff writer for NE Tel, using call forwarding in >order to avoid toll charges is explicitly illegal. I don't know where >such a law is listed. Perhaps it is written into the tariffs >somewhere. If this is illegal, it's just another sign of what's wrong with our government. When I can use two services provided by a vendor, completely consistently with their design, at a net savings to me, then it's because the vendor is not pricing their services consistently. If this is really cheaper, then the vendor should just use this technique to provide long-distance service. If not, then it should be priced appropriately. Under no circumstances should the government have to step in and persecute [sic] me for utilizing simple capitalist and legitimate principals. But instead, the vendor uses its lobbying muscle to force the enactment of legal provisions supporting its non- competitive practices... ! [dismount soapbox] A while back, before divestiture (BD), there used to be a service that would provide to subscribers, cheaper long-distance calling. The way it worked, I think, is they bought an 800 number from AT&T, then would forward calls from subscribers to the desired goal. So for instance, if the 800 number terminated in Seattle, and I wanted to call my mother in Seattle everyday, I would buy this service. Now, what is the difference between that, and linking two local areas (or cheap areas) to avoid paying a higher cost? Lyle sendmail.cf under construction, pardon the From: lws@comm.wang.com (or, uunet!comm.wang.com!lws) (508) 967-2322