peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/01/90)
Note that AT&T is still allowed to perform call-blocking (and in fact
does at LA International Airport (LAX)). When will this be changed?
_--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/ \
\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure!
v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'Doug Claar <dclaar@hpmpeb12.hp.com> (02/01/90)
Well, I had my token unpleasant experience with a COCOT. Not remembering what the current law was like, I called the California PUC. They said that current state law required that motels and hotels MUST allow access to alternate long distance carriers; access from other phones to alternate carriers OR to 800 numbers was not currently required. There was a requirement (a tariff, I believe) that no payphone charge more than $.10 over PacBell intra-lata, and no more than $.10 over ATT inter-lata, in state. There is currently something before the commission to require "standardized" access from all payphones that would require access to alternate carriers and 800 numbers. I also talked to AT&T, and they said that if I couldn't dial 10288-0 to get to them, it was a blocking phone, and that was that. I'd really like to present the facts to the place where the COCOTs are. Does FCC order DA 89-237 override state setups? Is it really illegal to block access? (If so, why don't the state PUC and AT&T know about it?!?!?! Never mind, I don't want to know!) Thanks, Doug Claar