d.m.p.@pro-party.cts.com (Don Peaslee) (07/14/89)
Patrick, thank you for your earlier explanation of the various "10" prefixed numbers. Here is a recent message on a local San Antonio bulletin board that is in reference to the message I posted with your information. Seems that this fellow was charged on a private line for calls to an IN TOWN BBS. (?!?) (The following message was posted by Larry Collins) >Now comes an interesting story about using "10288". I saw several >messages indicating that you could get a cleaner line by prefixing your >numbers with "10288". Something changed several months ago, and I can >no longer connect with Shadow Taker from home, due to noise. I have to >dial in to a Unix machine at work, then have IT dial out to Shadow >Taker. ( DP: Shadow Taker is a LOCAL number for this caller... ) >I tried adding "10288" to the front of S.T.'s number, and have been able >to get pretty clean connections consistently for the last few weeks. >HOWEVER, all the messages said this was free, which seemed too good to >be true, and it WAS. I got my phone bill today and found a bunch of >long-distance calls to San Antonio, Tx. >I was charged by the minute, and there were several calls of exactly one >minute, some of which were .05 and some for .06, probably difference in >rounding. The longest call was 54 minutes for $2.85, which averages out >to .053 per minute. >So everyone be warned about the "10288". It's far from free. >I had some problems with Black Angel, too, and when I tried the 10288 >here, it didn't improve the connections any at all. >I have a single long-distance call from San Antonio Texas to Fratt Texas >which was my B.A. call. Eight minutes for .43. =-=-=-=- ( DP: If this is the case, then everyone better be very careful about using the 10288, etc., numbers as one might be incurring charges that one's not aware of. Patrick, can you shed some additional light on this?? ) Don Peaslee [Moderator's Note: Baloney, baloney, baloney! Prefixing a call with 10288 does nothing except force the call to be routed via AT&T. It does not incur extra charges other than whatever slight difference there is between AT&T rates to the point in question and whatever other carrier was being used. If you dial an intra-lata call (a call within your own town, for example) using 10288 as the leading code, it is likely the call will be rejected and you will have to dial over again. I've tried this, and at least here in Chicago, dialing 10288 followed by a seven digit (or ten digit, but within IBT's lata) number and a recording says the call cannot be completed as dialed. Whether or not you get 'cleaner' lines by forcing your call over AT&T is a very subjective matter. But in and of itself, 10288 is a way of routing long distance calls -- not a special feature to insure clean lines at an added cost. PT]
jimmy%denwa.uucp@eecs.nwu.edu (Jim Gottlieb) (07/19/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0240m02@vector.dallas.tx.us> d.m.p.@pro-party.cts.com writes: > >>So everyone be warned about the "10288". It's far from free. > >[Moderator's Note: Baloney, baloney, baloney! Prefixing a call with 10288 >does nothing except force the call to be routed via AT&T. True, but if the call is an intra-LATA one, you will be charged AT&T intra-state rates instead of your local telco's rate (which may be free). Many telcos block 10XXX calls to intra-LATA numbers, but obviously this guy's doesn't. -- Jim Gottlieb E-Mail: <jimmy@denwa.uucp> or <jimmy@pic.ucla.edu> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy> V-Mail: (213) 551-7702 Fax: 478-3060 The-Real-Me: 824-5454
d.m.p.@pro-party.cts.com (Don Peaslee) (07/27/89)
After a San Antonio caller was billed for prefixing several _local_ calls with "10288", Patrick earlier responded: >[Moderator's Note: Baloney, baloney, baloney! Prefixing a call with >10288 does nothing except force the call to be routed via AT&T. It >does not incur extra charges other than whatever slight difference >there is between AT&T rates to the point in question and whatever >other carrier was being used. If you dial an intra-lata call (a call >within your own town, for example) using 10288 as the leading code, it >is likely the call will be rejected and you will have to dial over >again. I've tried this, and at least here in Chicago, dialing 10288 >followed by a seven digit (or ten digit, but within IBT's lata) number >and a recording says the call cannot be completed as dialed. Whether >or not you get 'cleaner' lines by forcing your call over AT&T is a >very subjective matter. But in and of itself, 10288 is a way of >routing long distance calls -- not a special feature to insure clean >lines at an added cost. PT] =-=-=- And Larry Collins, the above referenced caller, now replies (slightly edited for brevity): I take exception to Patrick's "Baloney" statement. Anybody who cares to invest potentially a nickel a minute will find that prefixing a San Antonio number with "10288" will connect with no problems. If he, or anyone else has the gall to doubt what I say, I will be happy to forward photocopies of my phone bill, showing long-distance charges from my San Antonio number to Shadow Taker's San Antonio number, and to Black Angel's number, from AT&T, just as I laid out in my first message. ...some text deleted... Furthermore, in the case of Shadow Taker BBS, whether it gives cleaner lines is not subjective. I get too much noise to even get a connect 100% of the time without it, and I get clean to mostly-clean connections 100% of the time when using it, though it seemed to make no difference on the three occasions I used it to call Black Angel BBS. =-=-=- And then another individual reading this exchange jumped in with: Better explain to Patrick that his Chicago set up with Midwest Bell or whatever definitely DOES NOT apply in the 512 area! You dial 10288 and Southwestern Bell will connect you to AT&T when you can dial ANY area code. I can dial via AT&T from the BBS machine to the other machine that way and pick up a $.05 charge for just connecting. Also, ALMOST anywhere that has PC Pursuit has 8-1-N protocol, but not San Antonio. The PCP modem here is strictly 7-1-E if you want to communicate! Don't know how many examples of working script files I have seen from other areas that flat will not work here because of the protocol difference. Larry and I had discussed 'free service' from Ma Bell and agreed there had to be some kind of catch to it. However, the ability to use another carriers lines to access a different prefix in the San Antonio does prove what I have been saying for years, Ma Bell has messed up interface between the various exchanges within San Antonio. Larry's calls most likely went from his local switch to Houston or Dallas for switching back direct to the switch serving Shadow Taker. To makes things simple, San Antonio is NOT like the rest of the world in regards to telephone service. Maybe in 2-3 years we will be caught up to where the rest of the US was last year. Vern =-=-=- (DP: I dunno, Patrick, can things be all that different in a large metropolitan area like San Antonio or is it just this heat wave we're having???) [Moderator's Note: Well, Illinois Bell definitly plugs out attempts to use 10anything for stuff within their own LATA. That's all I know. It must be the terrible heat. Grammpa almost had a heat stroke yesterday, and the combination heat/humidity is no better this morning. PT]