S.D-REUBEN%KLA.WESLYN@WESLEYAN.BITNET (Doug Reuben) (04/18/87)
Message-ID: <12295447378.35.S.D-REUBEN@KLA.WESLYN>
The question dealing with the similarities of AT&T calling cards and Bell
Operating Company calling cards is pretty complicated.
Basically, in most areas, there is no difference between Inter-LATA and
Intra-Lata calls placed using 0+ dialing with a credit card. All calls are
handled by the same equipment.
Some areas, like 415, 408, and some other areas in CA, and 516 on Long
Island in New York, have separated the
Intra-Lata Calling Card Equipment from
the Inter-lata equipment, as per federal regulation.
In these "newer" areas, when you make a local (Intra-Lata) call, you will
get routed over the Bell Operating companies equipment. Instead of the usual
voice saying "Please dial your card number or 0 for an operator now", you will
hear a stranger, less well pronounced voice. This is the local (Pac*Bell or
NY Tel) equipment which handles your call.
When you place a long-distance (inter-lata) call, you get the usual AT&T
equipment.
The problem with this is that if you make a local (intra-lata) call over
the local Bell company, you can't press the "#" sign to make a new call, IF
THE CALL IS INTER-LATA (LONG DISTANCE).
If you want to make multiple intra-lata calls, you CAN sequence call, but the
moment you make an inter-lata call, you
will get a message saying "Please hang up and dial your call again. Your call
can not be completed as a sequence call" (in a British accent, no less...)
If you FIRST make an inter-lata call, (long distance), and then try to
make a local call, it will work fine. (My local company SAYS AT&T will be
changing this soon, but I don't think
they know what they are talking about
as usual...)
Briefly then, in areas 415,408,516 and probably others in the near future,
inter-lata and intra-lata calls ARE handled by different equipment. Moreover,
this creates problems because you can not sequence-call to an inter-lata call
after you have initially made an intra-lata call over either Pac*Bell's or
NY Tel's equipments.
This, however, is the only change to calling card service that I have
heard of. New York Tel, in their calling card literature, says that you can use
the NY Tel calling card to call locally, nationally, or around the world.
Obviously, they intend for you to use your calling card for more than just
local calls. The Pac*Bell (the clear ones) calling cards also have similar
literature. So I don't think that the local operating companies will change
their PIN numbers from that of AT&T's,
or even if they have the capability to do so. (AT&T and the Bell Operating
companies have a pretty good system to eliminate card fraud, and all the system
have to be tied together for it to work. In most areas, if you dial more than
36 calling card calls in 3 hours, a person at your local security department
will be notified, and they will try to contact you to see if the calls are
valid. If they do not get in touch with you, they will temporarily cancel the
card until they do get in touch with you...)
Therefore, it seems unlikely that there will be separate PIN numbers for
AT&T cards and local cards. The real problem is this nonsense with separate
calling card equipment, which is just a waste of money. I think this is just
another good example of what a mess
the Bell System Divestiture was and is...Hopefully, some day, some one in
charge with these people will realize this and put the Bell System back
together again...Wishful thinking, I know, but its better than getting upset
with this idiocy...:-) !!!
-Doug
REUBEN@WESLYN.BITNET
REUBEN%WESLYN.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
...(rutgers!) seismo!weslyn.bitnet!reuben (UUCP)
-------dp@JASPER.PALLADIAN.COM (Jeffrey Del Papa) (04/24/87)
Date: Sat 18 Apr 87 04:49:40-EST
From: Doug Reuben <S.D-REUBEN%KLA.WESLYN%WESLEYAN.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Message-ID: <12295447378.35.S.D-REUBEN@KLA.WESLYN>
In most areas, if you dial more than
36 calling card calls in 3 hours, a person at your local security department
will be notified, and they will try to contact you to see if the calls are
valid. If they do not get in touch with you, they will temporarily cancel the
card until they do get in touch with you...)
-Doug
REUBEN@WESLYN.BITNET
REUBEN%WESLYN.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
...(rutgers!) seismo!weslyn.bitnet!reuben (UUCP)
-------
this sounds like a real loss. I guess I have been lucky, but when away from home, I
will make heavy use of the card to track things down... It has often happened that
co-workers out in the field have made repeated calls to me when they have had a
problem. I would be most annoyed if I was trying to fix something, and my card
stopped working. (I have a separately billed card now, as it really annoyed me when
my card stopped working because I moved.)
<dp>kent@xanth.cs.odu.EDU (Kent Paul Dolan) (04/27/87)
In article <8704240355.AA01860@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> S.D-REUBEN%KLA.WESLYN@WESLEYAN.BITNET (Doug Reuben) writes: >[...] I think this is just another good example of what a mess >the Bell System Divestiture was and is...Hopefully, some day, some one in >charge with these people will realize this and put the Bell System back >together again...Wishful thinking, I know, but its better than getting upset >with this idiocy...:-) !!! I loved the rest of your article Doug, but here I must demur. By pure coincidence, I made two long distance pay phone calls the other day, just after the rate change at 5PM, in the C&P telephone (Eastern Virginia) service area. One call was to my home, 40 miles away; the second call was to my mother's home, 1250 miles away in Minnesota. The second call cost a dime less for the same one minute call. AT&T used to rip us off something fierce, because they held a monopoly position. Now that they are competitive with a lot of other start up long distance service providers, it has suddenly become possible for them to provide less expensive service. The local, "Baby Bells" are still monopolies, and they feel no need to provide reasonable rates. For example, normal pay phone long distance calls are now handled by computer rather than local operators, which evidently saved the phone companies a bundle. Rather than reducing the cost of the start up minute of a phone call to reflect this new economy, the cost continues to increase. Thus the ludicrous result of a 40 mile call costing more than a 1250 mile call. I suggest (<---- Opinion marker! Keep your flames to yourself! ;-) that the thing to do now is to find a not-terribly-disruptive way to introduce phone competition at the local level, since we have proved it works well nationally. It astounds me that the phone companies are the only organizations that can continue to reduce staff by automation, yet cannot seem to turn these savings to them into savings to the customer. What kind of a line are they feeding the rate approving public utilities commissions, anyway? Kent. -- The Contradictor Member HUP (Happily Unemployed Programmers) // Yet // Another Back at ODU to learn how to program better (after 25 years!) \\ // Happy \// Amigan! UUCP : kent@xanth.UUCP or ...{sun,cbosgd,harvard}!xanth!kent CSNET : kent@odu.csnet ARPA : kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu Voice : (804) 587-7760 USnail: P.O. Box 1559, Norfolk, Va 23501-1559 Copyright 1987 Kent Paul Dolan. How about if we keep the human All Rights Reserved. Author grants free race around long enough to see retransmission rights, recursively only. a bit more of the universe?
deej@IUS2.CS.CMU.EDU (David Lewis) (04/30/87)
In article <883@xanth.UUCP>, kent@xanth.cs.odu.EDU (Kent Paul Dolan) writes... >I suggest (<---- Opinion marker! Keep your flames to yourself! ;-) that the >thing to do now is to find a not-terribly-disruptive way to introduce phone >competition at the local level, since we have proved it works well nationally. Sounds like a nifty idea -- in fact, I'd love to be the person to start it... The problem is that the local loop remains a monopoly for much the same reason that electriity, gas, water, and now CATV are monopolies -- you have to run wires through the street. (Historical reasons for the establishment of monopoly local loop service omitted for brevity -- this is just why no one's begun competition yet). PUCs wouldn't take too kindly to another phone company tearing up the streets. In addition, the capital costs of local loop service are pretty steep -- I believe something like 40% of the assets of the BOCs are in the wiring plant. Starting up a competitive local telco with that kind of entry barrier, and a very shaky prospect of success, is not a good business venture. Of course, there are all the problems of mandated interconnection to provide universal service, compatibility, and so on; the legal battles with the FCC and BOCs alone would probably be enough to prevent anyone from trying it. <=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=> Arpa: deej@ius2.cs.cmu.edu Usenet: {ihnp4|ucbvax|cmucspt}!cmu-cs-ius2!deej Bell System: (412) 681-6380 USMail: 5170 Beeler St., #1 Pittsburgh, PA 15217-1002 Carrier Pigeon: The big red brick house with the plate-glass windows out front. The opinions contained herein must be mine. No one else will claim them. "If you're not part of the solution, you must be part of the problem."