Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: d.m.p.@pro-party.cts.com (Don Peaslee) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: 10288 numbers revisited Message-ID: Date: 14 Jul 89 14:36:36 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Reply-To: d.m.p.@pro-party.cts.com Lines: 57 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 240, message 2 of 11 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]