Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!texsun!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: The Verification Operator is NOT Inward Message-ID: Date: 5 Aug 89 07:56:00 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 25 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 276, message 1 of 11 >A couple (?) of Digests back, John Covert mentioned that AT&T >operators can not talk to Local Bell operators via inward dialing. > >I'm not sure if I'm right, and maybe in New England it's different, >but if that's the case, how do AT&T ops do Emergency Interrupts and >Busy Verifications? In V9#250, I wrote >In no case will an AT&T operator calling Inward reach a local Baby Bell >operator. Only in the case of the completing calls to non-diallable points >(and there are thousands of them left, especially in California), will an >AT&T operator end up on a Baby Bell toll board, but this isn't Inward. I should have included verification as a case where AT&T operators can end up on a Baby Bell board. But again, this is NOT "Inward" and Baby Bell verification operators are prohibited from completing calls for AT&T if the number turns out to be available. The AT&T operator will have to redial the call from the originating point or possibly via AT&T Inward. There is a good reason for this, and it has to do with DOLLARS. Unless the AT&T call is completed via AT&T's FGD trunks, the local operating company does not get its share of the revenue from the call. /john