Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Anachronistic Rip-off
Message-ID: <1897@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 7 Dec 89 00:20:25 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Lines: 24
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 556, message 7 of 7


In article <1801@accuvax.nwu.edu>, pdg@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Guthrie) writes:
 
> One thing to keep in mind is that the use of dialers to access
> inter-lata carriers does not necessarily mean that the customer pays
> for the local call into the carrier.  Many carriers use FGB lines (950
> NXX), and bear the (much reduced) costs.

It's time to dump this myth. I have the package for OCCs that is
supplied by Pac*Bell. It includes all of the technical requirements,
rates, billing procedures, etc., etc., for the various connections
that OCCs can get to Pac*Bell.

The long and the short of it is: the difference in cost to OCCs
between FGB and FGD is fractional cents per minute. Plus, with FGD you
can accept or waive a number of Pac*Bell services that can materially
affect your connection costs. The major difference is POP
requirements.

Besides I wasn't talking about FGB in the first place. I was talking
about FGA.
 
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 723 1395
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !