Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: pdg@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Guthrie)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Anachronistic Rip-off
Message-ID: <1984@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 9 Dec 89 07:28:10 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Paul Guthrie <pdg@chinet.chi.il.us>
Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers
Lines: 28
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 563, message 6 of 7

In article <1897@accuvax.nwu.edu> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:

>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.

>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.

This may be true in your area.  I was not talking about carrier costs,
merely the subscriber costs in accessing the carrier.  FGBs (and FGDs)
cost the subscriber $0 on their phone bill (except that which is
naturally passed back to them through the LD call costs).

>Besides I wasn't talking about FGB in the first place. I was talking
>about FGA.

And I wasn't talking about FGD, just pointing out that just because
you have dialers, does not mean FGA...... It could be FGB.


Paul Guthrie
chinet!nsacray!paul