Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: Linc Madison <rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill
Message-ID: <5242@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 15 Mar 90 10:17:25 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 30
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 178, Message 2 of 14


In article <5084@accuvax.nwu.edu> Rob Stamfli writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 167, Message 7 of 8

> >[Moderator's Note: ... (concerning the FCC Toll Access charge)
> >...  This charge you question, mandated by law, is
> >to compensate the local telco for providing access to the long
> >distance carrier of your choice. 
 
>OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for
>local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be
>charged this fee.  So far I have been unable to convice my telco that
>this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for
>something I cannot use.

Oh, but you'll still have to pay the access charge, unless you manage
to get a line which blocks *INCOMING* long-distance calls.

The reason I know is that I was the system administrator for a small
residential Centrex system (11 lines).  One line was the answering
machine, left in a public area.  To prevent any unexplained calls to
Kathmandu, the line was restricted to place outgoing calls only within
the Centrex system.  However, because the line was still connected to
the long-distance system for incoming calls, we still paid the FCC
access charge, per Pac*Bell's ever-joyous interpretation of CPUC
Tariff.


Linc Madison   =   rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu