Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: Jon Baker Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: 10XXX Bugs Message-ID: <8479@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 31 May 90 19:54:20 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: gte Lines: 26 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 401, Message 11 of 13 In article <8398@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mailrus!citi!gatech!ukma! corpane!drl@uunet.uu.net (Dan Lance) writes: > I'm interested in how common this type of sleazy diversion is, and how > Wisconsin Bell can get away with claiming that calls are routed by > default through AT&T when in fact they go through MCI. I wouldn't jump to conclusions about WisBell being sleazy. They most likely are just responding to a Greene requirement that equal access be provided through pay phones. WisBell probably had all pay phones going through AT&T at one time, and has recently switched over a certain number of them to use alternate carriers by default, while still allowing the subscriber to select a carrier via 10XXX. > Can my calls get routed through another long distance carrier when I use 10288? Not legally. > If MCI had completed my call, would I have been liable for the charges? I would suppose so. But, when using a pay phone, I suggest always using 10XXX carrier selection just so you know who you're dealing with.