Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: S M Krieger <smk@attunix.att.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 10XXX Bugs
Message-ID: <8645@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 4 Jun 90 16:36:10 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Summit NJ
Lines: 35
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 412, Message 9 of 13


In yesterday's (June 3) (Plainfield - Somerville, NJ) {Courier News},
there was a feature article on pay phone confusion and private pay
phones.  Among the points mentioned about private pay-phones were:

     1.	The warning about getting charged much higher rates than
	NJ Bell or United Telephone charges for calls within 201
	and what AT&T charges for other calls.

     2.	The status/legality concerning 10XXX selection.

     3.	Why private pay phones don't allow incoming calls.

Concerning 10XXX selection, one sentence in the article said that
where it was possible, there were cases where people could end up
making international calls and having it billed to the payphone owner
(I wonder if it's because the phone, seeing 10288-0, assumed it was an
operator assisted call, instead of looking for 10288-01).  Also, even
though customers have the right to choose an LD carrier, to the phone
owners, having their operator splash you over to an AT&T operator, or
having you have the local telco operator do it, is considered
sufficient; it doesn't mean they have to explicitly support 10XXX
dialing (or pushing).

One point raised on both 10XXX and incoming calls is that to the phone
owners, the phone is their business, and having to allow either of
these types of calls means that their business resource is being used,
and they aren't getting any revenue from it.  It was implied that if
they must support 10XXX from their phones, then they are entitled to
share in the revenue from the call.  


Stan Krieger Summit, NJ
 ...!att!attunix!smk