Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bu.edu!mtgzy.att.com
From: rlf@mtgzy.att.com (Ronald L Fletcher)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: FCC Responds to Individual Complaints About AOSs
Message-ID: <59819@bu.edu.bu.edu>
Date: 29 Jun 90 16:38:36 GMT
Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 23
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 462, Message 4 of 10


In article <9224@accuvax.nwu.edu> wrf@mab.ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph
Franklin) writes:
 
> >Before writing my letter, I telephoned both ATT and FCC to determine
> >the law.  FCC said unequivocally that the hotel phones must handle
> >10xxx properly.  However ATT waffled; they commiserated with me but
> >didn't they that the hotel had to connect me to them.  Why would they
> >not assert their rights?
 
In article <9341@accuvax.nwu.edu>, unhd!unhtel!paul@uunet.uu.net (Paul
S. Sawyer) writes:

> Maybe it's because ATT's PBX's (e.g. System 85) can't handle 9-10288, etc....

Of course they can. They can dial any number they have been allowed to
dial by the dial plan and routing administration. If there was an
equal access number that had been restricted through hard-coding, I
can assure you it would not be 10288.


			Ron Fletcher
			att!mtgzy!rlf