Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!hayes.fai.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: CAPEK%YKTVMX.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Equal Access?
Message-ID: <9780@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 16 Jul 90 05:09:47 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 15
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 488, Message 2 of 9


I was visiting friends in Queens, New York recently who have elected
RCI (Rochester Communications, I think) as their default long distance
carrier.  I tried to make an AT&T credit card call from their phone
(718-544) and repeatedly got the NY Tel operator, who was always happy
to connect me with AT&T, but never able to explain why, as soon as I
dialed 10 (on the way to 10288), I was diverted.  Supervisors were no
better; in fact, they argued harder that what I wanted made no sense.
I gave up and reported the line to repair as being broken.  Was it, or
is there a legitimate state of "partial equal access", where RCI could
be the default carrier (I confirmed this via 700-555-4141), and AT&T
would not be easily available?


Peter Capek