Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: Gordon Burditt Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: More ANI Fun! Message-ID: <10477@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 5 Aug 90 19:09:14 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 40 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 543, Message 5 of 9 >[Moderator's Note: My gosh, yes! I wonder if anyone has notified the >authorities in PA of how their rights are being violated by this >service. I wonder what would happen if phone subscribers with 800 >numbers insisted that their telco quit routing them *any* 800 calls >from Pennsylvania until such time as it becomes legal to know the >number of the telephone used in the call to them -- which, after all >they are paying for? PT] Is that the legal situation when the caller is in Pennsylvania and the callee is outside? I tried the Access Logic Technologies number from 817-249. It worked. Since the non-800 number they give for more information is also in 817, I assume the 800 number also is based in Fort Worth. I believe the mention of MCI is that they are getting the info from MCI, NOT that they know who your carrier is. My default LD carrier is /dev/null. If I try 10288-1-800-666, I don't get to finish the number, and I get a recording telling me not to use a long-distance company access code. Interestingly, I do NOT get such a recording when I dial 10288-249-xxxx to get my other line at home (yes, routing an intra-CO call through AT&T. It doesn't show up on the bill, either). I called a friend, who called the number from 717 (just outside Harrisburg, Pennsylvania). It worked. The recording also referred to MCI. My friend has AT&T as primary carrier. Is there any significance to the fact that "666" is also known as "the number of the beast"? Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon [Moderator's Note: 10666 went unassigned as a carrier access code for quite a long time for the same superstitious reason: Whichever telco used it would have rumors spread about them similar to the ones which have plagued Proctor and Gamble for over a decade. PT]