Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: Linc Madison <rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Source Needed For 900 Pricing
Message-ID: <11260@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 23 Aug 90 11:32:12 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
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 590, Message 5 of 12


In article <11033@accuvax.nwu.edu> Paul Sawyer writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 580, Message 11 of 13

>levin@bbn.com (Joel B. Levin) writes:
>>The charges do indeed seem to be determined by the "exchange" digits,

>At one time this seemed to be so, maybe when it was all AT&T, but now
>any 900 number seems to be able to be priced as the end user wants,
>within (very few) limits imposed by laws, tariffs, and/or carrier
>policies.

>[First .50/.35, then some exchanges 5.00/0.00 or 2.00/2.00, etc., and
> finally no consistency at all within an exchange.]

I happened to notice that the exchange 900-535 has a wide variety of
charges for calls.  There are some adult services advertized in local
freebie papers and 4:30 a.m. tv shows on this prefix, and also some of
the "call this number and get a guaranteed $1000 credit card" types,
with charges of at least $8 or $9 and maybe more on some of them.  I
saw one that I *think* was on this prefix that had a charge of
something on the order of $35.


Linc Madison   =   linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu