Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: pacolley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Colley)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: PBX Blocking of 10XXX Calls
Message-ID: <11867@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 7 Sep 90 14:28:54 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: University of Waterloo
Lines: 27
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 627, Message 6 of 9


In article <11761@accuvax.nwu.edu> dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David
Tamkin) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 622, Message 8 of 12

> [...] if AT&T had an 800
>dial-up number available for placing outgoing calls
> [...] the matter would be strictly theoretical.  The
>employee who found that the PBX blocked 102880 would still have a way
>to reach an AT&T operator.

Maybe not.

For no apparent reason (at least no reason discernible to
non-bureaucrats), the phone system at University of Waterloo blocks
800 numbers (in addition to long distance).

However, trying it out just now, they have made one improvement in the
last six months: Dialing "banned" numbers now gives re-order, instead
of the switchboard.

Hmmm ... maybe they got 800 and 900 numbers confused?  Anybody know
some interesting 900 numbers?  :-)


Paul
pacolley@violet.waterloo.edu or .ca