Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: asuvax!mothra!bakerj@ncar.ucar.edu (Jon Baker)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin
Message-ID: <12323@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 18 Sep 90 17:07:53 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: gte
Lines: 22
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 656, Message 4 of 10


In article <12125@accuvax.nwu.edu>, eli@pws.bull.com (Steve Elias) writes:

> My gripe with the local telcos is their obnoxious instate long
> distance rates.

Perhaps a technical nitpick, but it's 'intra-lata', not 'intra-state'.
In smaller eastern states, it may be the case that lata=state, but
this is not the case in the west.  e.g. a Phoenix-Tucson call is not
handled by USWest.

> luckily, these can usually be avoided by strategic use of long
> distance carriers for in state long distance calls.

I've found that only AT&T is diligent about blocking intra-lata calls.
Using LD carriers for intra-lata (although they're not supposed to do
this) is good method of obtaining better quality transmission or
better rates (depending on the carrier, quality of trunks from US West
to the carrier, etc.).


JB