Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!decwrl!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Query About Long Distance Blocking of BBS
Message-ID: <13765@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 17 Oct 90 22:38:36 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.
Lines: 21
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 743, Message 6 of 11


On Oct 16 at  0:05, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> The blocking of paid traffic by a
> telco is quite unethical to say the least, if not actually illegal,
> which I suspect it is, without going to look through a bunch of
> tariffs.

The excuse I'd heard was that the blocked BBSs seemed to attract
larger numbers of callers using fraudulent calling card numbers and
such.  Thus the blocking of domestic calls falls into the same
category as other carriers blocking calling-card access to entire
countries from sections of our own.

That doesn't explain why dial-1 or 10xxx service would be blocked, but
perhaps their equipment wasn't programmed to tell the difference.

Whatever the case, it seemes pretty slimy to me.


Brian