Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS)
Message-ID: <16367@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 23 Jan 91 18:41:55 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Rockwell CMC
Lines: 47
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 62, Message 6 of 7


In article <16295@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jack Dominey writes to address the
complaint that ATT does not provide access to its long distance
service via 950-0288 or an 800-number:

> The issue
> of access to the network via 800 and 950-XXXX numbers is being fought
> by the lodging industry.  Hotel owners hate the idea of reprogramming
> their PBX's to provide free 10-XXX access.  They (generally) allow
> free 800 and local calls, so they want AT&T to use those methods, too.

> AT&T's position, as I understand it, is that 10-XXX is the agreed-upon
> universal access method (through Bellcore?), and hotels will have to
> live with it.  To answer the inevitable, "All the other carriers use
> 800 and 950 access, why can't AT&T?": Other carriers built their
> networks to operate in a non-equal-access environment, so 800 and 950
> access are integral to their design.  AT&T's network was always the
> default, so the other access methods were never included.  I haven't
> seen any official estimates of the cost of building such access now,
> but I doubt it would be either cheap or easy.

While this is a nice try from the PR department, it just does not cut
it. The argument is technically flawed, two ways:

(1) 10288 is indeed the standard access method, but there seems to be
no way for ATT to provide access without billing the calls back to the
originating line. The reason the PBX operators are blocking 10XXX is
not to make trouble, but to prevent getting billed for unauthorized
calls. I am sure this could be alleviated by ATT by defining a class
of service for designated subscriber numbers, that disallow calls
without third-party billing. (I think there is enough processing power
in the POP to manage this).

(2) It would be trivial for the end office to deliver the 950-0/1XXX
calls to the same routing as 10XXX calls with an appropriate
type-of-service indication. This may in fact already be implemented in
the software. I think the 950-YXXX numbers are predefined so that the
last three digits map directly to the same carrier codes as 10XXX
selector codes. But there may well be tariff barriers to this
solution.

It would be more elegant for ATT to push for the second solution, thus
putting the burden of software changes nominally on the LECs.


Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer
CMC Rockwell  lars@CMC.COM