Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Accessing AT&T Message-ID: <16407@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 24 Jan 91 15:07:01 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 41 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 66, Message 7 of 16 Responding to Lars Poulsen in Digest V11, #62. >(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. You can certainly make third-party billed calls using 10288-0. I've done it from COCOT's on several occassions. Why can't hotels block 10XXX-1 and allow 10XXX-0? Hotel lines can be identified to the operator, who would not allow calls to be billed directly. Better still, hotels could allow 10XXX-1 calls and charge them directly to the room. Maybe I'm too honest by nature, but I really don't understand where the unauthorized billing problem comes from. >(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. I'm probably wading in over my head here, but ... isn't there a difference in the class of access between 950-YXXX and 10XXX? I refer to the access the LD carrier purchases from the local exchange company. The LEC's would probably be more than happy to provide 950 access for AT&T - as long as AT&T pays for it. If I'm right - please correct me otherwise - then AT&T winds up paying for extra access capacity specifically for this purpose. My own opinion is that AT&T should provide as many methods to reach the network as possible, including 950 and 800 access. As a lowly salesdrone, I have only a hazy comprehension of all the issues involved, I admit. But aren't we talking about software changes throughout the routing system and large-scale changes to billing systems (both AT&T's and the LEC's - AT&T would pay for both)? I still maintain that it wouldn't be cheap or easy, however desirable.