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: Barton.Bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS)
Message-ID: <16420@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 25 Jan 91 11:19:16 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.
Lines: 39
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 67, Message 3 of 11


In article <16367@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars
Poulsen) writes:

> 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

> (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).

There ARE standard types of screening available that only allow calls
to be billed to credit cards, third party or collect, but NEVER to the
calling line. This kind of screening typically allows 1+ dialing
anywhere, but kicks in on 0+ because local call accounting equipment
can't tell what service the operator will be asked to provide. This
sort of screening comes in several variations and has been available
for a LONG time.

This whole mess the hotels were fighting could have been simplified IF
the LECs would have provided a modification to that standard screening
that would do the following. As before, 1+ could do anything. 0+ would
go to the presubscribed IXC and be screened. 10xxx1+ would be blocked
because the hotel customer has NO business rerouting 1+ calls. 10xxx0+
calls would be screened and would be allowed only to IXCs that honored
the screening class mark. I assume the FCC should tolerate blocking
calls to IXCs not honoring the screening. The hotel's modifications
would be minimal.