Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!shelby!agate!telecom-request From: peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access Message-ID: Date: 24 Feb 91 02:50:46 GMT Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator) Organization: A corner of our bedroom Lines: 26 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 154, Message 10 of 12 X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu > [Moderator's Note: But the fact that you cannot access AT&T via 10288 > is not AT&T's fault. Who cares whose fault it is? It's AT&T that's losing revenues because of it, and AT&T's customers who are suffering or switching. > It is a greedy private operator who is denying access illegally. What, you mean it's illegal for my place of employment to block 10288 on their PBX? Back when I was doing feild service, was it our customer's responsibility to provide 10xxx at their place of business? I think not. peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com [Moderator's Note: This is like Deja Vu day at the Digest! :) This is another topic we covered (how long ago now?) ... and I think everyone agreed with you that whoever owns the phone(s) can do as they please. But in this instance we are talking about *public pay phones* or phones in hotel rooms or otherwise used by the public. Phones for use by the public should be in compliance, which means having the ability to use 10xxx codes for the carrier of choice. PAT]