Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: kabra437@pallas.athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access Message-ID: Date: 25 Feb 91 22:01:13 GMT Sender: news@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mr. News) Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois Lines: 51 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 159, Message 2 of 8 Originator: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: hub.eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu In article arnold@audiofax.com writes: > In article The Moderator Notes: >> [Moderator's Note: I don't see why AT&T has to get an 800 number. The >> rules established for this plainly call for equal access via 10xxx, >> and thus far, AT&T has been insisting everyone follow the rules. I've >> heard all the arguments about fraud and difficulty in billing 10xxx >> calls, but that is the COCOT owner's problem ... not AT&T's. PAT] > [Moderator's Note: But the fact that you cannot access AT&T via 10288 > is not AT&T's fault. It is a greedy private operator who is denying > access illegally. What is to prevent the same greedy operator from > blocking access to 950 numbers if desired, or assessing some In both your responses there is one very large, important point that you failed to take into consideration. Judge Green's order and all the associated technical changes that it provoked is binding only upon the companies that were a part of the old "Bell System". None of the other operating companies are legally obligated to have anything to do with "equal access" or 10XXX or 950. It seems that the other major players have elected to go along for reasons of their own but they are not REQUIRED to conform. Entire independent telcos are seemingly able to contract with whomever they please to carry their subscriber's toll traffic and are probably under no legal obligation to provide access from it's lines to other carriers. Assuming that I am not way off base, the only solution would appear to be 800 access to AT&T in these situations. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 [Moderator's Note: What is to prevent the same greedy operator who forbids 10xxx service from denying access to AT&T's 800 number? What is to prevent him from doing something like adding a surcharge on calls to 800 numbers like many COCOTs are doing? In other words, if the telco, or COCOT or whatever won't observe common courtesy by allowing 10xxx connections, why do you feel they will observe common courtesy by handling 800 calls in the heretofore traditional way of passing the calls without additional charge? The real complaint some of those guys have is they do not want you to reach AT&T. They do not want you to have any choice of carriers. After all, what sort of fool would use *their* service if there was any choice in the matter? If AT&T did install an 800 number I can guarentee you the same people who now block 10xxx would figure out a way to block 800-ATT-#### or else tack a tidy surcharge on for themselves. PAT]