Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!telecom-request From: rhyre@cinoss1.att.com (Ralph W. Hyre) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: 800/950 vs 10xxx And 800 vs Call Me Card Message-ID: Date: 12 Mar 91 18:45:30 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati Lines: 53 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 199, Message 7 of 13 In article the Moderator notes: > [ Everything 950/800 can do, 10xxx can do better. In addition, 10xxx allows > [billing to the phone being used, something you do not get with 950/800.] I have to disagree here. 950 and 800 (feature group B) access give me grater control over billing than 10XXX implementations, since I can enter an account # to bill the call to. Yes, it's more work (have to remember/ memorize code, requires tone dialing), but I can use phones at other locations (like my parent's house) and not worry about trying to pay them for the call when the bill comes (they never want to take my money.) Additionally, one of my 950-based carriers doesn't have the $.75 surcharge for using the card - I just pay the per/minute rate. So I actually save money over what an equivalent equal access call would cost using the larger concerns calling cards. In article Barton.Bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 181, Message 1 of 9 > 950 access is over the older feature group B trunks, and it is really > silly to perpetuate what was ideally a temporary measure. Except that 950 technology is [?? truncated line ?? PAT] > 10xxx access is over the same feature group D trunks that equal access > uses and should be ALL that is needed. If the carriers would arrange > for a suitable selection of screening codes to be universally > available FREE, it would be simple and safe to allow 10xxx0+ type > access, as you would KNOW that only "bill elsewhere" traffic would be > accepted. You would order the screening service that fits your needs. As a CONSUMER of LD services, my only concern is getting good service at a fair price. The screening mechanisms you mentioned, which try to force my traffic onto the establishment's chosen provider, are at odds with this goal. This influences my selection of businesses to patronize. For example, at the Parker Ranch Lodge, in Waimea, HI, I used 950 access to make a local, toll-free (and hotel surcharge-free :-) call to my provider's switch. Other establishments added 50-100% surcharges to toll calls, and charged twice the coin rate for local calls, forcing me to find a RBOC (well, GTE) payphone to avoid their surcharges. These places are listed prominently (next to COCOT sites) in my 'places to avoid if possible' book. Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: rhyre@attmail.com UUCP: attmail!cinpmx!rhyre Snail Mail: 45150-0085 [ZIP code] or: att!cinoss1!rhyre Phone: +1 513 629 7288