Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!hybrid!scifi!bywater!uunet!telecom-request From: blake@pro-party.cts.com (Blake Farenthold) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: 800/950 vs 10xxx Message-ID: Date: 16 Mar 91 04:54:21 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 27 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 205, Message 2 of 11 Barton.Bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) in discussing 10xxx access points out with respect to call agrigators: > If one flavor of screening simply disallowed ANYTHING on 10xxx access > except 10xxx0+ bill elsewhere traffic, a hotel could allow 10xxx > traffic without further understanding it because any attempt to bill > to them, even 10xxx1+ would be blocked. What about 10xxx011 ? This is the problem with a "simple" scheme to allow 10xxx0 access, you can make international calls and the accounting software and blocking software in cocots and hotels gags. As I understand it some companies have been burned by this and this is one of the arguments delaying universal 10xxx0 access. They have to keep checking digits after the zero and a lot of older hardware just doesn't do it. I make no comment abuyt the potential to take out revenge on your favorite COCOT by trying this. UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake Internet: blake@pro-party.cts.com Blake Farenthold | Voice: 800/880-1890 | MCI: BFARENTHOLD 1200 MBank North | Fax: 512/889-8686 | CIS: 70070,521 Corpus Christi, TX 78471 | BBS: 512/882-1899 | GEnie: BLAKE