Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!telecom-request From: merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal L. Schwartz) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign Message-ID: Date: 25 Mar 91 00:25:44 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Reply-To: "Randal L. Schwartz" Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Lines: 24 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 236, Message 3 of 12 In article , ho@hoss (Tiny Bubbles...) writes: | In oberman@rogue.llnl.gov writes: | > Excuse me, but I don't get the point. I can use 10Nnnn dialing either | > with a "0" for credit card calls or a "1" for billed calls from | > private phones. | .. if they have Equal Access, which is mandated for BOC's. Is it | mandatory for independent carriers? Are there still areas in the | country that are, er, unEqual? GTE here in the Northwest has "select your own 1+ carrier", but no 10XXX dialing. I won't switch from AT&T because of that. I'd really hate to be stuck on a busy traffic day when some undercapicitized carrier is out of lines and not be able to let Ma Bell handle the call. Call me a relic of the past, when there was just one company. :-) Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn