Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!SIMTEL20.ARPA!WMartin From: WMartin@SIMTEL20.ARPA (William G. Martin) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Charges for "unlisting" Message-ID: <12344786101.16.WMARTIN@SIMTEL20.ARPA> Date: Fri, 23-Oct-87 10:55:22 EST Article-I.D.: SIMTEL20.12344786101.16.WMARTIN Posted: Fri Oct 23 10:55:22 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 25-Oct-87 18:48:27 EST References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 20 Approved: telecom@xx.lcs.mit.edu This probably varies from BOC to BOC, but it is my current understanding that there is no difference in directory assistance/information charges regardless of the status of the inquired-about number. I, too, when they first started charging for this, expected that "frivolous" or unjustified DA calls would be charged for, but those inquiring about new (not yet in the printed listing) or unlisted numbers woud not be charged for. This would be logical and sensible, and could have been easily implemented by giving the DA operators a key to hit that would indicate to the billing equipment whether the call in progress should be free or charged-for. (I would expect the former, as "free" would be the exceptional case, while most calls would cost.) Of course, this wasn't done. I agree with you that Touch-Tone extra charges are unjustified. I don't agree that pulse should be charged for, since it was the telco's decision to use that equipment originally, and their decision to implement tone dialling. All this was done for their own benefit by themselves, so the customers shouldn't pay more for any of it. Regards, Will Martin -------