Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: Dan Veditz <dveditz@dbase.a-t.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Fictious Account Numbers: A Useful Service of Pacific Bell
Message-ID: <3713@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 9 Feb 90 19:46:04 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Ashton Tate Development Center Glendale, Calif.
Lines: 40
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 89, message 12 of 14


William C. DenBesten (bgsuvax!denbeste@cis.ohio-state.edu) writes:
>  From article <3548@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by optilink!cramer@ames.arc.nasa.gov 
>  (Clayton Cramer):
>>   [..."fictious account numbers"...]
>>   This would seem like an ideal way to handle the traditional "end of
>>   the month roommates figuring out the bill" problem.

>  Yes, except for one small detail.  I would like to be able to disable
>  long distance calling without the use of a credit card.  This way if
>  someone tries to call 1-900-pay-cash, their mom in attu, alaska or
>  anything else that would cost me money, it would fail unless they put
>  it on their credit card.

This can be done to an extent.  I once had an unemployed roommate who
ran up large LD phone bills he couldn't pay (the worse his job hunt
got, the more he called home!).

I called PacBell and explained the situation, and they were able to
turn off LD completely.  My other roommate and I could use our credit
cards just fine.

Caveats: This blocked long distance, but not all toll calls.  1+area code
still worked within our LATA, and 1+800, 1+900 etc. also worked (but some 
of those can be blocked separately).  They also charged their LD connect 
fee ($5) to disconnect, and again to connect after the roommate moved out 
(but it was worth it).  I don't know if 10xxx calling still worked, but 
I'd imagine so...


-Dan Veditz      {uunet,cepu}!ashtate!dveditz
		 dveditz@dbase.A-T.com


[Moderator's Note: To the several of you who have mentioned it, yes I
know the word is 'ficticious', not 'fictious' in the subject header. I
have avoided changing it (after it got past me the first time) in
order to prevent breaking the message thread in comp.dcom.telecom. But
its starting to bug me too.  PT]