Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Prevalence of 10xxx Dialing
Message-ID: <4228@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 21 Feb 90 17:05:30 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <merlyn@iwarp.intel.com>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Lines: 29
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 119, message 8 of 9


In article <4141@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cowan@marob (John Cowan) writes:

| As I understand it, only Bell (ex-AT&T) telcos plus GTE must offer
| this service, and lots of local independent telcos don't.  Taconic
| Telephone, for example, the first all-digital local telco in the
| country, has no plans to offer any LD carrier except AT&T.
 
| (I suppose that GTE comes under the terms of the MFJ because it owns
| Sprint.  True or false?)

But that's what *I* asked about!  This *is* GTE, and they are *not*
providing 10XXX service in this area.  (I can get three-way calling,
cancel call waiting, and all sorts of other electronic features, but I
still have to call 950-xxxx to get to the alternate LD services.)

So, what percentage of the customers are never going to have the
choice for each phone call?

'course, what am I griping about... at least I get a dialtone most of
the time. :-)

Just another name in the phone book (many, many times!),


/=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 |
\=Cute Quote: "Welcome to Portland, Oregon, home of the California Raisins!"=/