800/950 vs 10xxx And 800 vs Call Me Card

800/950 vs 10xxx And 800 vs Call Me Card

Post by Bill Hutt » Mon, 04 Mar 1991 17:25:23



What I understand about the various long distance companies would lead
me to believe that 950/800 access is different from 10xxx.  950/800
calls require you to have an account with that long distance company
and have one of their calling cards.  10xxx calls can be billed to the
telephone you are calling from.

Therefore most LD Companies need both 950/800 and 10xxx. In the case
of AT&T it would be the same calling card since the BOC data base is
shared with AT&T (When you ask for an AT&T card they ask the BOC for
the number).  I don't know why the other companies can't check their
calling card data bases like AT&T checks their Universal Card database.

When 10xxx started here you had to use the card from that company.
They could say something like press 1 to use you Local Phone Company
Calling Card press 2 to use your MCI Card or whatever.

Now the problem with the Call Me card is that some LD companies other
then AT&T do not check the type of card and will accept it for any
call.  The good thing about 800 personal service is that it is
available from phones were there is blocking of 950 and 10xxx dialing.
There is no need to have touch tone (If you don't have tone you would
have to read you card number to the operator and people could overhear
you).

[Moderator's Note: Actually, with 10xxx service, neither 800 or 950 is
required. After the 10xxx of choice is entered, you can then dial
using 1+ or 0+. Everything 950/800 can do, 10xxx can do better. In
addition, 10xxx allows billing to the phone being used, something you
do not get with 950/800.  The main reason these guys do not want to
have 10xxx available is because (a) some people would actually use
AT&T thus depriving the phone operator of a commission structure they
like better than what AT&T will pay, and (b) they would have to
program their switches to disallow 'sent-paid' calls over AT&T (if
that was their choice) while still allowing 'sent-paid' on the carrier
they did want to use. I'd say that's their problem. 10xxx is the
method preferred by AT&T.  PAT]

 
 
 

800/950 vs 10xxx And 800 vs Call Me Card

Post by Barton F. Bru » Tue, 05 Mar 1991 15:24:16


950 access is over the older feature group B trunks, and it is really
silly to perpetuate what was ideally a temporary measure. It means
PHYSICALLY different trunks and switching equipment. This is wasted
dollars which translates to higher prices. The only valid reason 950
must exist is in the few places that don't yet have equal access.

10xxx access is over the same feature group D trunks that equal access
uses and should be ALL that is needed. If the carriers would arrange
for a suitable selection of screening codes to be universally
available FREE, it would be simple and safe to allow 10xxx0+ type
access, as you would KNOW that only "bill elsewhere" traffic would be
accepted. You would order the screening service that fits your needs.
Between the ones available for hotels and ski condos for weekend rent
and assorted others, there is a good start.

Perhaps a simple variant would be to ONLY screen if 10xxx is
explicitly dialed (even if it selects the default carrier), and this
would let a smart switch use the same trunks for all traffic. Any
10xxx0+ traffic would be safe. 0+ from restricted extensions would get
10xxx (of the default carrier) prefixed, and non restricted stations
can get 0+ to bill the BTN.

The big single group objecting to 10xxx universal access was the
lodging industry that has a LOT of older equipment that would be
expensive to convert to allow 10xxx codes. Their dumb-dumb mode
hardware sees 10xxx as some sort of billable call, and 950 as a
vanilla local like call.

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. Normal 1+ could work
optionally, and would be handled by existing call accounting hardware.

I have been told that screening is 'honored' by the AT&T/MCI/SPRINT
class carriers, but what of telesleeze type ones?

 
 
 

800/950 vs 10xxx And 800 vs Call Me Card

Post by Ralph W. Hy » Thu, 14 Mar 1991 03:45:30



Quote:> [ Everything 950/800 can do, 10xxx can do better. In addition, 10xxx allows
> [billing to the phone being used, something you do not get with 950/800.]

I have to disagree here.  950 and 800 (feature group B) access give me
grater control over billing than 10XXX implementations, since I can
enter an account # to bill the call to.  Yes, it's more work (have to
remember/ memorize code, requires tone dialing), but I can use phones
at other locations (like my parent's house) and not worry about trying
to pay them for the call when the bill comes (they never want to take
my money.)

Additionally, one of my 950-based carriers doesn't have the $.75
surcharge for using the card - I just pay the per/minute rate.  So I
actually save money over what an equivalent equal access call would
cost using the larger concerns calling cards.


Quote:(Barton F. Bruce) writes:

X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 181, Message 1 of 9

Quote:> 950 access is over the older feature group B trunks, and it is really
> silly to perpetuate what was ideally a temporary measure.

Except that 950 technology is   [??  truncated line ??   PAT]

Quote:> 10xxx access is over the same feature group D trunks that equal access
> uses and should be ALL that is needed. If the carriers would arrange
> for a suitable selection of screening codes to be universally
> available FREE, it would be simple and safe to allow 10xxx0+ type
> access, as you would KNOW that only "bill elsewhere" traffic would be
> accepted. You would order the screening service that fits your needs.

As a CONSUMER of LD services, my only concern is getting good service
at a fair price.  The screening mechanisms you mentioned, which try to
force my traffic onto the establishment's chosen provider, are at odds
with this goal.  This influences my selection of businesses to
patronize.

For example, at the Parker Ranch Lodge, in Waimea, HI, I used 950
access to make a local, toll-free (and hotel surcharge-free :-) call
to my provider's switch.  Other establishments added 50-100%
surcharges to toll calls, and charged twice the coin rate for local
calls, forcing me to find a RBOC (well, GTE) payphone to avoid their
surcharges.  These places are listed prominently (next to COCOT sites)
in my 'places to avoid if possible' book.


UUCP: attmail!cinpmx!rhyre      Snail Mail: 45150-0085 [ZIP code]
  or: att!cinoss1!rhyre         Phone: +1 513 629 7288

 
 
 

1. 800/950 vs 10xxx And 800 vs Call Me Card


Sorry, I must not have made myself clear. I think 10xxx should always
work, and should be free as long as the call is being billed
elsewhere. I also think 950 should quietly die, but don't really care
all that much.

What I was suggesting was for one purpose. The purpose was to have the
telcos make life easy for the Hotels that are trying to protect
themselves from toll fraud and from expensive equipment purchases.
THEIR lobby groups were at the front of the battle trying to KILL
10xxx universal access. 950 they probably are handling 'ok'. 10xxx
presented problems.

I was simply suggesting that the TELCOs could have made the hotel's
life easier (for a small and affordable charge - ha!) and then just
maybe the lodging industry wouldn't have done battle with 10xxx.

I simply want the hotel to be able to safely let you use 10xxx access
without vast expense on their part, and NO risk to them of toll fraud.
The only 10xxx traffic the telco could allow on such a screened trunk
would be bill elsewhere type. If the hotel wanted dual use trunks,
telco could allow 1+ (and yes optionally 011+ for the nit-pickers) of
bill to the BTN traffic where the hotel's call accounting box could
handle it.  All this latter type traffic could ONLY be to the default
carrier.

As well it should! And DO let them know why wou will not be back.
Better yet ASK EXPLICIT questions before you make hotel reservations.
You then get to tell them why you are not booking with them.

There is a sleazoid mall north of here in Woburn MA. Though I do like
a few of the stores in it, I use their other branches and tell them
why.  That mall has sunken to COCOT level.

A local supermarket's landlord had installed COCOTs. I told the
supermarket's central management that it made them look bad especially
when the (BIGGER + BETTER) market just down the street has better
parking, a free (rather than 50 cents) bank machine, and 10 cent NYNEX
coin phones. He was clearly already sensitive to all issues, could do
nothing about the parking acreage, or the cash machine service charge,
but he quickly did fix the COCOTs. Both phones are now NYNEX 10 cent
ones. And it was HIS remote CA base mega-pig absentee landlord that
had done it.

Do complain loud and long. If they think it hurts their business they
may well change it.

2. Support your local COCOT

3. 10xxx vs 950 vs 1-800

4. DSP algorithm ideas

5. 800/950 vs 10xxx

6. ZoneAlarm okay on NT 4 server?

7. 10xxx vs. 950-xxxx Variances With Calling Card

8. Validation question

9. 1-800-COLLECT vs. 1-800-OPERATOR/CALL-ATT

10. 800 vs. 10xxx Codes

11. AT&T and 10xxx vs 800