home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!telecom-request
- Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 16:46:52 EST
- From: andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman)
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
- Subject: Re: More Idiocy From GTE
- Message-ID: <telecom13.3.11@eecs.nwu.edu>
- Organization: TELECOM Digest
- Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
- Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
- X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
- X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
- X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 3, Message 11 of 12
- Lines: 24
-
- On 28 Dec 92 15:07:25 GMT, mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles
- Mattair) said:
-
- > As I'm at a friends house, I decide to put the call on calling card.
- > 102880+10D. <boing> GTE. Huh ...? I know this is intralata but I
- > told them to use AT&T. They can't override my choice of carrier can
- > they? Try it again except as 102880 + 7D (713 has gone 1/0 + 10D on
- > all LD calls but who knows what GTE is doing). <boing> GTE.
-
- Local exchange carriers look at the whole number before passing it off
- to an IXC, precisely because of what you tried to do. AT&T is very
- likely not tariffed to carry that call, so the switch knows better
- than you do, and routes it via the LEC. However, AT&T issued CIID
- card should still be good for a GTE carried call. AT&T has reciprocal
- card verification and billing agreements with virtually every LEC in
- the country so that your AT&T card is AOS-proof and OCC-proof but not
- LEC-proof. (That is a feature, not a bug).
-
-
- Andy Sherman Salomon Inc - Unix Systems Support - Rutherford, NJ
- (201) 896-7018 - andys@sbi.com or asherman@sbi.com
- "These opinions are mine, all *MINE*. My employer can't have them."
-
-