TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Cost of POTS w/o Long Distance

Re: Cost of POTS w/o Long Distance

BobT (fake@invalid.net)
Sun, 08 Jan 2006 14:56:53 GMT

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 16:27:09 GMT, Ken Abrams <k_abrams@[REMOVETHIS]
sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I don't think this is true.

> If you have specified that you don't want an assigned (preferred) LD
> carrier, then a LD call DIALED "by accident" would not complete.
> Random carrier assignments are only made for those customers who state
> that they DO want LD service but don't have a preference for which
> carrier is used. This usually only happens when a new line is
> activated (installed, connected, turned on ... whatever).

> If you have specific information about a LEC that will do what you
> claim, please provide the details.

I suspect you are correct, but I have insufficient data to tell,
conclusively, from my experience.

Brief summary follows. Location, SBC, former Ameritech, specifically
Chicago. Incident involved intrastate local toll rather than
interstate LD. I had switched interstate LD carriers, and during the
transaction, without my knowledge, local toll carrier on one of my two
lines apparently was listed as unassigned, as you speculate. I rarely
use that line for outbound, but one month I had two local toll calls.
Both were assigned (randomly?) to Sprint, which charged me $1.19 a
minute (!) for a call from Chicago to Wilmette, a Chicago suburb.

After a bit of argument, it was agreed that SBC made the error, and
charges were reversed.

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Wesrock@aol.com: "Re: Cost of POTS w/o Long Distance"
Go to Previous message: GarsDuBell@aol.com: "Re: Cost of POTS, w/o Long Distance"
May be in reply to: Bob Alan: "Cost of POTS w/o Long Distance"
Next in thread: Wesrock@aol.com: "Re: Cost of POTS w/o Long Distance"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page