Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA13441; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 02:27:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 02:27:28 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702100727.CAA13441@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #35 TELECOM Digest Mon, 10 Feb 97 02:27:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 35 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Good Item Lost (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? (Danny Weiss) Re: Alternate Directory Providers (John Mark) Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around (Stanley Cline) Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around (xymox@cts.com) Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around (John Cropper) Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around (Jeff Buckingham) Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around (Nils Andersson) Re: Prepaid Phone Card Collecting (Robert Holloman, Jr.) Re: Prepaid Phone Card Collecting (Lowell Heusel) Phone Company Advertising (was Deadbeats...) (Lisa Hancock) Czech, Slovak Republics to Split Country Code 42 (Dave Leibold) Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check (Mark Steiger) Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check (Mark Fletcher) Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check (Robert Casey) Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check (Ryan Tucker) Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check (Dave Jabson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 03:42:30 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Good Item Lost Someone recently sent me a new and greatly improved version of the phone number to name coverter program. Unfortunatly it got lost somehow in the shuffle here. This new version had been written by their sysadmin and inluded several additional features. Would that person PLEASE send me a duplicate copy so it can be posted here. Thanks, PAT ------------------------------ From: dweiss@ibm.net (Danny Weiss) Subject: Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? Date: 09 Feb 1997 16:12:20 GMT Reply-To: dweiss@ibm.net In , Dave Sieg writes: > Just an idle thought while watching the stormclouds gather for the > coming 56KWar ... > While the technology is still far from proven in the field, and a > standard is still 12-18 months away, WOULDN'T IT BE INTERESTING if > ISP's "exercised their power" at least to the extent of saying: "This > stinks! Show me something that works and is a standard, and I'll buy > it, meanwhile I'm telling consumers they've been sold vaporware!" > Of course the argument against this is that ..snip.. some young upstart will > steal all the business by diving into 56K with both feet. > Gee, would _I_ bet my entire business on such vaporware? > I'd like to see a show of hands from ISP's ... anybody taking this > seriously? Like it or not, you probably should bet your business on this "vaporware," though I think it is less vaporous than you do. You've hit the key risk factor in your own argument: if everyone doesn't move to accommodate the 56Kbps technology, the few that do will have a significant competitive advantage. The only protection against that is to believe that 56Kbps will ultimately fail and we all remain at 33.6; I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. I think the best analogies here are the previously vendor specific protocols such as HST, 19.2Kbps, 21.6Kbps, and early 28.8Kbps technologies. It was possible to resist adoption of those, at least for a while. It was easier to resist those speeds back then because of the lower level of consumer awareness, somewhat less consumer interest in absolute speed, and the slower rate of change in the marketplace as new modem technologies became available. Remember, when USR released HST, you could only take advantage of it by using their top of the line modem. Today, they plan to roll out 56Kbps on the entire product line. While we clearly face a period of confusion while USR and Rockwell compete to dominate the early "pre-standard standard," both firms know they'll have to provide an easy upgrade path to the final standard when it comes along. Looking at this as a consumer, I plan to upgrade my USR modems to 56K ASAP. If my ISPs are too slow to adapt, yes, we will look for different ISPs - at least for our users needing the higher performance for extensive WEB access and download activities. As a side note to all this, we might be ignoring the 56K technology if the BOCs had priced ISDN service at a level to make it affordable for data communications. ISDN might provide 2 to 4 times the performance of my 33.6 modems, but it remains far less expensive to plan those lenghty downloads in a way that I can tolerate the delay while saving a bundle on line use costs. Danny dweiss@ibm.net DC Fire and EMS Chainring BBS: 202-554-3175 ------------------------------ From: j@rambla.com (John Mark) Subject: Re: Alternate Directory Providers Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 16:13:31 GMT Organization: ESSLink A few days ago I attempted to get a number for someone who had recently subscribed to service in the 617 area code. I am PIC'd to AT&T and I dialled 1-617-555-1212. I was told they had no listing and that new numbers took three to six weeks to be available. I then called someone else in the 617 area code and they called 411 from within the area code and obtained the number! Prior to this I had not been aware that there was more than one database. I had thought when one dialled 1+area code+555-1212 one got access to the local database within that area code. I then tried 10333-1-617-555-1212 (Sprint) and again obtained the correct number and 10222-1-617-555-1212 (MCI) also led to the correct number. Both MCI and Sprint had the same method of DA with a recorded voice asking for what listing whereas AT&T was a person after an announcement asking me to choose whether I wanted to pay 50 cents to be connected after the information might be given. I just checked again and AT&T still doesn't have the listing. Are some LD carriers given access to some local databases whereas others are frozen out? What if any are the rules about making listings available!? ------------------------------ From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 04:49:41 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com [no equal access on intraLATA 1+] > I was told you can use a 1-700-xxx-xxxx to be able to dial around and > still use your prefered LD carrier. > Is this true, and why is it not mentioned by LD carrier's?? Depending on the carrier, yes, it's true. MCI, LCI, and some other carriers allow the use of 1+700 instead of 1+NPA for routing calls through their networks, for exactly the reason you give. Note that this works ONLY for calls within the same area code (from 706 to 706, for example) -- it will NOT work for calls between NPAs (as there's no way to specify the area code!) At one point, MCI had their Chattanooga switch screwed up, so that 700 was interpreted as the area code the SWITCH was located in, rather than the area code of the CALLER. (I'm in the Chattanooga LATA in NPA 706; the switch is in NPA 423, so if I dialed 10222+1+700, MCI treated it as 10222+1+423.) Last I checked, this had been fixed. Not all carriers support this dialing method -- AT&T and Sprint do not -- so that may be one reason it's a "secret." > What exactly is the "700" number used for?? NPA 700 (considered by Bellcore to be a SAC, or Special Area Code) is assigned to carriers for "whatever use they like." The vast majority of carriers use 1+700+555-4141 for LD carrier verification. Other than that, though, it's a free-for-all. Examples of 700 use: * AT&T still uses *0*+700+456-1000 for teleconferencing, and did have a 500-like service in other parts of 700. (I believe some of those numbers are still around.) * At one point, Allnet [now Frontier] had a PAY-per-call number in NPA 700. Some LD carriers may use numbers in NPA 700 for internal service or testing numbers, as well. 700 numbers not used for intraLATA intraNPA calling are carrier-specific; that is, 10288+1+700-XXX-XXXX (AT&T) is NOT the same as 10222+1+700-XXX-XXXX (MCI), etc. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! dba Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, TN mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/ All opinions are strictly my own! ------------------------------ From: xymox@cts.com Subject: Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 22:15:03 -0800 Organization: CTS Network Services Reply-To: xymox@cts.com Charles Holcomb wrote: > On of my relatives can not use her LD carrier's PIC code to dial > around her LEC for her long distance calls in her LATA. > I was told you can use a 1-700-xxx-xxxx to be able to dial around and > still use your prefered LD carrier. Dial the LD access # ie 10333 then 1.700.555.4141. It will say thank you for choosing Sprint, or the name of which ever LD company access # you dial before the 700#. ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 06:01:59 -0500 Organization: LINCS Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com 700 service first appeared in the mid-80s, when AT&T offered them to large corporations for interconnectivity purposes. I remember KMart having a block of 700 numbers (where 700-NXX-Store # connected you to that particular store number) for store-to-store calls for stock inquiry, transfers, etc at 15cpm 24/7. In the early 90s, 700 was opened up for Personal Communications Services by AT&T, Sprint and MCI. Any individual could obtain one, and it would usually be issued with a PIN. This number was usually used in an 800-style fashion (anyone who you gave your PIN to could call you, and YOU would pick up the cost of their call). [I used to have a 700#, but it proved to be cumbersome, and I later replaced it with an 800/888#] . 700 Personal Service never really caught on, and now the NPA is used for various other connectivity purposes as well. At present, only a small number of 700 prefixes are assigned for personal/business purposes. The remainder are in use by the carriers themselves. Opened February 1st: www.lincs.net * John Cropper, LINCS A new site, faster server, and * PO Box 277 fully redesigned web site. * Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 ************************************ Inside NJ: 609.637.9434 Check out our current site at: * Toll Free: 888.NPA.NFO2 (672.6362) http://208.205.126.126/nanp/ * email: psyber@mindspring.com ------------------------------ From: Jeff Buckingham Subject: Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 06:24:02 -0800 700 is an NPA that is routed to the presubscribed LD company and is completely free to be assigned for use by each LD company in any way that they choose. Many companies use the 700 NPA for virtual private network dialing where your company's offices around the country might all be assigned 700-344-67XX numbers so you only have to remember two digits to dial any office. 700 has also been used to allow customers to dial intra-lata calls in areas where 10XXX dialing has not been opened up. It only works in single area code latas since there would be no way to differentiate between two different area codes inside one lata with the single 700 NPA. The user would just dial 1-700 in front of their 7 digit intra-lata call, the LEC sees 700 and routs the call to the LD carrier, who then strips off the 700 and completes the call. Quite a nifty little plan if I do say so myself. Most areas of the country have 10XXX unblocked now so 700 intra-lata dialing is becoming part of our colorful history and a tribute to the crafty telecom entrepreneur's ability to meet the customer's needs in any way possible while outwitting the evil monopolies. ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around Date: 09 Feb 1997 22:29:25 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , Charles Holcomb writes: > What excatly is the "700" number used for?? 700 is different from all other area codes, real and imagined, in that each LD carrier owns the whole series. Thus 10288-1-700-234 5678 and 10222-1-700-234 5678 have nothing to do with each other. Each carrier can do pretty much what he wants with the 700 series. AFAIK, the only thing that is standardized is that 1-700-555-4141 should make the carrier identify himself. For example, AT&T sells 700-xxx xxxx (most numbers) to their customers as a "follow me" service. The only problem with that is that it only works on AT&T lines, and this has been largely superceded by the 500 personal number service. (Each LD carrier owns certain prefixes, and they often interoperate, so if you call my own 500 number 1-500-CUT xxxx even from an MCI line, the call gets connected, by AT&T, btw CUT is 288 which also spells ATT, not a coincidence). Getting to your question, it is eminently possible for an LD carrier to use the 700 to get your call into their system, but what happens after that is a function of the individual LD carrier, you will have to ask them. Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: Robert Holloman, Jr. Subject: Re: Prepaid Phone Card Collecting Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 13:54:14 -0500 Organization: Concentric Internet Services TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > I personally cannot imagine using prepaid phone cards since they > cost a lot more per minute than DDD or other ways of placing calls > and my personal experience in distributing them was not a very > big success. Old-time readers will recall back in 1993 or so I > had a bunch of sample two dollar cards I distributed on a test > basis to readers here. I was not impressed with the results, but > then this may not be the best source of customers for same. > I suppose as collectibles they have some value so my question is > are the telcos encouraging them for collectible purposes in the > same way the United States Postal Service supports stamp collector > clubs ... as a good way of making some money with little effort? Seems prepaid phone cards are popular items of pyramid schemes and borderline MLM companies. The NC AG office believed Destiny Telecomm's $.56/minute phone cards were part of a pyramid scheme. See the following links for details: http://www.wral-tv.com/features/5investigates/1996/1118-phone-card-scam/ http://www.wral-tv.com/news/wral/5investigates/1996/1119-phone-card-folo/ http://www.wral-tv.com/news/wral/1997/0123-destiny-agrees-to/ Progressive Fortunes is a blatant pyramid scheme I came across on the Internet. Here's a message I posted to the fraudMLM-discuss mailing list about PF: Anyone familiar with this one? It sounds really great. Spend just $10, sign up a few people, go through the six "phases," and you'll turn that $10 into over $20,000 and nearly 10 days worth of prepaid calling cards! Catch is, there's no mention of the odds of doing so, which I suspect is less than your chances of winning all of next years lotteries and sweepstakes. Out of boredom I decided to have a little fun with the numbers. It's based on my understanding of what's presented at http://205.186.236.142/fortune/ If I enter this system, let's see how my downline will have to grow in order for me to complete phase six, assuming everyone only buys one ID# (up to seven are allowed). When someone enters phase two they'll automatically be entered into stage one again with a new ID#. As a result one-sixteenth of the slots in the matrix will be occupied by re-entries. (I'll be reentered into my levels 4, 8, 12, etc.) In order for me to enter phase two and receive my phase one rewards, the matrix must fill on levels one through three with people entering phase one. For phase three entry, my first three levels must enter phase two. But those eight people on my third level can't enter phase two until their first three (which are my fourth through sixth) levels are filled. As a result the matrix will progress as follows over time: Level Slots Phase Entry for Everyone on Each Level ===== ====== ============================================== * 1 (me) 2 3 4 5 6 (Completed) 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 16 (a1) 1 (a2) 2 (a3) 3 (a4) 4 (a5) 5 5 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 64 1 2 3 4 5 7 128 1 2 3 4 8 256 (b1) 1 (b2) 2 (b3) 3 (b4) 4 9 512 1 2 3 4 10 1024 1 2 3 11 2048 1 2 3 12 4096 (c1) 1 (c2) 2 (c3) 3 13 8192 1 2 14 16384 1 2 15 32768 1 2 16 65536 (d1) 1 17 131072 1 18 262144 1 Total Slots: 2^19-1 = 524,287 Total People: ~491,519 (total slots X 15/16) In addition to my original ID# having completed phases one through six, my second ID# (a), which is created when the original ID# completes phase one, will finish the first through fourth phases. (And possibly phase five, but it's not certain.) Etc. for b, c, and d. My totals: $22,650 221.5H a) 650 71.5 b) 250 21.5 c) 50 6.5 d) 0 0 ------ ----- $23,600 321H Company totals: In: 491,519 X $ 10 = $4,915,190 Out: 1) 65,535 X $ 10 = $ 655,350 & 65,535 1.5H CC's=98,302.5H 2) 8191 X 40 = 327,640 & 8191 5H =40,955 3) 1023 X 200 = 204,600 & 1023 X3 5 =15,345 4) 127 X 400 = 50,800 & 127 X10 5 = 6350 5) 15 X 2000 = 30,000 & 15 X30 5 = 2250 6) 1 X 20,000 = 20,000 Total Out: $1,288,390 163,202.5H The company will surely make a nice profit. Less than 62 thousand folks will at least receive one calling card and their $10 back. Meanwhile over 400 thousand people will be out $10 with nothing to show for it. Nearly 3.5 million additional suckers will have to enter the program in order for the bottom quarter million souls to get their $10 and card. And for them to all complete the whole program, well over ONE HUNDRED BILLION more people are needed. The above represents the minimum number of people needed in the system at the instant I complete phase six. Everyone in my 16th, 17th, and 18th levels will have had to have entered phase one. But in actuality the matrix won't grow so uniformly, thus some of those people will have already entered phase two meaning others are already in my 19th and lower levels. Now add all the people in my upline and their downlines (running concurrent with mine), and you see just how ridiculous the whole thing is. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 18:12:45 EST From: lowellkim@aol.com (Lowell Heusel) Subject: Re: Prepaid Phone Card Collecting Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Dear Pat: I agree. I do not see the value in collecting prepaid phone cards. I have read, however, that cards that are used (to make calls) lose their value as collectibles. So it would seem that you are right about someone making a lot of money off something that will never be used. Lowell K. Heusel Indianapolis, IN ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Phone Company Advertising (was Deadbeats...) Date: 10 Feb 1997 02:28:48 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS Per Pat's comments... One of the sad bad effects from divesture/competition is the ridiculous advertising that goes, for services that are still essentially a public utility in nature. When a department runs a sale, it can order the goods and stock them. A utility can't upgrade switchgear overnight -- technically impossible. Unfortunately, the "advertising/marketing" people have taken over. They advertise products/services whether the company can deliver them or not, whether they or fairly priced or not, and whether they are truly useful to the consumer or not. The marketing guys win, the company gets some short term profits (and long term consumer resentment). The consumers lose out. There's an American "concept" that "competition is good". Yes, this is generally true, but there also negative points to competition. We're seeing them in full force in the telephone business. We'll be seeing them soon in the electric business too. Unfortunately, for us consumers, the "big three" MCI, Sprint, and AT&T are equally $#@!*&^%! bad for consumers. The kicker is they're moving to do the same thing in the electricity business! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 21:21:11 EST From: Dave Leibold Subject: Czech, Slovak Republics to Split Country Code 42 A note on a Slovakia telecom information webpage indicates that the telephone systems in the Czech and Slovak Republics will split into separate country codes effective March 1997. Country code +42 was originally listed in ITU's 1964 list as Czechoslovakia (which became the separate republics in recent years). The new country codes will be: Czech Republic +420 Slovak Republic +421 These are the first 3-digit country codes beginning with 4 (World Zone 4) since the early 1960s when country codes +401 to +405 were assigned, and subsequently changed to make way for Romania (+40). (This was indicated on the Country Codes History document I did some months back). The telex country codes for Czech and Slovak Republics have already been separate for some time. source: http://www.eunet.sk/slovakia/slovakia/business-economy/telecom thanks: Mark Cuccia for tip-off :: David Leibold -+- dleibold@else.net ++ aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca :: ------------------------------ From: Mark Steiger Subject: Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check Date: 09 Feb 1997 21:06:01 -0700 Organization: Primenet (602)416-7000 James E Bellaire wrote: > The wording on the back of the latest carrier switch check from AT&T > is interesting: > "My signing, cashing and/or depositing of this check authorizes you > to switch my long distance service to AT&T, unblock my carrier choice > service protection to make this switch possible, and notify my local > telephone company of this decision. I understand that only one long > distance company may be designated for the telephone number listed > on this check. My local telephone company may charge me a fee to > switch my long distance service. CHECK VOID IF ALTERED." What would happen if someone were to deposit that check at an ATM without signing it? Would they still be able to switch you? The check would still be deposited into your account and you can't stop an already paid check ... would be something to try out.. :) Mark [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Certainly you can stop an 'already paid check'. AT&T would instruct their bank to not pay the check due to lack of endorsement. Their bank would return the check to your bank. Your bank would debit your account and return the check to you due to incorrect or lack of endorsement. You can deposit anything you want at an ATM, and press buttons on the front of the ATM to make any declaration you want as to the contents of what you put in the slot. Eventually the ATM-owning institution (which probably deposited the check to the Federal Reserve and advised your bank of amount to be credited to your account) will get the check back for lack of endorsement and refer it to your bank, or maybe the returned item will go to direct to your bank; in any event the debit will hit your account sooner or later. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Fletcher Subject: Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 04:13:22 GMT Organization: Bell Atlantic Meridian Systems Reply-To: u1009128@warwick.net Jim, You're missing the BEST PART! What you need to do is contact your LD carrier and tell them you want to be PIC'd as a "casual user". Basically this keeps your account open with them, and allows you to bill with them on all 10xxx calls. You can now sign that check, and the many more you will receive, and let whoever change your PIC'd carrier to whatever, you have then upheld your "agreement" with them by allowing them to change your PIC, however you can still get the best rates by dialing 10XXX on your LD calls with your "casual user" carrier. A little extra trouble, but I know people that have gotten checks for $50 to $75 for "changing" their PIC. Personally, I consider it payment for all of those annoying telemarketing calls that always seem to come in during my primetime nap! Mark ------------------------------ From: wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) Subject: Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 18:18:49 GMT I received a similar check from AT&T referring to a phone number I have since disconnected (I moved out of town). What happens if I did cash it? AT&T become the long distance carrier for a dead number? I didn't cash it, might be fraud if I did. Check was about $80. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No 'might be' about it ... it would be fraud. You are instructing AT&T to take over a phone number which is no longer yours to use. You are claiming to be the owner of something of which you are not the owner. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rtucker@netins.net (Ryan Tucker) Subject: Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check Date: 09 Feb 1997 15:42:33 GMT Organization: INS Info Services, Des Moines, IA, USA James E Bellaire (bellaire@tk.com), in article , wrote: > 'unblocking my carrier choice service protection'? If AT&T can get > around the block on changing my default long distance carrier for > these checks, what stops them from doing it when their telemarketers > 'think they heard the customer say yes' before I hang up on them when > they call? So much for slam protection. The difference is most likely the signature on the check. By endorsing and cashing the check, you're basically agreeing to the terms on it -- whether it's authorizing a transfer of $15 from Account A to Account B or changing your long distance provider. A check is just an oversimplified and automated contract, and AT&T is using that to their advantage. Ryan Tucker rtucker@netins.net http://www.netins.net/showcase/rtucker ------------------------------ From: djabson@ucsd.edu (Dave Jabson) Subject: Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check Date: Sun, 09 Feb 97 16:20:09 GMT Organization: MPL of SIO James E Bellaire wrote: > The wording on the back of the latest carrier switch check from AT&T > is interesting: [snip] > BTW: This check will not be cashed. It is only for $10. > I'm worth more than that AT&T! I got my first AT&T bribe check sometime in late 95 or early 96, I forget which (it was for $60). This was a great deal for me because my monthy long distance charges total about $5/mn. So I happily cashed the check and said goodbye to MCI. Well, about two months ago I got another $60 check from AT&T asking me to switch to them. So I gladly agreed and cashed the second check as well :) I read the agreement carefully several times to make sure there wasn't anything in the fine print saying I could only accept one of these offers but I didn't find anything. So AT&T has paid me $120, which amounts to about two years worth of long distance for me. Keep em coming guys ... dj [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As long as you do not provide AT&T with a number that is not yours to assign, and you do not tamper with the endorsement on the check by rendering some portion of the 'contract' illegible or with a different wording or intention than the maker of the check had in mind, then you are doing fine. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #35 *****************************