From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: GTE and CLASS/ISDN
Date: 20 Jul 92 19:28:00 GMT
Reply-To: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 576, Message 1 of 11

MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com writes:

> The rep said CLID hadn't yet been approved by the PUC!  When I pointed
> out that the PUC had approved it weeks ago, and mentioned the
> front-page articles in the {L.A. Times} and other papers, she said
> they were flat wrong.

This is typical GTE. I have found that one cannot expect to get
anything resembling a straight answer on any matter (from your current
bill on up to "proposed services") on the first call to the business
office. All light and knowledge from GTE (if you can call it that)
must come from Thousand Oaks. It is amusing to note that if you do
happen to call GTE about a billing question, you are told that someone
will call you back "within five working days". The people in the
front-line business office are ALWAYS wrong and with an attitude.

> A media rep called me back from the other number, and he seemed to
> know what he was talking about, and to be quite reasonable.  (Quite a
> change from the business office types!).  He said November was the
> target date for CLASS features other than CLID, Call Trace, and Call
> Return.

Of course, Pac*Bell is offering those other services NOW. However, I
still cannot get them. Why? I have been told that Priority Ringing,
Selective Call Forwarding, and Repeat Dialing are not compatible with
Commstar, Pac*Bell's mini Centrex system for small business and
residence. If I remember correctly this has been the case in other
areas until the local telco figured out what the hell it was doing.

> He said I was the first person ever to ask him about ISDN :-(

GTE also has a great deal of trouble providing simple T1 service. In
fact, in order to discourage customers from requesting such service in
conjuction with IECs, etc., GTE has priced T1 through the roof. I have
a client who is moving out of GTE and into Pac*Bell territory. The
savings on the T1 alone will more than justify the cost of the move.

> Regarding SS7 links, he said GTE was working on them between their own
> switches.  Links to PacBell would come, but he didn't know when.

When I have mentioned GTE's lack of SS7, I have been roundly taken to
task and told that the company does indeed have such links in place.
Thank you for confirming that this is the baloney that I suspected it
was.

> On other matters, he said he was bothered by the practice of IXCs
> selling ANI data, especially when the customers turn around and use it
> for marketing and other purposes.  That surprised me, coming from a
> phone company representative.

Of course. GTE would rather be collecting some kind of revenue on this
service. But given GTE's dismal lack of engineering acumen, what the
company would really like is to collect the revenue WITHOUT providing
the service! But then it already has a little of this in place: GTE's
rates are MUCH higher than Pac*Bell's. Never let anyone tell you that
in GTE territory you get what you pay for.

> He said he wasn't aware of "block blocking" (Anonymous Call Reject).
> Didn't the PUC order it as part of CLID in California?

Not a surprise. GTE is never aware of anything outside of GTE. I am
surprised he did not just tell you that it did not exist. Block
blocking was not mentioned in the CPUC order.

> Anyway, he promised to have someone call me back with more information
> on SS7 links, CLASS availability, and ISDN.

Hopefully you will have moved outside of GTE territory by then.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !