PAT: *PLEASE* suppress my email address in the "from" line.
In reply to John Levine, TELECOM Digest Editor noted:
If you read what John Levine posted, I think he was clear that the "holder" of that 800 (or 888, 877, 866, etc) number is the one who not only pays a fee for receiving calls (usually a small per-call charge, but maybe per-minute or a maybe a "fixed" monthly fee for a "bulk" of inbound calls), as well as that "toll-free-number 'holder'" also must pay the additional per-call fee if the caller placed the call from a pay phone. The calling party (usually) does NOT pay extra to call an 800, 888, 877, 866, etc. number from a payphone, although SOME private payhone owners have been known (at least in the past) to demand an extra 25-c or whatever even though the owner of that private payphone doesn't pay a penny for the call to that toll-free 800, 888, 877, 866 number to be placed from their payphone.
The toll-free number "holder", i.e., the recipient usually has no way of knowing that the call came from a payphone and that they might have to pay more to receive that call, paid to the owner of the private payphone via the long distance carrier who handles the toll-free service. But if the 800/888/877/866/etc. number "holder" is a big business with realtime delivery of ANI information, they probably also have realtime deliver of the FULL ANI which includes additional digits or parameters along with the ten-digit billing number of the calling party. These additional digits are referred to as the 'II' or Information Integers. They represent the "class of service" of the calling line, i.e., single party residential, business, ANI failure for the calling party, multi-party calling line, hotel/motel line, hospital bed, prison phone, university dorm extension, regular business PBX or Centrex, Operator Handled, coinless "credit card" phone, telco owned payphone, and privately owned (COCOT) payphone, as well as dozens of other sub-classes. Most small businesses with 800/888/877/866/etc. numbers wouldn't have realtime delivery of ANI and ANI-II data. Virtually all residential customers who have a "personal" 800/888/877/866/etc. number wouldn't require such detailed realtime information neither.
However, when you get your bill, depending on your carrier for your inbound 800/888/etc. service, you should get some kind of ten-digit number of each inbound call to your toll-free number. And, as John points out, if the call originated from a payphone subject to compensation to the owner of that payphone, there is usually some kind of footnote flagging next to that number indicating such. And the cost of the call would also reflect the increased price.
I don't know about all long distance carriers, but AT&T will allow a holder of an 800/888/etc. number (whether big business, small business, or a residential customer with a "personal"
800/888/etc. number), to be able to have AT&T *BLOCK* access to their toll-free number if the caller is at a payphone. This would be based on the ANI-II data that is sent from the calling payphone's telco over to AT&T. If I try calling that (payphone restricted) toll-free number from a payhone, I will get a intercepted by AT&T (or whoever) with an announcement that the called 800/888/etc. toll-free party does not accept calls from payphones, and to try to place the call from another phone. And then I'm disconnected. I'm not even given the option to "somehow pay" the extorted additional charge for calling that number. Even if I am using my own AT&T or local telco calling card to call a toll-free number (it sounds weird to try to call a toll-free number with a card but read on)... where I would "agree" to pay the extra surcharge on my calling card, AT&T won't allow that.About the only thing is that if I use an 800/888/877/866/etc. number to access a long distance carrier's card platform, or use 0+ or 0-, or
950-xxxx, to place an outgoing call to a POTS telephone number from a payphone, where I would pay the toll charges on my card rather than with coins (or collect), as the caller and user of the card (and carrier's access numbers or codes), I will incurr the payphone compensation extored surcharge via my long distance carrier / card issuer's billing, in addition to the card charge for the call. Even if I use the toll-free access number once and make several "sequence" calls on a single "session" to different destination numbers, most carriers will ding me the payphone compensation surcharge for each (completed) call. However, my simply dialing 1-800-CALL-ATT, even if I put in a card number, does not "in and of itself" ding me the extorted surcharge if none of my attempts to reach specific destination numbers don't return answer supervision -- i.e., are busy, don't answer, or reach a non supervising vacant or intercept type recording. However, I don't know if AT&T or whoever is liable for compensating the payphone owner for such non-supervised incomplete call attempts. The owner of the COCOT might keep their own "log" of all attempts to call particular 800/888/etc. toll-free numbers in the chip circuits inside the phone.Anyhow, regardless of what some might think, I would tend to think that most people who have been hit with such charges in recent years, whether they are toll-free number holders, or else calling parties making card calls from payphones, would tend to refer to this practice as extortion. I have had a very low opinion of the private (COCOT) payphone industry for many years, and if I had my way, I'd put such private payphone owners in Abu Ghraib prison for the rest of their lives!
Finally, the other sleazeballs, those toll-free number "holders" who provide sex or psycho "services" and charge back to the calling party somehow ... these always seem to reject calls to their 800/888/etc. numbers that are originated from payphones altogather. Many of them were rejecting payphone originated calls long before the sleazy private payphone industry convinved the government and telco industry that they had the right to demand "tribute" money extorted from the telephone using public.