
From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu  Thu Oct  5 23:54:12 1995
by
1995
23:54:12 -0400
telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 19:18:13 -0500
1995
19:18:10 -0500
To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 5 Oct 95 19:18:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 419

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Only You Can Prevent Slamming! (Stuart Zimmerman)
    Re: Help! I've Been Slammed by WilTel! (Ed Ellers)
    Re: Help! I've Been Slammed by WilTel! (Jim Jacobs)
    Re: Caller ID Boxes on Line Voltage (Chris Farrar)
    CDPD Training (Tyler Proctor)
    Where Do They Get Precise TIME Information? (Jeffrey Yee)
    Keeping Up With Our Neighbors, the Unabombers (Danny Burstein)
    Universal Service Hearings In Northern Calififornia Now (Robert 
Deward)
    Conference: Internet and Telecoms in Brazil (Dave Sosa)
    Job Opening at BellSouth (Chendong Zou)
    Keeping NPA/NXX Separate (was: New US Area Code Test Numbers) (R 
McMillin)
    Conference: Number Portability II and Number Administration (Kevin 
Shea)
    California Telecom Bill Lowers Cost For Residents (Gary D. Hodge)
    USOC and Facility Interface Codes (Paul Cook)
    Last Laugh! Trying to Call the Nowhere Man (Gary D. Shapiro)

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:

                 * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: 500-677-1616
                        Fax: 708-329-0572
  ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

************************************************************************
*
*   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.                                                 
*
************************************************************************
*

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in 
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft. 
     ------------------------------------------------------------

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------



 There have been a number of articles in the Digest and the
mainstream media about slamming (when a long distance carrier causes
the local telephone company to convert a customer's PIC to that long
distance carrier without consent).  I heartily encourage your readers
to contact their local telephone company and request that company's
"Carrier Block" or equivalent.

 That service (free at the companies I have checked), prevents
a long distance carrier from ordering a change in your long distance
carrier without your request directly to your local telephone company.
(This may be slightly inconvenient, but it is far easier than cleaning
up after a "slam".)

 The FCC is working on changing the rules of carrier switches
to avoid slamming, but the "Carrier Block" service (name may vary) is
an easy and probably free way to avoid the problem now.

 For readers who have gotten slammed, my company offers a
service where we will reprice your calls and deal with the local
telephone company, and both long distance companies to insure that you
pay no more than you were supposed to.  Please E-Mail me or call
800-313-6631 for more information.


Stuart Zimmerman   Fone Saver, LLC
"Saving consumers and businesses money on Long Distance"
007382020@mcimail.com

------------------------------



TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to W. Craig Trader 
<ct7@datatel.com>:
 
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This comes up here frequently. You 
should
> pay WilTel the amount you expected to pay your regular carrier. You 
have
> to pay *something* since you did make the calls expecting (I assume!) 
to
> pay for them. Unless you can prove the change was made deliberatly in 
a
> fraudulent way, there is probably nothing more you should do.   PAT]
 
Which is really a shame, because the slammer then gets the revenue.
The way I'd like to see it work would be that you'd have to pay *your*
LD carrier as if you hadn't been slammed; this would appropriately
punish the slammer.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But what if the carrier handling your
calls is not the one at fault?  Suppose the error was made at the
local telco level by a clerk who changed your line to another carrier
instead of the line they were supposed to change? i.e. a person with a
number similar to yours wants to change to MCI, but in error telco
transposes a couple of digits and changes your line to MCI instead. 
Should
you then 'punish the slammer' in this case by not paying at all? I don't
think the revenue trade-offs are that significant. In other words AT&T
gets paid for slams sent their way in error just as MCI gets paid for 
slams 
sent thier way in error. None of the LD carriers are getting rich from
slams with the additional paperwork involved, etc to reverse it.   PAT] 

------------------------------



> I was just checking my August Bell Atlantic bill, where I noted a
> strange $5.00 charge for Long Distance Company, 1 line(s) for WilTel,
> Inc.  I called Bell Atlantic and asked about it, and they assured me
> that the charge was legit.  I replied that I had made no such change,
> so they've returned the charge to WilTel, and marked my account for no
> further changes.

> So I'm OK to date, but what I have questions about is:

> 1.  What's the contact number for WilTel?

The number is 800-324-2222

> 2.  I'm going to see seven weeks worth of phone calls billed to 
WilTel.
> What are my rights regarding not paying them?  Do I have to pay WilTel
> for this disservice?

See the comment left by Pat at the end of your original message.

> 3.  What other steps should I take?

WilTel was acquired by LDDS Communications in December of 1994. LDDS,
now known as WorldCom, Inc. stopped adding it's own new customers to
the WilTel customer base in February 1995.  However, business written
by resellers is still being added.  Therefore, it is most likely that
a reseller was probably responsible for this occurance. If the reseller 
is slamming other carrier's customers, this practice violates the
reseller's agreement with WilTel and (I believe) can be considered
grounds for termination of the agreement. Call WilTel / WorldCom at
the above number and inform them about what has happened.


Jim Jacobs, Senior Communications Consultant, WorldCom, Inc., Tampa FL
voice   800-275-9090
fax     813-229-6373
e-mail  jim.jacobs@pchelp.com

------------------------------



> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What caller-ID boxes do you know that 
run
> on AC rather than battery?  I have never heard of this.   PAT]

Pat, I have a "Bell Canada T-450" (aka TAI 450).  It uses a transformer 
plugged into the wall, and a barrel type connector in the device.  It
takes a 9-volt batter to provide memory backup (much like an alarm
clock).

I've never heard of a caller id box that runs solely on batteries.


Data from the back plate:
TAI Model 450
Telecommunication Accessories
S          I          D
A Division of TIE/communications Canada Inc.
Made in Canada


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is quite interesting. The unit
sold by Ameritech with their name on it comes from a company called
CIDCO, and other than the phone line which plugs into the unit, it
is powered entirely from a nine volt 'D' battery which seems to last
for several years.   PAT]

------------------------------



Course Description:

 This two-day course is a technical primer in the development
of Cellular Digital Packet Data Applications.  It will provide you
with an overview of CDPD, a foundational understanding of TCP/IP, and
an opportunity to develop a wireless CDPD application in class.  CDPD
modems will be provided, as well as testing software.

 You will learn in a small group environment with plenty of
individual help. You will be working in both a live and a simulated
environment to make the most of your time.  For more information For
times, location, and all general information pertaining to the
program, call Jonathan Smith at 602-302-9884, or e-mail to
jsmith@mobile.bam.com.

 For course materials, billing, and content information, 
please call Zsigo Wireless Data Consultants at 800-594-5102, or
e-mail to kzsigo@ix.netcom.com.  E-mail technical questions to 
Wireless Connect at bsmith@wci.com. 

------------------------------



I have a question. Where does telco obtain their time signal from to
synchronize their clocks and equipment. I was in a CO one time when i
worked for a telco as a student. I noticed that there was this device
that annouced the time every 5-10 seconds or so and it had a panel on
the front with time precise to 100ths of a second (I think).

Is there a national reference that all telcos go by? Is it a satellite 
signal, radio signal, or what? IF so Where is it and is there only one?

Just curious.

Thanks.

iNTERNET Alpha pager ->jyee@unixg.ubc.ca
                     ->jyee@ee.ubc.ca   
   WWW -> http://unixg.ubc.ca:780/~jyee 


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They get it from America OnLine by 
clicking
on the clock icon. <grin> ... Actually what happens when you use the 
most
recent version 1.6 of AOL software, clicking on the clock icon sends you
to .... surprise!  {Time Magazine}. It seems that the software has the
clock icon 'point to' 'time' which used to get you the time of day. Then
{Time Magazine} came online there and bought the rights to the keyword
'time'. Therefore, the keyword for time of day had to be changed from 
'time' to 'clock'. No one has bothered to make the change in the 
software
yet. 

There are two sources of standardized time information in the USA. These
are the US Naval Observatory in Washington, DC and the National Bureau 
of 
Standards in Boulder, Colorado. Both maintain highly accurate clocks 
which
are regulated or governed by natural forces in the universe including
gravity and the sun's rotation around Skokie, Illinois. <trying to keep
a straight face here> ... Both services have links to other clocks to 
help
them maintain their accuracy. NBS operates two radio stations which give
the correct time each minute. They are WWV and WWVH, which can be heard
at 5,10,15 and 20 mhz on most shortwave radios. We could have long 
discuss-
ions here about those two stations; they are both fascinating 
operations.
USNO also has a public service. For a good time, call 900-410-TIME at 
just
fifty cents per call. If you think fifty cents is too much to pay (or 
you
are like me and wonder why you should have to pay for it at all) then 
you
can dial 202-653-1800, which is what the 900 number translates to.

Using your computer's communication program and a modem set to 1200 
baud,
you can get a dislay on your computer screen showing the correct time by
calling USNO at 202-653-0351 or NBS at 303-494-4774. I shall stifle my
desire at this time to discuss the old (defunct for almost thirty years)
Western Union Time Service, which got its feed from USNAVOB.    PAT]

------------------------------



Forwarded FYI to the Digest by Danny Burstein, as broadcast on WVOA,
the Voice of America radio service.

DATE=10/4/95    TYPE=CORRESPONDENT REPORT
NUMBER=2-186349 TITLE="UNABOMBER" TRAIL (L-O)
BYLINE=PAUL FRANCUCH   DATELINE=CHICAGO
CONTENT=     VOICED AT: 

INTRO: A CHICAGO NEWSPAPER REPORTS (WEDNESDAY) THAT FEDERAL
INVESTIGATORS ARE FOCUSING ATTENTION ON COMMUNITIES IN THE NORTHERN
SUBURBS OF CHICAGO AS THEY CONTINUE THEIR SEARCH FOR AN ELUSIVE SERIAL
KILLER COME TO BE KNOWN AS THE "UNABOMBER."  V-O-A'S PAUL FRANCUCH HAS
MORE DETAILS FROM CHICAGO.

TEXT: THE NAME COMES FROM THE SUSPECT'S TARGETS WHICH INCLUDE
UNIVERSITIES AND AIRLINES.  FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS SAY THE BOMBER, WHOM
THEY BELIEVE TO BE A MIDDLE-AGED MAN OF SLIGHT BUILD, HARBORS
SUSPICION OF HIGH TECHNOLOGY AND HAS ACCORDINGLY TARGETED AN AIRPLANE
MANUFACTURER, AN AIRLINE, AN AIRLINE EXECUTIVE, AND SEVERAL
UNIVERSITIES WHICH DO MAJOR RESEARCH INTO COMPUTERS AND OTHER HIGH
TECHNOLOGY.

SINCE HE BEGAN HIS TERRORIST STRING OF LETTER BOMBS BACK IN 1978, THE
UNABOMBER HAS STRUCK AT LEAST 17 TARGETS, KILLING THREE PEOPLE AND
LEAVING MORE THAN 20 OTHERS INJURED.

MANY OF THE UNABOMBER'S TARGETS HAVE BEEN IN THE CHICAGO AREA, AND
SOME OFFICIALS SAY CLUES POINT TO THE SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES OF "SKOKIE"
AND "NILES" AS PLACES WHERE THE SUSPECT MAY HAVE GROWN UP AND ATTENDED
SCHOOL.

THE NEWSPAPER "THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE" REPORTS SOURCES IN THESE
COMMUNITIES SAY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, OR "F-B-I," HAS
BEEN COMBING THROUGH RECORDS OF ABOUT TEN STUDENTS LIVING IN THE AREA
DURING THE 1970S.  THE F-B-I IS REPORTEDLY LOOKING FOR STUDENTS WHO
MAY HAVE BELONGED TO SCHOOL CLUBS WHICH DEALT WITH ECOLOGICAL ISSUES
AND THE EMERGING PHENOMENON OF PERSONAL COMPUTERS, CHECKING FOR A
CROSS LINK IN MEMBERSHIP.

THE F-B-I WILL NOT CONFIRM THAT IT HAS MADE THE SEARCH, BUT A
SPOKESMAN FOR THE BUREAU IN CHICAGO DID SAY THEY ARE INVESTIGATING
LEADS IN THE CHICAGO SUBURBS.

                         // REST OPT  //

SINCE THE INVESTIGATION TO FIND THE UNABOMBER BEGAN, THE F-B-I HAS
RECEIVED MORE THAN 20-THOUSAND TIPS.  A ONE-MILLION DOLLAR REWARD FOR
HIS ARREST HAS BEEN OFFERED.  A MANIFESTO WRITTEN BY THE UNABOMBER
ENTITLED "INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE" WAS PRINTED BY THE
NEWSPAPER "THE WASHINGTON POST" A FEW WEEKS AGO.  THE UNABOMBER
INFORMED INVESTIGATORS HE WOULD STOP HIS KILLING IF THE MANIFESTO WERE
PRINTED IN EITHER "THE WASHINGTON POST" OR "THE NEW YORK TIMES." THE
TWO PAPERS AGREED TO SHARE COSTS AND PRINTED THE MANIFESTO AS A
SUPPLEMENT TO THE "POST."  THE PAPERS PUBLISHED THE CONTROVERSIAL
MESSAGE AT THE URGING OF PRESIDENT CLINTON'S ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET
RENO AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE F-B-I.(SIGNED)


NEB / PCF / BD/PT

04-Oct-95 8:01 PM EDT (0001 UTC)
NNNN

Source: Voice of America

------------------------------



If you are concerned about continuing affordability and access to
telecommunications, you still have a chance to make your thoughts


      

known to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC.  But you've
got to hurry.

There are six remaining CPUC Public Participation Hearings on
Universal Service in Northern California.  All begin at 7:00 p.m.

October 5 -- Fresno, State Offie Building, Auditorium, 505 Van Ness 
Avenue
October 11 -- Roseville, Maidu Community Center, 1550 Maidu Drive
October 12 -- San Jose, City Council Chambers, 801 North First Street
October 12 -- Volcano, Armory Hall, 2 Consolation Street
October 19 -- Redding,City Council Chambers, 1313 California Street
October 24 -- Eureka, County Board of Supervisors Chambers, County 
Courthouse,
              825 Fifth Street

If you can't attend a public hearing, you can still communicate with
the CPUC: 

You can write to the Public Advisor, California Public Utilities
Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 5303, San Francisco, CA 94102.
Or you can e-mail to public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov.  Explain your
comments concern "Universal Service Rules," Decision 95-07-050.

For more information, you can access the CPUC's gopher.  A fact sheet
is at 
gopher://nic.cpuc.ca.gov:70/00/telecom/universal_service/factsht.txt.

The entire text of the CPUC's proposed decision is at
gopher://ni.cpuc.ca.gov:70/00/telecom/universal_service/d9507050.txt.
Put plenty of paper in your printer; the decision runs 55 pages.

You can also check out the Pacific Telesis Web page at 
http://www.pactel.com.
Look under "What's New."


Bob Deward, Pacific Telesis External Affairs, S.F.
voice:  415-394-3646

------------------------------



I realize this is a late post, but I only just heard of this yesterday.

The Brazil Society of N. California with the Pan American Society of
California and the Brazilian Consulate in San Francisco are sponsoring
a seminar Thursday, October 5, 1995 at the ANA Hotel in SF.  The title
is:

INTERNET AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN BRAZIL

Contact # is (415)989-2884 (ARBI Transnational)


David W. Sosa               (916)752-6770   
Dept. of Ag Economics       (510)268-1062   
University of California    dwsosa@ucdavis.edu 
Davis, CA 95616             

------------------------------



Posted for a friend, please direct all inquires to the contact
info. below. Thanks.


            JOB OPENING AT BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS


DATE:        October 3, 1995
CONTACT:     Send resume to 'resume@snt.bst.bls.com' and 
             reference to Dr. Eric Kai.

Position: Contract Software Engineer
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Company:  BellSouth Telecommunications, the regulated subsidiary of 
BellSouth
Corporation.  BellSouth has revenues in excess of $16 billion and assets 
of
$28+ billion and is based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Responsibilities:
The individual will work in a team to be responsible for the design and
development of a radio network planning tool for the wireless 
communications
networks such as cellular and PCS.  Coding, testing, integration and 
system
testing activities are required.

Experience/Skills:
Successful candidates must have MS degree in CS, EE or related dicipline 
plus
3+ years solid software development experience in C and X/Motif on UNIX
platform.  Candidates with equivalent experience will be considered.  
Having
development experience in Geographical Information System environment 
and
familiar with the TIGER data from the US Census Bureau and/or DEM 
(Digital
Elevation Model) data from USGS will be helpful.  Knowledge and working
experience on RF system design, RF propagation analysis, traffic 
analysis, and
outage prediction for wireless communication systems are highly 
appreciated,
but not required.

RATE: depending on experience.

OTHER: Individual applicants only, no search firms please.
       Mark contract applicant on resume please.


RESPOND ONLY TO ADDRESS GIVEN ABOVE.


Chendong Zou                                 Internet: zou@ccs.neu.edu
College of Computer Science, Northeastern University
360 Huntington Avenue #23CN, Boston, MA 02115     Phone: (617) 373 3822
WWW: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/zou              Fax:   (617) 373 5121

------------------------------



Michael Fumich recently published a list of test numbers for new area
codes. It has been the case (in LA, at least) that the various local
telephone companies have tried to keep NXX exchanges separate from
valid local NPA numbers.  So, for instance, you won't get 818-818-xxxx
or 714-818-xxxx, 213-805-xxxx, etc.  The point, I suppose, is that
someone wanted to eliminate some confusion. (But IMHO, anyone living
in El Lay or any large U.S. city who doesn't give out all ten digits
is asking for trouble.)  I noticed that in the LA area, 562 is a valid
prefix in 213, 714, and 818.  Question: do the telcos now plan on
ignoring this convention?  There's currently no 562 in 310, so
562-562-xxxx isn't a possibility -- yet.  But will we see such a
beastie?  How about 714-714-xxxx or 805-818-xxxx?


 Robert L. McMillin  | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com
  Jail to the Chief! | WWW: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/rl/rlm/home.html
                   Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Bubba!

------------------------------



Telecom Research Services is pleased to announce:

Conference 502 - "Number Portability II & Number Administration"

When:  November 29 & 30, 1995   
Where: Meadowlands Sheraton Hotel - East Rutherford, New Jersey

Detailed information about the conference can be found at our web page,

http://Gramercy.ios.com/~telres/telres2.html

If you can't access the web site, or would like more information, send
an email to telres@Gramercy.ios.com.  Or you can call us at 201-535-
2765.

------------------------------



In California, phone bills have dropped. With the announcement that
rates, such as IntraLATA, Intrastate/InterLATA, and even Interstate,
were lowered by 15 to 20 percent.  I couldn't believe eyes when my
phone bill showed a 20 percent drop. I really thought my flat rate was
good before, but now, wow !!!

As far as I know, this is only applicable through certain carriers,
but, watch out for those that can't guarantee rates of six cents/minute.


Gary Hodge   cg_asso@ix.netcom.com 

------------------------------



How can I find a list of USOC and Facility Interface Codes, along with
their definitions and specs?  I've tried websearches and looking
through the FCC stuff online, and have found nothing.  All I have for
reference is an old Pacific Northwest Bell COG book.

Does anyone know if there is a USOC or FIC for a PS ALI trunk?  Or
would it just be defined with whatever code is used for a standard
two-wire, loop-reversing trunk?

(PS:  ALI I believe stands for Public Switched Automatic Location
Identification, where a 7 digit MF ID of the calling party is
sent from a PBX to an ALI tandem switch in order to identify a
calling party who is placing a 9-1-1 call from behind a PBX). 


Paul Cook   Proctor & Associates
206-881-7000   3991080@mcimail.com

------------------------------



I feel like I'm trying to telephone that Nowhere Man character.

My former housemate had her own telephone line and had her account
tranferred to her new location, although the number had to change.  The
old number is supposed to refer to the new one for 60 days.  This was to
take place on Friday.

When I called the old number on Saturday, I got a "no longer in service"
message.

When I called the old number on Tuesday, it answered with a very short
beep and nothing else.  I reported the problem.  The gentelman who
took my call had a hard time understanding why I, not the subscriber
and not even a relative, was concerned enough to report the problem.

When I call the old number today, I get this Zen puzzle:

   The number you have dialed, XXX-XXXX, is a working number.
   Please check the number and dial again.

Roll that one around in your brain for a while.

When I call the new number, it rings four times, then there's a
discontinuity and it rings once more.  Then I hear this:

   Sorry, voice mail service is temporarily not available for
   this telephone.  Please consult your directory for the main
   number of the business you would like to reach.  Goodbye.

I called Operator just so someone else could have a good laugh.  Then
I called repair service, and they agreed there was a problem with the
referral.  For the other problem, they said they couldn't address the
problem because my former housemate was not at home when they came by
and that she has to call to make another appointment.  How could this
be a problem with her equipment?  I doubt if she ordered call
forwarding.

Needless to say, I live in the domain of GTE (Goofy Telephonic 
Entertainment).

Gary D. Shapiro...on the WWW at http://www.rain.org/~gshapiro/


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, your Zen puzzle is not a puzzle
at all, or least its a very simple one. Most calls reaching intercept 
have
been dialed direct, and the computer merely reads back what it received
and tells you what is wrong. If the error was that the number you dialed 
is correct *but you misdialed it* and reached (some other) non-working
number then the computer will recite the number *you actually dialed* 
and
upon hearing it the assumption you will say, 'oh gee, I dialed wrong' 
and
you will hang up and dial over. On the other hand, if you had dialed the
number correctly then your call would have gone through.

But a small number of intercepts reach an operator instead. The number 
of
these is getting fewer and fewer, but it was much more common when there
was a hodge-podge of switches and central office equipment in larger 
cities.
For example, here in Cbicago, if the equipment was not able to ascertain 
the
number you dialed for some reason, you were cut to an operator who 
responded 
'Chicago Special Operator, what number did you dial?'. You would tell 
her, 
and *she* would 'bubble in' or key the number into the computer for a 
res-
ponse.  So far so good. But when you reached the computer direct, there 
was 
no doubt what number you had dialed. Right or wrong the computer told
you the number and that it was wrong ... otherwise intercept never would 
have 
seen it. When reaching the operator instead, you had to say the number 
you 
*thought* you dialed. You *thought* you dialed my working number but
instead you dialed some other non-working number.  The operator was at
your mercy; all she could input was what you told her you did.  If it
turned out that the number *was* good and that your misdialing was the
problem, a recording had to cover that situation as well, thus the
message that 'the number you dialed *IS* a working number ...  please
hang up and dial again.' As a result, 'operator handled intercept' (as
opposed to direct dial reaching intercept) can occassionally see good
numbers as a result of the customer misdialing.

Does anyone remember that mess of a few years ago when some of the 
carriers were playing tricks by not allowing a voice path to open until
supervision was established?  Of course when operators answer you there
is no supervision for billing purposes. Normally the intercept messages
are just one way requiring you to listen. You don't speak back to them. 
In
the case of 'operator handled intercept' of course it took a two-way
conversation: the operator asking what number you dialed, you respoding
and the computer speaking about what the operator punched in. If you
placed your call via some carrier that did not open a voice path until
supervision and you wound up getting a Bell Inward Operator at some 
place
handling intercept duties, you could not speak to her.

She would respond something like, 'Southern Bell Inward, what number did
you dial?'.   You would respond but she could not hear you. She would
scream in the phone a couple more times at you and you would scream back
at her to no avail -- there was no talking path!  Thus came the now
seldom heard 'intercept' message, "In certain cases, customers of long
distance companies other than AT&T may not be able to speak with the
operator when she answers. If this has happened to you, please hang up
and dial *your own operator* to ask for assistance."  I think all those
kinks have since been resolved; there are virtually no 'operator handled
intercept' situations any longer.   PAT]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #419
******************************

                                                                       
