[comp.dcom.telecom] Reusing Numbers After Just One Day

David Gast <gast@cs.ucla.edu> (06/21/91)

I called a friend of mine who lived in one of the dorms at UCLA last
school year the other night.  I called on Sunday and the quarter ended
on Friday so I expected to get an intercept like "The number you
dialed is not in service ..." and I was hoping "the new number is ..."
Instead I got connected to new tenants.  I am not sure if it was the
same room number, but it was the same dorm (I asked).

Less than one business day is way too quick in my opinion.  The only
reasonable explanation would be that the old tenants forgot to cancel
their phone service or that GTE was slow in processing it.  Otherwise
it is substandard service from our beloved GTE.


David

Linc Madison <linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu> (06/22/91)

In article <telecom11.475.3@eecs.nwu.edu> David (gast@cs.ucla.edu) writes:

> I called a friend of mine who lived in one of the dorms at UCLA last
> school year the other night.  I called on Sunday and the quarter ended
> on Friday so I expected to get an intercept like "The number you
> dialed is not in service ..." and I was hoping "the new number is ..."
> Instead I got connected to new tenants.  I am not sure if it was the
> same room number, but it was the same dorm (I asked).

It was almost certainly the same room number.  In any situation where
you have a Centrex or PBX for a college dormitory, the assignment of a
number to a given line is almost etched in stone.  Extension 1234 is
and always has been and always will be Room 321 in Unit IV.  In order
to provide the intercept and such, they would have to reserve more
than twice as many telephone numbers in a block.  (All numbers in
Berkeley prefixes 642 and 643 are reserved for the University of
California.  They would need to reserve at least two more prefixes to
have intercepts.)  That's because, when you move the entire student
body off campus, or to new rooms for the new year, you would have to
take half the numbers out of circulation.  There just aren't enough
numbers.

Actually, I had a problem my senior year in college because of exactly
the reverse situation: for no reason whatsoever, New Jersey Bell
arbitrarily changed the number for the room I was moving into.  Since
I knew that the number was suppsed to be 4-0732, that's what I told my
friends and family.  Since the University knew that the number was
supposed to be 4-0732, that's what they published in the student
directory.  It turns out that they swapped that line with 4-0372 (note
the transposed digits), with the same effect on the people who were
supposed to have *that* number.  I have no idea how many calls I lost
that year.


Linc Madison  =  linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu  =  ucbvax!tongue1!linc

David Albert <albert@das.harvard.edu> (06/22/91)

In article <telecom11.475.3@eecs.nwu.edu> David Gast writes:

> I called a friend of mine who lived in one of the dorms at UCLA last
> school year the other night....Instead I got connected to new tenants.

> Less than one business day is way too quick in my opinion.  The only
> reasonable explanation would be that the old tenants forgot to cancel
> their phone service or that GTE was slow in processing it.

No; at Harvard, the dorm phone numbers are permanently assigned to the
rooms.  You can only get one phone line in each room, and if you move
out then whoever moves in gets the same number.  Intercept recordings
are unheard of -- they won't put one on the line even if the room is
unoccupied for a period of time.  


David Albert	  UUCP: harvard!albert	 INTERNET: albert@harvard.edu

David Gast <gast@cs.ucla.edu> (06/26/91)

After reading my mail and the messages in the Digest, I think I should
explain the phone system in the dorms at UCLA.  I guess I should have
explained earlier some of the features.  Unlike the most of the other
schools I know about, the dorms are not part of a centrex system.  In
addition, they do not have a PBX.

The particular number I was calling, was in 213-209-XXXX.  The
University uses 231-825 (825 = UCL as in UCLA) and 213-206.  It is not
possible to reach any of the dorm rooms from University phones without
dialing 9 (and getting an outside line) or depositing twenty cents
(from a payphone).

People who wish to get phone service contact GTE; they do not contact
UCLA.  In addition, they must pay standard rates.  (Actually, I have
seen GTE personnel take advantage of students and charge them *more*
than they should be charged -- for example, by requiring rental of
telephones -- but that is another story, which has already been
reported to the Digest).

Now it does turn out that GTE and UCLA have some sort of agreement
whereby a given phone number is always connected to a given room.  At
least GTE claims this; the telecommunications office at UCLA said that
the university was not involved.  I am not surprised that GTE and UCLA
would conspire to give students inferior service.  I would also not be
surprised if UCLA does not know what it is doing or if this agreement
is only a vapor-contract.

The person at GTE told me that UCLA handles the interior wires in the
dorms.  How much do you want to bet that they sell the interior wiring
plan to students even though GTE would never have to come out?  The
person at GTE said that because the phone numbers are reassigned to
the same room numbers, then it is not necessary to come out to the
dorm and move wires around to set up service.  I pointed out that
there is a digital switch and that to set up service, GTE merely has
to type a few commands at the computer and everything is set up.  She
agreed.  (Note: Initiation of service charges are not reduced).

I still believe that not providing an interrupt is substandard
service.  The students pay the same fee to hook up service even though
less work is required.  The students pay the same fee for telephone
service -- they do not get a discount.  Therefore they should be
entitled to an interrupt.

Someone mentioned that telephone numbers are running out.  True, but
200 numbers would not make a big difference.  (I am estimating that
there are 200 rooms in the dorms).  Anyway, it would be better to
reduce the telemarketers phone numbers :-) (There are lots of
telemarketers in the area).  Also, if person X lives in an apartment,
s/he gets an intercept when s/he moves out.  Why should person Y
living in a dorm, pay the same amount and not get an intercept?

One reason may be that if you call a number and get an intercept, you
don't have to pay for the call; if you call a number that has been
reassigned immediately, you have to pay for the call.  Thus, the phone
company gets some additional revenue while providing substandard
service.

I was able to determine from GTE that the previous tenants did have
their phone service turned off.

BTW, Linc Madison wrote about his experiences his senior year.  I had
similar troubles my senior year at the same university.


David Gast

Andy Jacobson <IZZYAS1@mvs.oac.ucla.edu> (06/28/91)

In TELECOM Digest V11 #490, David Gast <gast@cs.ucla.edu> writes:
 
> The particular number I was calling, was in 213-209-XXXX.  The
> University uses 231-825 (825 = UCL as in UCLA) and 213-206.  It is not
> possible to reach any of the dorm rooms from University phones without
> dialing 9 (and getting an outside line) or depositing twenty cents
> (from a payphone).
 
Now you might note that for some reason the 209 prefix is reserved for
UCLA residence halls, and some few offices in the Westwood Federal
Building. The two prefixes in the local CO in Westwood that are
assigned to residential and businesses in the area are 824 and 208.
(Another prefix 443 has just recently shown up but only on new
payphones on the UCLA campus.) While space on the 208 and 824 prefixes
is certainly at a premium, I think the usage of the 209 prefix is
almost entirely static.
 
> Someone mentioned that telephone numbers are running out.  True, but
> 200 numbers would not make a big difference.  (I am estimating that
> there are 200 rooms in the dorms).
 
I think you're way off. I don't have an exact number but there are
well over 200 rooms in each of the buildings. I would think the total
number is probably more than ten times that.
 
> People who wish to get phone service contact GTE; they do not contact
> UCLA.  In addition, they must pay standard rates.
 
> Now it does turn out that GTE and UCLA have some sort of agreement
> whereby a given phone number is always connected to a given room.  At
> least GTE claims this; the telecommunications office at UCLA said that
> the university was not involved.  I am not surprised that GTE and UCLA
> would conspire to give students inferior service.  I would also not be
> surprised if UCLA does not know what it is doing or if this agreement
> is only a vapor-contract.
 
> The person at GTE said that because the phone numbers are reassigned to
> the same room numbers, then it is not necessary to come out to the
> dorm and move wires around to set up service.  I pointed out that
> there is a digital switch and that to set up service, GTE merely has
> to type a few commands at the computer and everything is set up.  She
> agreed.  (Note: Initiation of service charges are not reduced).
 
I think you will find this to be one of several standard arrangements
that phone companies have set up at educational institutions. I've
seen it done several different ways, but at the many schools I have
seen, this one is quite prevalent.I have come in direct contact with
this system when I was once an undergraduate at Lake Forest College
(in Illinois). Illinois Bell had the exact same arrangement there with
sequential numbers permanently assigned to rooms, etc. I had a number
in Lake Forest that I wanted to have in the dorm room I was assigned.
IBT refused, and gave me all sorts of excuses, similar to the ones you
cite above, why the permanently assigned numbers had to stay, which I
cut through like butter. 

They finally said that I could have my number (and only this once,
ever) if I got written permission from the dean of students. When I
spoke to the dean, he was surprised about the whole thing, but seemed
to recall some silliness from IBT about their insistence on doing
things with sequential numbers. He didn't care at all though, and
immediately gave me permission. The IBT rep (case worker) was livid! A
visit to the Highland Park IBT office to put down a deposit for the
service (normally not required), and several days of no phone service
later, I finally got my number. I was informed though that I would
never be able to have that number again once I moved, and that it
would be permanently assigned to that room. As of four years later it
still was.
 
> I still believe that not providing an interrupt is substandard
> service.  The students pay the same fee to hook up service even though
> less work is required.  The students pay the same fee for telephone
> service -- they do not get a discount.  Therefore they should be
> entitled to an interrupt.
 
Listen, nobody gets a referral out of GTE around here unless they
absolutely demand it. Many times I have gotten into heated arguments
with the service reps over this. If you do get a referral, its 30 days
maximum. I have gotten 60 days but only after demanding to speak to a
supervisor and threatening to bring the PUC into it. Yes, these guys
are shysters, they want to *charge* money for it. One thing that GTE
can claim, and IBT did, is that the room will soon be occupied by a
student over summer (whether it will or not), and thus they can't give
you a referral when the line will be back in use right away anyway. At
Lake Forest College, they didn't put any message on, the number would
just ring (even though the loop was dead).
 
 
A. Jacobson <izzyas1@mvs.oac.ucla.edu>

Michael VanNorman <tuttle@world.std.com> (06/30/91)

gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes:

> I called a friend of mine who lived in one of the dorms at UCLA last
> school year the other night.  I called on Sunday and the quarter ended
> on Friday so I expected to get an intercept like "The number you
> dialed is not in service ..." and I was hoping "the new number is ..."
> Instead I got connected to new tenants.  I am not sure if it was the
> same room number, but it was the same dorm (I asked).

I used to live in the dorms at UCLA and discovered that the phone
numbers are assigned permanently to each room.  If you think about it,
it does help GTE on data entry.  The only thing they need to change
about the billing is the name.  The account number (phone number) and
address are always the same.  With the high turnover rate in the dorms
it probably adds up.


Mike