Gary W Sanders <gws@cblph.att.com> (06/19/91)
With my Ohio Bell Phone bill I saw an interesting little notice. This capability has been around for a long time, but was generaly used for emergencies. Now Ohio Bell is encourging people to use the service for non-emergency calls.. DIAL 0 (OPERATOR) TO INTERRUPT A BUSY LINE ON A LOCAL CALL. Do you need to talk to someone, and the line is busy? For a $1.60 per call, you can ask the Ohio Bell Operator to interrupt a busy line. The Operator will inform the called party that someone is trying to reach them. The called party will then have to the option to hand up, freeing the line for you to make your call to them. Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio gws@cblph.att.com 614-860-5965 [Moderator's Note: But you should be aware that the called party has the option to NOT break the connection if he so chooses, and you will still pay the $1.60. The Operator did her work by notifying the party. Also, if you claim an emergency exists as the reason for the busy party to break the connection when in fact there is no emergency, then you are probably guilty of a misdeamenor crime. Likewise if an energency *does* exist and the called party refuses to yield the line then he is guilty of a misdemeanor crime. PAT]
"Peter M. Weiss" <PMW1@psuvm.psu.edu> (06/22/91)
In article <telecom11.474.8@eecs.nwu.edu>, gws@cblph.att.com (Gary W Sanders) says: > [Moderator's Note: (deleted) > The Operator did her work by notifying the party. Since the caller and the callee are potential chargeable w/ a misde- meanor crime, I wonder if the Operator misdials and interupts an in-progress data xfer, if the (s)he can be charged with some crime. (I'm just trying to get everyone chargeable w/ something and not leave any one out.) Pete
res@cis.ohio-state.edu> (06/22/91)
In article <telecom11.474.8@eecs.nwu.edu> gws@cblph.att.com (Gary W Sanders) writes: > With my Ohio Bell Phone bill I saw an interesting little notice. This > capability has been around for a long time, but was generaly used for > emergencies. Now Ohio Bell is encourging people to use the service for > non-emergency calls.. > DIAL 0 (OPERATOR) TO INTERRUPT A BUSY LINE ON A LOCAL CALL. > Do you need to talk to someone, and the line is busy? For a $1.60 per > call, you can ask the Ohio Bell Operator to interrupt a busy line. The > Operator will inform the called party that someone is trying to reach > them. The called party will then have to the option to hand up, freeing > the line for you to make your call to them. Suppose the line is being used by a modem. I wonder what the operator has been instructed to do in this case. Does the operator "listen" first so as not to disturb the modem, or do they arbitrarily drop the call? If they don't drop the call, what do they tell the intended caller? (Mentioning that a modem is in use is, in my mind, giving away details about the call in progress.) Also, suppose I am using my new AT&T-only-otherwise-unbillable calling card to make the call. Does the charge get billed through AT&T? Rob Stampfli, 614-864-9377, res@kd8wk.uucp (osu-cis!kd8wk!res), kd8wk@n8jyv.oh [Moderator's Note: When the operator is asked to 'verify busy' or interupt a call, they will first listen on the line only for a second or two to detirmine the status. A single word or two of conversation is sufficient. Even that brief intrusion might cause the modem to receive garbage, but the operator DOES NOT 'drop the call'. It is up to the caller and called party to disconnect when they wish to do so. The operator will merely advise them what a third party has requested. In the event it is a modem, the operator is unable to give that advice, and tells the third party that notification is impossible. PAT]
Dick Rawson <drawson@sagehen.tymnet.com> (06/24/91)
Am I really required to hang up on my current call and accept an incoming call ... just because the caller claimed to the operator that there is an emergency? I had only understood that I was required to make shared telephone facilities available to someone else who declared an emergency. Dick [Moderator's Note: But the person trying to get through to you would in effect be sharing your phone line with you. You are free to do as you please in a declared emergency, but if *you* are wrong and *they* choose to make an issue of it, then you lose. What if the person calling claimed to be a police officer, hospital clerk, etc? Would you risk it? Bear in mind if *they* are just BS'ing around, you've a perfect right and ethical reason to complain to authorities. Any declared emergency should be treated as such until proven otherwise; then if proven to be deliberatly malicious, dealt with severely. PAT]
doug@uunet.uu.net> (06/25/91)
> [Moderator's Note: But you should be aware that the called party has > the option to NOT break the connection if he so chooses, and you will > still pay the $1.60. The Operator did her work by notifying the party. > Also, if you claim an emergency exists as the reason for the busy > party to break the connection when in fact there is no emergency, then > you are probably guilty of a misdeamenor crime. Likewise if an > energency *does* exist and the called party refuses to yield the line > then he is guilty of a misdemeanor crime. PAT] Say what? I don't quite understand. I've always {thought,assumed} that using the "Emergency Break-In" for a non-emergency was a crime of some sort, but how could you possibly consider not releasing the phone line a crime? I pay good money for my phone lines, and if I don't want to listen to an operator claiming there's an emergency, regardless if there is one or not, then it is my right- after all, I pay for the line for my use -- not for someone claiming an emergency. Unfortunately I have been the "butt end" of many prank calls of people claiming "emergencies." Sometimes it is just someone who wishes to speak to another member of the family, but I have never enocountered a ligimate emergency. I consider it an invasion of privacy also. Every time this happens I query the operator for information, such as "what number is the person calling from" and "who is it" (a "John" or "Jane" answer does NOT suffice). The operator generally refuses to answer or simply says "talk to the person and find out." I'm not likely to break a conversation for someone I don't know. If someone wants to interrupt my phone call, they'd better be ready to answer any question I might ask. Well, enough of my ranting. Doug Fields -- 100 Midwood Road, Greenwich, CT 06830 --- (FAX) +1 203 661 2996 uucp: uunet!areyes!admiral!doug ------- Thank you areyes/mail and wizkid/news! Internet: fields-doug@cs.yale.edu --------------- (Voice@Home) +1 203 661 2967 BBS: (HST/V32) +1 203 661 1279; (MNP6) -2967; (PEP/V32) -2873; (V32/V42) -0450 [Moderator's Note: What you pay for is the right to use your telephone in accordance with published tariffs, one or more of which address the scenario of emergency requests for the use of the line, etc. And if someone plays games and abuses you in this way, you are perfectly within your rights to tear them apart when you answer their call. It has happened to me, and that is exactly what I do. PAT]
bud@uunet.uu.net> (06/25/91)
In a responce to an articicle by colnet!res@cis.ohio-state.edu (Rob Stampfli) our Moderator Notes: > [Moderator's Note: When the operator is asked to 'verify busy' or > interupt a call, they will first listen on the line only for a second > or two to detirmine the status. A single word or two of conversation > is sufficient. Even that brief intrusion might cause the modem to > receive garbage, but the operator DOES NOT 'drop the call'. In these days of digital switches, digital xmission, and concentrated operator services, operator monitoring of a call is extremely unlikely to place any discernible noise on the line. The ones and zeros representing that VF is simply switched into two gate inputs, instead of one. Monitoring a PCM signal degrades it not at all. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew. standard BS applies
Gordon D Woods <gdw@gummo.att.com> (06/25/91)
From article <telecom11.486.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, by drawson@sagehen. tymnet.com (Dick Rawson): > Am I really required to hang up on my current call and accept an > incoming call ... just because the caller claimed to the operator that > there is an emergency? I had only understood that I was required to > make shared telephone facilities available to someone else who ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > declared an emergency. From my personal experience, you can complain all you want but Dick Rawson is right: your connection gets cut off, plain and simple. I was on a long distance call interrupted for an "emergency". It was a wrong number! The guy had been calling me for weeks. Now he breaks into my calls! I called the business office: "Nothing we can do; use Call Trace if he calls again. Good bye." You really have no choice, either you refuse all "emergencies" or accept them sight unseen.
Mike Riddle <riddle@hoss.unl.edu> (06/25/91)
In <telecom11.486.5@eecs.nwu.edu> drawson@sagehen.tymnet.com (Dick Rawson) writes: > Am I really required to hang up on my current call and accept an > incoming call ... just because the caller claimed to the operator that > there is an emergency? and the Moderator Notes: > [Moderator's Note: But the person trying to get through to you would > in effect be sharing your phone line with you. You are free to do as > you please in a declared emergency, but if *you* are wrong and *they* > choose to make an issue of it, then you lose. There have been a few other discussions along this line. Patrick is correct when he asserts that one must, under the tariffs and/or laws in every state I'm aware of, surrender the line when someone claims "emergency." What has been missing so far from the discussion is the flip side of the same coin. The same or worse penalties attach for the false declaration of emergency merely to get access to the telephone. The utility of this approach was a policy decision by the state legislators or PUCs involved. The admitted inconvenience of having to interrupt your call was viewed as less onerous than the inability to communicate in an emergency. Personal observation: I personally have never heard of any litigation on this. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but rather that it is rare because most people understand and "go along to get along." <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | Nebraska Inns of Court ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | +1 402 593 1192 Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet | 3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis [Moderator's Note: But the key here, according to Mr. Covert and a couple others is if this pertains *only* to party lines, *any* instance of a 'shared telephone facility', or what. PAT]
Guy R Berentsen <guy@ihlpf.att.com> (06/26/91)
In article <telecom11.478.6@eecs.nwu.edu>, colnet!res@cis.ohio-state. edu (Rob Stampfli) writes: > Suppose the line is being used by a modem. I wonder what the operator > has been instructed to do in this case. Does the operator "listen" > first so as not to disturb the modem, or do they arbitrarily drop the > call? If they don't drop the call, what do they tell the intended > caller? (Mentioning that a modem is in use is, in my mind, giving > away details about the call in progress.) > [Moderator's Note: When the operator is asked to 'verify busy' or > interupt a call, they will first listen on the line only for a second > or two to detirmine the status. A single word or two of conversation Pat, you correctly described what should happen, but in practice I have had at least two data calls terminated when an operator attempted to "busy line verify" my home phone. (I know this is what happened because in both of the confirmed cases my sister-in-law called from New York minutes after the call was disconnected. She told us that she had called the operator to have the line checked.)
Kevin Boyd <9457boydk@vmsf.csd.mu.edu> (06/30/91)
In article <telecom11.478.6@eecs.nwu.edu>, colnet!res@cis.ohio-state. edu (Rob Stampfli) writes: > Suppose the line is being used by a modem. I wonder what the operator > has been instructed to do in this case. Does the operator "listen" > first so as not to disturb the modem, or do they arbitrarily drop the > call? If they don't drop the call, what do they tell the intended > caller? (Mentioning that a modem is in use is, in my mind, giving > away details about the call in progress.) > [Moderator's Note: When the operator is asked to 'verify busy' or > interupt a call, they will first listen on the line only for a second > or two to detirmine the status. A single word or two of conversation It should be this simple, but I had another experience: Several years ago, I was working the studio control board for a LIVE radio football broadcast over dial-up lines. About midway through the first quarter, the operator did an emergency break-in on our line. It took me almost two minutes to get her off the line, while our announcers at the other end got more confused and angry. She simply didn't understand the concept of live radio over phone lines. (I finally had to talk to her supervisor to get the line cleared.) Apparently the person trying to break in was the control room operator from the radio station in the booth next to ours. Their dial-up line wasn't working, so he got the brilliant idea that he could get ahold of his announcer team using our line. I seem to remember that our station General Manager made both the telco and the other station regret the whole incident the next day. :-) I think the incident can probably be chalked up to an inexperienced operator at the telco. Regards, Kevin Boyd Marquette University Office of Campus International Programs Internet: 9457boydk@VMS.CSD.MU.EDU
John G Dobnick <jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu> (06/30/91)
From article <telecom11.474.8@eecs.nwu.edu>, by gws@cblph.att.com (Gary W Sanders): > Do you need to talk to someone, and the line is busy? For a $1.60 per > call, you can ask the Ohio Bell Operator to interrupt a busy line. [for non-emergency calls] This is going to play merry hell with data calls, as I'm sure many others have mentioned (or will mention). Does Ohio Bell also supply a feature analogous to "disable call waiting" to inform the operator that a call is *NOT* interruptible? John G Dobnick Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee INTERNET: jgd@uwm.edu UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd ATTnet: (414) 229-5727
John G Dobnick <jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu> (06/30/91)
> [Moderator's Note: What you pay for is the right to use your telephone > in accordance with published tariffs, one or more of which address the > scenario of emergency requests for the use of the line, etc. Say what? I fail to understand the reasoning here. Someone wants to use *my* phone line for some "emergency purpose" by *calling* me? This scenario makes no sense whatsoever. If the person attempting to pester me through the operator really needs to use *my* phone for an emergency purpose, he better be standing right next to me so he _can_ use my phone line, in which case he can speak directly to me. Otherwise, this is just harrassment. Maybe things are done differently where you are, Pat -- you are in Illinois, after all :-) -- but up here in Wisconsin, the phone book says the following: "Wisconsin law requires you to yield a party line in an emergency. That means you must get off the phone to permit others using your line to report a fire or summon law enforcement agencies, ambulance service, medical or other aid in any situation where property or human life ids in danger. No one can legally claim to need the line for an emergency when no emergency exists. The penalty for either offense may include a fine not to exceed $1,000." The situation being discussed here does not seem to meet _these_ requirements -- no party line, no one attempting to use _my_ line to report an emergency. It seems this "service" is only to allow someone of little patience who is getting tired of busy signals to push himself to the "head of the line". I see it now -- "Ohio Bell: The Rude Phone Company". Miss Manners will not be pleased. So, what am I missing in this discussion? How does Ohio Bell justify this "service"? (Oh, that's right: "We're The Phone Company -- We don't have to justify _anything_!" Wasn't that in "The President's Analyst"?) > [Moderator's Note: Your telephone book pretty accurately describes an > 'emergency'. Examples perhaps you could understand: Your neighbor's > phone is out of order; they knock on your door and ask you to call the > Fire Department. You refuse, because your single line is engaged on > another call. You are at work using the phone and your landlord or > neighbor calls to say YOUR house caught fire. You are using a pay > phone on the street corner. There is an autombile accident and one of > the victoims asks you to get off the phone so they can call the police > or ambulance. Good enough examples for you? PAT] Only one of them, actually. 1) Neighbor knocks on door. This does not involve an operator busting in to an in-progress call. (That *is* the topic of this thread, after all.) 2) At work -- caller wishes to report (personal) disaster. _This_ is a legitimate reason for the operator to interrupt an in-progress call. This is a generally recognized "emergency" situation. 3) Automobile accident. Same scenario as (1). Perhaps the point to be made here is that Ohio Bell is apparently pushing the "operator interrupt" situation for what are clearly not *emergency* situations! It's merely an extended form of "call waiting", and apparently one that can not be disabled. John G Dobnick (JGD2) Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee INTERNET: jgd@uwm.edu ATTnet: (414) 229-5727 UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd
payne@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Andrew Payne) (06/30/91)
In article <telecom11.499.7@eecs.nwu.edu> jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu writes: >> Do you need to talk to someone, and the line is busy? For a $1.60 per >> call, you can ask the Ohio Bell Operator to interrupt a busy line. > This is going to play merry hell with data calls, as I'm sure many > others have mentioned (or will mention). The tariff here in NY states the busy/interrupt procedure goes like: "1. The operator will determine if the line is clear or in use and report to the calling party. "2. The operator will interrupt a call on the called line only if the calling party indicates an emergency and requests interruption." I suspect that (1) is a listen-only for the operator and thus wouldn't affect your data call (though the operator would get an earful!). Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI UUCP: ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne INTERNET: payne@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu