Bernard Fran Collins <collins@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> (05/07/91)
Perhaps this has been discussed before. Is there a good reason why a credit card call must contain a pause in the dialing in order to wait for the bong? Why can't the card number be delivered to the LD carrier without such a pause? Is there a shortcut? What does the bong really do anyway? Skip Collins, collins@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
Edwin D Windes <edw@ihlpf.att.com> (05/07/91)
In article <telecom11.337.8@eecs.nwu.edu> collins@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Bernard Fran Collins) writes: > Perhaps this has been discussed before. Is there a good reason why a > credit card call must contain a pause in the dialing in order to wait > for the bong? The telephone number is collected by your local office. The card number is collected at an operator system. Before you hear the bong, your local switch has to route the call out to an operator system, and the equipment that collects your card number has to be connected to your call. Lots of work to do. > Why can't the card number be delivered to the LD > carrier without such a pause? If a LD carrier is handling the call, they collect the card number after the call reaches their operator system. Ever hear the new "bong/AT&T..."?
Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl.mil> (05/07/91)
The bong you hear after dialing (optional LD carrier access code+) 0 + NPA + number (or 0+number where permitted in place of 0+NPA+number) is a prompt for one of two things: 1. Punch in credit card number. 2. Get a human operator on the line for collect, third party billing, person to person call, or to take credit card number if you cannot punch it in (as on rotary dial phone).
"Barton F. Bruce" <Barton.Bruce@camb.com> (05/08/91)
In article <telecom11.337.8@eecs.nwu.edu>, collins@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Bernard Fran Collins) writes: > Perhaps this has been discussed before. Well, yes it has. But not for a while. > Is there a good reason why a credit card call must contain a pause > in the dialing in order to wait for the bong? ... bong really do > anyway? The local carrier isn't interested in your credit card number, so you have to wait till the LD carrier is listening. You just might be on a circuit that has a tone to pulse converter active that needs to be shut off. The BONG tone is actually the # key to knock off the TT->DP converter, and then it fizzles off to sound distinctive. Someone will probably publish the exact specs again.
John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> (05/09/91)
Bernard Fran Collins <collins@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> writes: > Is there a good reason why a > credit card call must contain a pause in the dialing in order to wait > for the bong? Why can't the card number be delivered to the LD > carrier without such a pause? This is because only the credit card number is given to the IEC directly by customer. When you dial '0+7D/10D', that part of your input goes to the LEC, not the long distance company. The local LEC switch connects to the appropriate IEC and then transmits that number to them. At that point the customer is connected directly to the IEC, which "Ka-Bongs" signifying a request for the calling card number via DTMF. The pause it necessary to allow the LEC to do the requisite switching and signaling of the IEC. > Is there a shortcut? No, you must wait for the switching to complete between the LEC and IEC before you input the card number. > What does the bong really do anyway? The leading edge of the bong is a '#' DTMF tone pair, the purpose of which is to disable any DTMF-Pulse converters that may be used by the LEC to complete the call so that they do not interfere with your credit card key-in. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
Bob_Frankston%Slate_Corporation@mcimail.com (Bob Frankston) (05/12/91)
Bernard Fran Collins <collins@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> writes: > Is there a good reason why a > credit card call must contain a pause in the dialing in order to wait > for the bong? Why can't the card number be delivered to the LD > carrier without such a pause? I've got my own response to what "good reason" means. In the sense of "there is an historic rational explanation" the answer is "yes". The North American ten digit dialing plan is a rigid beast and such things as boings and other inband signals are attempts to get around this. Other examples include PBX's that require you to key in a number after getting an extension number and services that use DTMF codes for a dialog after completing a connection. The word good means "given the circumstances the solution sort of works and we can explain why we made each design decision against the local constraints of each decision". If "good" means that the user interface is "good" then the answer is NO. The same goes for the blunt instrument of 900/976 blocking, the problems with 976 remote access, the existence of 540 in some places, the inability to use 1-617 in 617 and random need for "1-" in 617 for some 7-D numbers, the use of 950 while waiting for 10xxx, 800 random availability etc. This covers a lot of ground so I'll go back to the boing and its ilk including fax/modem/phone switches that require something like "2" after the simulated rings to select a modem. My problem is that I need to be able teach my computer to access services over this network. Against the vast array of kludges, I have my trusty old Hayes dial string (or is it now the CCITT/AT dialing protocol?) with little control beyond a "," for pausing and no interaction. Sometimes, I can include a "wait for dialtone" and a "wait for silence". Even maybe "wait for voicelike sounds". There is not even a standard way to get to the rooted dialing level, I need to guess out prefixes such as "9", "9,", "8," or even "P9,---T---" (Pulse/Tone switching) or whatever imaginative convention is locally adopted. Now the question: Has ISDN evolved to the point where it is understood that the phone network is not to be navigated not only by humans with fingers and ears and brains and arcane knowledge, but by computers and humans assisted by computers and that placing a call involves protocoled exchanges between the participants including premises systems? Can I specify that I want to make a connection to a given service (aka phone number) and give some billing override information (aka a billing code)? Can I query the network to determine the proposed price (vs cost) for a given interaction? Will I be able to deal with systems that require additional navigation after call completion? Conversely, will my ANI codes allow the caller to add explicit descriptive/navigation information that would allow me to reach a specific service (aka internal extension?) I'll be pleasantly surprised if indeed the protocols are being designed to take into account developments of the last few decades. Given that there is Telco interest in protocols such as X.400 and X.500, perhaps this isn't so far fetched. Or do I need to wait for the next forty-year design cycle?