U5437880@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (11/24/90)
In article <14680@accuvax.nwu.edu>, og@chorus.fr (Olivier Giffard) writes: > I've just tried to dial a number in the 917 area code (non existent > yet) from France. I got a French intercept message just after dialing > the 7 of 917 saying that this code was not in service. What means has > a switch in France to know that. There must be some kind of table to > look up in; but then how is it updated? In particular I'm wondering > whether area code 917 will be available from France the very second it > is put in service. I suppose there must be some kind of cooperation > between ?BellCore? and foreign Telecom companies? Can anyone comment > on this? In Australia we used to get a nice OTC (international carrier) message which ran "We think you have dialled an incorrect country or area code. Please check the number before you try again." Now Telecom Australia intercepts with a bored recording: "The number you have dialled is not connected. Please check the number before calling again." This is exactly the same message you get if you misdial a local or LD call. Why is there an intercept? So the company which catches the wrong number does not have to foot the bill for bandwidth to find out the number is not connected. Invalid area codes are the simplest to check, since they change slowly, and there is a relatively small number of valid possibilities. After London split from 01 into 071 and 081 OTC implemented a full conversion table, so dialling +44 1 xxx will tell you whether to dial 71 or 81. If you dial the wrong one, you also get the correct intercept. For most prefixes the intercept comes in after three prefix digits, for some only two are needed. Try dialling 19 44 81 603 xxxx, and see if you get a French intercept. I bet you will. Danny [Moderator's Note: I just now tried it from Chicago, USA. It accepted the entire number (that is, 011-44-81-603-four more), and the response to me on each of several attempts was the same recorded announcement: You call cannot be completed by the telephone company in the country you are calling at this time. Please try your call again later." Interestingly, my call had left Chicago, gotten out of the USA and was sitting in limbo somewhere. Instead of playing the French recording to me, when AT&T heard something 'go wrong' over there, it yanked the connection back and played an English language message instead. PAT]
grayt@uunet.uu.net (Tom Gray) (11/27/90)
In article <14934@accuvax.nwu.edu> U5437880@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au writes: >In article <14680@accuvax.nwu.edu>, og@chorus.fr (Olivier Giffard) >writes: >> I've just tried to dial a number in the 917 area code (non existent >> yet) from France. I got a French intercept message just after dialing >> the 7 of 917 saying that this code was not in service. What means has >> a switch in France to know that. There must be some kind of table to >Why is there an intercept? So the company which catches the wrong >number does not have to foot the bill for bandwidth to find out the >number is not connected. Invalid area codes are the simplest to >check, since they change slowly, and there is a relatively small >number of valid possibilities. >Try dialling 19 44 81 603 xxxx, and see if you get a French intercept. >[Moderator's Note: I just now tried it from Chicago, USA. It accepted >the entire number (that is, 011-44-81-603-four more), and the response >to me on each of several attempts was the same recorded announcement: >You call cannot be completed by the telephone company in the country >you are calling at this time. Please try your call again later." >Interestingly, my call had left Chicago, gotten out of the USA and was >sitting in limbo somewhere. Instead of playing the French recording to >me, when AT&T heard something 'go wrong' over there, it yanked the >connection back and played an English language message instead. PAT] There may have been a combination of factors going on here. When you reached the international network, a different type of networking (siganlling) exists than that usually used in the US. When you siganlled the French network with your originate, there was probably an English language source signal in the message. Thus you could have been connected to an English language recording in France because of this. More likely, the originate message for your call, was answered with a reply of "non-existing number" from the French network. The US side gateway switch (international) then would have terminated the call on a recording without wasting transatlantic bandwidth. I wouldn't know the precise signalling scheme used on your call but the CCITT signalling scheme R2 provides all of these services and is used on international calls. In any event, it would have been the gateway switch on either side of the Atlantic that would have intercepted your call. The national signalling systems in both countries are separated by the gateway. Any reply from the French network would have been meaningless to the normal ATT network. ATT would have completed your call to the US gateway and then turned control of your call over to the gateway. The US gateway would signal the French gateway which will in turn control the setting up of the call in France. With multiple connections it is possible that the gateways will signal between themselves with tones which are meaningless to the national networks. This always seems like the gateways are using the national networks as large PBX's to me.
SDRY@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Sergio Gelato) (11/29/90)
In article <14934@accuvax.nwu.edu> U5437880@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au writes: >Try dialling 19 44 81 603 xxxx, and see if you get a French intercept. >[Moderator's Note: I just now tried it from Chicago, USA. It accepted >the entire number (that is, 011-44-81-603-four more), and the response >to me on each of several attempts was the same recorded announcement: >You call cannot be completed by the telephone company in the country >you are calling at this time. Please try your call again later." >Interestingly, my call had left Chicago, gotten out of the USA and was >sitting in limbo somewhere. Instead of playing the French recording to >me, when AT&T heard something 'go wrong' over there, it yanked the >connection back and played an English language message instead. PAT] One good reason why the Moderator didn't get a French language intercept with this number (+44 81 etc.) is that 44 is the country code for the United Kingdom (that of France being 33). A French intercept may have been expected only if he had dialled the number from France, where "+" translates to "19~". This does not invalidate the conclusion about who generated the intercept message. Sergio Gelato <gelato@AstroSun.TN.Cornell.Edu> [Moderator's Note: The emphasis is on the wrong thing here. It is not so much that it was an English speaking country, i.e. UK instead of a French speaking country, but that AT&T yanked the cord when the network sensed it wasn't getting anywhere on the other end for some reason, and substituted an AT&T recording. The conection to the UK was made, I know I had gotten as far as some switch in the UK, but no ring/no answer/no busy signal. In a few seconds, bing! I am back on the AT&T switch here in Chicago (apparently) being told the foreign telephone company can't handle it right now. PAT]
msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) (11/30/90)
> Try dialling 19 44 81 603 xxxx, and see if you get a French intercept. > [Moderator's Note: I just now tried it from Chicago, USA. It accepted > the entire number (that is, 011-44-81-603-four more), and the response > to me on each of several attempts was the same recorded announcement > ... Instead of playing the French recording to > me, when AT&T heard something 'go wrong' over there, it yanked the > connection back and played an English language message instead. PAT] Well, it presumably was an AT&T message, or you would have noticed an accent. But, although the quoted sentence refers to France and an earlier part of that message did pertain to France, the country where the above number would be (if it existed) *is* one where English is spoken. Well, a sort of English, anyway... :-) Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com
trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert J Woodhead ) (12/04/90)
msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >But, although the quoted sentence refers to France and an >earlier part of that message did pertain to France, the country where >the above number would be (if it existed) *is* one where English is >spoken. Well, a sort of English, anyway... :-) Ahem! Not to get pedantic (much though I love it), but you, sir, are hardly in a position to make such cracks. You are not a native speaker of English. You are a native speaker of Canadian, a, if I may be permitted the liberty of a cheap crack at your expense, degenerate creole of the language. You may think you are speaking English, but rest assured, you are not. Similarly, it is most probable that our esteemed Moderator is also laboring under the delusion that he is an english speaker, whereas in reality, he speaks American. American and English have diverged just enough so they are barely mutually unintelligible. This explains why Monty Python is so popular in the US -- Americans think it is funny, whereas Britons know that the whole point was that it isn't! In point of fact, true English is only spoken in a small area in Cambridge, England. This is sort of the Zero Meridian for English. I myself speak a mildly (0.56%) degenerate form of the language, as I was born (alas!) about 50 miles from there. You may take some solace, however, in the realization that however degenerate _your_ native tongue is, you are way ahead of the Australians. Nobody understands Australian -- even other Australians! Oral member still firmly emplaced in cheek, I remain your faithful correspondent, Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor trebor@biar.UUCP [Moderator's Whine: Well, ex-cuuuuuuuuuuse me! I believe we here in the colonies speak English with one of about fifty American accents. PAT]
erik@naggum.uu.no (Erik Naggum) (12/05/90)
> Try dialling 19 44 81 603 xxxx, and see if you get a French intercept.
As has been pointed out, this is probably only valid from France.
SS#7 has language bits, but they seem to be used mainly to indicate to
the called country's operators in which language they should reply to
calling operators. I don't know whether this is used in any other
part of SS#7, but it's the only place I've seen a reference to
languages in SS#7 proper. There is a pointer to Q.104, which I don't
have access to, titled "Language digits or discriminating digits", to
which the 001001 code below refers. For curiosity, the following bit
patterns and languages are supported with the calling party category
field of the initial address message:
000000 unknown source
000001 operator, language French
000010 operator, language English
000011 operator, language German
000100 operator, language Russian
000101 operator, language Spanish
000110 \ Available to administrations for
000111 > selecting a particular language
001000 / provided by mutual agreement
001001 reserved (may be used to indicate national operator)
001010 ordinary calling subscriber
001011 calling subscrier with priority
001100 data call
001101 test call
001110 spare
001111 payphone
010000 \
thru > spare
111111 /
(This is CCITT recommendation Q.723 (1988) section 3.3.1 d).)
Ah, the wonders of reading specs from start to end... :-)
[Erik Naggum]
Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway