DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu) (DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN) (09/22/90)
In response to the Moderator's addition to my earlier posting: Pat- I thought it was obvious from my posting, but after reading your comments allow me to make myself clearer: I couldn't care less about blocking Telemarketers or whoever from calling, and am not trying to rationalize any specific message using "8000+ bytes of bandwidth" or whatver. The point is this: The message is mine, as is the machine and the phone line. As long as I don't represent myself as the Telco, I have the right to express myself in whatever manner I choose for whatever reason, and this is beyond the scope of the Telco's inquiry or authority. I am not disputing that there are very limited circumstances when one would forseeably place a SIT tone or whatever on their machines, yet that's the customer's business. The point which I was attempting to make is that this is not within the realm of the Telco's control, and your claim that the Telco has a 'right' to tell customers to alter or eliminate a non-fraudulent Outgoing Message is seemingly baseless and rationally unsound. I briefly checked Westlaw the other day before my initial posting, and found no recent cases to support Pat's contention. (Doubtful many of them would get to Westlaw, granted...) Perhaps this message is short enough so that I won't hear any bandwidth complaints and find out *exactly* what right was granted to the Telcos which allows them to censor what they consider to be offensive messages and the basis by which is applied. Doug (return address removed to conserve even more bandwidth! ;-) )
JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet (09/23/90)
I'm not a lawyer or a regulatory expert, but it seems to me that requesting and being granted telephone service creates at least an implied contract between the subscriber and the supplier which includes an obligation to follow all regulations and rules whose purpose is to maintain the reliability and efficiency of the phone network and which do not unreasonably interfere with the customers use of it. It seems to me that aping signalling tones could, under some circumstances interfere with its operation, if only by confusing humans whose job it is to troubleshoot and repair. And their use seems like mostly a game to those using them, not a necessary use. Like the highway system or any other shared media or conveyance, the phone system works because there are limits on its use to maximize its benefits for all (even the stockholders), not merely for those who want to maximize their own satisfaction or amusement. Jeff Sicherman jajz801@calstate.bitnet
DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu) (DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN) (09/26/90)
Hi-
After reading Jeff's <jajz@calstate.bitnet> posting about SIT tones, I
am beginning to wonder if they are actually used for anything, as in
the case of signalling within the telephone network.
The only time that I've noticed this myself is on COCOTs, as John
Higdon (sp?) noted earlier. I still haven't managed to get a free call
to my answering machine/voicemail, however, as once the COCOT hears
the SIT tones it turns off the mouthpiece and the touch tone keypad.
More commonly, at least in my area, the COCOTs just don't seem to
care, and if you hang on the line for too long (maybe anything greater
than 30 seconds) the COCOT will swallow the coin anyhow. (NOT that I
make it a point to actually USE the things...!) But there are so many
flavors of COCOT that I'm sure just about anything is possible with
them.
I've noticed that many Telco's (like independents and SNET) don't use
the SIT tones at all on their recordings. SNET has even *eliminated*
the SIT tones from their AIS (?- correct term) messages. (Isn't AIS
what you hear after the SIT, ie, "The number you have reached, 5 5 5 -
1 2 1 2, is not in service. Please check the number, and dial your
call again."). For a while, I think Illinois Bell was doing this as
well, since I called O'Hare Airport a few times, (312-686 from what I
recall), and got the AIS message w/o the SIT tones. Now, however, they
seem to have gone back to using the SIT tones on AIS recordings.
If the SIT tones have no function with the Telcos, then I don't see
why the Telco would object to it being used, as per se, it does not do
anything to their equipment. (Compared to leaving 2600Hz or MF tones
or something which, assuming the answering machine could duplicate
faithfully, may affect signalling equipment, etc. [Hmmm ... would it?])
If the SIT tones DO in fact cause Telco equipment to become "confused"
or in some way hinder their operation, then perhaps the Telco would
have a right to object.
As an aside, Jeff mentioned that service with the Telco may be
considered in contractual terms. I've always thought that it was more
like "implied consent", ie, by using the service you agree to certain
pre-arranged terms, which presumably are set forth by an
administrative body, usually the state Public Utilities Commission.
("implied consent" is the same thing that states use to get
out-of-state motorists to comply with their driving regulations, such
as submission to DWI tests, etc.) I've never had to deal with this
aspect of a Telco service "contract", but it is an interesting (albeit
admittedly esoteric) question. Anyone ever have to deal with this area
of the Telco service "contract"? (I'll summarize if anyone's
interested ... and sorry to make this sound like misc.legal! :-) )
Doug
dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu
dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet