David Albert <albert@endor.harvard.edu> (08/26/90)
v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu wrote: >I used to call home collect, and my parents would refuse the charge, and >call me right back. Well, Bell of PA saw this pattern happening... >and decided to bill my parents for the *refused* collect call... In our family, accepted practice when I was in college was to call person-to-person for one's self. Of course, the requested person is not there, and then the operator would let you leave a message asking them to call you back at a given number. Now, my question is, obviously the phone company (this was pre-breakup) couldn't have been too thrilled about this practice, but was (is) it illegal? Immoral? Perfectly okay? David Albert UUCP: ...!harvard!albert INTERNET: albert@harvard.edu [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell has stated your practice is not okay, nor the ruse of calling collect and getting called back, etc. Telco's rationale is that by pre-arrangement, you have still managed to deliver a message, even by using coded words and phrases to convey the message to the receiver of the call. They want to be paid for the message they delivered, namely that you are positioned at a telephone somewhere waiting for a call. This is not high on their list of priorities for types of fraud to be prevented, but it is fraud none the less, and a kind of cheap, petty fraud at that. PAT]
hrs1@cbnewsi.att.com (08/26/90)
In article <11345@accuvax.nwu.edu>, albert@endor.harvard.edu (David Albert) writes: > In our family, accepted practice when I was in college was to call > person-to-person for one's self. Of course, the requested person is > not there, and then the operator would let you leave a message asking > them to call you back at a given number. Years ago, my kids lived in a different billing area from mine. I had extended area service, so I could call them free. If they called me, they would hang up after two rings. I would always let the phone ring at least three times. Thus, if there were only two rings, I would call them. Since there was never a voice on the line, the first call was not chargeable. However, the phone company might use such a practice as an argument why there should be charges for unsuccessful attempts. Herman Silbiger
danj1@ihlpa.att.com (Daniel Jacobson) (08/26/90)
>[Moderator's Note: [...] you have still managed to deliver a message >even by using coded words [...] They want to be paid for the message >they delivered. Are there any cases of people using the utterly cheapskate idea of sending morse code via ring length to the other party? {\Law_Abiding_Tone=on One would hope that telcos can detect this so us regular folks' phone bills aren't subsidising all night (1 baud?) style communication. } Dan_Jacobson@ATT.COM +1 708 979 6364 [Moderator's Note: Regardless of the exact methods used, whenever the telephone service is manipulated to deliver a coded message -- be it by a certain ringing pattern; coded messages unwittingly delivered by the operator; or whatever -- telco says a message has been delivered. If they cannot prove that is what you did -- or can't conveniently prove it -- then of course they write it off. But these techniques are as old as the phone itself, and telco knows all the tricks. PAT]
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) (08/26/90)
In article <11345@accuvax.nwu.edu> albert@endor.harvard.edu (David Albert) writes: > Now, my question is, obviously the phone company (this was pre-breakup) > couldn't have been too thrilled about this practice, but was (is) it > illegal? Immoral? Perfectly okay? Pre-breakup I can't see how there was that much of a problem. The call would still be made, just billed in a different part of the country. Post-breakup is a different matter, but still on average it evens out. Sure, they're out one operator-assisted surcharge, but presumably the calls will be longer if it's your parents (who presumably have more disposable income) paying for it. Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
lemke@apple.com (Steve Lemke) (08/27/90)
albert@endor.harvard.edu (David Albert) writes: }v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu wrote: }>I used to call home collect, and my parents would refuse the charge, and }>call me right back. }In our family, accepted practice when I was in college was to call }person-to-person for one's self. As Pat pointed out, this is a sort of petty fraud, as you are actually taking an operator's time to relay this message. And, although I suppose that the method my father and I used could also be labeled as petty fraud since we also got a message through, I don't feel as bad about using it. Basically, our arrangement was this: If I wanted my dad to call me, I would call his house and let the phone ring only once (and then hang up). He would therefore wait until a second ring before ever answering the phone. We have done this for almost ten years now, and it works like a champ. Considering the amount of money he has spent on the phone talking to me on these return calls (and the other calls that he made without my prompting), we certainly don't feel bad about using this method of "call request". And, occassionally, he would call me and say "did you 'one-ring' me?" to which I might say "no, actually I didn't". The cause: someone else had called him, probably realized they had a wrong number, and hung up after one ring. Of course, this also didn't work if I wasn't at home, unless he knew in advance that I was somewhere else (like if I was out of town and he knew where I was). I'm guessing that Pat will liken this to the "toll-saver" feature of an answering machine in that a message is being conveyed (long time Telecom readers will remember this other discussion from some time ago). However, I still claim that the hundreds of dollars they made from all of my dad's return calls more than offset whatever it cost them to let me one-ring him, and besides, we weren't using an operator to relay the message. Steve Lemke, Engineering Quality Assurance, Radius Inc., San Jose Reply to: lemke@radius.com (Note: NEW domain-style address!!) [Moderator's Note: Yes, it is similar to the toll-saver technique, and I guess since AT&T now includes that feature on their own answering machines they must have decided if you can't do anything about it, you might as well make some profit from it yourself. PAT]
tanner@ki4pv.compu.com (08/27/90)
In article <11345@accuvax.nwu.edu> the Moderator writes:
) [delivering message via "collect" call] is fraud none the less,
) and a kind of cheap, petty fraud at that.
Yes, it probably is. It annoys me, too, to hear of people pulling
such stunts regularly.
In fact, it annoys me ALMOST as much as the fact that, to legitimately
deliver that message from that payphone, I must dump in over a dollar
-- in change -- to make a call which would normally cost about a
quarter at full day-time cross-country rates.
...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tannersamho@larry.cs.washington.edu (Sam Ho) (08/27/90)
Hong Kong Telephone apparently does concern itself with such message- passing tricks. Right up front in the phone book, it says that if you make any operator-assisted call, you will be charged a `report charge' which amounts to about 30 seconds of calling if the call is then abandoned before completion (e.g. collect call refused, person-to-person not found, etc.) I think there's no charge for busy and no answer, though. By the way, Hong Kong is one big local calling area. All domestic (within Hong Kong, Kowloon, and New Territories) calls are free. The phone company claims to have one of the largest number of people in its free calling area of any in the world. So report charges only apply to international calls. Sam Ho
cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) (08/28/90)
There was or is available, in PA exchanges adjoining "Phila. metro" (this is in area 215 -- an example would be West Chester), metro service as an option. As a result, you could have a local call from, say, West Chester to Philadelphia, but not the other way around; and I did, years ago, hear of a case where one ring followed by hanging up was used (from the Philadelphia end, and then the person at the far end -- here, that's West Chester -- would call).
Linc Madison <rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu> (08/29/90)
I have a very simple (and legal!) method of evading payment for calls to my parents. If I'm home, I call them. I say, "Mom." My mother says, "Do you want us to call you?" I say, "Yes." We hang up, I pay anywhere from 12c to 25c for the privilege, she calls me back. If I'm away from home, but in 415 area code, I use my MCI card, and answer the question, "Yes, I'm at 415-XXX-XXXX." Because of the "Around Town" feature, I still pay two bits or less for the call. If I'm farther afield than that, I just call on AT&T and bill to my parents' calling card number, but in that case the one-ring scheme doesn't work, and the operator is likely to get suspicious about my calling p-to-p and asking for a callback to a roadside payphone, so the 80c surcharge is worth the savings in trouble. Seriously, with one-minute calls from a residence as cheap as they now are, I can't justify using some cumbersome ringing/collect/person scheme to get my parents to call me. I can afford 12c for a half-hour call half way across the country, and my parents don't call me every time someone hangs up on a wrong number. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: You are not 'evading' payment (illegal). You are legitimatly reducing the costs of your calls. (legal). PAT]
Piet van Oostrum <piet@cs.ruu.nl> (08/29/90)
In article <11395@accuvax.nwu.edu>, radius!lemke@apple (Steve Lemke) writes: |Basically, our arrangement was this: If I wanted my dad to call me, I |would call his house and let the phone ring only once (and then hang |up). He would therefore wait until a second ring before ever |answering the phone. I used something similar to let my computer pickup the phone when I wanted to login from the office: the computer would pick up the phone when a SINGLE ring would be followed by another ring after 15-30 sec. This will hardly ever happen by accident, and is also easily recognised by human beings. The 15-30 seconds was just enough to redial the number on an old fashioned rotary dial. Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands. Telephone: +31 30 531806 Uucp: uunet!mcsun!ruuinf!piet Telefax: +31 30 513791 Internet: piet@cs.ruu.nl (*`Pete')
Barrey Jewall <barrey@ka> (08/29/90)
In article <11373@accuvax.nwu.edu> danj1@ihlpa.att.com (Daniel Jacobson) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 597, Message 6 of 11 >Are there any cases of people using the utterly cheapskate idea of >sending morse code via ring length to the other party? >{\Law_Abiding_Tone=on One would hope that telcos can detect this so us >regular folks' phone bills aren't subsidising all night (1 baud?) >style communication. } Maybe this is why my phone will ring about five times (seperated by a few seconds), usually at about 5:30 AM. Someone must be trying to send me a message! If I find the guy who is doing this, I would like to devise a real nasty method for ending his life. The first call rings until I pick up th phone, at which time I am treated to the merry sound of DTMF (two or three key, I think), and then he hangs up. For about the next five or six MINUTES, this idiot redials my number, lets it ring once, and hangs up and redials... Telco (Pac*Bell) says change my number, and become unlisted... Maybe I should look into an ANI here ... (Not sure about the California law on them things, anyone know? - No, don't lets start a discussion here again, but E-Mail me if you have any pertinent info.) >[Moderator's Note: Regardless of the exact methods used, whenever the >telephone service is manipulated to deliver a coded message -- be it >by a certain ringing pattern; coded messages unwittingly delivered by >the operator; or whatever -- telco says a message has been delivered. >If they cannot prove that is what you did -- or can't conveniently >prove it -- then of course they write it off. But these techniques are >as old as the phone itself, and telco knows all the tricks. PAT] Awhile ago, this used to take place: About once every two weeks, my mom would call my number, person to person collect , for some guy I've never heard of, and when I reply that he's not here, and I don't know when he will be, the operator (AT&T) usually asked if my mom wants to leave a message for him, and she replies "just have him call me when he arrives", and the operator says thank you for using AT&T, or somesuch thing, and we hang up. Then I called my mom. Doesn't seem like they care that much. BTW- My mom had never recieved a bill for these calls, in about eight years. Postscript to the MCI switchover racket: A friend of mine, who was quite happy with AT&T, answered the phone about a month ago, and lo and behold, it was MCI. Well , he was kinda busy with his SO at the time, so he hung up on the guy after learning it was MCI. He related this tale to me one night, and I recalled the discussion here a while back, and suggested it might be a good idea to check his LD carrier, well, he called the 700 number, and sure enough, MCI!!!! Took him about two months to get things straight, though. He actually took MCI for about 150 bucks in LD calls, because he was buying some property in Alaska, and was on the phone constantly that month. That's all for now, Barrey Jewall ++ "My opinions are my opinions" + barrey@novell.com ++ (rather self-evident, eh?) + Novell, Inc.- San Jose, Calif.
meier@uunet.uu.net> (08/30/90)
In article <11372@accuvax.nwu.edu> hrs1@cbnewsi.att.com writes: >extended area service, so I could call them free. If they called me, >they would hang up after two rings. I would always let the phone ring >at least three times. Thus, if there were only two rings, I would call This trick is not reliable. The ringback tone you hear does not necessarily correspond to the ringing at the other end. Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation
Mitch Wagner <wagner@utoday.com> (08/30/90)
What is "toll saver"? Mitch Wagner VOICE: 516/562-5758 GEnie: UNIX-TODAY UUCP: wagner@utoday.com ...uunet!utoday!wagner Moderator's Note: "Toll Saver" is a way of saving money on calls to answering machines by having the machine not pick up until after several rings if there are no messages received. If a message is on the tape, then the answering machine picks up immediatly, on the first or second ring, as you have it set. If there are no messages, then the owner calling in knows to hang up after about the third ring so no charge will be made to call an answering machine which has nothing to say. Its a little more involved than that, but that is the idea. PAT]
"Barton F. Bruce" <BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com> (08/31/90)
In article <11465@accuvax.nwu.edu>, barrey@ka (Barrey Jewall) writes: > About once every two weeks, my mom would call my number, person to > she replies "just have him call me when he arrives", and the operator > says thank you for using AT&T, or somesuch thing, and we hang up. Then > I called my mom. Would seem wise to call back using 10xxx to select a DIFFERENT carrier. Let the first carrier lose the return business for being dangerous to use! Just a thought...
jgro@apldbio.com (Jeremy Grodberg) (09/01/90)
In article <11463@accuvax.nwu.edu> rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: >[stuff about calling home, and Mom says "Do you want me to call you back?"...] >If I'm away from home, but in 415 area code, I use my MCI card, and >answer the question, "Yes, I'm at 415-XXX-XXXX." Because of the >"Around Town" feature, I still pay two bits or less for the call. According to the insert in my phone bill, and as reported in this forum, (and as confirmed by MCI customer service), MCI's Around Town Feature no longer lets you make a call for less than "two bits". Previously, Around Town meant *no* surcharge on *any* card calls *from* any phone in your local calling area, which apparrently was too good a deal for MCI to continue. Now, however, it means that there is only a 25 cent surcharge in addition to normal calling rates, rather than the 75 cent normal surcharge for using the calling card, when making a *local* call from any telephone in your local calling area. Making a long distance, out of state call from any phone (even your home phone) with the calling card still results in a 75 cent surcharge. So, unfortunately, you will have to pay more than two bits, not less, to phone home. I just wanted to keep everyone straight on MCI rates (assuming I'm keeping myself straight). Jeremy Grodberg jgro@apldbio.com
Mitch Wagner <wagner@utoday.com> (09/02/90)
#Moderator's Note: "Toll Saver" is a way of saving money on calls to #answering machines by having the machine not pick up until after #several rings if there are no messages received. If a message is on #the tape, then the answering machine picks up immediatly, on the first #or second ring, as you have it set. If there are no messages, then the #owner calling in knows to hang up after about the third ring so no #charge will be made to call an answering machine which has nothing to #say. Its a little more involved than that, but that is the idea. PAT] Oh, yeah, I have that on my machine. You mean to say they're not doing it any more? Well, mine isn't really reliable, anyway. (For the record, I should state that I have a Panasonic Easa-Phone. Another thing I don't like about it is that it has a two-digit security code. Now, how hard would it be for some phone phreak to break into my phone machine and start listening to messages with a two-digit security code, fa' Pete's sake? Not hard at all. (Of course, the real challenge, once said phone phreak has broken into my phone machine and heard my messages, would be to remain awake.... ) Mitch Wagner VOICE: 516/562-5758 GEnie: UNIX-TODAY UUCP: wagner@utoday.com ...uunet!utoday!wagner [Moderator's Note: Yes, toll saver is still found on most answering machines. Like yourself, my answering machine had a two digit code, but I no longer use the machine since I now call forward to voice mail when I am not around. And, my voice mail has toll saver also. PAT]
barrey@ka (Barrey Jewall) (09/05/90)
In article <11569@accuvax.nwu.edu>BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: >In article <11465@accuvax.nwu.edu>, barrey@ka (Barrey Jewall) (ME!) >writes: >> About once every two weeks, my mom would call my number, person to... >> she replies "just have him call me when he arrives", and the operator >> says thank you for using AT&T, or somesuch thing, and we hang up. Then >> I called my mom. >Would seem wise to call back using 10xxx to select a DIFFERENT >carrier. Let the first carrier lose the return business for being >dangerous to use! >Just a thought... I'm afraid I may be dense, but what do you mean "being dangerous to use" ??? Is AT&T going to cut off my arms (or other, more neccessary body parts?!?) 8-) That's a BIG smiley for the Humor-impaired (no, NOT the guy I'm replying to!) + Barrey Jewall ++ "My opinions are my opinions" + + barrey@novell.com ++ (rather self-evident, eh?) + + Novell, Inc.- San Jose, Calif.++ + [Moderator's Note: As John Covert pointed out in a recent message, the tariff does say this is illegal, and the security forces of the respective telcos have very sophisticated detection methods in place. And sometimes, yes, they *will* make an issue out of it. As for body parts, the worst case I've ever heard of was when they had a guy in custody who had been caught phreaking; they took a large, sharp knife and cut off his ... uh, his dialing finger. Yes, that's it! His dialing finger. They told him since he wouldn't use it the way nature and Ma Bell intended, they would just cut it off and he wouldn't have one any more. Plastic surgeons built a new dialing finger for him, but it never did work as well as the original. The poor devil was in therapy for a long time afterward, and I understand to this day he still has to place all his calls manually through the operator. PAT]
jmm@uunet.uu.net (John Macdonald) (09/06/90)
In article <11700@accuvax.nwu.edu> our Moderator writes: > that's it! His dialing finger. [...] I understand to this day he > still has to place all his calls manually through the operator. PAT] ^^^^^^^^ Since he is no longer able to place his calls digitally, of course. John Macdonald jmm@eci386
bapat@uunet.uu.net (Subodh Bapat) (09/08/90)
In <11395@accuvax.nwu.edu> radius!lemke@apple.com (Steve Lemke) writes: >Basically, our arrangement was this: If I wanted my dad to call me, I >would call his house and let the phone ring only once (and then hang >up). He would therefore wait until a second ring before ever >answering the phone. I have a feeling that this may not always work the same way, depending on the CO switches in the circuit, especially long distance where multiple switches are involved. The reason is that the number of rings heard by the caller is not necessarily the number of rings generated on the called line. I have had occasions where people who called me have asked me, surprised, "How come you answered even before the phone rang at all?" when I had distinctly heard the phone ring twice at my end. Any switch gurus care to shed any light on this? Subodh Bapat bapat@rm1.uu.net OR ...uunet!rm1!bapat MS E-204, PO Box 407044, Racal-Milgo, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33340 (305) 846-6068 [Moderator's Note: A telecom person once told me, "The only reason we put a ringing signal on the line (for the caller to listen to) is because otherwise the caller might think the line was out of order. The ringing signal is simply a way to let the caller know he is not being ignored and that telco is attempting to make a connection." PAT]
carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) (09/11/90)
In article <11658@accuvax.nwu.edu> wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner) writes: >(For the record, I should state that I have a Panasonic Easa-Phone. >Another thing I don't like about it is that it has a two-digit >security code. Now, how hard would it be for some phone phreak to >break into my phone machine and start listening to messages with a >two-digit security code, fa' Pete's sake? Not hard at all. Awww. *My* answering machine only has a *one* digit security code. Of course if some phreak were to do something like this, wouldn't you be immediately aware of it? >(Of course, the real challenge, once said phone phreak has broken into >my phone machine and heard my messages, would be to remain awake.... ) That's what Gary Hart said too, isn't it ? :^) Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com
ben@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Benjamin Ellsworth) (09/11/90)
> I have had occasions where people who called me have asked me, > surprised, "How come you answered even before the phone rang at all?" > when I had distinctly heard the phone ring twice at my end. > Any switch gurus care to shed any light on this? I am not a switch guru, but a professor of mine (Dr. Burton at BYU) was an ex-Bell Labs man, and he mentioned in passing that some work had gone into the long distance switching network to temporally displace the ring that the caller heard from the ring signal that the callee heard. This was done specifically to disrupt the "if it rings twice, call me" type of signalling. Benjamin Ellsworth ben@cv.hp.com All relevant disclaimers apply.
clay@swbatl.sbc.com (Patrick Clay - 529-7760) (09/11/90)
In article <11898@accuvax.nwu.edu> mailrus!uflorida!rm1!bapat (Subodh Bapat) writes: >I have a feeling that this may not always work the same way, depending >on the CO switches in the circuit, especially long distance where >multiple switches are involved. The reason is that the number of rings >heard by the caller is not necessarily the number of rings generated >on the called line. >I have had occasions where people who called me have asked me, >surprised, "How come you answered even before the phone rang at all?" >when I had distinctly heard the phone ring twice at my end. >Any switch gurus care to shed any light on this? The Moderator`s note below this (edited for space) was correct but wasn't complete. Another reason that the rings are not synchronized is to get around the problem described above -- people trying to outsmart the phone system and not get charged for a phone call. Sometimes you can tell people to "wait for two rings" then hang up before they answer, but the vast majority of times the phone has rung at least once and maybe twice before the caller hears anything. The ringing the caller hears is simply another tone like "busy" or "reorder" and has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual phone ringing at the other end. SBC TRI clay@swbatl: Patrick Clay - 529-7760
grayt@uunet.uu.net (Tom Gray) (09/12/90)
In article <12000@accuvax.nwu.edu> ben@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Benjamin Ellsworth) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 635, Message 5 of 13 >> I have had occasions where people who called me have asked me, >> surprised, "How come you answered even before the phone rang at all?" >> when I had distinctly heard the phone ring twice at my end. >> Any switch gurus care to shed any light on this? >I am not a switch guru, but a professor of mine (Dr. Burton at BYU) >was an ex-Bell Labs man, and he mentioned in passing that some work >had gone into the long distance switching network to temporally >displace the ring that the caller heard from the ring signal that the >callee heard. This was done specifically to disrupt the "if it rings >twice, call me" type of signalling. Switch design spec's include requirements for immediate rng - both ringing current and audible ringing tone. However under conditions of high traffic it may not be possible to immediately give one or the other of these signals to the subscribers. Hence the possibility described above of a call being answered before rnging current or audible ringing is given. I have seen no spec's that require an offset of the signals as described above and I have read many switch spec's - and wiith practice I have even been able to translate some of these spec's into English. Indeed the spec with the best and most precise use of English came from the Mexican telephone company.
davel@relay.eu.net (Dave Lockwood) (09/13/90)
In various articles, various people write: About answering the phone before it rang... In the UK, before the advent of the digital switch, all the electromechanical (Strowger and Crossbar) switches generated ring current and tone by means of a rotating motor with a commutator pair. Examining this device showed that the ring tone (to caller) and the ring current (to callee) would be exactly "out of phase", ie the ring current was sent in the gaps between the ring tones. Incidentally, the same motor/commutator used to produce the busy signal too. Dave Lockwood ...!uunet!mcsun!ukc!vision!davel davel@vision.uucp Technical Consultant ...!uunet!bulus3!bungia!vware!davel davel@vware.MN.ORG VisionWare Ltd, G4CLI@GB7YHF.194.GBR.EU dave@g4cli.ampr.org 57 Cardigan Lane, D.LOCKWOOD@ICLX davel@vision.co.uk Leeds, LS4 2LE, +44-532-788858 +44-831-494088 United Kingdom +44-532-304676 "Hey, You!"
wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner) (09/14/90)
In article <11999@accuvax.nwu.edu> bcsaic!carroll@beaver.cs. washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) writes: # In article <11658@accuvax.nwu.edu> wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner) # writes: #>(For the record, I should state that I have a Panasonic Easa-Phone. #>Another thing I don't like about it is that it has a two-digit #>security code. Now, how hard would it be for some phone phreak to #>break into my phone machine and start listening to messages with a #>two-digit security code, fa' Pete's sake? Not hard at all. # Awww. *My* answering machine only has a *one* digit security # code. Of course if some phreak were to do something like this, # wouldn't you be immediately aware of it? Nope. I assume you mean that the unlistened-to-messages counter would be reset to zero, and I'd hear a message next time I checked the tape that I'd never heard before, even though the "message waiting" light wasn't flashing. But the Panasonic does not resent the counter to zero when you listen to the messages over the phone. #>(Of course, the real challenge, once said phone phreak has broken into #>my phone machine and heard my messages, would be to remain awake.... ) # That's what Gary Hart said too, isn't it ? :^) Yes, but *I* have nothing to hide. Why, I *invite* you to follow me around for a weekend while I hold... um... in-depth staff meetings with my secretary in a secluded Washington townhouse.... Mitch Wagner VOICE: 516/562-5758 GEnie: UNIX-TODAY UUCP: wagner@utoday.com ...uunet!utoday!wagner
ellisndh@uunet.uu.net (Dell H. Ellison) (09/15/90)
In article <11898@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mailrus!uflorida!rm1!bapat (Subodh Bapat) writes: -> I have had occasions where people who called me have asked me, -> surprised, "How come you answered even before the phone rang at all?" -> when I had distinctly heard the phone ring twice at my end. -> Any switch gurus care to shed any light on this? What you hear (called 'ringback' in the telephony industry) does not directly correspond to the ringing of the phone on the other end of the line. The ringback tone is just put there to let you know that the phone is actually ringing on the other end. When you hear a 'ring', it probably is not at the same time that it is ringing on the other end. I don't know how people supposedly send messages by letting the phone ring a certain number of times.
martin@bellcore.bellcore.com (Martin Harriss (ACP)) (09/18/90)
In article <12126@accuvax.nwu.edu> Dave Lockwood <vision!davel@ relay.eu.net> writes: >In various articles, various people write: >About answering the phone before it rang... >In the UK, before the advent of the digital switch, all the >electromechanical (Strowger and Crossbar) switches generated ring >current and tone by means of a rotating motor with a commutator pair. >Examining this device showed that the ring tone (to caller) and the >ring current (to callee) would be exactly "out of phase", ie the ring >current was sent in the gaps between the ring tones. Not so. The standard BT ringing machine generates three phases of both ring tone and ring current. These three phases are distributed around the exchange. I don't think any attempt is made to synchronize - you just get what happens to be the phase on any given selector rack. What kind of ringing machine were you looking at? There are some small ones used by PBX's that may do funky things with the phases of the generated voltages and tones. Note that TXK1's and TXK3's (X-bar) generate a short burst of ringing (both ring tone and ring current) on siezing the called line, to help prevent glare. This used to be a sure-file test for a crossbar exchange - but some electronic exchanges may do this as well these days. (On a TXK1 the initial burst of ringing is much longer, allowing you to differentiate between TXK1's and TXK3's) Martin Harriss martin@cellar.bae.bellcore.com
dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) (09/19/90)
In article <12181@accuvax.nwu.edu>, motcid!ellisndh@uunet.uu.net (Dell H. Ellison) writes: > The ringback tone is just put there to let you know that the phone is > actually ringing on the other end. When you hear a 'ring', it > probably is not at the same time that it is ringing on the other end. > I don't know how people supposedly send messages by letting the phone > ring a certain number of times. What you say is certainly true today, in most electronic switches. It was not always true. In the #5 Crossbar and most earlier electromechanical switches, the ringback tone is synchronized with the actual ringing applied to the calling party's line. These stories are probably history from a few years to a couple of decades ago. Dave Levenson Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Internet: dave@westmark.com [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave
dricejb@husc6.harvard.edu (Craig Jackson drilex1) (09/20/90)
About the difference between the timing of ring-back and the actual
rings, I think there are several things going on here:
1. I believe that at one time, ring-back really was the sound of the
ring voltage to the other phone. (Correct me if I am wrong; I'm
talking about the early part of the century here.)
2. In the days of mechanical ring-back generation, the ring voltage
and the ring-back voltage came from the same generator and
interrupter, so there really was no reason why they couldn't be
synchronized.
3. Today, ring-back certainly comes from an oscillator somewhere; the
ring voltage may still be mechanically generated. But they aren't
related closely.
4. There always have been exceptions; for example, key sets used to
sense the ring voltage, and then ring the phones using a
locally-generated ring signal. These were nearly always 1/2 ring
out-of-sync.
5. With modern PBXs, I would expect that the CO doesn't generate any
"ring voltage" at all, but rather some sort of digital signal that
says "there's a call coming in on trunk 3 for extension 4567". In
this case, the ring voltage comes from the PBX, rather than the CO. I
don't know for sure, but I would expect that the ring-back signal
still comes from the CO.
I'm sure there are a number of errors in the above, but John Higdon
will correct them. :-) I'm pretty sure I've got the general
information right.
Note that it is in the interest of the Telco to give you ringback,
approximately at the same rate as a normal phone rings. It allows you
to make a more informed judgement as to whether your party is there,
and probably allows you to do so sooner, thus freeing up common
equipment sooner.
Craig Jackson
dricejb@drilex.dri.mgh.com
{bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (09/20/90)
On Sep 20 at 0:17, Craig Jackson writes: > 1. I believe that at one time, ring-back really was the sound of the > ring voltage to the other phone. (Correct me if I am wrong; I'm > talking about the early part of the century here.) Sort of. The ring voltage generated by the old rotary ring generators was rich in harmonics. A high-pass version (with the 20 Hz filtered out) was sent back to the caller. > 3. Today, ring-back certainly comes from an oscillator somewhere; the > ring voltage may still be mechanically generated. But they aren't > related closely. In electronic switches, the ring voltage is generated electronically. The cadence of the actual ring and the ringback tone is the same in normal cases, but may be "out of phase". > 4. There always have been exceptions; for example, key sets used to > sense the ring voltage, and then ring the phones using a > locally-generated ring signal. These were nearly always 1/2 ring > out-of-sync. Not only out of sync, but the cadence is different in a standard 1A2 key system than that of a standard CO. In that case, the ringing of a key phone common audible bears little relation to the ringback that the caller is hearing. > 5. With modern PBXs, I would expect that the CO doesn't generate any > "ring voltage" at all, but rather some sort of digital signal that > says "there's a call coming in on trunk 3 for extension 4567". In > this case, the ring voltage comes from the PBX, rather than the CO. I > don't know for sure, but I would expect that the ring-back signal > still comes from the CO. What you describe is DID (direct inward dialing). In that case, the call is delivered to the PBX as if it was the end office. Ring voltage comes from the PBX and the ringback tone, busy (if appropriate), or even any intercept recording is supplied by the PBX. When a DID call is answered, the PBX even supplies answer supervision (usually via battery reversal on the trunk) back to the telco CO. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
pace@usace.mil (Joe Pace) (09/25/90)
A friend and I came up with a method for letting the other know that he was on a local pay phone, and what the number was, by using a collect call with an odd name. It has worked very well, and now we have an easy way to refer to particular phones. Since all the numers in our area begin with 75, only the last five digits are important -- the goal is to form a name like: Paris H. Bulb Where the first and last letter of the first name and last name and the middle initial are significant. So, the number is encoded as "PSHBB" using the mapping: 1-9 -> A-I 1-9 -> J-T U-Z are left out... So, this name maps to 756-9822. The trick is to figure out a good name for your pay-phone, one that will be easy for the operator to repeat and will make sense if it's a little mispronounced. Joe Pace US Army Corps of Engineers pace@usace.mil Sacramento District JPPACE@UCDAVIS.BITNET 650 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 551-1133, FAX: 551-1100