adk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Andrew D Kailhofer) (12/11/89)
In article <253@zircon.UUCP> davidb@Pacer.UUCP (David Barts) writes: [ stuff about the phone company rate-negotiators being evil and larcenous ] >Fortunately, you can fight back. If you are being charged more for a >tone line, ask for a pulse line. SURPRISE! Unless you have an old >pulse phone exchange, you still can use tone on the `pulse' line - the >pulse-to-tone converter lets the DTMF tones through to the exchange. >If the phone co. sends you an "Aha! You're using tone on a pulse line >so we'll charge you more!" letter they can be taken to court. The Federal >Trade Commission has ruled that if anyone gives you a service that you >haven't asked for, it's a FREE GIFT and you don't owe them a cent. This is true and not true. Let me first disclaim... While I am an Honest-To-Goodness employee of Ameritech Applied Technologies, I have never been a Telephone-Company-Person. I was hired for my UNIX skills and that's what I do, *but* you can't work around here w/o soaking up knowledge about the network. That said, the facts as I know them... Once upon a time, everything was pulse. The step-by-step switches whirred along nicely. Then they started selling DTMF service to the subscriber, requiring pulse-to-tone converters. It was generally more cost effective (at least here in Wisconsin) to wire an entire office with this equipment than the individual subscriber, so this was what was done. This stuff persisted through the SXS, the Crossbar, and most of the #1 and #1A ESSs. The end result of all of this is that if you did not feel any twinge of guilt at committing petty larceny against (what was at that time) AT&T, you could pilfer DTMF service at no cost except (potential) guilt. Once digital switching started to get more and more widely propagated, however, things changed. With the advent of the AT&T #5ESS (and presumbaly the DMS 10 & 100), the switch was able to recognize Pulse or DTMF on its own instead of relying on some piece of hardware in the network to perform conversion. The end result--if you don't pay for the service, you can't use it. I cannot comment on whether or not I think that DTMF should cost less than pulse, but consider the people still served by older switches who should pay more for something that extra equipment is required to provide... Can a PSC (or would a BOC want their PSC) to require a different billing reate for (potentially) each CO? Yikes. Andrew D. Kailhofer MS-CS candidate/UW-Milwaukee (kailhofr@cvax.cs.uwm.edu) Analyst--Network Systems/Ameritech Applied Technologies--WI (a07932@gus.ameritech.com) 414/678-7793
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (12/12/89)
In article <2009@accuvax.nwu.edu> Andrew D Kailhofer <adk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu> writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 565, message 5 of 5 >Then they started selling DTMF service to the >subscriber, requiring pulse-to-tone converters. >[...] >This stuff persisted through the SXS, the Crossbar, and >most of the #1 and #1A ESSs. Well, in your words, yes and no. In the case of SXS, they had to add converters, UNLESS they (notably GTE) used directorization. Then the tone receivers were imbedded in the equipment used on everyone's line. And it was impossible to turn off the tone capability. In the case of crossbar, they had to use the Teltone or Mitel converters (the Mitels were much better; they weren't tone to pulse, but rather tone to 'OR lanquage--2 of 7' and worked instantaneously). As you said, it was usually more cost effective to equip all ORs with converters, even though in the early days they did try to shuttle all non-TT-paying customers to non-equipped registers. But even that is no longer the case. Now they use CONTAC, an adjunct to provide equal access. Since the customer dials into the CONTAC, which is inherently TT-capable, you have to consider that TT is now imbedded in crossbar. In fact, CONTAC has a difficult time dealing with rotary and must receive pulses within the range of 9 to 12 PPS, or it will bomb. No 20 PPS for all those speed freaks that wanted to avoid TT. ALL electronic switches (including all permutations of ESS) have embedded tone receivers. >Can a PSC (or would a BOC want their PSC) to require a >different billing reate for (potentially) each CO? Yikes. Wouldn't that be a hoot? If the cost of your phone was linked to the actual cost of maintaining your CO switch, you would pay more for more antiquated service. The more modern your service, the less you would pay. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !