bote@uunet.uu.net (John Boteler) (11/10/89)
My former housemate works for Bell Atlantic (serving D.C., Virginia,
Maryland, et. al.) and last year brought home one of the many company
newsletters desktop publishing has made possible.
It described the proposal to implement CLASS services on an office-by-
office basis and pointed out that ESS1 offices would get all the
features at once, but, oddly, ESS5 offices would only get some of
the features at first. The features to be implemented later include
Select*Forward (selective call forwarding of a list of up to 6 calling
numbers), Priority*Call (distinctive ringing from a list), and
Call*Block (block up to 6 numbers from reaching you).
It occurs to me that it would be easier to implement CLASS features
in a #5 than a #1. Am I close?
I note that the features to be implemented last in the #5 offices have
the need to store a list of up to 6 numbers, and I believe the LECs
are purchasing equipment from other telecom companies to provide these
services, hence the delay. But why not the same delay for #1s??
BTW, if anybody is interested in hearing a recording of these 3
features mentioned above, send me email and I will describe to you how
to access a little demo I have set up on a voice response system which
I operate. I nabbed these during the test period (before they were
turned off to begin the billing period!). It's a standard number in
the Washington D.C. metro calling area. Fun if you're bored.
Bote
going away soon: uunet!cyclops!csense!bote
changing soon: {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!cyclops!csense!bote
to this: ...!media!csense!botejohn@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (11/13/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0502m09@vector.dallas.tx.us>, csense!bote@uunet.uu.net (John Boteler) writes: > It occurs to me that it would be easier to implement CLASS features > in a #5 than a #1. Am I close? Why would that be? Implementation of CLASS features is no different than for any other software-driven features. There is no magic here. A #5 ESS is no more capable of providing switching logic than a 1AESS. What makes the magic happen is the controlling software (the generic). Both switches are stored-program controlled. > I note that the features to be implemented last in the #5 offices have > the need to store a list of up to 6 numbers, and I believe the LECs > are purchasing equipment from other telecom companies to provide these > services, hence the delay. But why not the same delay for #1s?? The features and the implementation were originally developed on the 1ESS family. This being done, software had to be written for the other switches (5ESS, DMS, etc.) in general CO service. If you think about it, there are more 1/1As out there than anything else. Any features that expect to be widely implemented will have to work in a 1/1AESS. Example: ISDN. Pac*Bell just filed its ISDN offerings with the CPUC. While ISDN is a natural for a digital switch, widespread offering will require the ability to provide it out of an analog office. Hence, Pac*Bell will provide ISDN out of 1AESS offices using an NEC adjunct. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !