[fa.telecom] TELECOM Digest V2 #87

TELECOM@Usc-Eclb (07/13/82)

TELECOM AM Digest       Tuesday, 13 July 1982      Volume 2 : Issue 87

Today's Topics:   ACTS - Re: Your Automatic Operator
                       Summary Of Splits, Etc.
      France Phone System - Terminals Replace Paper Phone Books
           MIT PBX Problems - Solution Will Never Be Found
                     Rate Step Announcement Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 1982 2135-PDT
From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT at USC-ISIB>
Subject: Re: Your automatic operator

I think it relates to the ACTS (Automatic Coin Telephone Service)
system.  I submitted a paper some time ago which I had received from
PAC-TEL in 1981.  If you want to read it, I think JSOL has a copy; if
not I will be glad to send you one.
					<>IHM<>

[We distributed it only a month or so ago, but for the benefit of
those who missed it, you can retrieve a copy from
[USC-ECLB]BUG:<JSOL.TELECOM>ACTS.TXT, or if you can't; I will mail you
a copy if you send mail to TELECOM-REQUEST@USC-ECLB. --JSol]

------------------------------

Date:     12 Jul 82 7:56:16-EDT (Mon)
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL>
cc:       cmoore at BRL
Subject:  summary of splits, etc.

Here are the Washington Post references for 1973 implementation of 804
area code in Virginia (which until then had only 1 area code, 703).
May 16, 1973; section B, p. 1, col. 5 June 24, 1973; section B, p. 1,
col. 4

The above articles say that the last previous implementation of new
area code was in July 1965 when Florida got 3rd area code. I located
older area code maps in microfilm of old Wilmington (Del.) phone books
(this was in the Wilmington library), and saw that 904 used to be part
of 305. (Also, long-distance dialing instructions from at least one of
those old books used 904, which didn't exist then.)  So we have the
following dates (note that the implementation of N0X and N1X was an
alternative to dividing the area immediately).  July 1965: Fla. gets
3rd area code (904, split from 305).  June 1973: Va. gets 2nd area
code (804).  July 1973: LA area (213) gets N0X and N1X.  Nov. 1980:
NYC (212) gets N0X and N1X.  Nov. 1982: Calif. gets 9th area code
(619, split from 714).  1984: Calif. gets 10th area code (818, split
from 213).

Objections to splitting an area are that you thus change phone numbers
of half the people in it, and that you require 10 digits for calls
from 1 side of it to other side.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 1982 11:40 EDT
From: Sewhuk.HENR at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V2 #83

I read in a trade magazine that France is eliminating paper phone
books and giving all their customers a home terminal instead.  They
justified putting a terminal in everyones home on the savings in paper
alone.  If that system works the entire phone directory would in
effect be on-line and up-to-date at all times, that should eliminate
the operators I would assume, or turn them into data base
maintainters...

Dave

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 1982 1431-EDT
From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO>
cc: jmturn at MIT-AI, braun at IO
Subject: The MIT/OZ problem

It is unlikely that we will ever know precisely what the problem was.
As JSol pointed out, 253/258 is plain vanilla No. 1 ESS CENTREX ser-
vice, completely provided by New England Telephone.  If the problem
was that the numbers were restricted, the MIT operator would also have
been prevented from connecting an outside call (Yes, ESS is that
smart).

I suggested that it could have been a hunting problem, but RKB said
that he tried it from each of his 497 numbers, rapidly alternating
between the one from which it worked and the one from which it didn't.
The 497 machine is a separate machine from 253/258/494.  (I'm sure of
this, I just checked it from my 494 number.)  I still think hunting is
likely -- if RKB alternated in just the amount of time it took for the
modem to time out, it may have appeared busy from one line and not the
other.

Since both of his numbers are in a different machine and ESSs don't
send the calling number between each other, the problem has to be
related to the instantaneous state of the number he was calling.  His
call would have to be processed the same regardless of which phone he
was using.

[Yes. I made the mistake of assuming that 497 and 258 were on the
same ESS machine. --JSol]

The 225 MIT-Dorm-phone numbers are *NOT* panel, and never have been.
These phones are served by a privately owned SxS PBX which is treated
as a satellite PBX by the CENTREX (i.e. the No. 1 ESS outpulses to
the PBX).

There are NO panel exchanges in Connecticutt, and there never have
been any.  Panel and SxS have a compatibility problem, i.e. they can
not be interconnected, so there have never been any areas with both
SxS and panel.

------------------------------

Date: 12 July 1982 2056-PDT (Monday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: rate step announcement units

Operator-access rate step announcing units have been around for quite
a few years.  They are *not* reachable by customers -- they have six
digit intertoll access numbers (NPA+3D) which cannot be dialed from
subscriber telephones.  Similar simple (but useful) voice response
announcement units have been used for telephone credit card (now named
"calling cards") validation for a number of years as well.

--Lauren--

P.S.  Operators are generally not supposed to bridge the subscriber
into calls to such announcement systems.  Somebody is getting sloppy
somewhere...

--LW--

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
**********************
-------