Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!husc6!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!texsun!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: dl@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: 555 Exchange and Inward Numbers Message-ID: Date: 6 Aug 89 13:48:19 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Reply-To: David Lesher Lines: 29 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 277, message 5 of 11 [Discussion about 'outward only' slots, and a 555 prefix assigned to one] > We may find out the > 555 prefix is bogus, and if you replaced it with the correct prefix you > could call in. How about making a collect call from one of them and checking > the number on your bill, when you get it. Won't work. This scheme was used in places such as bus stations, airports, high schools, et al where the local Mother wanted to forbid incoming calls. After all, they didn't get a quarter from those calls, did they?? The number on the one-armed bandit translated to a secret actual number. I seem to recall that the TSPS position either displayed the correct assignment, with a special "don't tell the sub" message or else calls from the TSPS were translated, unlike normal ones. But {s}he did have a method to call the slot back. Now for a while, '200' code did give you the actual assignment, but they soon disabled it. But Ma did handle the collect call bill part correctly from the beginning. But that brings up an interesting sub-topic. How are the LOC's handling 'calling party id' on calls placed from such slots, or for that matter from all the other special cases, such as PBX trunks and WATS circuits? I recall that 200 DID work on out-wats trunks, and gave some long non-NNNXXXX number. -- Flash! Murphy gets look and feel copyright on sendmail.cf {gatech!} wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM