Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: gtephx!hw-4h62!nogeea@asuvax.EAS.ASU.EDU (Allen Nogee) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Calling Number Delivery According to Bellcore Message-ID: Date: 17 Nov 89 15:11:45 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Organization: gte Lines: 23 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 520, message 5 of 12 In article , w_smith@wookie.enet. dec.com (Willie Smith, LTN Components Eng.) writes: > 1) The basic interface is a 1200 baud FSK data stream between the first and > second rings. The interface is not supposed to work in an off- > hook state, though it might be interesting to see if they really > work that way. All kinds of spoofing might be possible if the > box depends on the fact that the CO will not send data when the > phone is off-hook... The hardware I designed for our switch (GTE) does work on or off hook. So do the boxes I've tested. Whether the software will allow it is another question. I guess it all depends if you mind hearing FSKT tones in your ear if you pick up your phone too fast. > 6) Another neat future use mentioned in passing is an interface to directory > assistance or another database to provide calling party name instead of > calling DN. Yes the low level spec will pass ASCII, do any of the > current boxes allow display of alphanumerics? The future for ASCII is there but the boxes I've tested couldn't do it. I fact, The AT&T box I tested couldn't even display more than 7 digits. The only message type supported at present is 4, digits only.