Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!oliveb!tymix!cirrusl!dhesi%cirrusl From: dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: FCC doing it again... Message-ID: <1146@cirrusl.UUCP> Date: 1 Dec 89 21:08:38 GMT References: <1989Nov28.011514.4193@virtech.uucp> <246@cfa.HARVARD.EDU> <128505@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <253@zircon.UUCP> Sender: news@cirrusl.UUCP Reply-To: dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc. Lines: 20 In article <253@zircon.UUCP> davidb@Pacer.UUCP (David Barts) writes: >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... Unfortunately not true in all the places I've tried it. Apparently the telephone company installs a DTMF-blocking filter on the lines of subscribers who aren't paying for DTMF. So what happens? The people who are paying more for DTMF aren't really paying for DTMF. They are paying for the DTMF-blocking filters needed on the lines of those who aren't paying for DTMF. This is the opposite of the way it ought to be. People who don't pay for DTMF should be made to pay for the DTMF-blocking filter. And people who pay for DTMF then wouldn't have to pay for the filter any more, so they wouldn't have to pay for DTMF at all. Rahul Dhesi UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi