Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uw-beaver!uw-entropy!dataio!pilchuck!pacer!davidb
From: davidb@Pacer.UUCP (David Barts)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: FCC doing it again...
Summary: followup to comp.misc, please!
Message-ID: <255@zircon.UUCP>
Date: 5 Dec 89 01:28:36 GMT
References: <1989Nov28.011514.4193@virtech.uucp> <246@cfa.HARVARD.EDU> <1146@cirrusl.UUCP>
Followup-To: comp.misc
Organization: Pacer Corp., Bothell, WA
Lines: 31

Let's move this thread out out comp.unix.wizards.  Comp.misc may not
be the best place, but there's no alt.phone-phlames group :-).

In article <1146@cirrusl.UUCP>, dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
-> 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.

Yeah, I goofed.  I had tried this enough times, and it always worked
for me, but there's more exxhanges in the country than the dozen or
so I've tried it on :-).

-> 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.

My thoughts exactly.  So even if I'd be living in a place where they
filter out the DTMF during the dialing stage, I'd still order a pulse
line.  I'd get a nice warm feeling from paying less for a line that
costs the phone company more.

... Until everybody starts doing this and then the phone co. would
RAISE rates on pulse lines so they'd be more than DTMF. :-(
-- 
David Barts			Pacer Corporation
davidb@pacer.uucp		...!fluke!pacer!davidb