Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net (Dave Levenson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: How Does Changing of Prefix by Telco Improve Service?
Message-ID: <9997@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 22 Jul 90 12:29:35 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA
Lines: 55
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 505, Message 3 of 7


In article <9993@accuvax.nwu.edu>, todd@ivucsb.sba.ca.us (Todd Day)
writes:

> 		UCSB Telephone Prefix Changes to 893
> (1)	Why did GTE feel it necessary to change UCSB at all when it
> 	appears that there were many numbers left in the current prefix?
> 	9999 - 3800 = 6199 extensions left, right?

I have no direct knowlege of the numbering plan used by GTE in the
Santa Barbara area, but generally, these changes enable a larger block
of numbers to be available to the customer.  Perhaps some of those
apparently-available 6,199 extensions are assigned somewhere else?

Perhaps the university centrex is being re-implemented on a physically
new switch.  This might be done to enable new and exciting telecom
services not available on the present switch. If the old switch is
being kept in service for other subscribers, the two switches probably
can't share a prefix.

> (5)	Finally, a general question about intercepts.  Why does it
> 	seem that the intercepts know exactly what you're trying to
> 	do, but just chastise you about dialing in the future and
> 	don't complete your call?  Kinda reminds me of the parent

For now, the telco knows what you're trying to do, so they have enough
information to complete your call.  But the new dialing procedure,
whatever it is, is being done to accomodate future expansion.  At some
point in the future, your invalid call attempt will not give them the
information you meant.  You will, in fact, be placing a call to a
valid number that wasn't the one you wanted.  If they just intercept
and redirect your call, a lot of subscribers will ignore the intercept
message and continue to use the obsolete calling procedure.
Eventually, this will lead to trouble as the old numbers get
re-assigned.  The apparently-unnecessary intercept is being done to
condition subscribers before it leads to an annoyance to new
subscribers.

For example, here in NJ they've just turned on a new area code.  If
callers call my old 201 number, they still reach my 908 number, but
only for a while.  Eventually, they'll be given a recording telling
them to place the call using the 908 area code.  Why can't they
continue to be redirected?  Because my old 201 number will eventually
be re-assigned to a subscriber elsewhere in the 201 area code, while
I'll keep the same number in the 908 code.  The interval between when
201 calls are no longer re-directed, and when my number gets re-used
in the 201 area code is done to protect the new subscriber from the
folks who call me and ignore the advertising that we and the telco are
doing to convert them.


Dave Levenson			Voice: 201 647 0900  Fax: 201 647 6857
Westmark, Inc.			UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA			AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave
[The Man in the Mooney]