Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!lll-winken!telecom-request From: Bob_Frankston%Slate_Corporation@mcimail.com (Bob Frankston) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Why the Bong? Message-ID: Date: 12 May 91 15:58:00 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 60 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 357, Message 1 of 10 Bernard Fran Collins writes: > Is there a good reason why a > credit card call must contain a pause in the dialing in order to wait > for the bong? Why can't the card number be delivered to the LD > carrier without such a pause? I've got my own response to what "good reason" means. In the sense of "there is an historic rational explanation" the answer is "yes". The North American ten digit dialing plan is a rigid beast and such things as boings and other inband signals are attempts to get around this. Other examples include PBX's that require you to key in a number after getting an extension number and services that use DTMF codes for a dialog after completing a connection. The word good means "given the circumstances the solution sort of works and we can explain why we made each design decision against the local constraints of each decision". If "good" means that the user interface is "good" then the answer is NO. The same goes for the blunt instrument of 900/976 blocking, the problems with 976 remote access, the existence of 540 in some places, the inability to use 1-617 in 617 and random need for "1-" in 617 for some 7-D numbers, the use of 950 while waiting for 10xxx, 800 random availability etc. This covers a lot of ground so I'll go back to the boing and its ilk including fax/modem/phone switches that require something like "2" after the simulated rings to select a modem. My problem is that I need to be able teach my computer to access services over this network. Against the vast array of kludges, I have my trusty old Hayes dial string (or is it now the CCITT/AT dialing protocol?) with little control beyond a "," for pausing and no interaction. Sometimes, I can include a "wait for dialtone" and a "wait for silence". Even maybe "wait for voicelike sounds". There is not even a standard way to get to the rooted dialing level, I need to guess out prefixes such as "9", "9,", "8," or even "P9,---T---" (Pulse/Tone switching) or whatever imaginative convention is locally adopted. Now the question: Has ISDN evolved to the point where it is understood that the phone network is not to be navigated not only by humans with fingers and ears and brains and arcane knowledge, but by computers and humans assisted by computers and that placing a call involves protocoled exchanges between the participants including premises systems? Can I specify that I want to make a connection to a given service (aka phone number) and give some billing override information (aka a billing code)? Can I query the network to determine the proposed price (vs cost) for a given interaction? Will I be able to deal with systems that require additional navigation after call completion? Conversely, will my ANI codes allow the caller to add explicit descriptive/navigation information that would allow me to reach a specific service (aka internal extension?) I'll be pleasantly surprised if indeed the protocols are being designed to take into account developments of the last few decades. Given that there is Telco interest in protocols such as X.400 and X.500, perhaps this isn't so far fetched. Or do I need to wait for the next forty-year design cycle?