Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1991 12:14:36 GMT From: Mike Riddle Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 Message-ID: Organization: Nebraska Inns of Court Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu 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 489, Message 3 of 12 Lines: 44 In drawson@sagehen.tymnet.com (Dick Rawson) writes: > Am I really required to hang up on my current call and accept an > incoming call ... just because the caller claimed to the operator that > there is an emergency? and the Moderator Notes: > [Moderator's Note: But the person trying to get through to you would > in effect be sharing your phone line with you. You are free to do as > you please in a declared emergency, but if *you* are wrong and *they* > choose to make an issue of it, then you lose. There have been a few other discussions along this line. Patrick is correct when he asserts that one must, under the tariffs and/or laws in every state I'm aware of, surrender the line when someone claims "emergency." What has been missing so far from the discussion is the flip side of the same coin. The same or worse penalties attach for the false declaration of emergency merely to get access to the telephone. The utility of this approach was a policy decision by the state legislators or PUCs involved. The admitted inconvenience of having to interrupt your call was viewed as less onerous than the inability to communicate in an emergency. Personal observation: I personally have never heard of any litigation on this. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but rather that it is rare because most people understand and "go along to get along." <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | Nebraska Inns of Court ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | +1 402 593 1192 Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet | 3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis [Moderator's Note: But the key here, according to Mr. Covert and a couple others is if this pertains *only* to party lines, *any* instance of a 'shared telephone facility', or what. PAT]