Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 17:21:42 -0700 From: David Gast Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Reusing Numbers After Just One Day Message-ID: Organization: TELECOM Digest 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 490, Message 4 of 9 Lines: 67 After reading my mail and the messages in the Digest, I think I should explain the phone system in the dorms at UCLA. I guess I should have explained earlier some of the features. Unlike the most of the other schools I know about, the dorms are not part of a centrex system. In addition, they do not have a PBX. The particular number I was calling, was in 213-209-XXXX. The University uses 231-825 (825 = UCL as in UCLA) and 213-206. It is not possible to reach any of the dorm rooms from University phones without dialing 9 (and getting an outside line) or depositing twenty cents (from a payphone). People who wish to get phone service contact GTE; they do not contact UCLA. In addition, they must pay standard rates. (Actually, I have seen GTE personnel take advantage of students and charge them *more* than they should be charged -- for example, by requiring rental of telephones -- but that is another story, which has already been reported to the Digest). Now it does turn out that GTE and UCLA have some sort of agreement whereby a given phone number is always connected to a given room. At least GTE claims this; the telecommunications office at UCLA said that the university was not involved. I am not surprised that GTE and UCLA would conspire to give students inferior service. I would also not be surprised if UCLA does not know what it is doing or if this agreement is only a vapor-contract. The person at GTE told me that UCLA handles the interior wires in the dorms. How much do you want to bet that they sell the interior wiring plan to students even though GTE would never have to come out? The person at GTE said that because the phone numbers are reassigned to the same room numbers, then it is not necessary to come out to the dorm and move wires around to set up service. I pointed out that there is a digital switch and that to set up service, GTE merely has to type a few commands at the computer and everything is set up. She agreed. (Note: Initiation of service charges are not reduced). I still believe that not providing an interrupt is substandard service. The students pay the same fee to hook up service even though less work is required. The students pay the same fee for telephone service -- they do not get a discount. Therefore they should be entitled to an interrupt. Someone mentioned that telephone numbers are running out. True, but 200 numbers would not make a big difference. (I am estimating that there are 200 rooms in the dorms). Anyway, it would be better to reduce the telemarketers phone numbers :-) (There are lots of telemarketers in the area). Also, if person X lives in an apartment, s/he gets an intercept when s/he moves out. Why should person Y living in a dorm, pay the same amount and not get an intercept? One reason may be that if you call a number and get an intercept, you don't have to pay for the call; if you call a number that has been reassigned immediately, you have to pay for the call. Thus, the phone company gets some additional revenue while providing substandard service. I was able to determine from GTE that the previous tenants did have their phone service turned off. BTW, Linc Madison wrote about his experiences his senior year. I had similar troubles my senior year at the same university. David Gast