Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 00:10 PDT From: Andy Jacobson 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 497, Message 4 of 10 Lines: 90 In TELECOM Digest V11 #490, David Gast writes: > 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). Now you might note that for some reason the 209 prefix is reserved for UCLA residence halls, and some few offices in the Westwood Federal Building. The two prefixes in the local CO in Westwood that are assigned to residential and businesses in the area are 824 and 208. (Another prefix 443 has just recently shown up but only on new payphones on the UCLA campus.) While space on the 208 and 824 prefixes is certainly at a premium, I think the usage of the 209 prefix is almost entirely static. > 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). I think you're way off. I don't have an exact number but there are well over 200 rooms in each of the buildings. I would think the total number is probably more than ten times that. > People who wish to get phone service contact GTE; they do not contact > UCLA. In addition, they must pay standard rates. > 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 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 think you will find this to be one of several standard arrangements that phone companies have set up at educational institutions. I've seen it done several different ways, but at the many schools I have seen, this one is quite prevalent.I have come in direct contact with this system when I was once an undergraduate at Lake Forest College (in Illinois). Illinois Bell had the exact same arrangement there with sequential numbers permanently assigned to rooms, etc. I had a number in Lake Forest that I wanted to have in the dorm room I was assigned. IBT refused, and gave me all sorts of excuses, similar to the ones you cite above, why the permanently assigned numbers had to stay, which I cut through like butter. They finally said that I could have my number (and only this once, ever) if I got written permission from the dean of students. When I spoke to the dean, he was surprised about the whole thing, but seemed to recall some silliness from IBT about their insistence on doing things with sequential numbers. He didn't care at all though, and immediately gave me permission. The IBT rep (case worker) was livid! A visit to the Highland Park IBT office to put down a deposit for the service (normally not required), and several days of no phone service later, I finally got my number. I was informed though that I would never be able to have that number again once I moved, and that it would be permanently assigned to that room. As of four years later it still was. > 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. Listen, nobody gets a referral out of GTE around here unless they absolutely demand it. Many times I have gotten into heated arguments with the service reps over this. If you do get a referral, its 30 days maximum. I have gotten 60 days but only after demanding to speak to a supervisor and threatening to bring the PUC into it. Yes, these guys are shysters, they want to *charge* money for it. One thing that GTE can claim, and IBT did, is that the room will soon be occupied by a student over summer (whether it will or not), and thus they can't give you a referral when the line will be back in use right away anyway. At Lake Forest College, they didn't put any message on, the number would just ring (even though the loop was dead). A. Jacobson