Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: 30 Jun 91 00:21:18 GMT From: John G Dobnick Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 Reply-To: jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu 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 504, Message 1 of 12 Lines: 71 > [Moderator's Note: What you pay for is the right to use your telephone > in accordance with published tariffs, one or more of which address the > scenario of emergency requests for the use of the line, etc. Say what? I fail to understand the reasoning here. Someone wants to use *my* phone line for some "emergency purpose" by *calling* me? This scenario makes no sense whatsoever. If the person attempting to pester me through the operator really needs to use *my* phone for an emergency purpose, he better be standing right next to me so he _can_ use my phone line, in which case he can speak directly to me. Otherwise, this is just harrassment. Maybe things are done differently where you are, Pat -- you are in Illinois, after all :-) -- but up here in Wisconsin, the phone book says the following: "Wisconsin law requires you to yield a party line in an emergency. That means you must get off the phone to permit others using your line to report a fire or summon law enforcement agencies, ambulance service, medical or other aid in any situation where property or human life ids in danger. No one can legally claim to need the line for an emergency when no emergency exists. The penalty for either offense may include a fine not to exceed $1,000." The situation being discussed here does not seem to meet _these_ requirements -- no party line, no one attempting to use _my_ line to report an emergency. It seems this "service" is only to allow someone of little patience who is getting tired of busy signals to push himself to the "head of the line". I see it now -- "Ohio Bell: The Rude Phone Company". Miss Manners will not be pleased. So, what am I missing in this discussion? How does Ohio Bell justify this "service"? (Oh, that's right: "We're The Phone Company -- We don't have to justify _anything_!" Wasn't that in "The President's Analyst"?) > [Moderator's Note: Your telephone book pretty accurately describes an > 'emergency'. Examples perhaps you could understand: Your neighbor's > phone is out of order; they knock on your door and ask you to call the > Fire Department. You refuse, because your single line is engaged on > another call. You are at work using the phone and your landlord or > neighbor calls to say YOUR house caught fire. You are using a pay > phone on the street corner. There is an autombile accident and one of > the victoims asks you to get off the phone so they can call the police > or ambulance. Good enough examples for you? PAT] Only one of them, actually. 1) Neighbor knocks on door. This does not involve an operator busting in to an in-progress call. (That *is* the topic of this thread, after all.) 2) At work -- caller wishes to report (personal) disaster. _This_ is a legitimate reason for the operator to interrupt an in-progress call. This is a generally recognized "emergency" situation. 3) Automobile accident. Same scenario as (1). Perhaps the point to be made here is that Ohio Bell is apparently pushing the "operator interrupt" situation for what are clearly not *emergency* situations! It's merely an extended form of "call waiting", and apparently one that can not be disabled. John G Dobnick (JGD2) Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee INTERNET: jgd@uwm.edu ATTnet: (414) 229-5727 UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd