Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!telecom
From: telecom@ucbvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.telecom
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone (tm) Line Charges
Message-ID: <8601150709.AA04918@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 14-Jan-86 15:17:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8601150709.AA04918
Posted: Tue Jan 14 15:17:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Jan-86 01:01:07 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 63
Approved: telecom@mit-xx.arpa

> I am appalled that NYNEX (?) would charge $5.- per month.

	It got worse.  There was a New York Telephone (part of NYNEX) rate
increase which took effect several weeks ago, and I just received a printout
of our `Customer Service Record' today.  The charge is now...  $ 6.81/month.
Since we have a PBX, all of our lines (even our dial-up data lines) are
considered PBX trunks and have this monthly charge, which carries the USOC
code of `TJB'.  Our basic PBX trunk charge (including FCC access charge) is
now $ 12.52 per month - which I don't consider too bad.  The Touch-Tone charge
sucks, though.

> GTE here (Santa Barbara, CA) charges $1.-/month, and I am
> a bit upset about that. I figured that I wouldn't pay it,
> ...
> Then last week, I got a letter saying that on January 21st, they'd
> install new equipment to deny tone service to lines that didn't pay for it,
> ...
> I'm sure it will - given the present equipment - actually COST them to DENY
> tone service. But does the facility to deny tone service actually exist ?

	It's a piece of cake to deny Touch-Tone (DTMF) service in any ESS
office.  While the dial pulse registers are capable of accepting both rotary
dial or DTMF during a call (but not mixed), the ESS processor checks its
`Directory Number Record' for the line requesting dial tone, and if DTMF is
NOT permitted, the dial pulse register will be blocked from accepting DTMF.
So, DTMF permission is just a lil' ole binary bit.
	In a crossbar office, to deny DTMF service the line merely needs to
be assigned (by jumpering) to a line link frame location where the vertical
location tells the dial tone marker to deny DTMF service.  Because line
equipment location to directory number translation occurs elsewhere in the
crossbar office, changing link link frame location does not affect the
directory number.  Denying DTMF service could be a 10 to 15 minute job for
a switchman in a crossbar office.  It is my understanding that line link
frame assignments are made in a crossbar office for traffic distribution
purposes, and are made to INSURE DTMF service, but that no active effort is
made for assignment to DENY DTMF service.  However, anything is possible...
	In a step-by-step office which is equipped with DTMF-to-pulse
converters between the line finder and first selector, to deny DTMF service
merely requires that the subscriber line be connected to a line finder group
without such converters - also a 10 to 15 minute job for a switchman.
	I don't know much about any other type of central office equipment
which might be around which does not fit into the above categories.
	The point I am, trying to make is this: I STRONGLY SUSPECT that your
telephone company is pulling your leg about ``installing new equipment'' to
deny DTMF service.  If the central office is presently equipped for DTMF, then
it is virtually certain that it ALREADY has the capability of denying DTMF
service.  If I were to hazard a wild guess, I would speculate that you are in
a crossbar office and that the letter you received is a scare tactic to
increase revenue - because I don't believe that the telephone company really
WANTS to have switchmen spend umpteen hours changing jumpers to specifically
deny DTMF service.
	If you want to have some "fun", you might wish to challenge your
telephone company on this point and demand that they tell you EXACTLY what
new equipment they are installing - since I am skeptical that there IS any.
Telephone companies can get away with a lot of things, but one thing which
state Public Utilities Commissions take a dim view of is an outright lie.

==>  Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York        <==
==>  UUCP    {decvax|dual|rocksanne|rocksvax|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry  <==
==>  VOICE   716/741-9185                {rice|shell}!baylor!/             <==
==>  FAX     716/741-9635 {G1, G2, G3 modes}    duke!ethos!/               <==
==>                                               seismo!/                 <==
==>  "Have you hugged your cat today?"           ihnp4!/                   <==