Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!sun!decwrl!ucbvax!swlabs.UUCP!jack
From: jack@swlabs.UUCP (Jack Bonn)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: New Service in BetaTest at NJ Bell
Message-ID: <550@swlabs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Oct-87 13:34:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: swlabs.550
Posted: Fri Oct 16 13:34:54 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Oct-87 01:07:54 EDT
References: <1692@aramis.rutgers.edu> <2149@ihuxv.ATT.COM> <1073@gumby.wisc.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: Software Labs, Ltd. Easton CT USA
Lines: 23
Approved: telecom@xx.lcs.mit.edu


In article <1073@gumby.wisc.edu>, g-inners@gumby.UUCP (Michael Inners) writes:
> There is precedent for such a rule in that devices designed to record phone
> conversations are required to emit a 'beep' tone to alert the other party.

I this the case?  I thought it was only necessary when there was a chance 
that neither party was knowledgeable about the recording device.  If either 
party (me, if I'm operating the machine) knows it is operating, I thought 
that no tone was necessary.

I have another question.  I understand that the # is sometimes used as an
EOP (end of pulsing) indication.  I have seen it documented as a mechanism
for telling the office collecting the digits for an international call that
there are no more digits to follow.  This allows the call to complete faster
since the alternative is to use timing as the indication that the caller
has finished dialing.

I have been using this for calls of the form 1-PPP-NNNN where the PPP prefix
may very well also indicate a valid area code somewhere in the US.  Does this
really help?  Or am I wasting my time?
-- 
Jack Bonn, <> Software Labs, Ltd, Box 451, Easton CT  06612
uunet!swlabs!jack