Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: FCC Doing It Again Message-ID: <2120@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 12 Dec 89 05:22:59 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Lines: 43 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 571, message 2 of 11 In article <2009@accuvax.nwu.edu> Andrew D Kailhofer writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 565, message 5 of 5 >Then they started selling DTMF service to the >subscriber, requiring pulse-to-tone converters. >[...] >This stuff persisted through the SXS, the Crossbar, and >most of the #1 and #1A ESSs. Well, in your words, yes and no. In the case of SXS, they had to add converters, UNLESS they (notably GTE) used directorization. Then the tone receivers were imbedded in the equipment used on everyone's line. And it was impossible to turn off the tone capability. In the case of crossbar, they had to use the Teltone or Mitel converters (the Mitels were much better; they weren't tone to pulse, but rather tone to 'OR lanquage--2 of 7' and worked instantaneously). As you said, it was usually more cost effective to equip all ORs with converters, even though in the early days they did try to shuttle all non-TT-paying customers to non-equipped registers. But even that is no longer the case. Now they use CONTAC, an adjunct to provide equal access. Since the customer dials into the CONTAC, which is inherently TT-capable, you have to consider that TT is now imbedded in crossbar. In fact, CONTAC has a difficult time dealing with rotary and must receive pulses within the range of 9 to 12 PPS, or it will bomb. No 20 PPS for all those speed freaks that wanted to avoid TT. ALL electronic switches (including all permutations of ESS) have embedded tone receivers. >Can a PSC (or would a BOC want their PSC) to require a >different billing reate for (potentially) each CO? Yikes. Wouldn't that be a hoot? If the cost of your phone was linked to the actual cost of maintaining your CO switch, you would pay more for more antiquated service. The more modern your service, the less you would pay. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !