Can I ring my own landline phone? [Telecom]
Phluge
other. There used to be ways you could test your landline telephone's
ringer. Any suggestions?
Thanks, pflu
r.e.d.
archives.
This version of the faq is dated Feb. 1997.
>From the comp.dcom.telecom faq:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/archives/miscellaneous/telecom.newsgroup.faq
Q: How can I find out what my own phone number is?
A: If the operator won't read your number back to you, and if you can't
phone someone with a Calling # ID box, there are special numbers
available that "speaks" your number back to you when dialed. These
numbers are quite different from one jurisdiction to the next. Some
areas use 200 222.2222; others just require 958; still others 311 or
711 and others have a normally-formatted telephone number which can
be changed on occasion (such as 997.xxxx).
Such numbers exist in many countries; 175 is one number in the UK
while 19123 is one in Australia. There is no general rule for the
format of such numbers. These are normally assigned to codes outside
normal customer number sequences, however.
In areas where Caller ID is available, one could arrange to call
someone with an activated display unit and have that called party
read back the caller's number.
Q: Are there other kinds of test numbers used?
A: Yes. Again, space (and available information) does not permit a complete
list of what each telephone company is up to in terms of test numbers.
The most common number is a "ringback" or self-ring test number. When a
two or three digit number is followed by all or the last part of your
phone number, another dial tone occurs. Tests for dialing or ringing may
then be done. The ringback methods in some jurisdictions will vary.
Other numbers include intercom circuits for telephone company staff, or
switching centre supervisors, or other interesting tests for call
supervision or payphone coin tests.
One famous kind of test number belongs to NYNEX, the regional Bell
telephone company operating in the northeast U.S.A.. In New York at
least, there are "9901" numbers, or local numbers of the form xxx.9901,
which result in a recording which identifies the exchange represented
by the first three digits. The 9901 numbers may not necessarily exist
for all combinations of first three local number (central office code)
digits.
All these tests and services vary with each phone company; they are
not usually found in the phone book, needless to say.
"Phluge" <phl...@yafarthoo.com> wrote in message
news:2joHl.33537$Ji5....@newsfe21.iad...
Steven Lichter
http://www.tech-faq.com/ringback-number.shtml
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
John Mayson
Growing up in GTE Florida territory it was possible to dial your own
number, hang up, and have it ring. It's how my mom called us to
dinner.
John
--
John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Gordon Burditt
>other. There used to be ways you could test your landline telephone's
>ringer. Any suggestions?
If you have one of those small home/business phone systems (some of
them can use standard landline phones), which takes, say, up to 6
outside lines and 16 extensions, you can dial from one extension to
another without actually needing the outside lines to be connected.
Somewhere (maybe a couple of decades ago at Radio Shack) I remember
seeing a "phone tester" gadget that could generate ring tone,
generate a few audio tones, and perhaps check touch-tone generation
on your phone for frequency accuracy. I seem to recall it was very
expensive if you wanted to buy one of these testers, but the store
would test your phone cheap or free hoping to sell you another
phone.
Phluge
Thanks, pflu>
Dave Garland
> sorry, I forgot to include that I am in Minnesota.
>
> Thanks, pflu>
Easiest way is to call it from a cellphone, or call a friend and have
them call you back. Or (in my case) when I go to make an online
payment to one bank I do business with, their system doesn't recognize
me and does an automated call to my phone to authenticate.
There _are_ ringback numbers in Qwestland, but they seem to be a
closely guarded secret (does anyone know why?) and perhaps changed
periodically.
Dave
Gene S. Berkowitz
9...@mindspring.com says...
> One famous kind of test number belongs to NYNEX, the regional Bell
> telephone company operating in the northeast U.S.A.. In New York at
> least, there are "9901" numbers, or local numbers of the form xxx.9901,
> which result in a recording which identifies the exchange represented
> by the first three digits. The 9901 numbers may not necessarily exist
> for all combinations of first three local number (central office code)
> digits.
>
> All these tests and services vary with each phone company; they are
> not usually found in the phone book, needless to say.
In the old New England Telephone days, I used to dial 9816 for a
ringback. Not sure if the "6" could be any digit or not..
--Gene
Wes...@aol.com
red-no...@mindspring.com writes:
A: If the operator won't read your number back to you, and if you can't
phone someone with a Calling # ID box, there are special numbers
available that "speaks" your number back to you when dialed.
When my son moved into a house that was already wired, they hooked it up
afteer business hours while he was not at home and asked me to give him his
nember off of my caller ID.
My cellphone also always give the calling number.
Wes Leatherock
wes...@aol.com
wlea...@yahoo.com
AES
that says that dialing (650) 959-9833 in 650-land will give a
synthesized voice response of the phone number you're calling from.
(Not in 650-land at the minute, so can't test if it still works.)
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
There used to be special codes to generate this. In my area, however,
both codes were appropriated for other purposes and no longer work.
If there are new codes I don't know what they are.
Assuming you don't have a cell phone, hopefully you could call a
friend and ask them to call you back. Unfortunately, that gets
tedious if you need to tinker with adjustments (like the ringer
volume) and need multiple calls.
Since the phone co expects us to do our own internal repairs, I think
they should publicize all of their test lines, not keep them a guarded
secret.
***** Moderator's Note *****
You bring up an interesting question: _why_ would Ma Bell want to keep
such numbers secret?
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
Please put [Telecom] at the end of your subject line, or I may never
see your post! Thanks!
We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator
atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via
email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the
digest, you don't need to change anything.
Steven Lichter
> On Apr 21, 9:53 pm, "Phluge" <phlu...@yafarthoo.com> wrote:
>> I have searched everywhere but I can't seem to get an answer one way or the
>> other. There used to be ways you could test your landline telephone's
>> ringer. Any suggestions?
>
> There used to be special codes to generate this. In my area, however,
> both codes were appropriated for other purposes and no longer work.
> If there are new codes I don't know what they are.
>
> Assuming you don't have a cell phone, hopefully you could call a
> friend and ask them to call you back. Unfortunately, that gets
> tedious if you need to tinker with adjustments (like the ringer
> volume) and need multiple calls.
>
> Since the phone co expects us to do our own internal repairs, I think
> they should publicize all of their test lines, not keep them a guarded
> secret.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> You bring up an interesting question: _why_ would Ma Bell want to keep
> such numbers secret?
>
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderator
The same reason that they kept other test numbers from the public: it
ties test equipmnt up.
Curtis R Anderson
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Phluge <phl...@yafarthoo.com> wrote:
>> I have searched everywhere but I can't seem to get an answer one way or the
>> other. There used to be ways you could test your landline telephone's
>> ringer. Any suggestions?
>
> Growing up in GTE Florida territory it was possible to dial your own
> number, hang up, and have it ring. It's how my mom called us to
> dinner.
We did that in Windstream fka Alltel fka Mid-Continent System fka
Jamestown (NY) Telephone territory out in the village of Randolph
(716-358-XXXX). It was a holdover from how the (I think) Proctor
front-end register/sender processed a call on your party line. They left
in the same recording when cutting over to their all-digital switch in
April 1978. The same recording survived at least into 2001 or so.
The recording we heard was, in a man's voice, "You have called a party
on your own line. Please hang up and allow time for the called party to
answer. Thank you."
--
Curtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", still
Email not munged, SpamAssassin [tm] in effect.
http://www.gleepy.net/ mailto:gle...@intelligencia.com
mailto:gle...@gleepy.net (and others) Yahoo!: gleepythehen
el...@no.spam
John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us> wrote:
>Growing up in GTE Florida territory it was possible to dial your own
>number, hang up, and have it ring. It's how my mom called us to
>dinner.
That worked in California too and it was still working where I lived
at least until GTE became Verizon.
Will Roberts
In Telecom Digest, <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
>From: hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
>To: reda...@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
>Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone? [Telecom]
>
>. . .
>Since the phone co expects us to do our own internal repairs, I think
>they should publicize all of their test lines, not keep them a guarded
>secret.
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>You bring up an interesting question: _why_ would Ma Bell want to keep
>such numbers secret?
>
>Bill Horne
>Temporary Moderator
I recall that these numbers were changed and made confidential in the
late 1960s during the Vietnam anti-war protest era. At that time, there
was a lot of concern about security of domestic infrastructure.
For example, manhole covers were changed to castings reading "sewer"
rather than "telephone" in some areas.
ANI response systems were thought to pose a risk because they could be
used to identify specific telephone lines in unsecured terminal boxes
and wiring closets. This could be useful to someone wanting to tap
into a particular phone line.
Or, at least, so I was told by a New England Telephone repair person.
T
first...@verizon.net says...
Yes it used to be 981+last 4 digits of your telephone number in RI.
T
kd1s....@cox.nospam.net says...
Forgot to add, 980 would do tone pad test and quiet line.
tlvp
by <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com>, Bill Horne wrote:
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> You bring up an interesting question: _why_ would Ma Bell want to keep
> such numbers secret?
>
Just an uninformed guess, but: perhaps there's a way to exploit
the self-ring-back to make an unchargeable toll call -- set up
auto-forwarding to the toll number you wish to call, get the
self-ring-back number to call you, pick up just when you s'pose
the auto-forwarded call has gotten answered, and be connected
to your toll party, with the charges going to the self-ring-back
number's account?
But what do I know? I've never eaten Cap'n Crunch cereal :-) , so
there are probably more holes in the theory above than in the little
Dutch boy's proverbial dike.
Cheers, -- tlvp
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I recall that these numbers were changed and made confidential in the
> late 1960s during the Vietnam anti-war protest era. �At that time, there
> was a lot of concern about security of domestic infrastructure.
Unfortunately, in the tenor of those times, that concern was quite
justified in some areas. The most obvious target--pay phones and
booths--were the target of massive vandalism.
Many people in those days looked upon the Bell System as something
"evil". Many college students saw it, wrongly, as part of the
"Military Industrial Complex" or just another big nasty corporation
"exploiting the masses". The Bell System of the 1960s was a very
staid company, certainly not hip.
Some authors* have suggested that the Justice Dept's anti-trust
[lawsuit] against the Bell System was motivated by ideological
views--"big is bad"--rather than hard evidence that it was in the
public interest to sue them. The authors suggest that mindset was fed
by several selfish large corporate users who either wanted lower rates
or a foot in the door of the communications market to skim off the
cream. [*Alan Stone, Constantine Raymond Kraus, and Alfred W. Duerig,
whom, IMHO, make many excellent points.]
What is sad about those times is that the Bell System was under strict
regulation and the way it operated was what was desired by state
regulators, who wanted, as a matter of major policy, cross
subsidization.
There was a cartoon joke in those days, a protester was standing in a
phone booth surrounded by a heavy rain storm; the phone booth provided
shelter. His sign read "down with monopoly corporations".
> For example, manhole covers were changed to castings reading "sewer"
> rather than "telephone" in some areas.
Unfortunately, the fears back then were nothing compared to the fears
today. Back then an interested group of kids could call the phone
company and get a very thorough private tour of a C.O. (as we did).
As people on the roads group reported, they could visit a state
Highway Dept. and study engineering plans to their heart's content.
Companies in the 1960s/1970s were pleased when youths showed genuine
interest in the business and even encouraged it. They printed up
expensive literature and freely distributed it.
But today companies are very paranoid about outsiders visting their
plant or seeing internal documents and have put up a brick wall,
literally and figuratively. Part of it is 9/11 fears, but the "walls"
were up before 9/11. Part of it is liability concerns, that
information given out might be used against them in a civil lawsuit by
some activist group, certainly a legitimate fear. Part of it is fear
of negative media coverage.
One problem all long-standing organizations have is critics using
standards of today to judge practices of the past. Go back 40, 50, 60
years and you'll find every organization discriminated against people
in all sorts of ways. Likewise with employee and customer safety,
standards were different in the past, as was knowledge about hazards.
By today's standards it looks bad, but years back it was simply the
way things were done.
> ANI response systems were thought to pose a risk because they could be
> used to identify specific telephone lines in unsecured terminal boxes
> and wiring closets. �This could be useful to someone wanting to tap
> into a particular phone line.
There was a lot of paranoia among citizens that their phones were
tapped by the "govt", especially if they heard noise on their phone.
But if the government was tapping their line, they'd do so efficiently
and quietly, right in the C.O., not some jury-rigged arrangement out
on a pole. While some [of the] principal activist leaders were
monitored, everyday people were not, [because there were] simply too
many of them.
***** Moderator's Note *****
When I was in the craft, court-ordered wiretaps were always placed
outside a central office, because the company insisted that the actual
taps be made by law-enforcement officials. This prevented "chain of
evidence" problems and also obviated any need for telephone company
employees to testify, thus saving a lot of time and expense later on.
Of course, old tricks like "cheeseboxes" were always available to
criminals: a bookmaker would bribe a lineman to install a hidden drop
at a betting house when the listed address was blocks or even miles
away, so that a search warrant (which had been justified by recordings
of conversations on a wiretapped line) would be issued for the wrong
address. The police would go to the "official" address, and usually
find some little old lady with her knitting.
In later years, call-forwarding and other services made it impossible
to guarantee that a particular wire was always going to carry a
particular number's calls, so Congress passed the Communications
Assistance To Law Enforcement (CALEA) act, which mandated that both
ILEC's and CLEC's provide access to any conversation order by a court,
no matter how it is transported.
CALEA has produced mixed results: since it gets harder and harder to
pin a phone number to a single place or individual (because of pagers
and {often throw-away} cell phones), law enforcement agencies must rely
on wiretaps not as evidence of a crime in progress, but as probable
cause to seize assets or contraband long after the fact of an
individual phone call. Every well-publicized "perp walk" or drug
display you see on the evening news is likely to be the end point of a
multi-month or even multi-year electronic surveillance effort to
discern the habits, friends, covers, secret bank accounts, and
weaknesses of the bad guys.
You may ask what this has to do with the "Big Brother" fears this
poster mentions, and it's this: many cops get fed up with chasing
ghosts, and take shortcuts that place their objectivity and integrity
in doubt. Everything from "cheater" (unauthorized) wiretaps to
"Confidential Informants" that exist only in a cops imagination have
come up for review, with the result that the public grows increasingly
distrustful of police, the police grow more secretive, and at some
(yet to be determined) point, the systems collapses because there's no
consensus about who the "Good guys" are or what they're entitled to do
to protect "us" from "them".
Dave Garland
> Many people in those days looked upon the Bell System as something
> "evil". Many college students saw it, wrongly, as part of the
> "Military Industrial Complex"
Why wrongly? Perhaps not the Bell System per se, but certainly their
corporate overlords. AT&T was in a long tradition of industrial
giants whose corporate interests were intermingled with the military.
It wasn't a situation unique to the USA, such informal groupings
existed earlier in England, France, Japan, and Germany, and probably
any other capitalist country that was both industrially developed and
a major military power.
ATT was prime contractor for the DEW Line (R&D done by Bell Labs,
construction by WE), owned the Sandia Corporation, which oversaw the
laboratories that did much nuclear weapon development. WE was prime
contractor for the Nike missile system. They produced communications
systems for military use. And they certainly were a giant industrial
complex, whose board and interests that overlapped with other large
defense contractors. I'd say they fit the description quite well.
Dave
Steven Lichter
the control of what was SAC. I worked on an early one at March AFB, Now
ARB. They also have one under the control of Homeland Security.
T
PmUiRsGcE...@att.net says...
Back when the BBS scene was still active there was one BBS called
PowerCor in East Greenwich, RI. Problem was, if you lived in Pawtucket
you paid toll to access it.
At the time I was living in North Providence, RI and had a 401-353
number which is Providence rate center.
I setup a second line with call forward. Found out it would forward not
only if the line was in use but multiple calls. So that's how the
Pawtucket people could access the BBS without incuring a toll.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Man, are you in trouble now!
The New England Telephone & Telegraph Company Accounting Department
will be in touch to arrange your payment schedule. You may be required
to deposit your first-born in order to prevent termination of your
service.
The NET&TAT (New England Telephone & Telegraph Accounting Trolls)
never give up, never die, and never, ever, forget. How could you not
have known?
Paul
>
> never give up, never die, and never, ever, forget. How could you
> not have known?
>
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderator
Maybe because they keep changing their name? (9X, BA, VZ...)
Many years ago I was involved with administration of a campus system
based on NET Centrex, feeding many key systems. When I got together
a few procedures to reconcile our work orders and their equipment
bills, I noticed that new equipment would be installed and billed,
and often old equipment would be removed without the billing being
stopped. I would calculate the amount we had overpaid (sometimes
over many years) and my bosses would ask for the credit. NET did
not want to pay for more than a few months back, but we insisted.
At a meeting with our NET rep, she asked, "Suppose we found an
instance where we had not been billing you for a service for several
years, would you want to pay for all of that mistake?" I answered,
"Yes, of course, but only if you can prove that the underbilling was
our fault." We never did find any instances of underbilling anyway.
We seemed to win that one, probably because any escalation would
have resulted in bad publicity for NET, and more institutions
checking their bills.
--
Paul
Anthony Bellanga
> Just an uninformed guess, but: perhaps there's a way to exploit the
> self-ring-back to make an unchargeable toll call -- set up
> auto-forwarding to the toll number you wish to call, get the
> self-ring-back number to call you, pick up just when you s'pose the
> auto-forwarded call has gotten answered, and be connected to your
> toll party, with the charges going to the self-ring-back number's
> account?
>
> But what do I know? I've never eaten Cap'n Crunch cereal :-) , so
> there are probably more holes in the theory above than in the little
> Dutch boy's proverbial dike.
Some interesting questions here, but nothing to worry about, since it
doesn't work that way!
"Revertive calls" (i.e., calling the "ring-back" number and then hanging
up waiting for your phone to ring) NEVER forward over if you have any
kind of forwarding set up. The entire purpose of "revertive calls" was
for calling someone on your party-line, as well as doing ringer-tests.
Of course, a customer on a party-line in an ESS or digital office (and
yes, those types of offices can support party-line service, but who has
party-lines these days, even if telco still offers them as a tariffed
service offering) would NEVER be able to have any additional custom
calling features on their account. (Touch-tone service these days would
be about the only "extra" feature on a party-line, and all parties would
be able to use it, since these days, everyone served by the central
office has touch-tone whether they want it or not -- and everyone was
"mainstreamed" to a monthly rate taking into account the previous extra
charge for touch-tone).
But even if you're not on a party-line, an attempt to do a revertive
call (calling ring-back) would NEVER forward over to a forward-to
number you might have otherwise set up. It is a "test" function within
the central office itself, applying ringing to your line regardless.
Even if you have "forward on no answer", a calling to "ring-back" will
continue ringing your phone even after the pre-specified number of rings
before forwarding has expired, until the central office will likely
time-out and drop the "ring-back" attempt (one to two minutes?)
Also, the "ring-back" test function in the central office would not
even have a "billing account"!
And as for "billing" ... the way call-forwarding is SUPPOSED to work
(and any kind of forwarding -- whether all calls forwarded, or forward
on busy and/or no-answer, or forward-out only specific incoming calling
numbers, etc), the line that has actually set-up the forwarding is the
one who will pay for any toll calls that they may have set-up
forwarding to! NOT the calling party! Caller-ID of the calling party is
supposed to be preserved and passed forward all the way to the final
destination, but only for C-ID purposes. For billing, the ANI of the
person who set-up the forwarding is to be used for billing if forwarded
to "something chargeable".
Telco has always said that if you (the person setting up forwarding)
has forwarded to a number that incurs toll charges, then YOU are
responsible for those additional charges, not the original calling
party!
Also regarding forwarding in general, on legitimate incoming calls
(not set-up revertive calls, which won't even forward over), it is NOT
a "three-way calling" function, but a "forwarding" or "auto-transfer"
function. If you have all calls forward set-up, you usually get a
"reminder ring" (aka "ping" ring) when someone has called your line.
You can NOT answer that incoming call when you get that "ping ring".
It is only to remind you that you have set-up "all (incoming) calls
forward" on that line. Telco has also always stated this in Call
Forward instructions! Even if you have "call-forward on no-answer",
if you haven't answered that incoming call in the pre-specified number
of rings, that incoming call will forward over to the pre-specified
forwarded-to number, leaving your voice-loop entirely. It is NOT now
going to be available as a 3-way call for you to answer as well as
having forward-over!
And as for telco not wanting to make wider knowledge of test numbers
available, I agree with someone else who replied that there are limited
test functions in the central office, and if "everyone" was using them,
then it would overload these test functions in the central office. In
some cases, ONLY ONE "ring-back" call can be done at a time, as well as
ONLY ONE "ANAC" auto-number read-back can be done at a time as well.
Yes, in today's era of deregulated customer premises equipment as well
as inside wiring, etc., I would hope that telco would make such test
function equipment, etc. available more so, but they aren't necessarily
going to pay to expand such capabilities! Especially when others not
with the telephone company would be the ones doing such tests!
- a.b.
Fred Goldstein
>...
>Some authors* have suggested that the Justice Dept's anti-trust
>[lawsuit] against the Bell System was motivated by ideological
>views--"big is bad"--rather than hard evidence that it was in the
>public interest to sue them. The authors suggest that mindset was fed
>by several selfish large corporate users who either wanted lower rates
>or a foot in the door of the communications market to skim off the
>cream. [*Alan Stone, Constantine Raymond Kraus, and Alfred W. Duerig,
>whom, IMHO, make many excellent points.]
The antitrust suit went back to 1949, focusing on Western
Electric. In 1956, the Final Judgement took WEco out of commercial
markets, basically making it just Ma Bell's in-house manufacturing
arm. The suit was reopened in the 1970s with a goal of getting Ma to
spin off WEco, but the geniuses in Basking Ridge thought that they
should instead free it up to sell commercial minicomputers,
fantasizing about how good their products were. And they saw the
BOCs as money-losers, again missing the boat.
I do note that your source, C. Ray Kraus, was anything but an
impartial observer. I remember reading his frequent fulminations
when he was alive. To say that he was conservative in matters
telephonic understates the case; he was somewhere to the right of
Attila the Hun. He railed against Carterfone until his death (in
1990, at the age of 90), whining how the telephone network was "one
giant computer" that was broken by allowing "foreign
attachments". The man didn't just drink the proverbial Kool-Aid; he
mixed up the artificial flavoring and grew the ergot in his own
lab. I'm sure the public Internet would have driven him into
paroxysms. His book was titled "The Rape of Ma Bell". Of course
Lisa's posts here often echo Ray's views.
>What is sad about those times is that the Bell System was under strict
>regulation and the way it operated was what was desired by state
>regulators, who wanted, as a matter of major policy, cross
>subsidization.
State regulators still feel that way, alas. The Bells are largely
deregulated now. Under the old rules, they generally pulled the
regulators' strings. Regulatory capture was the rule, not the
exception. It hasn't gotten much better since.
--
Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
<fgoldstein.SeeSigSpamb...@wn2.wn.net> wrote:
> The antitrust suit went back to 1949, focusing on Western
> Electric. �In 1956, the Final Judgement took WEco out of commercial
> markets, basically making it just Ma Bell's in-house manufacturing
> arm. �The suit was reopened in the 1970s with a goal of getting Ma to
> spin off WEco, but the geniuses in Basking Ridge thought that they
> should instead free it up to sell commercial minicomputers,
> fantasizing about how good their products were. �And they saw the
> BOCs as money-losers, again missing the boat.
As the above mentioned authors mention, the suit was motivated by
other businesses who wanted to skim the cream of the business. That
is, the old Bell System used rate averaging so that most people paid
the same rate (eg long distance) regardless of the cost or
profitability of a particular segment. Thus, in a busy corridor like
New York to Washington, there were large economies of scale and
profits compared to say between Montanna and North Dakota. The new
businesses wanted in _only_ on the profitable segments, leaving AT&T
stuck with the lousy ones.
The lawsuit was also motivated by a desire to override the regulators
and their policies, again, to benefit a narrow few.
> I do note that your source, C. Ray Kraus, was anything but an
> impartial observer. �I remember reading his frequent fulminations
> when he was alive. �To say that he was conservative in matters
> telephonic understates the case; he was somewhere to the right of
> Attila the Hun. �He railed against Carterfone until his death (in
> 1990, at the age of 90), whining how the telephone network was "one
> giant computer" that was broken by allowing "foreign
> attachments". �The man didn't just drink the proverbial Kool-Aid; he
> mixed up the artificial flavoring and grew the ergot in his own
> lab. �I'm sure the public Internet would have driven him into
> paroxysms. �His book was titled "The Rape of Ma Bell". �Of course
> Lisa's posts here often echo Ray's views.
Space does not permit a whole review of the three books, but my own
experiences as a personal and commercial telephone user over the
decades bears them out. I believe their books are well written, well
documented with sources, and an accurate summation of the times. They
do a fine job documenting the extensive service innovations and cost
reductions the Bell System provided until divesture. They also
document new services and cheaper rates the Bell System wanted to
offer BUT was BLOCKED by the government to favor 'competition'.
They make a good case that the Internet as we know it today would've
been available to the public _sooner_ if not for government and
litigation interference.
To be sure, what the Bell System did or wanted to do in 1970 would be
very different today. For instance, the Bell System itself was ready
to get out of renting telephone extensions because the cost of
servicing them was growing high and would soon exceed the revenues.
There is no way anyone can justify the practice of cream skimming.
David Lesher
readback number. People would open X-connects and tap YOUR phone, Western
Civilization would fall, etc.
Then She started selling Caller-ID, and she could make a profit.
Woosh, suddenly it's a GREAT IDEA, and no one should be able to block
CNID, because clearly only bankrobbers and jaywalkers would want to.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Scott Norwood
Gene S. Berkowitz <first...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>In the old New England Telephone days, I used to dial 9816 for a
>ringback. Not sure if the "6" could be any digit or not..
In Boston (617-266, anyway, which is served by a 5ESS), it's
113-xxxx, where xxxx is the last four digits of the number. It
responds with a tone. If you tap ("flash") the switchhook at the
tone, wait a few seconds, and hang up, the line will ring.
If the original poster just wants to ring a phone that is not
connected to a CO line, there are several devices that can be used
as a ring generator. Among other options, the "Tele-Q" is made
for live stage use, or a Western Electric 118A can be salvaged from
a 1A2 system.
--
Scott Norwood: snor...@nyx.net, snor...@redballoon.net
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?
tlvp
<snor...@redballoon.net> wrote:
> In article <MPG.24592f377...@news.verizon.net>,
> Gene S. Berkowitz <first...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> In the old New England Telephone days, I used to dial 9816 for a
>> ringback. Not sure if the "6" could be any digit or not..
>
> In Boston (617-266, anyway, which is served by a 5ESS), it's
> 113-xxxx, where xxxx is the last four digits of the number. It
> responds with a tone. If you tap ("flash") the switchhook at the
> tone, wait a few seconds, and hang up, the line will ring.
>
> If the original poster just wants to ring a phone that is not
> connected to a CO line, there are several devices that can be used
> as a ring generator. Among other options, the "Tele-Q" is made
> for live stage use, or a Western Electric 118A can be salvaged from
> a 1A2 system.
Wisconsin's Viking Electronics ( http://www.vikingelectronics.com ,
mailto:He...@VikingElectronics.com ) offers a box that emits ring signal,
as well, their DLE-200B Line Simulator, roughly $100.- last I knew.
Cheers, -- tlvp
tlvp
Thanks, Anthony. I just *knew* someone would be able to point out
all the holes in my theory, and I've learned a lot by your having
done so. So, again: thanks!
Cheers, -- tlvp
Joseph Singer
Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:55:17 +0000 (UTC) David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
<<Ma had all kinds of possible doom if anyone found out their SekRet
ANI readback number. People would open X-connects and tap YOUR phone,
Western Civilization would fall, etc.
Then She started selling Caller-ID, and she could make a profit.
Woosh, suddenly it's a GREAT IDEA, and no one should be able to block
CNID, because clearly only bankrobbers and jaywalkers would want to.>>
For GSM cellphones and Verizon at least you don't have to have anyone
anonymously calling you any longer (at least in the US.)
If you use the Trap Call <http://www.trapcall.com> service you'll
never have another anonymous "private" caller again. You set up
forwarding to *004*18669676590*11# (the conditional "forward
everything" code though I believe you only need to use the forward
when no answer "61" code and when someone calls you with a blocked
"private" number all you do is reject the call and a few seconds later
your phone will ring again with their number revealed. The caller is
none the wiser (unless they really can "hear" the momentary silence
while your number is being forwarded.) The basic service is
completely free though they do have other services that you can
subscribe to for extra cost. I believe you could also do this if you
have your own number (personal toll-free number for instance) that you
can forward to your number that forwards CID data.
John David Galt
> Ma had all kinds of possible doom if anyone found out their SekRet ANI
> readback number. People would open X-connects and tap YOUR phone, Western
> Civilization would fall, etc.
>
> Then She started selling Caller-ID, and she could make a profit.
>
> Woosh, suddenly it's a GREAT IDEA, and no one should be able to block
> CNID, because clearly only bankrobbers and jaywalkers would want to.
And more to the point, because advertising calls generate revenue for the
phone company, while avoiding or blocking such calls, no matter how, does
not. (Yes, they charge for CNID and blocking, but at a flat rate.)
I want to see a customer owned phone company that won't serve spammers.