------------------------------ From: jlundgre@kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren) Subject: Re: Apartments Getting Into the PBX Business Date: 29 Dec 1994 07:39:39 GMT Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network David G. Cantor (dgc@ccrwest.org) wrote: > In TELECOM Digest, Volume 14, Issue 437, John Lundgren states: >> ... many larger apartment complexes are getting a PBX ... as of >> Jan 1, anyone [in California] can get into the business of >> furnishing dial tone. > It was roughly two years ago when the California PUC turned over > responsibility of telephone wiring in an apartment complex to the > owner. By PUC regulations, the owner is required to provide at least > one working line from the telco point of demarcation to each > apartment. The telcos simply stopped maintenance of the usual rat's > nest and left it for the apartment management. You misinterpreted my previous post. It had _nothing_ to do with wiring. I was talking about furnishing *dial tone*. As in PBX. John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs Rancho Santiago Community College District 17th St. at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706 jlundgre@pop.rancho.cc.ca.us\jlundgr@eis.calstate.edu ------------------------------ From: lotr@iac.net (Chris Mork) Subject: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T Date: 29 Dec 1994 11:52:32 -0500 Organization: Internet Access Cincinnati 513-887-8877 I was poking around in the FCC's telnet site and came across some legal briefs filed by the FCC concerning these "scam" practices of switching carriers with "free give-aways". It seems some companies (including the big boys) want to give you these "gifts" or "free money" with some VERY fine print " ... by the way, by accepting this gift, you agree to switch carriers ... bla-bla ..." Needless to say, the FCC was not amused. There were even some companies taking advantage of "non-English speaking" or "illiterate" customers, getting them to sign on the dotted line without their full comprehension! Unfortunatly, I can't remember the file name/path, maybe someone can find these and post them? All I remember was "FCC.GOV" Chris Mork lotr@iac.net ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T From: drharry!aboritz@uunet.uu.net (Alan Boritz) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 94 22:14:12 EST Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861 Paul Robinson writes: > I would recommend to the father that he call his local telephone > company and tell them to switch service back to MCI; don't even > mention this check to the son; assuming anyone even notices, if AT&T > complains, ask for a copy of the signed order from the subscriber. And who's going to pay for the PIXC change? His lazy son? > The son is not the subscriber and has no authority to change the > service. It is not your position to prove you didn't authorize it, > it's theirs to prove they have an authorization from someone who can > issue the authorization. But it's not going to stop AT&T from issuing ANOTHER PIXC change just like the did the first unauthorized change. The subscriber should first issue an order to the local telco to not accept account changes from anyone but HIM. > Or just ignore the whole thing and dial 10222 to get MCI before every > call, which is what I used to do when I wanted to use AT&T on the line > I had switched to MCI in order to get the free bag from them; I dialed > 10288 to get AT&T before calls, or I just use the other line which is > still on AT&T. Absolutely do NOT ignore it. Slamming is a sleazy way of doing long distance business, and no one should have to put up with it. State public utilities regulatory agencies are usually interested in investigating such incidents. The father should file a simple complaint against his local telco requesting that they be ordered to change his PIXC back to the original LD carrier, that AT&T be charged for all costs associated with the PIXC changes, and that the local telco be ordered to refund to the subscriber any additional long distance charges (and lost discounts) due to the unauthorized change. aboritz%drharry@uunet.uu.net or uunet!drharry!aboritz Harry's Place (drharry.UUCP) - Mahwah NJ USA - +1-201-934-0861 ------------------------------ From: Barton.Bruce@camb.com Subject: Re: Flexible Hunt Groups With PBX? Sender: Barton F. Bruce / CCA Date: 29 Dec 94 23:09:54 -0500 Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , Robert Macfarlane writes: > A businessperson friend of mine runs a BBS out of an office which has > 14 voice lines on a hunt group. He has so far installed an additional > eight lines on another hunt group dedicated to the BBS. > Here's my question: are there PBX's which would allow re-allocation of > lines from one hunt group to another, at different times of the day? > My idea is to move some of the 14 voice lines from the voice hunt > group to the modem hunt group from 6 pm to 6 am, since this is peak > time for BBSing. The voice lines are otherwise sitting there completely > unused during the night. And there's really no need to have more than > eight lines to the BBS during the day. > Are there PBX's which can do this sort of thing, or am I just fantasizing? The idea is already in use, but the problem you have missed is that the CO, not the PBX, controls normal hunting. But there ARE ways. In the 'good-old-days' there were often 'hunt-break' switches installed at a site to kill off the hunting beyond the LTN so all the brass could have their night lines set up with higher lines in the hunt group with NO CHANCE of unexpected calls reaching their offices. Probably as a special assembly thing, you could get a hunt break installed such that some block of numbers, that was a hunt group all by itself, extended the voice group by day and the modem group at night. Crude but possible. Painful switching required to get the lines off the PBX and onto modems, too. Far better, if T1 DID is cheap where you are, is to simply manage your OWN hunting. Have an adequate block of DID numbers. NB that most PBXes do NOT require all station numbers to be in the DID range, so a single DIDable number could be the pilot into a LARGE hunt group of extensions with modems attached. Any DID trunk could access these extensions by dialing *THE* single lead number. Though not necessary, doing it this way precludes savvy users cheating during the day by dialing explicitly to modem ports removed from the daytime group. OTOH, having ALL modem extensions DIDable allows easy testing. Having the CO and the PBX use circular hunting (least recently used allocation) ensures that broken equipment has minimal impact. Obviously analog DID trunks work too, but T1 ones are better. Perhaps a simple example will help. Say the PBX has a t1 for DID, so you have 24 voice lines of dialin, and each one can randomly access any extension in the allowed range. Say you have the 200-600 numbers available, and 599 is *the* first line in the modem hunt group. There are 22 modems in the modem hunt group, but the last 21 could be on extension numbers outside 200-600, e.g. could be 1xx numbers. Say the first company DID number is 333.4200, that makes the modem number 333.4599. During the day, the PBX is reprogrammed to just have eight extensions in the modem group. During the night, all 22 are available and when in use, only the two remaining DID trunks would carry random calls to other extensions in the 333.4200-4699 range. All modem calls are to 333.5999, but the CO has NO IDEA how many are available. It simply presents each successive call to the next to be used trunk and the PBX either rings some extension or returns busy signal. If there were four FAX lines during the day (say at 333.4234 which fed a hunt group including 191, 192, and 193 (not directly DIDable), the latter three could be cut off in the evening and their capacity gets added to the modem pool. If you prefer to leave the FAX machines all available, that is ok, except heavy evening infaxing could cut into modem ports -- whatever call comes in uses that trunk. Just be sure to keep the required minimum voice ports open for emergency communication to staff working late. You can change your split daily to suit varying needs. DID trunks may cost enough more that this is a POOR idea unless they are already justified for normal dial to the desktop needs. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #473 ******************************