Re: [VoiceOps] 9-8-8 dialing when an outside line access code (9) is being used
It turns out the FCC has already covered this in their rulemaking for 9-8-8<https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/16/2020-16908/implementation-of-the-national-suicide-hotline-improvement-act-of-2018>. “We decline to adopt a proposal to require multi-line telephone systems (MLTS) to allow callers to reach the Lifeline by dialing 988 and no other digits.” (I believe that “allow” in the quote above should really be “require”.) They go on to explain that they are given the authority to require this for 9-1-1 by Kari’s Law, but that they lack a similar authority with regard to 9-8-8. So, while it is not required for MLTS to support both 9-988 and 988. I still feel that it is a good idea to do so if feasible. David Zilk From: Brandon Svec Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 9:21 AM To: Zilk, David Cc: VoiceOps@voiceops.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [VoiceOps] 9-8-8 dialing when an outside line access code (9) is being used CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the CDK organization. Exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments, especially from unknown senders. It shouldn't be much different than 911. 9911 and 911 can both work just as 9988 and 988 can both work fine with most any PBX that can translate dial plan digits. There is potential conflict with systems that can't handle inter-digit timeouts to allow both 988 and 9888-555-1212, I guess. But in that case I suppose the expectation would be to dial 9988 and 9911 already.. Brandon On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 8:10 AM Zilk, David mailto:david.z...@cdk.com>> wrote: How are folks dealing with allowing calls to 9-8-8 when an access code of 9 is used. Does this not cause a conflict when calling toll free numbers beginning with an NPA of 88x? David ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__puck.nether.net_mailman_listinfo_voiceops=DwMFaQ=N13-TaG7c-EYAiUNohBk74oLRjUiBTwVm-KSnr4bPSc=VcRLyVxkyGds34uxiPM944HQvaWq-nynyZXfNpSfhOs=NDSYRKKN3GIldh-ujLCQjbCN_N0cfSKfHV7nPwJ0_feG25TUz0dZKn2TzhT8h4iF=ipca9HHOttPezzLLquD13mlULS2-XTHAeGwNv8xUeFE=> ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Re: [VoiceOps] 9-8-8 dialing when an outside line access code (9) is being used
I have never heard of this. What LATA are you in? Can you give an example NPA where you know this to be the case? As a consumer, if I were subscribed to ILEC without bundled long-distance, I would find such an arrangement both confusing and infuriating. Especially with near-universal mandatory 10-digit dialing. So you're saying that I can dial two numbers within the same area code the exact same way, but one destination is charged as a local call and the other as long-distance? What if I fat-fingered something while dialing (intending to dial a local destination but being off by one digit in the NXX) & the call connected? What if I was simply unaware that a given destination was long-distance? This sounds like a terrible idea all the way around. Was this also the case back when 7-digit dialing was still possible? You could reach a long-distance destination within your same NPA by only dialing 7 digits? -- Nathan -Original Message- From: James Cloos [mailto:cl...@jhcloos.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 10:01 AM To: VoiceOps Cc: Nathan Anderson Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] [External] Re: 9-8-8 dialing when an outside line access code (9) is being used NA> This convention is handy for those who still get charged for NA> long-distance, as you can't accidentally dial long-distance unknowingly NA> and get surprised by extra charges: except thsat it is 10 for the same npa and 11 for other npas, irreguardless of whether the call costs anything. at least in the npas w/ which i am familiar. so the 10 instead of 11 provides no value. -JimC -- James Cloos OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6 ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Re: [VoiceOps] 9-8-8 dialing when an outside line access code (9) is being used
(Quick off-topic note: did some setting on VoiceOps mailman get changed halfway through the morning? "From:" now shows voiceops list address instead of original sender's -- which I'm fine with -- but then "Reply-To" is getting added and set to sender. So I now have to add voiceops address to "To:" or "CC:" manually if I want my reply to go to the list. Not cool.) Hunter Fuller wrote: > Look. I get that the dial-9 thing is not how you would build a system > today, but what I'm trying to say is this: > If the current way worked for decades, through multiple phone system > forklifts, enabling us to not retrain our users; and if 988 is the > first time we have ever had any issue with it; then at what point > Exactly were we "supposed to" have "seen the light" and migrated away > from it? And what value would it have brought us at that time? > > It's not like our users are constantly getting confused by this. We > dispatch an email to new employees with basics on using the phone, and > not once has anyone ever found it confusing or difficult. Some of > these users will have dialed their desk phone the exact same way for > THIRTY YEARS (not an exaggeration). What value does it bring me to > shake it up, aside from giving them the ability to dial 988 without a > delay? Is there even one other benefit? I am genuinely grasping here. I'm generally sympathetic with this position, actually. As I said before, I prefer *not* to replace customers' existing phone systems, and that way there is no re-training nor taking on the role of supporting a replacement system. And if/when we do replace somebody's aging PBX, I want to remove as much friction as possible and add as few things to the canned training spiel as possible: get in, install the thing, show somebody the basic ropes as quickly as possible and with as few disclaimers as possible, and get out. We have a tough enough time just with things like "this is how voicemail now works" and "sorry no, we are *not* going to try to emulate your outgoing key system: you must now either do extension-to-extension transfer, or call parking", heh. So if it is relatively easy to accommodate older (and established/habitual) usage patterns alongside newer ones all without creating tons of extra work for us, we will. Carlos Alvarez wrote: > Right, and their switch traps the 9 so you don't have to route it. I > may be mistaken, but thought the original question was about routing on > a modern switch, where the 9 is not relevant. I went back & read through the prior posts, and can't find anything that affirms your assumption. Yes agreed, in the particular scenario I laid out there, we don't have to worry about the 9. What I was responding to, though, was your rhetorical question re: whether "there [is] really a switch out there in use today that needs [an outside line prefix]", and pointing out that at least anecdotally, yeah: there are plenty. I gather that there are many "operators" of all stripes that subscribe to this list: systems integrators, service providers, a little of columns A and B, etc. And though the OP himself didn't say one way or the other, there are clearly people responding to this thread who are actively supporting older systems. > Weird, pretty much every old PBX I ran into had the fax lines on it, > and sometimes even alarm lines on it. One of my early trainings with > alarm panel integration, in the 90s, was all about coordinating the > dial-9 rules. > > I'm old, and maybe you mean more recently. I know we did a dial 9 in > the early 2000s, now I can't remember when most people dropped it. I am mostly talking about customers whose dialtone we took over servicing within the last 10 years. But these were also phone systems that had been installed 5-10 years or more prior to when we got there, sooo... I guess I should clarify that the vast, vast majority of these are small businesses in a fairly rural context. Typically with maybe 3-4 POTS trunks, including the fax line. (And yes, often we will see alarm circuit sharing a line with fax. Just that neither are touching the main KSU at all, and [thus] have no shared line appearances on any of the handsets.) Heck, at our own office, before we moved over to all-IP, our prior system which had been installed in the early 2000s was a Nortel MICS with roughly 16 POTS trunks (why it wasn't T1, no clue...this whole thing was installed well before my time). Same situation: fax line completely separate. -- Nathan ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Re: [VoiceOps] 9-8-8 dialing when an outside line access code (9) is being used
On 2022-07-15 10:19, Carlos Alvarez wrote: We stopped the useless "outside line" concept almost a decade ago. I would like to second that. There is no need to dial a "9" (or 8, or whatever) to seize an outside line anymore. We are no longer using mechanical step switches, and as such, are able to more elegantly figure out what the user is trying to dial Sometimes this requires using timeouts. Sometimes you can avoid the timeouts by carefully selecting the extensions. For example, if you are in US/Canada and using 3-digit dialing, the extensions 100 through 119 are never ambiguous (with NPAs, NXXs, ERCs, etc) and would not require a timeout. If all of the extensions on the phone system are 100 through 119, then this is a clear case of where a "9" to get an "outside line" makes no technical sense. Possible pro tip: If setting up a phone system for a very small business, and you doubt they will ever grow beyond 20 extensions, consider using extensions 100 through 119. They will never need to endure timeouts for station-to-station calling. This all assumes you are bothering to setup digitmaps on the phones/ATAs. ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Re: [VoiceOps] 9-8-8 dialing when an outside line access code (9) is being used
I am still using a few old cisco phones that use the 9 concept, what should i say i am using a click to call link when i bump into this issue On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:28 AM Carlos Alvarez wrote: > We stopped the useless "outside line" concept almost a decade ago. > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 8:10 AM Zilk, David wrote: > >> How are folks dealing with allowing calls to 9-8-8 when an access code of >> 9 is used. Does this not cause a conflict when calling toll free numbers >> beginning with an NPA of 88x? >> >> >> >> David >> ___ >> VoiceOps mailing list >> VoiceOps@voiceops.org >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >> > ___ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps@voiceops.org > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops > -- *Pinchas S. Neiman* Software Engineer At ESEQ Technology Corp. 845.213.1229 #2 ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Re: [VoiceOps] 9-8-8 dialing when an outside line access code (9) is being used
We stopped the useless "outside line" concept almost a decade ago. On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 8:10 AM Zilk, David wrote: > How are folks dealing with allowing calls to 9-8-8 when an access code of > 9 is used. Does this not cause a conflict when calling toll free numbers > beginning with an NPA of 88x? > > > > David > ___ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps@voiceops.org > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops > ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
[VoiceOps] 9-8-8 dialing when an outside line access code (9) is being used
How are folks dealing with allowing calls to 9-8-8 when an access code of 9 is used. Does this not cause a conflict when calling toll free numbers beginning with an NPA of 88x? David ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
