From: Floyd Davidson <floyd@ptialaska.net>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom.tech
Subject: Re: Clarifications regarding telephone line current and Voltage
Date: 13 Jan 2000 01:56:32 -0900

macy@apk.net (Macy Hallock) wrote:
>As quoted from Floyd Davidson <floyd@ptialaska.net>:
>> macy@apk.net (Macy Hallock) writes:
>> >As quoted from Floyd Davidson <floyd@ptialaska.net>:
>>
>>   1)  Drawing loop current is not a tariff violation.
>
>No, but connecting non Part 68 equipment that results in a
>service call to the telco is.  Been there. Done that. With both
>GTE and Ohio Bell.
>
>>   2)  Tariff violations do not result in a service call charge
>>       (they result in disconnected service and reconnect fees).
>
>In Ohio, there is a specific fee realated to the service call
>that results in a Tariff Violation writeup.  It's usually $100.

Interesting, to say the least.  But still, that is clearly
unique to Ohio (though perhaps it exists in other jurisdictions
too) and is not the result of FCC regulations (Part 68).  We
cannot generalize it to suggest that everyone is likely to
experience the same legalities.  And just as clearly I shouldn't
generalize it by saying that nobody will ever experience that
either!

>Oddly enough, they usually don't shut off service unless its
>disruptive.  But they do require formal notice that the
>violation has been corrected.

A typical view of network integrity.

More or less similar to having various "limits" for out of
specification parameters.  One set will result in a trouble
ticket, but the circuit stays in service until scheduled for a
repair action; another set of limits indicate when a circuit is
immediately turned down for service and left out of service
until repaired.

>(As I recall from a conversation with a PUCO staffer, this has been
>imposed on the telco's here by the PUCO. They consider intentional
>discontinuance of phone service to be something quite serious.)

Typical telco attitude!  ;-)

>> >In practice, this is very uncommon. The tests are usually just
>> >done at the demarc.
>>
>> Heh heh, uncommon to the point of non-existant as far as the
>> loop current example is concerned.  In fact though, if a
>> customer does violate the tariffs and causes service problems
>> for others, it will be noticed.  Examples would be high signal
>> levels or DC voltages applied to cable pairs, or disallowed
>> frequency/power combinations.  (As in just apply a high level
>> 2600 Hz tone to your line and see if it doesn't generate some
>> interest, mostly amusement, at the telco.)
>
>Hehe. Very amusing comment about the 2600hz.

For people who are not aware, it will likely cause a log report
to be generated by the switch, advising that a customer is
trying to use a "Blue Box".  Since that technique for network
abuse doesn't work anymore, the interest generated will mostly
be people laughing that someone is still trying it.

>The telco installers who wrote up a tariff violations for jumpers
>punched on "their" RJ-21 blocks are the ones who really make
>things tough. (I've seen alarm companies who do this because
>they've had their RJ31X disconnected by telco repair tech's
>way too ofen...)
>
>I also had an issue with one telco tech who wrote up a tariff
>violation for a jumper clip shorting a bad trunk on a demarc
>block.  The telco just kinda let this one fade away without
>replying, and the charge disappered off the bill with no
>explaination.
>
>Transmission levels, now that's where we got into a number
>of disagreements with telco's.  You just can't do much
>with a -7.5db POTS line, but some telco's think it's perfectly
>servicable for a key system customer...

Huh (What you mean it ain't? It's what you ordered.)   :-)

The above in particular, but the entire discussion in general
reminded me of the different perspectives that several of us
approach these discussions of "the telephone company" (as in
"We are _the_telephone_company_, so screw you.").  Customers
and consultants see them as people who make declarations of
how it is, which may be wrong and/or stupid and/or ignorant,
but it sticks until they  *prove* so.

Telco people (and by that I mean dialtone providers) of course
see the frustrations of dealing with clueless customers in a
very technical business, and manage themselves accordingly.

My perspective (along with a couple others here) is from the
inter-exchange provider's view of the PSTN, and most of the time
when I deal with a telco they view _me_ much the same way
customers and consultants view the telco!  If we tell them "This
is the way it is, period." they have no choice but to accept it
until and unless they can prove we are wrong.  (I've threatened
to totally cut off all long distance connectivity to a telco on
more than one occasion and provided them with the telephone
number of an attorney in Carrier Relations for verification of
the fact that it can and will be done.)

The approach that various people here take to explaining what is
or is not likely to happen certainly reflects which side of the
telephone company they deal with.

  Floyd