Get ready for a weird dialplan change. 9-8-8 suicide hotline.
This should be fun. FCC is designating 9-8-8 as a service code. https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-designates-988-national-suicide-prevention-... -- Jay Hennigan - jay at west.net Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
Fortunately, all we have to do is setup call forwarding for 988 calls to go to +1-800-273-8255 If anyone here would like to help, they can send me the config steps necessary to make this work on the platforms you manage. I?ll collect and publish them (tentatively at http://988.support/ ). For me, the health-and-safety element of voice telecom is a big part of the reason it?s important. People depend on us ? in a small way ? for their safety. ? Mark R Lindsey ECG +1-229-316-0013 On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 21:45 Jay Hennigan <jay at west.net> wrote:
This should be fun. FCC is designating 9-8-8 as a service code.
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-designates-988-national-suicide-prevention-...
-- Jay Hennigan - jay at west.net Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Mark R Lindsey | Senior Member of Technical Staff / VP +1-229-316-0013 | Calendar: https://ecg.co/lindsey
This is very cool! Should we (as a VoIP reseller/not a CLEC) be doing this forward or should we expect our upstreams to do it? On Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 10:53 PM Mark R Lindsey, ECG <lindsey at e-c-group.com> wrote:
Fortunately, all we have to do is setup call forwarding for 988 calls to go to +1-800-273-8255
If anyone here would like to help, they can send me the config steps necessary to make this work on the platforms you manage. I?ll collect and publish them (tentatively at http://988.support/ ).
For me, the health-and-safety element of voice telecom is a big part of the reason it?s important. People depend on us ? in a small way ? for their safety.
? Mark R Lindsey ECG +1-229-316-0013
On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 21:45 Jay Hennigan <jay at west.net> wrote:
This should be fun. FCC is designating 9-8-8 as a service code.
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-designates-988-national-suicide-prevention-...
-- Jay Hennigan - jay at west.net Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Mark R Lindsey | Senior Member of Technical Staff / VP +1-229-316-0013 | Calendar: https://ecg.co/lindsey _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
In article <CACa+Xsv+uNV1MZp-P_fDpaBWu_Ce4c7v4DVVMTTg_CN8JprsNQ at mail.gmail.com> you write:
Fortunately, all we have to do is setup call forwarding for 988 calls to go to +1-800-273-8255
For places where you dial 9 for an outside line, are you adding rules for 9-88, 9-988, both? Neither?
We killed all requirements to dial nine nearly ten years ago. It?s a crazy skeuomorph in 2020. -- Sent from my iPad
On Jul 18, 2020, at 8:41 PM, John Levine <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
?In article <CACa+Xsv+uNV1MZp-P_fDpaBWu_Ce4c7v4DVVMTTg_CN8JprsNQ at mail.gmail.com> you write:
Fortunately, all we have to do is setup call forwarding for 988 calls to go to +1-800-273-8255
For places where you dial 9 for an outside line, are you adding rules for 9-88, 9-988, both? Neither?
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Tell that to a large city customer who has 100 plus fax machines with a 9 programmed in for all the speed dials still sitting on the DMS100 and we want to move them to Meta. Naturally they still want the 9. Sigh. I bet 99.9% of them cannot even recall why that 9 existed in the first place when ordering pots lines. Matthew Yaklin Network Engineer FirstLight 359 Corporate Drive ? Portsmouth, NH 03801 Mobile 603-845-5031 myaklin at firstlight.net | www.firstlight.net This email may contain FirstLight confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are directed not to read, disclose or otherwise use this transmission and to immediately delete same. Delivery of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privileges. ________________________________ From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> on behalf of Mike Johnston <mjohnston at wiktel.com> Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 11:55 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org <voiceops at voiceops.org> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Get ready for a weird dialplan change. 9-8-8 suicide hotline. I second that. If your phone system requires a "9", you are doing it wrong. _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On 2020-07-19 00:10, Matthew Yaklin wrote:
they still want the 9. Sigh.
Sigh, indeed. I have heard this from manglement on a couple occasions. Yet, when I remove the 9, especially when replacing a phone system, I am usually thanked by the individuals that actually use the phones.
Tell that to a large city customer who has 100 plus fax machines with a 9 programmed in for all the speed dials
For at least one customer, I created two different dialplans/digitmaps; one that requires a 9, and one that does not. If your equipment supports it, that may be a useful transition path for those fax machines. The fax machines would require a 9, while all regular handset phones would not. I was really hoping Kari's Law would have motivated more vendors, businesses, telcos, and phone administrators to remove the 9 all together with. But instead, I am seeing a lot special casing for just 911 (some Panasonic systems, for example). On a related note, I find it sad and frustrating that for some, it required a law to incentivize the proper working of 911. That is, 9-1-1 instead of 9-9-1-1.
The inverse of this, forever ago, I had the city threaten to blacklist the corporate office of a former employer and stop responding to 911 because one executive couldnt stop fat fingering 911 when dialing his home which was area code 919...... FWIW I always looked at dialplans as being charged with figuring out the will of the user and applying that, not imposing arbitrary, byzantine hurdles. Now if there is any pre-9 dialing going on, i just add a 8 digit and 11 digit check for leading 9s and drop them at ingress and then both use cases are gracefully managed. Thankfully this new service still falls into the XYY dial pattern, is easy enough to detect, and (so far) isn't routed differently in each municipality. On 7/19/2020 9:07 AM, Mike Johnston wrote:
On 2020-07-19 00:10, Matthew Yaklin wrote:
they still want the 9. Sigh.
Sigh, indeed.? I have heard this from manglement on a couple occasions. Yet, when I remove the 9, especially when replacing a phone system, I am usually thanked by the individuals that actually use the phones.
Tell that to a large city customer who has 100 plus fax machines with a 9 programmed in for all the speed dials
For at least one customer, I created two different dialplans/digitmaps; one that requires a 9, and one that does not.? If your equipment supports it, that may be a useful transition path for those fax machines.? The fax machines would require a 9, while all regular handset phones would not.
I was really hoping Kari's Law would have motivated more vendors, businesses, telcos, and phone administrators to remove the 9 all together with.? But instead, I am seeing a lot special casing for just 911 (some Panasonic systems, for example).
On a related note, I find it sad and frustrating that for some, it required a law to incentivize the proper working of 911.? That is, 9-1-1 instead of 9-9-1-1. _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On 2020-07-19 11:21, Ryan Delgrosso wrote:
if there is any pre-9 dialing going on, i just add a 8 digit and 11 digit check for leading 9s and drop them at ingress and then both use cases are gracefully managed.
Sounds like a form of permissive dialing. Jam digits in, your translations will sort it out. I like it! So for example, if I dialed an 8-digit string starting with a 9, such as... 9-555-2222 ...it would strip the 9 and send it out as... 555-2222 ...? And if I dialed an 11-digit string starting with a 9, such as... 9-619-555-2222 ...again, it would strip the 9 and send it out as... 619-555-2222 ...? Do you have issues with timeouts, though? Especially in the 7/8-digit case? However, this new 988 order will require many areas to convert to 10-digit dialing (including mine), which may make that irrelivent.
We do very permissive dialing. Handsets have a default area code, so they can do 7 digit dialing if they want. We used to accept a 9+ but not require it, but about ten years ago dropped that. Funnily enough, the only problem was a support ticket 1-2 years ago from a long-time customer, with one employee who couldn't dial out. She suddenly woke up one Monday forgetting that we dropped the 9+ ten years ago! 1+ or ten digits is fine for us also. The phone timeouts are set pretty low so it works fine, and we only get a small number of accidental short dials because of it. The 9+ dialing seemed to be causing some 911 misdials, which is why we removed it as allowable. And that definitely helped. BUT...we still process 9911 as a 911 call, it's just that people not having to regularly dial the 9 first has helped stop accidental calls. We block 411. It's 2020. On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 9:49 AM Mike Johnston <mjohnston at wiktel.com> wrote:
On 2020-07-19 11:21, Ryan Delgrosso wrote:
if there is any pre-9 dialing going on, i just add a 8 digit and 11 digit check for leading 9s and drop them at ingress and then both use cases are gracefully managed.
Sounds like a form of permissive dialing. Jam digits in, your translations will sort it out. I like it!
So for example, if I dialed an 8-digit string starting with a 9, such as... 9-555-2222 ...it would strip the 9 and send it out as... 555-2222 ...?
And if I dialed an 11-digit string starting with a 9, such as... 9-619-555-2222 ...again, it would strip the 9 and send it out as... 619-555-2222 ...?
Do you have issues with timeouts, though? Especially in the 7/8-digit case? However, this new 988 order will require many areas to convert to 10-digit dialing (including mine), which may make that irrelivent. _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
So much this. The more permissive the dialplan, the fewer time-wasting tickets you field. On 7/19/2020 10:44 AM, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
We do very permissive dialing.? Handsets have a default area code, so they can do 7 digit dialing if they want.? We used to accept a 9+ but not require it, but about ten years ago dropped that.? Funnily enough, the only problem was a support ticket 1-2 years ago from a long-time customer, with one employee who couldn't dial out.? She suddenly woke up one Monday forgetting that we dropped the 9+ ten years ago!? 1+ or ten digits is fine for us also.? The phone timeouts are set pretty low so it works fine, and we only get a small number of accidental short dials because of it.
The 9+ dialing seemed to be causing some 911 misdials, which is why we removed it as allowable.? And that definitely helped.? BUT...we still process 9911 as a 911 call, it's just that people not having to regularly dial the 9 first has helped stop accidental calls.
We block 411.? It's 2020.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 9:49 AM Mike Johnston <mjohnston at wiktel.com <mailto:mjohnston at wiktel.com>> wrote:
On 2020-07-19 11:21, Ryan Delgrosso wrote: > if there is any pre-9 dialing going on, i just add a 8 digit and 11 > digit check for leading 9s and drop them at ingress and then both use > cases are gracefully managed.
Sounds like a form of permissive dialing.? Jam digits in, your translations will sort it out.? I like it!
So for example, if I dialed an 8-digit string starting with a 9, such as... 9-555-2222 ...it would strip the 9 and send it out as... 555-2222 ...?
And if I dialed an 11-digit string starting with a 9, such as... 9-619-555-2222 ...again, it would strip the 9 and send it out as... 619-555-2222 ...?
Do you have issues with timeouts, though?? Especially in the 7/8-digit case?? However, this new 988 order will require many areas to convert to 10-digit dialing (including mine), which may make that irrelivent. _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Correct. The 9-prefixed 8 and 11 digit strings aren't valid anywhere in north america so they are easily identified. I suppose you could also add a 9 prefixed 12 digit for people who dial 91NPANXXYYYY and 9011X. which is also free of collisions. I dont get any pushback on timeouts for 7D as most users are on a deskphone with a dial button or a mobile app. Cell phones have trained people to hit send. -Ryan On 7/19/2020 9:46 AM, Mike Johnston wrote:
On 2020-07-19 11:21, Ryan Delgrosso wrote:
if there is any pre-9 dialing going on, i just add a 8 digit and 11 digit check for leading 9s and drop them at ingress and then both use cases are gracefully managed.
Sounds like a form of permissive dialing.? Jam digits in, your translations will sort it out.? I like it!
So for example, if I dialed an 8-digit string starting with a 9, such as... 9-555-2222 ...it would strip the 9 and send it out as... 555-2222 ...?
And if I dialed an 11-digit string starting with a 9, such as... 9-619-555-2222 ...again, it would strip the 9 and send it out as... 619-555-2222 ...?
Do you have issues with timeouts, though?? Especially in the 7/8-digit case?? However, this new 988 order will require many areas to convert to 10-digit dialing (including mine), which may make that irrelivent. _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
We play them a little audio telling them that they dialled 9 for an outside line but that they don't need to, and that the call will now be put through for them anyway (with the 9 stripped off). It adds about 4 seconds onto the setup time per call playing the audio and usually only takes 2 or 3 calls per user before they've re-programmed themselves not to trigger it any more :) (and the fax machines never notice) Pete
On 20/07/2020, at 4:07 AM, Mike Johnston <mjohnston at wiktel.com> wrote: On 2020-07-19 00:10, Matthew Yaklin wrote:
they still want the 9. Sigh.
Sigh, indeed. I have heard this from manglement on a couple occasions. Yet, when I remove the 9, especially when replacing a phone system, I am usually thanked by the individuals that actually use the phones.
Great idea to do it now for whomever would like to. It looks like this is just an announcement with no details around implementation yet, but anyone managing a PBX or voip resellers, etc. should be able to allow this quite easily. Presumably this will be handled at the LEC level and everyone else just needs to let the digits out. I know it is not unusual to have to forward 911 and 411. The former to make sure calls get routes to the correct location and the latter to save money. -bjs On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 7:53 PM Mark R Lindsey, ECG <lindsey at e-c-group.com> wrote:
Fortunately, all we have to do is setup call forwarding for 988 calls to go to +1-800-273-8255
If anyone here would like to help, they can send me the config steps necessary to make this work on the platforms you manage. I?ll collect and publish them (tentatively at http://988.support/ ).
For me, the health-and-safety element of voice telecom is a big part of the reason it?s important. People depend on us ? in a small way ? for their safety.
? Mark R Lindsey ECG +1-229-316-0013
On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 21:45 Jay Hennigan <jay at west.net> wrote:
This should be fun. FCC is designating 9-8-8 as a service code.
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-designates-988-national-suicide-prevention-...
-- Jay Hennigan - jay at west.net Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Mark R Lindsey | Senior Member of Technical Staff / VP +1-229-316-0013 | Calendar: https://ecg.co/lindsey _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Brandon Svec 15106862204 voice | sms teamonesolutions.com 14729 Catalina St. San Leandro, CA 94577 .?l?.?l?. Cisco Meraki CMNA
participants (10)
-
bsvec＠teamonesolutions.com -
caalvarez＠gmail.com -
jay＠west.net -
johnl＠taugh.com -
lindsey＠e-c-group.com -
mjohnston＠wiktel.com -
myaklin＠firstlight.net -
pete＠fiberphone.co.nz -
ross＠tajvar.io -
ryandelgrosso＠gmail.com