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.

We operate a system with the "dial 9" scheme (apparently "useless" according to other posters - a truly insightful attitude that I love to see on this list), so I can say that the expectation definitely is NOT for people to dial 9911. In fact, there is a whole law about it, which, like many, is written in blood: https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/podcast/personal-story-behind-karis-law The difference is, if someone picks up a phone and dials 911, they want 911. They don't want an "outside line" so that they can dial a NANP 10-digit number beginning in 11, because no such number exists. The problem is, such numbers DO exist that begin with 88, so, we are in a bit of a pickle there. It seems the only solution is to do a timeout... yeesh. (Unless I'm missing something.) Dialing 911 directly (not 9911, but just 911) has always worked here, long before Kari's Law, and it works without delay, as it should. I'd love to make 988 work the same way but I'm just not sure how to accomplish that. -- Hunter Fuller (they) Router Jockey VBH M-1C +1 256 824 5331 Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Network Engineering -- Hunter Fuller (they) Router Jockey VBH M-1C +1 256 824 5331 Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Network Engineering On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:21 AM Brandon Svec <bsvec at teamonesolutions.com> wrote:

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 <David.Zilk at 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 at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 1:03 AM Ross Tajvar <ross at tajvar.io> wrote:

re: dialing 9 - I understand the plight of having to deal with legacy expectations, but what's the point of sticking with this particular one? What makes it not-useless?

In our circumstance, all of the following is true: - Our extensions are the last 4 digits of our DIDs - Every user gets a DID - Most calling is internal I think if any of the above was not true, we would probably have enabled 10-digit dialing and just put up with the delay for dialing extensions. But with outside calling being the exception, and with re-numbering effectively not on the table, I think the friction of changing things around was not worth it. We would have to retrain several thousand users and the result is the system is now slower (if they use their old habits).

OP makes his own points against it, and none for. As we add more and more short numbers and possibly NPAs, the 9 becomes more problematic. And is there really a switch out there in use today that needs it? We have to kill old paradigms to move ahead. On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 11:04 PM Ross Tajvar <ross at tajvar.io> wrote:

re: dialing 9 - I understand the plight of having to deal with legacy expectations, but what's the point of sticking with this particular one? What makes it not-useless?

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 12:29 AM Hunter Fuller <hf0002+nanog at uah.edu> wrote:

...

We operate a system with the "dial 9" scheme (apparently "useless" according to other posters - a truly insightful attitude that I love to see on this list), so I can say that the expectation definitely is NOT for people to dial 9911. In fact, there is a whole law about it, which, like many, is written in blood: https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/podcast/personal-story-behind-karis-law

The difference is, if someone picks up a phone and dials 911, they want 911. They don't want an "outside line" so that they can dial a NANP 10-digit number beginning in 11, because no such number exists. The problem is, such numbers DO exist that begin with 88, so, we are in a bit of a pickle there. It seems the only solution is to do a timeout... yeesh. (Unless I'm missing something.)

Dialing 911 directly (not 9911, but just 911) has always worked here, long before Kari's Law, and it works without delay, as it should. I'd love to make 988 work the same way but I'm just not sure how to accomplish that.

-- Hunter Fuller (they) Router Jockey VBH M-1C +1 256 824 5331

Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Network Engineering

-- Hunter Fuller (they) Router Jockey VBH M-1C +1 256 824 5331

Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Network Engineering

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:21 AM Brandon Svec <bsvec at teamonesolutions.com> wrote:

...

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 <David.Zilk at 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 at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list 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

---

VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Our user instructions have been telling them to dial like a cell phone for over ten years. So they do have a defacto send button; dial and then pick up the handset or press the speaker or headset button. Acceptance and adoption has been great. It was harder to get people to do this in 2005, but everyone gets it now. We had permissive dialing for a while (10-digit, 11-digit, 9+10-digit, 9+11-digit). But as of somewhere around '16 we took out the 9 completely. And haven't required it since our years had single digits. I know, everyone is different, different needs, blah blah. Too many excuses for keeping old dead skeumorphs. On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 12:22 PM Jay Hennigan via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

On 7/18/22 08:36, Carlos Alvarez wrote:

...

OP makes his own points against it, and none for. As we add more and more short numbers and possibly NPAs, the 9 becomes more problematic. And is there really a switch out there in use today that needs it?

Pretty much any conventional PBX where you have conventional phones and don't want a timeout. Even most SIP phones don't have a SEND button even though the INVITE is en-banc under the hood, so you need a dialplan with a timeout.

IMHO, 9-8-8 is a boneheaded idea as it breaks NANP and causes ambiguity. In addition now that it's law look for all kinds of other mandated service codes. Lost your cat, dial 9-7-7. Need a jump start, 9-6-6, Alcoholics Anonymous 9-5-5, etc.

-- 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

If you still want to allow 7-digit dialing and have a local 88X prefix, or if your dialplan allows 10-digit calls without a leading 1, then yes, you'll need a timeout. Or make it 9-988 until they pass another law.

I think they already did: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/ten-digit-dialing Relevant excerpt:

If your company uses a PBX or VoIP phone system, you may need to update or reprogram it for 10-digit dialing. The transition to 10-digit dialing must be completed by July 15, 2022.

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 2:20 AM Jay Hennigan <jay at west.net> wrote:

On 7/17/22 21:19, Hunter Fuller wrote:

...

We operate a system with the "dial 9" scheme (apparently "useless" according to other posters - a truly insightful attitude that I love to see on this list),

It's not unusual in old-school PBXs and wireline POTS where digits are processed serially. With cell phones dialing is en-banc with a SEND button so digit patterns no longer need to be unique. See note on en-banc dialing below.

...

so I can say that the expectation definitely is NOT for people to dial 9911. In fact, there is a whole law about it, which, like many, is written in blood: https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/podcast/personal-story-behind-karis-law

This did take some special programming, however. The leading 9 is a trunk access code and should return a second (often different sounding) dial tone. The law to which you refer is because of PBXs that weren't specially programmed to re-insert the stripped "9" and send the call on its way. The original expectation was "Seize an outside line (by dialing 9) wait for dial tone, dial 9-1-1."

When I was programming Mitel PBXs back in the day, I ensured that both 9-11 and 9-911 would get routed to 9-1-1 regardless.

...

The difference is, if someone picks up a phone and dials 911, they want 911. They don't want an "outside line" so that they can dial a NANP 10-digit number beginning in 11, because no such number exists. The problem is, such numbers DO exist that begin with 88, so, we are in a bit of a pickle there. It seems the only solution is to do a timeout... yeesh. (Unless I'm missing something.)

Kinda, sorta. 7-digit local dialing is supposed to have been phased out, with all NANP numbers represented as 1+NPA-NXX-XXXX.

This means that after your trunk access 9, you should expect a 1 (followed by ten digits for a regular phone number), a 0 for operator or 011 international, or a three-digit code starting with 2 or 9 that until this week always ended in 11.

...

Dialing 911 directly (not 9911, but just 911) has always worked here, long before Kari's Law, and it works without delay, as it should. I'd love to make 988 work the same way but I'm just not sure how to accomplish that.

Program 88 as a sequence to re-insert the stripped 9 and send immediately on trunks accessed by a 9, just like you do with 11.

If you still want to allow 7-digit dialing and have a local 88X prefix, or if your dialplan allows 10-digit calls without a leading 1, then yes, you'll need a timeout. Or make it 9-988 until they pass another law.

Note: In fact, en-banc cell dialing broke a few advertisements where a word was spelled longer than 7 digits. For example, "Dial 1-800-HARDWARE" worked fine from a landline or (with prepended 9) from a PBX. As soon as the digits 1-800-427-3927 were dialed, the call would complete. With a cell phone, however, the number sent is 1-800-427-39273 which doesn't match a valid number and the call would be rejected. Some cellular carriers have worked around the issue and truncate long strings to match the NANP.

-- 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

On 7/17/22 23:43, Hunter Fuller wrote:

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 1:19 AM Jay Hennigan <jay at west.net> wrote:

...

Kinda, sorta. 7-digit local dialing is supposed to have been phased out, with all NANP numbers represented as 1+NPA-NXX-XXXX.

But, speaking of en-banc dialing on cell phones, do you find that users typically enter the 1? I certainly don't. 10-digit is the most common form I see.

Cell phones seem to be very forgiving. NPA-NXX-XXXX 1-NPA-NXX-XXXX 011-1-NPA-NXX-XXXX all work. Out of habit, I generally dial the 1.

We don't support 7 digit (we killed it at the same time Ma Bell did in our area).

I think this is pretty much the case for most of the NANPA region, but it's handy if you aren't in an overlay area.

...

This means that after your trunk access 9, you should expect a 1 (followed by ten digits for a regular phone number), a 0 for operator or 011 international, or a three-digit code starting with 2 or 9 that until this week always ended in 11.

Program 88 as a sequence to re-insert the stripped 9 and send immediately on trunks accessed by a 9, just like you do with 11.

The problem is, right now, you are right. If someone dials 9 then 8, they get fast busy immediately (because there should have been a 1). But after the change you mention, if they are trying to dial the very common toll-free NPA 888 and forget the 1, they will instantly be talking to the suicide hotline.

But if they can't dial 9-8[anything] now and never have been able to, they aren't likely to start doing so trying to reach toll-free 9-888 in the future. And by failing after 9 then 8, you're breaking Dig Alert. Likewise you're probably breaking the other N-1-1 codes as well such as 7-1-1 for TDD, etc. -- Jay Hennigan - jay at west.net Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV