[External] Re: 9-8-8 dialing when an outside line access code (9) is being used
Carlos Alvarez wrote:
Do your users still dial 9 from their fax machines?
Not sure if serious or "haha your users probably still use fax machines" joke. So I'll give a serious answer just in case: I can't recall ever running across a single instance of someone who has their fax line routed through their "conventional" PBX. So they never dialed 9 from their fax machine to begin with. And also since nobody expects to be able to dial local extensions from their fax machine, we set up a separate dialing plan for the fax port on the ATA that does not require the external line prefix. -- Nathan
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. On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 4:24 PM Nathan Anderson via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:
Carlos Alvarez wrote:
Do your users still dial 9 from their fax machines?
Not sure if serious or "haha your users probably still use fax machines" joke. So I'll give a serious answer just in case: I can't recall ever running across a single instance of someone who has their fax line routed through their "conventional" PBX. So they never dialed 9 from their fax machine to begin with. And also since nobody expects to be able to dial local extensions from their fax machine, we set up a separate dialing plan for the fax port on the ATA that does not require the external line prefix.
-- Nathan
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
I hate to tell y'all this, but not only do my users dial 9 from their faxes to get out, they also fax internally (interdepartmentally) with some frequency. So, yes, these users dial 4 digits from their fax machines. 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. -- 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 Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 6:21 PM Nathan Anderson via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:
Carlos Alvarez wrote:
Do your users still dial 9 from their fax machines?
Not sure if serious or "haha your users probably still use fax machines" joke. So I'll give a serious answer just in case: I can't recall ever running across a single instance of someone who has their fax line routed through their "conventional" PBX. So they never dialed 9 from their fax machine to begin with. And also since nobody expects to be able to dial local extensions from their fax machine, we set up a separate dialing plan for the fax port on the ATA that does not require the external line prefix.
-- Nathan
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 4:45 PM Hunter Fuller via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:
I hate to tell y'all this, but not only do my users dial 9 from their faxes to get out, they also fax internally (interdepartmentally) with some frequency. So, yes, these users dial 4 digits from their fax machines.
I um...man. I so wish I was confident that you're kidding. I fear you're not.
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?
I didn't see anyone here saying you were wrong. But I do think most would say it's time to get away from old ways.
I'm hearing what you are saying, but I don't understand it. As I said, 988 is the first problem we have had, and thus it is the first indication that this is even unusual in the first place. I could see why you would find no reason to do it greenfield but I don't see the motivation to rip it out. That's why I ask what other problem it has, or what other reason there is to consider it outdated. (Aside from "it was initially done for a reason that is no longer relevant" - that does not hold water to me because phone numbers themselves exist for the same reason. If we invented VoIP today, everyone would use SIP URIs only, so it would be the same as your email address.) -- 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 Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 7:40 PM Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 4:45 PM Hunter Fuller via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:
I hate to tell y'all this, but not only do my users dial 9 from their faxes to get out, they also fax internally (interdepartmentally) with some frequency. So, yes, these users dial 4 digits from their fax machines.
I um...man. I so wish I was confident that you're kidding. I fear you're not.
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?
I didn't see anyone here saying you were wrong. But I do think most would say it's time to get away from old ways.
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On Jul 18, 2022, at 9:26 PM, Hunter Fuller via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:
(Aside from "it was initially done for a reason that is no longer relevant" - that does not hold water to me because phone numbers themselves exist for the same reason. If we invented VoIP today, everyone would use SIP URIs only, so it would be the same as your email address.)
Well. Maybe. But phone numbers continue to serve a defensible purpose as a universally routable identifier. You can argue that their structure or format is obsolete, but you can?t say they don?t *do* anything. You can still send a call to a number to a PSTN switch and it will know where - anywhere in the world - to send it. Billions of people rely on this functionality daily. It does work. Dialing an ?outside line?, in contrast, serves _no_ purpose, because there literally is no ?outside line?. The only reason to continue it is to perpetuate user custom and habit. ? Alex -- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 1:11 PM Alex Balashov via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:
Dialing an ?outside line?, in contrast, serves _no_ purpose, because there literally is no ?outside line?. The only reason to continue it is to perpetuate user custom and habit.
But it *does* do something. It is the mechanism for the end user to "tell" the dial plan, "I am about to make an external call, so don't try to complete it after 4 digits" (or however long your extensions are). Of course you can say "just tell the user to dial the entire number they want and then press Call" (that is, retrain my users to perform en-bloc dialing). But this is more training than I am currently doing. My complete user training is done by a single email per user, that is dispatched automatically by a process we put in place 6 years ago. So the reason to continue it is because it is free, and it would cost money (via employee training time) to change it. What is the reason to NOT continue it? Prior to 988, I was unaware of one. And it still looks like 988 is the only reason. All anyone can tell me on this list is "because there is no point," "because it is antiquated," etc. - but the proposed alternative would literally cost my organization time and therefore money to accomplish, and provide an arguably worse UX for long-time users. So I am still kinda hoping someone can tell me what would be so great about the changeover, aside from allowing people to call 988 faster.
The original requirement of the 988 change process was to require all 10 digits to be dialed. Most carriers already do that because of overlays or multiple NPAs but that piece of the process was supposed to happen months ago so if someone hasn't changed that in their switch they need to. MARY LOU CAREY BackUP Telecom Consulting Office: 615-791-9969 Cell: 615-796-1111 On 2022-07-19 01:23 PM, Hunter Fuller via VoiceOps wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 1:11 PM Alex Balashov via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:
Dialing an ?outside line?, in contrast, serves _no_ purpose, because there literally is no ?outside line?. The only reason to continue it is to perpetuate user custom and habit.
But it *does* do something. It is the mechanism for the end user to "tell" the dial plan, "I am about to make an external call, so don't try to complete it after 4 digits" (or however long your extensions are).
Of course you can say "just tell the user to dial the entire number they want and then press Call" (that is, retrain my users to perform en-bloc dialing). But this is more training than I am currently doing. My complete user training is done by a single email per user, that is dispatched automatically by a process we put in place 6 years ago.
So the reason to continue it is because it is free, and it would cost money (via employee training time) to change it. What is the reason to NOT continue it? Prior to 988, I was unaware of one. And it still looks like 988 is the only reason.
All anyone can tell me on this list is "because there is no point," "because it is antiquated," etc. - but the proposed alternative would literally cost my organization time and therefore money to accomplish, and provide an arguably worse UX for long-time users. So I am still kinda hoping someone can tell me what would be so great about the changeover, aside from allowing people to call 988 faster. _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On Jul 19, 2022, at 2:23 PM, Hunter Fuller <hf0002+nanog at uah.edu> wrote:
All anyone can tell me on this list is "because there is no point," "because it is antiquated," etc. - but the proposed alternative would literally cost my organization time and therefore money to accomplish, and provide an arguably worse UX for long-time users. So I am still kinda hoping someone can tell me what would be so great about the changeover, aside from allowing people to call 988 faster.
There?s nothing great about the changeover. It sucks. Don?t follow the herd. ? Alex -- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
I think you need to think of it in terms of it being like 911. "Do I want to chance getting sued and possibly put out of business because of that one person who killed themselves after they tried dialing 988 and couldn't get through?" Pick your battles.....but this isn't a good one to pick. MARY LOU CAREY BackUP Telecom Consulting Office: 615-791-9969 Cell: 615-796-1111 On 2022-07-19 04:56 PM, Alex Balashov via VoiceOps wrote:
On Jul 19, 2022, at 2:23 PM, Hunter Fuller <hf0002+nanog at uah.edu> wrote:
All anyone can tell me on this list is "because there is no point," "because it is antiquated," etc. - but the proposed alternative would literally cost my organization time and therefore money to accomplish, and provide an arguably worse UX for long-time users. So I am still kinda hoping someone can tell me what would be so great about the changeover, aside from allowing people to call 988 faster.
There?s nothing great about the changeover. It sucks. Don?t follow the herd.
? Alex
On Jul 19, 2022, at 6:30 PM, Mary Lou Carey via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:
I think you need to think of it in terms of it being like 911. "Do I want to chance getting sued and possibly put out of business because of that one person who killed themselves after they tried dialing 988 and couldn't get through?" Pick your battles.....but this isn't a good one to pick.
In this particular case, I was joking, so I already agree with you. But no, at some point you?re going to spend more of The Organisation?s Precious Money and Time whining about this then just retraining the users or altering their experience somehow? ? Alex -- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
participants (5)
-
abalashov＠evaristesys.com -
caalvarez＠gmail.com -
hf0002+nanog＠uah.edu -
marylou＠backuptelecom.com -
nathana＠fsr.com