[VoiceOps] [External] Re: 9-8-8 dialing when an outside line access code (9) is being used

[Carlos Alvarez]

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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20220718/cb4f60ef/attachment-0001.htm>