Re: The 931 exchange

["Joseph Pappalardo" <joepappalardo2001@yahoo.com>]

Is there anything that Garrett doesn't know? ;-)

JP

---- Original Message ----- 
From: "Garrett Wollman" 
 
> The ``choke'' feature was originally introduced by The Bell System in
> the late 1970s, and was originally designed to serve along with the
> 900 SAC for ``mass calling'' features.  This system was only ever used
> once on any significant scale, when then-President Carter did a live
> phone-in program on one of the broadcast networks.  This feature was
> originally implemented because public-safety authorities were
> concerned that such mass-calling events would use up so much capacity
> in the telephone network that emergency calls would not get through.
> 
> In this original use of the 900 SAC, callers from different areas were
> directed to dial different numbers; in Massachusetts, the number was
> 900-931-xxxx.
> 
> When the 900 SAC became (in the immortal words of Mark Cuccia)
> pay-Pay-PAY-per-call, this usage was dropped, and the ``exchange''
> part of the 900 number was used to tell the telephone network how much
> the call should cost.  However, the ``choke'' equipment which had been
> installed in advance of the Carter broadcast was left in place, and
> reconfigured to provide the ``contest line'' services we're familiar
> with today.  In most cases, the same exchange code as was used for
> 900 service became the local choke exchange.
> 
> Nowadays, with electronic switching equipment, it is no longer
> necessary to devote an entire exchange to this purpose; individual
> numbers can be set up with the ``choke'' feature, and switches have
> special processing for emergency calls which will bump other users
> when necessary.  In any case, the tarriffs no longer encourage the use
> of the choke feature (why pay telco to fix something when you could
> not pay them and have telco be forced to fix it anyway?).  That's why
> NEXT uses a number in the 617-423 exchange.  But, if you still have an
> old ``choke'' number, particularly one of long standling like
> 617-931-1234 or 514-790-0231, then it's probably worth the cost of
> maintaining the number to minimize caller confusion.
> 
> -GAWollman
> 


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com