snipped-for-privacy@notchur.biz wrote:
>> The other cool thing about that number is that it is of course the lowest
>> (generally-dialable) phone number in the entire world!
>> Fully qualified, it is +1 201 200 0000....
> In the telephony world 0 is a ten not a null, so wouldn't that be a
> pretty high number?
TELECOM Digest Editor then tried to use his diseased brain-thingy to respond, with the usual predictable results:
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think that all depends; if you are
> dial pulsing the number it is a 'ten'.
True for North American phone systems.
There are other, incompatible, phone systems that use different encodings. One uses two through eleven pulses for the digits, with 'n+1' pulses for 1-9, and eleven pulses for '0'. This greatly reduced false-digit detection from the equivalent of a 'switch-hook flash'. Another (utterly obsolete, to the best of my knowledge) used inverted pulse counts -- '0' was one pulse, and '1' was ten.
if being 'tone dialed' is not known to me. Is it still considered a
> 'ten'. In that case, are the '*' and '#' keys considered eleven and
> twelve when dialed? PAT]
When tone-dialing, first group: 1,2,3,'A' second group: 4,5,6,'B' third group: 7,8,9,'C' fourth group; *,0,#,'D'
So, '0' could be considered a fourteen, with '*' and '#' being a thirteen and fifteen. However, data-processing gear tends to use index values starting with zero; thus '1' would have an index of zero, '4' would have an index of four, '7' would have an index of eight, and '0' would have an index of 13. With '*' and '#' having index values of twelve and fourteen.
Basic tone-decoder chips put out 2 bits for which low-tone was detected, and 2 bits for which high-tone was detected. There is little to no point in 'translating' that nybble of data to any sort of 'display' representation (ASCII, EBCDIC, SIXBIT, FIELDDATA, or 'whatever') when it is being used internally by automation for processing.