(as usual, please obscure my email address - tnx)
snipped-for-privacy@bbs.cpcn.com wrote about Re: Foreign Exchange (FX) Lines Still in Use? on 19 May 2005 12:28:37 -0700
I'm surprised nobody has yet mentioned the IBM internal telephone network.
Isaiah Beard wrote:
>> There is something else too that is going the way of the dodo: tie
>> lines. These were useful for large universities with multiple campuses,
>> as well as businesses with more than one hub operation in distant cities.
> They were fairly common in organizations with more than one location. As
> mentioned, years ago 7c message units could add up to some serious money
> so even a local tie line between plants within a city was cost justified.
> (Our hospital had five tie-line trunks to the independent rehab center > next door.)
In the early days of the IBM phone network, this was the case between multiple PBX locations in a large site (I'm familiar with Poughkeepsie; other sites were probably similar).
There were a multitude of dialling prefixes to go from one local location to another.
Tie lines usually allowed direct dialing in a PBX at another location.
> You dialed a special code (often 8 or 8+) and either merely immediately
> dialed the distant extension or waited for a second dial-tone, then
> dialed the extension. For larger organizations, the tie-line access
> codes could be quite large. For Centrex users, tie lines had their own 3
> digit code different than the outside code to allow direct inward > dialing.
Yes.
Before a unified "dial 8" IBM internal network, there were a multitude of codes for different locations. Some of them were of the "let your fingers find the way" where you dialled a code for one location, and then its code for an associated location.
After the dial 8 network was put in place, you dialed 8 + 3 digits for location + 4 digits extension.
Some tie-lines were relayed from PBX to PBX, you kept dialing the access
> code and tied together a bunch of systems. I don't think that was the
> preferred way, however.
See above - before "dial 8"
Tie-lines usually allowed dialing in both directions between the two
> PBXs. I know one switchboard could connect an outside caller through the
> tie-line to the remote location, but they didn't like to do so as a
> matter of policy. The tie-line jacks on the switchboard were a little
> more complicated -- there was a pair for each line, one jack used for
> answering, one used for calling.
I had a couple of experiences trying to get from an outside call to a remote location, it depended on the whim of the operator. On one occasion, I was able to get a person to agree to call the remote extension and deliver a message.
Julian Thomas: jt atsign jt-mj decimalpoint net
formatting link
In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State! Warpstock 2005: Hershey, Pa. October 6-9, 2005 -
formatting link
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. -Request for Comments: 1925 IOOF
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Stanotel network of Standard Oil Company was really something in that regard, but the biggest I have ever seen -- with a seven digit dial in number from the 'outside world' and absolutely unprotected; no password required -- was the United Airlines phone system,
_Unitel_ based out of the airline's corporate offices in Elk Grove, Illinois. They had eighty or ninety tie lines (all dialed into beginning with '1' followed by two more digits; for example, '147' was the tie line code you would dial to reach the San Francisco airport. Dial 147 (or 176 for Ohare as another example), you then heard another dial tone from the centrex in the distant city. At that point, do what you want, but most of
_those_ centrexes also had tie lines of their own going to still smaller airports. You got USA WATS lines (band 6 as I recall) by dialing 181 off of the Elk Grove system. One of the tie lines served the airport in Seattle, WA, but then from that distant centrex there was another three digit code which got you the centrex at Boeing Aircraft, mainly because Boeing was/is a big supplier to United Airlines. Another three digit tie-line code off of the Seattle airport centrex (reached from Elk Grove if I recall correctly with '124') got you
_their_ WATS lines from Seattle, still another code (from the Seattle centrex) got you access to Canadian WATS. If you let your fingers do the walking, you discovered all sorts of very interesting three digit (or less) tie-codes and/or outside lines through those distant centrexes, all directly dialable with their own tie-codes out of Elk Grove.
This was back in the days when everything in northern Illinois was
312, and subscribers could have an 'unlimited call pak' as they were known for about $25 per month. All reachable and unpassworded on 312-954-xxxx (a call-extender for the use of people working from home rather than the UAL office complex.) The United Airlines 'Unitel' system was a
_m a s s i v e_ thing. One of the tie lines even went to the United States Department of Aviation Administration, but when you got to
_that_ switchboard you could not get the '9' level or any of its tie-lines or WATS lines, etc. But you sure could get out to other points from most of the connecting switchboards/centrexes, etc. PAT]