|
|
| A "Shocking" Lawsuit (1393422) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
| (1393422) | |
A "Shocking" Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Apr 25 07:20:21 2016 Plaintiff was serious drunk, climbed atop Amtrak train laying up in the yard, was severely burned when he touched the energized catenary. He's suing Amtrak and the MBTA for damages, contending it's their fault.Whiskey Tango Foxtrot????? |
|
|
| (1393428) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by milantram on Mon Apr 25 07:52:29 2016, in response to A "Shocking" Lawsuit, posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Apr 25 07:20:21 2016. The architecture for stupid behavior knows no bounds... |
|
|
| (1393429) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Apr 25 08:14:32 2016, in response to A "Shocking" Lawsuit, posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Apr 25 07:20:21 2016. Some lawyer doesn't have enough work to keep himself busy, so he's willing to take this on a contingency basis. Maybe he can get a 50K settlement and get 20K for himself. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1393430) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Apr 25 08:17:15 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by milantram on Mon Apr 25 07:52:29 2016. ...even among stupid architects! |
|
|
| (1393431) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Apr 25 08:20:15 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by AlM on Mon Apr 25 08:14:32 2016. I'm surprised the fool didn't also sue the bar or restaurant that allowed him to get so wasted in the first place...not sure if Massachusetts has a "Dram Shop Law" like New York, but still...You're right about his lawyer though...that counselor is probably looking for a quick payday. Apparently he didn't get the memo about (drunken) stupidity around trains... |
|
|
| (1393433) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Apr 25 08:22:25 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Apr 25 08:20:15 2016. There's no downside for an underemployed lawyer, as long as he doesn't violate any state rules on lawyer conduct. If he loses completely, he still gets some publicity. |
|
|
| (1393436) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Apr 25 08:35:56 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by AlM on Mon Apr 25 08:22:25 2016. Very true! |
|
|
| (1393440) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by GIS Man on Mon Apr 25 08:53:19 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by AlM on Mon Apr 25 08:14:32 2016. Too many of these goddamn lawyers hanging around. That's why thousands of people are held up every time some jerk gets drunk and rides the subway and falls down.Bob |
|
|
| (1393442) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Apr 25 09:08:44 2016, in response to A "Shocking" Lawsuit, posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Apr 25 07:20:21 2016. A property owner has the obligation to keep his property safe for visitors. This obligation extends to trespassers and even burglars. It's not a recent court ruling.I read about a would-be burglar who tripped in a hole, broke his leg and sued the property owner. This case was in the late 19th century. The plaintiff won. Amtrak and the MBTA's negligence should be difficult to prove, if they took reasonable precautions to prevent such an occurrence. OTOH, if gates leading to the train were open, there were a ladder beside the train and no personnel on site to stop the plaintiff, then the question of negligence is less moot. |
|
|
| (1393443) | |
A "Shocking" Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Apr 25 09:25:09 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Apr 25 09:08:44 2016. I'm wondering if the fact that catenary wire is not easily or normally accessible to people who aren't employees, drunk or otherwise, might be a factor in Amtrak's defense. Whether barriers such as fences or gates were in place at the yard's entrances, OTOH, will certainly be at issue here. But, as countless incidents involving heavy machinery such as Amtrak trains have shown, drunkenness and stupidity can, and does, overcome even the most creative engineering or administrative controls. |
|
|
| (1393444) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Apr 25 09:25:57 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Apr 25 09:08:44 2016. I read about a would-be burglar who tripped in a hole, broke his leg and sued the property owner. This case was in the late 19th century. The plaintiff won.Which case was this? Case law and common sense say otherwise. |
|
|
| (1393445) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Apr 25 09:30:31 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by AlM on Mon Apr 25 08:14:32 2016. Some lawyer doesn't have enough work to keep himself busy, so he's willing to take this on a contingency basis. Maybe he can get a 50K settlement and get 20K for himself.The article doesn't say anything about the plaintiff's arrangement with his lawyer. That said, lawyers are generally unwilling to take hopeless cases on contingency since, you know, they won't actually get paid for them. As such, there are two likely possibilities: (1) The plaintiff is paying hourly rate to his lawyers who are happy to represent him because they get paid even when they inevitably lose, or (2) There are some details to this case that didn't make it into the article. It would hardly be the first time a legitimate claim was made to look frivolous by omitting some key piece of evidence from the news stories about it. |
|
|
| (1393446) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Apr 25 09:36:25 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by Nilet on Mon Apr 25 09:30:31 2016. I am hard pressed to imagine a reasonable set of circumstances wherein an extremely inebriated individual would find his way into such close proximity to an energized catenary wire, so that he could complete a circuit with his body by touching it. |
|
|
| (1393447) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by GIS Man on Mon Apr 25 09:39:55 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Apr 25 09:08:44 2016. That's another thing that's wrong with this country. A burglar has rights to sue for injuries.Bob |
|
|
| (1393451) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Apr 25 09:45:04 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Apr 25 09:36:25 2016. The article mentioned Federal Court, not Mass State Court, I do not know if the concept of "Attractive Nuisance" applies there. It does in may states. Is it dumb to get drunk and drown in your neighbor's swimming pool? Most of would say yes, but many jurisdictions require fences or covers to keep little kids from drowning, and if you didn't have one, or if the gate was unlocked you could be liable (in many states)even though the victim was not a child, because if you had taken the required precautions it might not have happened. |
|
|
| (1393456) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by TransitChuckG on Mon Apr 25 10:28:36 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by GIS Man on Mon Apr 25 09:39:55 2016. BS to the highest degree. |
|
|
| (1393466) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Apr 25 12:16:03 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by Nilet on Mon Apr 25 09:30:31 2016. Actually there is precedent for this case. In 1976 during the Bicentennial follies a family allowed one of the children to climb to the roof ofa boxcar for a better view (some exPRR yard in DC) the kid decided to grab the catenary for stability; Conrail ended uppaying $6million to the negligent idiots. IINM affirmed by SCOTUS. |
|
|
| (1393470) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Apr 25 13:00:46 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Apr 25 12:16:03 2016. Actually, it was 7/4/78 behind the Air and Space Museum. Conrail settled the case for around 6 million. Unlikely to have gone to SCOTUS since it was a settlement, not a trial verdict. That does not change my opinion of the level of stupidity of adults who would let their child walk onto tracks and climb on a railcar. Kid was 13 at the time. Problem for Conrail was that they didn't follow their own practice of cutting power in spots like this, and there were records of requests from Conrail Police to shut the power at this location. It makes the we shouldn't have anticipated this and thereby couldn't have done anything reasonable to stop it defense a hell of a lot harder. |
|
|
| (1393478) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Mon Apr 25 13:36:16 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by pragmatist on Mon Apr 25 09:45:04 2016. I don't know what the law is in MA but the lawyer may be using the legal doctrine of "strict liability" for something inherently dangerous. The Attractive Nuisance doctrine applies to children, not adults. |
|
|
| (1393482) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Mon Apr 25 13:57:38 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Apr 25 09:08:44 2016. Yet barbed wire fences, even razor wire, are allowed as methods to stop trespassers. These are obviously intended to cause injury to people attempting to enter illegally. Isn't that inconsistent with the decisions you cite? |
|
|
| (1393487) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Apr 25 15:08:40 2016, in response to A "Shocking" Lawsuit, posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Apr 25 07:20:21 2016. One good reason to go with 12kv...or DC, which everyone knows is safer. |
|
|
| (1393498) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Apr 25 16:43:36 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by Dave on Mon Apr 25 13:36:16 2016. The Amtrak part is being heard in Federal court, not sure exactly how that will play out. I mentioned the attractive nuisance which is generally for children, because some areas have requirements to make those situations safer, if you fail to do that, then strict liability can attach with adults or children. |
|
|
| (1393500) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Mon Apr 25 16:47:24 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by pragmatist on Mon Apr 25 16:43:36 2016. Even though the case is being held in Federal court unless a federal law or FRA regulation has allegedly been broken, the court will apply MA law. |
|
|
| (1393502) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Apr 25 17:01:33 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by Dave on Mon Apr 25 16:47:24 2016. I don't know MA at all, and this does not rise to the "make a phone call to a buddy in MA" level. Have to see how it plays out. If it doesn't settle maybe I'll stroll on down to Cadman Plaza and watch. |
|
|
| (1393505) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Mon Apr 25 17:33:30 2016, in response to A "Shocking" Lawsuit, posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Apr 25 07:20:21 2016. It has long been a staple of jurisprudence that a property owner is obligated to protect the public from their own stupidity. Indeed, that obligation even extends to trespassers. If I break into your home and trip over an errant ottoman or skateboard and break a bone, I can sue you for negligence. |
|
|
| (1393507) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Apr 25 17:42:45 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by Mitch45 on Mon Apr 25 17:33:30 2016. I understand, but this seems to be a case of extreme, deliberate stupidity. Catenary wires are not easily reachable by ordinary members of the public. This individual had to go far out of his way to be burnt by one. I'm just saying... |
|
|
| (1393508) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by nasadowsk on Mon Apr 25 17:45:06 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Apr 25 15:08:40 2016. One of the EEs at NJT who had been around a long time, said that the old 3kv system was actually almost as bad as the current 25kv (really 27.6kv on the Hoboken side) system is.Realistically, you don't want to get tangled up in anything over 240 volts (480 hurts like a bitch, I hear). Low frequency systems are said to be even more dangerous because they can screw up your heartbeat, which 50/60hz isn't as prone to doing. At least the phone company claimed so (ringing frequency is around 250z in the US, Europe uses 25Hz. Go figute) |
|
|
| (1393514) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Apr 25 17:51:34 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by nasadowsk on Mon Apr 25 17:45:06 2016. Actually, if you're referring to the 95 volt bell voltage, it's actually delivered by an interrupter at 15 Hz. Always has. |
|
|
| (1393516) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Apr 25 17:56:17 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by nasadowsk on Mon Apr 25 17:45:06 2016. Telco ringing is typically 20 hz. |
|
|
| (1393523) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Apr 25 18:35:34 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by nasadowsk on Mon Apr 25 17:45:06 2016. Any electric shock over house current can mess with your heart's natural rhythm. Electricity can "freeze" your nervous system, too, rendering you paralyzed for the duration of the shock received.At extremely high voltage, like that in the NEC catenary system, an arc can be four times hotter than the sun, in addition to all that juice frying your body. That can ruin your day. |
|
|
| (1393524) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Apr 25 18:41:07 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Apr 25 09:08:44 2016. The plaintiff will win. Precedent was set 20 years ago when a brat climbed atop the Princeton Dinky, got electrocuted, paralyzed, lived, and collected $7 Million. |
|
|
| (1393525) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Apr 25 18:52:25 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by pragmatist on Mon Apr 25 13:00:46 2016. thanks for the correction. memos notwithstanding,the parents should have been prosecuted for child endangerment. |
|
|
| (1393529) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Apr 25 19:04:07 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by Joe V on Mon Apr 25 18:41:07 2016. I wonder. The train in this case was laying up in a yard, an area off-limits to the general public. The Dinky, OTOH, stays overnight at the station on campus, IINM. |
|
|
| (1393530) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Apr 25 19:07:52 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Apr 25 19:04:07 2016. Actually, it stays at Princeton Jct, and not at the platform. |
|
|
| (1393532) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Apr 25 19:19:42 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Apr 25 18:52:25 2016. Unfortunately, people get hurt by electricity in so many ways- very often a small shock causes someone to fall off a ladder which can result in very serious injuries or death. You can get a very high voltage shock from a spark plug wire, but only a tiny amount of current. Sure can put you on your butt in a hurry. Greatest danger to the heart is when the electricity takes a path across the chest (like from arm to arm) but a high current shock can cook you alive. I've worked with people who took lockout tagout, OSHA Safety, NFPA-70E Arc Flash Training and although they are well trained, complacency sets in and they sadly make bad mistakes. |
|
|
| (1393533) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by nasadowsk on Mon Apr 25 19:20:38 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by pragmatist on Mon Apr 25 17:56:17 2016. Yeah, I slipped and wrote 250. Heh, that'd be a FAST ringing bell :) |
|
|
| (1393536) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Mon Apr 25 19:35:22 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by Mitch45 on Mon Apr 25 17:33:30 2016. It may be a long established principle, but it's a principle that needs to be changed. This may have been fine for English common law in 1727, it's fundamentally wrong for the USA in 2016. |
|
|
| (1393538) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Mon Apr 25 19:41:35 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by nasadowsk on Mon Apr 25 17:45:06 2016. You can easily get killed with 120v, if you are well grounded. With a ground on one side of you and the potential on the other it is more likely.e.g.: Fixin' somthin in the crawl space under a house with no basement. Power was not cut off. Mr Fixit was found, but could not himself be fixed. |
|
|
| (1393539) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Apr 25 19:45:10 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by nasadowsk on Mon Apr 25 19:20:38 2016. Well, there were some lower and higher frequency combinations used (based on multiples of 16 2/3)used in multiple subscriber party line ringing, but I never worked on that. Also some PBX systems had 30 hz ringing, but that is still pretty slow. |
|
|
| (1393541) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Apr 25 19:55:36 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Apr 25 17:51:34 2016. Only on key equipment like 1A2. If it is a single line straight from a CO or PBX it would be AC superimposed over the DC, not on separate ring leads. |
|
|
| (1393544) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Apr 25 20:06:17 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by Joe V on Mon Apr 25 19:07:52 2016. OK, so your plaintiff had to walk along the tracks to find the car, then climb up on its roof to be shocked at the catenary. Still deliberate stupidity, even if he did win his case... |
|
|
| (1393546) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by nasadowsk on Mon Apr 25 20:29:57 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by pragmatist on Mon Apr 25 19:45:10 2016. When I got into college, the place had a Rolm PBX for the campus (two, actually). I remember the first time I used it, I thought something was wrong because the dial tone was so weird. Actually, everything was weird about that system. If you didn't dial fast enough, it'd beep funny at you. Under the right conditions, if you hung up, it'd call you back just to beep at you.Shit was weird, man. ;) A friend of mine works at a water company with a LOT of leased lines. He says nobody at Verizon seems to know how to maintain them anymore, and that they're a HUGE headache. |
|
|
| (1393548) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Apr 25 20:44:58 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by nasadowsk on Mon Apr 25 20:29:57 2016. If it was on a Rolm phone it was digitally derived sound, nat conventional dial tone, if it was a conventional phone it got dial tone from the Rolm in the regular manner, even if it sounded funny. If I remember, the standard dial tone is an amalgam of a 350 + 450 hz tone. Funny thing about dial tone is that on most plain telephone circuits, it is not really necessary, but having it there lets the subscriber know that the line circuit in the CO or PBX has seen the off hook condition and is ready to receive dialed digits. If you delay dialing, it releases the tone receivers/registers/or digital decoder, since they are a shared resource, after a pre programmed period of time. It gives you the alert tone the same way Telco would give you a recorded "there appears to be a receiver off the hook, if you'd like to make call, please hang up and dial again" The other phenomena, the call back/tone is usually the result of what is essentially an uncompleted unsupervised transfer. Or so the switch thought. |
|
|
| (1393574) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Apr 25 23:24:33 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by pragmatist on Mon Apr 25 19:55:36 2016. 1A2's ... talk about your blasts from the past! I did some time in CWA 1101, home of Ricky Carnivale. AT&T Long Lines, reporting for duty - where the 66 blocks at? :)And yep, even on PBX, it was superimposed on the pair as well. Only time you picked up only tip or ring plus ground was on party lines and other selective ring pairs. Good to see there's still some other Bell heads around, probably even remember consulting BSP 400 here and there for giggles. |
|
|
| (1393576) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Mon Apr 25 23:37:48 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by AlM on Mon Apr 25 08:14:32 2016. Or maybe some room-termperature-IQ jurors will award the plaintiff millions of dollars. |
|
|
| (1393577) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Apr 25 23:42:57 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by pragmatist on Mon Apr 25 19:19:42 2016. when in doubt when working "hot" stop!. Review what is to be done and how to do it safely. from the 40 some year electrician. |
|
|
| (1393580) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 26 00:12:00 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Apr 25 09:08:44 2016. That is incorrect. |
|
|
| (1393581) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 26 00:14:06 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by Mitch45 on Mon Apr 25 17:33:30 2016. LOL! No, you can't. |
|
|
| (1393582) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 26 00:14:22 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 26 00:14:06 2016. Actually, you can. You just won't win. |
|
|
| (1393589) | |
Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Tue Apr 26 06:15:31 2016, in response to Re: A ''Shocking'' Lawsuit, posted by pragmatist on Mon Apr 25 20:44:58 2016. Back in the 1950s and early '60s, dial tone was a steady buzzing sound. In the mid '60s, it was changed to the sound that you hear now. I think this was due to the change from mechanical switching equipment to electronic (ESS) systems, but at the time I was quite mystified as to why something as long-established as the sound of a dial tone would suddenly be changed. I don't think the telephone company sent out any information about why the sound of the dial tone was changing (but then again, I was a kid and didn't get to read the phone bill), it just suddenly changed one day. Someone suggested to me that the new dial tone meant that the equipment would recognize touch-tone dialing, but I don't think that's quite true; for a number of years, you had to pay extra for a line that accepted touch tones, but you got the new-style dial tone regardless. I guess it did indicate a line that could be programmed (by the telco) to accept touch tones, but not necessarily one that actually did. Is this right? |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
