The reason she rang the payphone back was to try to collect the money for the operated assisted call.
No.
The reason she rang the payphone back was to try to collect the money for the operated assisted call.
No.
The operator was listening to the call and rang back the phone at the phone booth to lock up the cross-bar telephone switch on the position until a central office tech could come in and do the trace to the frame. The line records would indicate the physical termination of the phone line right out from the switch relay contacts.
The reason she rang the payphone back was to try to collect the money for the operated assisted call.
No.
The operator was listening to the call and rang back the phone at the phone booth to lock up the cross-bar telephone switch on the position until a central office tech could come in and do the trace to the frame. The line records would indicate the physical termination of the phone line right out from the switch relay contacts.
OK, but I have to point out that in your other post you said she rang it back to collect money due.
OK, but I have to point out that in your other post you said she rang it back to collect money due.
Give him a minute so he can change it yet again.
No.
The operator was listening to the call and rang back the phone at the phone booth to lock up the cross-bar telephone switch on the position until a central office tech could come in and do the trace to the frame. The line records would indicate the physical termination of the phone line right out from the switch relay contacts.
OK, but I have to point out that in your other post you said she rang it back to collect money due.
No, you people totally misunderstand. I am pointing out the only reasons an operator would ring back a telephone. Now that Tom clarified the reason for the operator putting the call through to the police.Please try to follow. That is why so many people are confused. They really don’t know how things worked years ago.You are too young to know that they called to the payphone because they used to give curtesy to the customer and trust them to put in the extra money they owed. Thats how it was. Now everybody is a snake and the phone company knows it too.
You guys are not cutting the mustard here.
The suggestion by Tom (and others) is that the operator had a call from Zodiac that was odd enough to arouse enough suspicions to initiate a trace and long enough to accomplish it within 7 minutes of the call ending.
This fails on two accounts:
1. PT&T could not unilaterally trace a call – only upon request from law enforcement.
2. Typical call tracing took anywhere from 15 minutes to 30 minutes. So that would require the operator to engage in an extremely lengthy conversation (15 minutes +)
It is far more likely that the operator knew what number Zodiac was calling from because he told her.
“Murder will out, this my conclusion.”
– Geoffrey Chaucer
they called to the payphone because they used to give curtesy to the customer and trust them to put in the extra money they owed. Thats how it was.
That’s not how it worked.
It is far more likely that the operator knew what number Zodiac was calling from because he told her.
The operator could ring a particular phone without knowing the number.
It is far more likely that the operator knew what number Zodiac was calling from because he told her.
The operator could ring a particular phone without knowing the number.
Yes, I know. I’m not talking about the ringback. I’m talking about the trace. It was SOP for operators to ask for a caller’s number during emergency calls in case of disconnection.
My hypothesis is that upon receiving the call from Zodaic, the PT&T operator asked for the nature of his emergency and the number he was calling from. He supplied both of them to her. With the number he called from already in hand, it would have been possible to locate the pay phone within minutes after he hung up with Slover.
“Murder will out, this my conclusion.”
– Geoffrey Chaucer
That makes sense.
It is far more likely that the operator knew what number Zodiac was calling from because he told her.
The operator could ring a particular phone without knowing the number.
Yes, I know. I’m not talking about the ringback. I’m talking about the trace. It was SOP for operators to ask for a caller’s number during emergency calls in case of disconnection.
My hypothesis is that upon receiving the call from Zodaic, the PT&T operator asked for the nature of his emergency and the number he was calling from. He supplied both of them to her. With the number he called from already in hand, it would have been possible to locate the pay phone within minutes after he hung up with Slover.
As long as the line wasn’t in use, they could just ring it back. No need to ask for the number. Also there was no need for the PT&T operator to know the nature of the emergency.
You are too young
No, I’m not, I’m an old fart. I’m well versed in the way of pay phones. Operators would never continue or complete a call until you deposited the required amount. The only way you could avoid that would be to call collect but this is not a long distance call we are talking about.
The standard procedure for PT&T operators prior to the 911 system when they received emergency calls was to ask for the nature of the emergency and the number they were calling from.
Standard procedure for Vallejo police dispatchers, not for PT&T operators.
You are too young
No, I’m not, I’m an old fart. I’m well versed in the way of pay phones. Operators would never continue or complete a call until you deposited the required amount. The only way you could avoid that would be to call collect but this is not a long distance call we are talking about.
DACS ( digital access cross connect system) does the job of the long distance operators. They used cords to connect you for toll calls but now the computerized machines do that. It put many people out of work too.
