Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!husc6!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!texsun!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: westmark!dave@rutgers.edu (Dave Levenson) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Audible Ringback vs. Ring Plant Message-ID: Date: 5 Aug 89 22:48:18 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA Lines: 47 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 277, message 8 of 11 In article , goldstein@delni.dec.com writes: ...commentary describing ROLM auto-park where incoming calls to busy stations get put on hold without answer supervision while queued... > This is legal because PBXs are allowed to provide audible signaling to a > DID caller without returning supervision; supervision is required only > when a two-way path is opened. It should, however, be obvious that PBX > manufacturers affiliated with long distance carriers (be they AT&T or > Bell Canada) would not be particularly anxious to implement this > feature! > > It's one of the widest loopholes in the supervision rules. Kudos to > Rolm for taking advantage of it. (It's been around for over a decade.) > Of course, not many end-users even know about it. Like many Rolm > features, it's a bit hard to explain. The trouble with this arrangement, if implemented and used by vast numbers of telephone users all over the network, is that I might call you and get autoparked because you are busy -- perhaps calling me, and being autoparked because I'm busy...etc. Or perhaps we're not calling each other, but we're each calling someone else who is calling someone else... The problem is that after a while, the network is blocked with non-revenue calls autoparked at the destination, and no new calls get through. Hopefully, someone somewhere will give up, abandon their outgoing call, and start to break up the logjam. The right solution to the waiting-for-busy problem is network-implemented automatic call back. That probably won't happen while the "network" is a disjoint set of networks owned by different carriers. Who pays for all of this "non-revenue" use of the networks? You guessed it! I suggest that the rules for supervision not permit this sort of thing. In the long run, it will only be destructive to the blocking probability or network usage cost. If ROLM wanted to be like other premises switching systems, they'd offer ACD, instead. -- Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave