Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Message-ID: <5332@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 18 Mar 90 18:53:06 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 34
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 183, Message 6 of 9


Jim Gottlieb writes:

> A lot of these problems stems from the fact that telcos will normally
> refuse to give answer supervision except to real carriers.  I have
> never quite understood why.  What do they have to lose by providing
> it?
 
> But since they will not provide any indication of when a called number
> has answered, most private telephone systems have no choice but to
> establish a time period, after which, they assume the call has been
> answered.
 
The University of Michigan's otherwise inept phone system (medium to
large, phone number range covers around 40,000 #'s, but I don't know
how many are actually in use) has had answer supervision from Michigan
Bell for about a year.  I noticed accidentally when I flashed before a
call was answered and I didn't get a second dial tone.  But I tested
and sure enough, it works.
 
That's good, I guess, from the phone company (UMTel) that didn't
recognize standard touch tones properly for its first three years of
existence.
 
Also, come to think of it, the phone company that for years let anyone
place free, unbilled calls to anywhere in the world from any phone,
including public courtesy phones, by prefacing the call with the
obscure (yeah, right) sequence '15'.
 

                        Miguel Cruz
                 Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu
           [>- Opinions?  Bah. These are FACTS. -<]