Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Message-ID: <5414@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 21 Mar 90 12:58:20 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA Lines: 52 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 189, Message 1 of 10 In article <5267@accuvax.nwu.edu> X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 179, Message 8 of 12 vances writes: >My question is who is getting answer supervision provided all the way >back to the PBX? I know of several people in different areas of the US >that are. This allows optimal billing back of calls. Most BOC's will not give answer supervsion (aka reverse battery) for any reason. They simply refuse to tarriff it. Most COCOT vendors (the ones that try to be legit, anyway) would kill for answer supervision. Murder, however, is regarded negatively by the BOC's. Many non-Bell telcos will give it, some by tarriff, some not. I got GTE Ohio to give it to me on my ground start PBX trunks by making arrangments with local managment. (I still cannot believe they did it) Ohio Bell says "no tarriff, not available". If you are a governmental agency or other large user, "special arrangement" tarriffs are used to get it. When the connections to the long distance carrier are direct and do not use telco provided switching equipment, answer supervision can be obtained from most long distance carriers upon special arrangment. This usually involves the use of a T1 feed for higher volume users. Note that AT&T does not like to provide answer supervision (seems odd to me) on Megacom. Now: if the telco won't give us answer supervision, why should we have to provide it to the telco by tarriff on DID lines? ;-) In article <5194@accuvax.nwu.edu> X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 175, Message 2 of 9 [ Several discussions of various types of itemized and non-itemized billings deleted to prevent boredom....] Actually GTE Mobilnet may have the whole thing figured out for us: They charge an additional $2.25 per month to render an itemized bill (in the Cleveland-Akron market, at least) for their cellular telephone service. I'm not sure if I agree with this or not ... but at least there is a choice. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem")