Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!hayes.fai.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Cellular Intercept Quiz Message-ID: <9946@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 20 Jul 90 05:54:37 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Lines: 26 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 500, Message 10 of 12 On Jul 19 at 20:26, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: But one thing puzzles me: What's to prevent anyone > or everyone from answering *all* their phone calls that way? In other > words, when you go off hook to answer a call, 'da da dee', then begin > your conversation. What prevents anyone from playing games like this > to provide the essence of a 'toll-free' number to callers? PT] There is nothing to prevent you from doing this, but why bother? Except for COCOTs, I'm unaware of any equipment or carriers that use the SIT for billing determination. Remember, SIT is for telco and carrier trouble auditing purposes. COCOTs use of it for detection of "non-answer supervision" is a hack. If you want to put SIT on your answering machine (as a friend of mine has), the only people who might save money would be COCOT users. Real answer supervision is either DC reversal or out-of-band signaling. You can't mess with that. Also, all this talk about frequencies, etc., is so unnecessary. If you want to generate SIT, just record some off the phone. The frequencies aren't critical and it doesn't even matter if there is a little flutter thrown in for good measure. Enjoy! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !