Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!hayes.fai.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu) (DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: SIT Tones on an Answering Machine Message-ID: <12582@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 26 Sep 90 05:18:16 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 55 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 677, Message 5 of 9 Hi- After reading Jeff's posting about SIT tones, I am beginning to wonder if they are actually used for anything, as in the case of signalling within the telephone network. The only time that I've noticed this myself is on COCOTs, as John Higdon (sp?) noted earlier. I still haven't managed to get a free call to my answering machine/voicemail, however, as once the COCOT hears the SIT tones it turns off the mouthpiece and the touch tone keypad. More commonly, at least in my area, the COCOTs just don't seem to care, and if you hang on the line for too long (maybe anything greater than 30 seconds) the COCOT will swallow the coin anyhow. (NOT that I make it a point to actually USE the things...!) But there are so many flavors of COCOT that I'm sure just about anything is possible with them. I've noticed that many Telco's (like independents and SNET) don't use the SIT tones at all on their recordings. SNET has even *eliminated* the SIT tones from their AIS (?- correct term) messages. (Isn't AIS what you hear after the SIT, ie, "The number you have reached, 5 5 5 - 1 2 1 2, is not in service. Please check the number, and dial your call again."). For a while, I think Illinois Bell was doing this as well, since I called O'Hare Airport a few times, (312-686 from what I recall), and got the AIS message w/o the SIT tones. Now, however, they seem to have gone back to using the SIT tones on AIS recordings. If the SIT tones have no function with the Telcos, then I don't see why the Telco would object to it being used, as per se, it does not do anything to their equipment. (Compared to leaving 2600Hz or MF tones or something which, assuming the answering machine could duplicate faithfully, may affect signalling equipment, etc. [Hmmm ... would it?]) If the SIT tones DO in fact cause Telco equipment to become "confused" or in some way hinder their operation, then perhaps the Telco would have a right to object. As an aside, Jeff mentioned that service with the Telco may be considered in contractual terms. I've always thought that it was more like "implied consent", ie, by using the service you agree to certain pre-arranged terms, which presumably are set forth by an administrative body, usually the state Public Utilities Commission. ("implied consent" is the same thing that states use to get out-of-state motorists to comply with their driving regulations, such as submission to DWI tests, etc.) I've never had to deal with this aspect of a Telco service "contract", but it is an interesting (albeit admittedly esoteric) question. Anyone ever have to deal with this area of the Telco service "contract"? (I'll summarize if anyone's interested ... and sorry to make this sound like misc.legal! :-) ) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet