Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!hayes.fai.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Jeff Wasilko)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Supervision / Call Forwarding No Answer
Message-ID: <13048@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 4 Oct 90 14:05:00 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 17
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 713, Message 1 of 11


In Volume 10 : Issue 706, John Higdon wrote about switches 'listening'
for an answer rather than using a default timeout.

Here at RIT, we have a System 85. I had always assumed that it handled
call supervision properly. One of the company's tech support
department that I deal with has a policy of letting calls ring, until
they can take it, so that callers don't have to pay to wait on hold.

I spent four or five hours on hold one month, and was really surprised
by the bill when it came (most of the calls were short after they
finally answered. It turns out, the switch uses a 45 second time out.
What a drag.


Jeff Wasilko
RIT Communcations