Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!bionet!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: mnc@us.cc.umich.edu (Miguel Cruz)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on PBX
Message-ID: <13887@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 90 01:16:45 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: University of Michigan Computing Center, Ann Arbor
Lines: 29
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 752, Message 8 of 10


In article <13844@accuvax.nwu.edu> dave@mars.njit.edu (Dave Michaels)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 749, Message 5 of 11

>We have an AT&T Definity something orother PBX here on campus.  I
>recently discovered that the CO does not send answer supervision info
>to the PBX. As a result, we pay for calls that ring for more than 30
>seconds if they are answered or not.  Any PBX's not have this problem?

>[Moderator's Note: Not all schools have that problem. Just the ones
>which buy cheap equipment thinking they will save money.   PAT]

Hmmmm .. our school had a 30,000-line DMS for three years before we
got answer supervision on outside calls ... I think there's a little
more to it than just cheapness on the school's part.


Miguel Cruz


[Moderator's Note: In the original message, I unfortunatly neglected
to add the smiley symbol :) at the end of the remarks. I was only
joshing with the original writer. Of all the telecom equipment
manufacturers today, AT&T is probably the best, or one of the best,
and certainly not inexpensive. You have to pay for quality. I guess I
should have phrased it more positively saying that using AT&T
equipment, of all the kinds available, you'd expect something like
call supervision to be standard.  PAT]