Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!world!decwrl!wuarchive!uwm.edu!umich!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com (Barton F. Bruce)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on PBX
Message-ID: <14088@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 27 Oct 90 03:26:55 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.
Lines: 24
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 770, Message 1 of 10


In article <13937@accuvax.nwu.edu>, goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred
R. Goldstein) writes:

> If NJBell wanted to be nice about it, they'd provide answer
> supervision, but I haven't met a Bell yet who was routinely nice about
> it. ... So PBX users suffer.  Maybe the FCC will
> eventually end this little scam but it has lasted so far.  

Everyone writing to their DPUs requesting they allow alternate local
telcos should also emphasize that any such should be required to
provide answer supervision.

Any IXC will give you answer supervision these days, and I would have
thought that ANY school of even modest size has enough traffic to
justify at least a T1 to some IXC's POP. The feature group D trunks at
the far end of most calls give them the supervision from the
completing IEC. Of course calls to some few locations WON't return
normal answer supervision, so some sort of timer may have to be used,
too.

When you so bypass the IEC for LD traffic, be sure to let them know
that their LACK of answer supervision was an additional incentive to
NOT go through their switch.