Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports
Message-ID: <16070@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 14 Jan 91 05:08:00 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 43
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 39, Message 1 of 9


In article <15963@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write:

>In article <15877@accuvax.nwu.edu>, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve
>Forrette) writes:

>When roaming in a foreign system:

>> Since cellular is provided through DID or some other method whereby
>> the cellular switch appears as the "end office," why can't the
>> supervision be done based on when the call is actually answered?  

>However, according to the postings (and this is quite hazy, so please
>DO correct me here), AT&T installed a new system in their 4ESS(?)
>toll-switches, which didn't allow for the CALLED party (ie, the roam
>port) to hear the calling party (ie, the person entering the touch
>tones) UNTIL supervision was returned.  That is so say, TWO-way
>conversations commenced AFTER supervision, not before, as had been the
>case. You could still hear the party you were calling, but they
>couldn't hear you until their end sent out a supervision "wink" (or
>whatever).  I don't recall any stated outstanding reason for this,
>although a few were presented.

Yes, this makes perfect sense.  So, the big question is, why did AT&T
decide to change this?  There must have been some fraud going on
somewhere, I suppose.  But, as I understand it, a DID customer can get
in big trouble for doing bad things with supervision.  You would think
that it would be easier to go after the few people abusing the system
than to change their toll network.  And I'm sure that this would be
one issue where AT&T would have the full cooperation of the local
telco.

Didn't AT&T think that this new setup may be a problem to someone?
Imagine what would happen if the local telcos did the same thing.
Suddenly, no long distance carrier's calling card services would work,
as they normally don't supervise until the actual call is answered.
Surely, AT&T wouldn't like to have to change THEIR system because of a
local telco change, but it's okay to force the cellular carriers to do
just that.  I'm really surprised that this is coming from AT&T - it
just smacks of something one of the "other guys" would do, doesn't it?


Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu