dave@mars.njit.edu (Dave Michaels cccc) (10/18/90)
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? Why won't (cant?) NJ Bell provide that information to the PBX? Also, is there any way around the fact that since the school is a 'business' with a 'business line' the residents of the residence halls who are on the system must pay for local calls? Do all schools with PBX's have these problems? Thanks, Dave Michaels INTERNET: dave@mars.njit.edu BITNET: dave@orion.BITNET [Moderator's Note: Not all schools have that problem. Just the ones which buy cheap equipment thinking they will save money. PAT]
vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) (10/22/90)
In article <13844@accuvax.nwu.edu> dave@mars.njit.edu (Dave Michaels) writes: >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? >Why won't (cant?) NJ Bell provide that information to the PBX? Also, Answer supervision can be had, probably even by your PBX. But someone would have to engineer it. This shouldn't be too hard; digital trunks configured as TIE lines should do it. Most telco's have in the past been reluctant to provide answer supervision for some reason but today it should'nt be too dificult at all if you're willing to do whatever is required AKA installing T1 if you don't already have it. US West recently announced they would provide answer supervision on analog lines as well. I'm not sure how many PBX's can support this but i know that northern telecom's SL-1/M-1 can as well as mitel's sx line. >is there any way around the fact that since the school is a 'business' >with a 'business line' the residents of the residence halls who are on >the system must pay for local calls? The residents may not be businesses but the telcom administration is. They are running a business of aggregating the use of those resident phones over a service provided to the school. The school however doesn't have to charge the residents for local calls :) >Do all schools with PBX's have these problems? >[Moderator's Note: Not all schools have that problem. Just the ones >which buy cheap equipment thinking they will save money. PAT] I'm sure AT&T's switches can do most of the things an sl-1 can :)
mnc@us.cc.umich.edu (Miguel Cruz) (10/22/90)
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]
goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) (10/22/90)
In article <13844@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dave@mars.njit.edu (Dave Michaels cccc) writes... >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? >Why won't (cant?) NJ Bell provide that information to the PBX? Also, >is there any way around the fact that since the school is a 'business' >with a 'business line' the residents of the residence halls who are on >the system must pay for local calls? >Do all schools with PBX's have these problems? >[Moderator's Note: Not all schools have that problem. Just the ones >which buy cheap equipment thinking they will save money. PAT] No fair, Pat. It's NOT the fault of the PBX! Central offices routinely deny answer supervision to subscribers. It's not impossible for them to provide it, but as a rule, telcos consider answer supervision a private matter. (ISDN, on the other hand, normally provides it, but sometimes will fail when the other end is analog.) 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. Maybe they think it's a benefit of Centrex service, since that does provide accurate billing on message toll calls. (It doesn't pass supervision; it is CO-based, so the CO uses its own knowledge in writing up the bills.) So PBX users suffer. Maybe the FCC will eventually end this little scam but it has lasted so far. Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation?
dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) (10/24/90)
In article <13937@accuvax.nwu.edu>, goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: > >Why won't (cant?) NJ Bell provide that information to the PBX? Also, > >is there any way around the fact that since the school is a 'business' > >with a 'business line' the residents of the residence halls who are on > >the system must pay for local calls? It would be within the tariff to allow the residences to have residential rates, while the rest of the campus pays business rates. It may not be within the capabilities of the PBX to separate the outgoing call traffic into different outgoing trunk groups. NJ Bell even tariffs residence centrex rates, specifically for the college dorm customer. > >Do all schools with PBX's have these problems? > >[Moderator's Note: Not all schools have that problem. Just the ones > >which buy cheap equipment thinking they will save money. PAT] > No fair, Pat. It's NOT the fault of the PBX! It may or may not be the fault of the PBX. The facts are that NJ Bell offers answer supervision, in the form of a loop current reversal, on PBX trunks. The service is tariffed. There is a per-trunk, per-month, charge for this service. Assuming that Definity is able to receive and process this signaling, there is no technical reason why it isn't being used. There may, however, be a business reason. Supervision is charged-for. You'd pay more for the service. The trade-off is between paying more for calls that are chargeable and paying less, but paying it for some calls which should not have been charged. > 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. It's not a question of being nice. It's a question of they offer it under tariff, and the customer decides whether or not to buy it. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857
goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) (10/26/90)
In article <14004@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes... >In article <13937@accuvax.nwu.edu>, goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred >R. Goldstein) writes: >> >is there any way around the fact that since the school is a 'business' >> >with a 'business line' the residents of the residence halls who are on >> >the system must pay for local calls? >It would be within the tariff to allow the residences to have >residential rates, while the rest of the campus pays business rates. >It may not be within the capabilities of the PBX to separate the >outgoing call traffic into different outgoing trunk groups. Now we're getting down to interesting details. Is it within the capabilities of System 75 to separate residential from toll traffic? Can YOUR campus save megabucks? I ran into this several years ago while consulting to a local college which I shall not name, except to say that they did not implement my suggestions for residential service even though they bought the "right" PBX. On some PBXs, the automatic route selection interacts with the toll restriction thusly: Take first choice route, If available, use it; if access restricted, REORDER If first choice not available or access restricted, iterate for second and third choice routes, etc. AT&T's then-extant switches, Dimension and S/85, worked that way. I suspect that S/75 does too (both S/75 and S/85 are now labeled "Definity"). So if you can't use the cheapest trunk you can't use the next-cheapest. Makes sense in a business, right? Now let's look at the way the SL-1 does it. Take first choice route. If available, use it; if not OR access restricted, Iterate for second and third choice routes. Note that classmark restriction doesn't cause reorder, just a continued scan for more choices. IF the first choice group for local calls is a RESIDENTIAL tariff, and if all BUSINESS (non-dorm) lines are restricted from reaching it, then business calls will overflow to the second choice, the business-tariff local lines. That keeps the residential lines uncontaminated. Of course, you can restrict the residential phones from the overflow (business) groups too, to avoid cost, though it's not a tariff requirement. FWIW, the Rolm technique is rather different but ends up working more like the SL-1 than the S/85. And for all I know, AT&T may have fixed this; I did the above research in 1984. Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation?
BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) (10/27/90)
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.
paul@uunet.uu.net (Paul S. Sawyer) (10/30/90)
In article <13886@accuvax.nwu.edu> vances@ltg.UUCP (Vance Shipley) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 752, Message 7 of 10 >Answer supervision can be had, probably even by your PBX. . . . >In article <13844@accuvax.nwu.edu> dave@mars.njit.edu (Dave Michaels) >writes: >>Do all schools with PBX's have these problems? >>[Moderator's Note: Not all schools have that problem. Just the ones >>which buy cheap equipment thinking they will save money. PAT] >I'm sure AT&T's switches can do most of the things an sl-1 can :) Well, Pat, they keep telling us that our System 85 can't do it, but that they would be glad to sell us a 5ESS.... ??? Our short call threshold is 0.9 min. domestic and 1.4 min. foreign, (billing for 1 min. and over and 1.5 min. and over, respectively) so customers get a pretty good free short call benefit. I would much rather have the answer supervision, though. Paul S. Sawyer paul@unhtel.uucp {uunet,attmail}!unhtel!paul UNH CIS - - Telecommunications and Network Services p_sawyer1@unhh.unh.edu Durham, NH 03824-3523 VOX: +1 603 862 3262 FAX: +1 603 862 2030
vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) (11/01/90)
In article <14173@accuvax.nwu.edu> unhd!unhtel!paul@uunet.uu.net (Paul S. Sawyer) writes: >Well, Pat, they keep telling us that our System 85 can't do it, but >that they would be glad to sell us a 5ESS.... ??? Paul, can you provide us with some background? What is you're trunking arrangement? (PRA,T-1,Analog,etc.) What generic is the switch running? vance
paul@uunet.uu.net (Paul S. Sawyer) (11/17/90)
Please forgive the late response, but our news feed has been constipated lately.... B-( I said: > >Well, Pat, they keep telling us that our System 85 can't do it, but > >that they would be glad to sell us a 5ESS.... ??? First of all, keep in mind that I only do the DATA PROCESSING for the system, i.e., get them calls billed, and my memory of what they said (above) is not from a telecom viewpoint ... (My view being that the S85 is a computer, after all, and a computer should be hackable to do what the customer wants.) Our Telecom folk don't read the news. vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) said: > Paul, can you provide us with some background? What is you're > trunking arrangement? (PRA,T-1,Analog,etc.) What generic is the > switch running? We are running System 85 Release 2, Version 3; We have T1 circuits to the current LD carriers of choice (might be ATT, MCI, Sprint, LDN (Long Distance North) at any particular time) But intra-LATA, 800-, 900-, etc., (LEC) is not T1. My main problems in billing non answer-supervised calls are: 1. We set the minimums high (1.0 min for 1+NPA, 1.5 min for 011+), so we miss billing for some completed calls (tho no one complains ;-) 2. This is not long enough for some people; and, it can take more than 1.5 minutes just to get a busy signal from some countries 3. Even if we had an accurate 900 call pricing table, we would need accurate call length info to bill close to what students expect 4. Since DA calls are fixed price and often short, we bill all DA calls of 0.2 minutes or longer, some of which of course are not connected. For years we have explained this to faculty and staff, who squawk but have to put up with it; we are serving students now, who would like to believe that all phone systems work the way their home systems do. Thanks for the interest. Paul S. Sawyer paul@unhtel.uucp {uunet,attmail}!unhtel!paul UNH CIS - - Telecommunications and Network Services p_sawyer1@unhh.unh.edu Durham, NH 03824-3523 VOX: +1 603 862 3262 FAX: +1 603 862 2030