TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Caution: Unidentified Callers Ahead

Re: Caution: Unidentified Callers Ahead

Thor Lancelot Simon (
Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:08:30 +0000 (UTC)

In article <>,
Rick Merrill <> wrote:

> I suspect from the way current VoIP calls are structured that it would be
> (a) very easy to spoof the number,
> (b) impossible to enforce upon overseas numbers and
> (c) too easy to make the number unavailable in the first place. Heck,
> even the doctor's office number is "unavailble".

This is all false. Why do we have this same discussion over and over
again every few months?

Networks should not mark calling party identification received from
customers as "network provided" in the resulting ISUP Initial Address
Message. In cases in which the customer-provided number cannot be
directly verified to be billed to the party originating the call, it
should be *replaced* in the IAM with the Billing Telephone Number for
the originating party, which is a _required_ component of the IAM.

The FCC could require this at the drop of a hat, and it could be
complied with -- imperfectly at first, much better very quickly --
with the flick of a switch.

Network operators should be required to disconnect customers who feed
bogus customer-provided numbers. Certainly any network providing
customer-provided numbers and claiming them to be network-provided
should be disconnected by all of their peers.

Thor Lancelot Simon

"We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral
aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others." - H.L.A. Hart

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Clark W. Griswold, Jr.: "Re: Navy Probes Data Leak on 100,000 Sailors, Marines"
Go to Previous message: DevilsPGD: "Re: Caller ID Scammers Plan to do a Number on You"
May be in reply to: Monty Solomon: "Caution: Unidentified Callers Ahead"
Next in thread: Rick Merrill: "Re: Caution: Unidentified Callers Ahead"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page