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

Re: Caution: Unidentified Callers Ahead

Rick Merrill (rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com)
Sat, 15 Jul 2006 10:05:52 -0400

Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:

> In article <telecom25.261.8@telecom-digest.org>,
> Rick Merrill <rick0.merrill@NOSPAMgmail.com> 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?

Well, you don't say where you think you got your information. I got mine
from the United States Postal Inspectors as far as #1 goes. #2 is only
partially true, I admit: in some cases the inspectors are able to
extradite the perps, e.g. from Canada. #3 is my personal observation.
So I conclude that your knowledge of the above is faulty and your
statement doubious.

I do, however, agree with the following ...

> 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.

You exagerate: it would require some 30 small steps to comply AND it
would cost $.

> 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.

With voice over IP there is no "connection" in the classic sense;
therefore it is very difficult to determine if a number is a relay or
not, i.e. if it is "bogus".

> Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com

> "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

I expect you to live up to your byline ;-)

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Robert Bonomi: "Re: Caution: Unidentified Callers Ahead"
Go to Previous message: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com: "Re: Pre A/C Central Office Ventilation?"
May be in reply to: Monty Solomon: "Caution: Unidentified Callers Ahead"
Next in thread: Robert Bonomi: "Re: Caution: Unidentified Callers Ahead"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page