The Telecom Digest for January 01, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 1 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 00:15:44 -0500
From: Telecom Digest Moderator <redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Happy New Year!
Message-ID: <20110101051544.GA11927@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
Thank you all for your support and help in 2010. I appreciate your
suggestions and kind words more than I can say, and I'm going to
use your advice to improve this publication as much as I can in 2011.
Here are my resolutions for the new year:
1. We'll have more information about VoIP and other non-traditional
technologies.
2. I'll add more to our archives about the networks, technologies, and
management of both the Bell System and of other companies.
3. I'll seek out and publish opinions from industry leaders.
Happy New Year!
Bill
--
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 16:37:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: CNAM for toll-free numbers
Message-ID: <687053.54122.qm@web111711.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
--- On Thu, 12/30/10, Moderator wrote as a Moderator's note:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> While there isn't a "root" LIDB database, the accuracy of the
> existing ones could be dramatically improved by allowing them to
> copy some items from the E911 database. For obvious reasons, the
> E911 database providers pay a lot of attention to getting address
> info correct, and those fields could be combined with information
> from other databases to improve LIDB quality.
>
> For less obvious reasons, the E911 database isn't currently
> available for this purpose. Any sharing plan would have to include
> "Trusted and Neutral Third Party" data escrow to prevent divulging
> the locations of battered women's shelters, etc.
Many customers haved reasons, good or not, for having their names and
numbers not disclosed. The E911 database lists all these because the
emergency responders need to know. The general public does not.
There is a note in most phone books that the E911 PSAP will have all
the informations about you, and if you want it not to be disclosed to
them call the agency on its listed number, not 911.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2011 09:28:33 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: USA broadband isn't broadband per FCC report...
Message-ID: <pan.2010.12.31.22.28.30.94526@myrealbox.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I used to try to explain to people that the RS-232 wiring specs for
> "DCE" and "DTE" were not synonomous with "male" and "female". IBM proved
> me wrong.
>
:-) And I used to have issues trying to get people to understand the
correct way to wire a full null-modem adaptor/cable, rather than the
incorrect method 99% of them used (and was documented....)
> You'll get over it, David: the non-technical public always demands
> acronyms and buzzwords to assign to things they don't, and can't,
> understand.
>
The non-technical public I can forgive Bill, it's the rest of us that do
know the difference yet still give in and accept the bogus definitions
that I have trouble accepting.
I continually have to battle erroneous assumptions and misconceptions from
the non-tech people I deal with in my various technology areas, and while
it can be far easier to let people live with their bad ideas it is
irresponsible (as well as career-threatening to me) if something that I
knew needed attention was ignored just to avoid trying to set them
straight (no matter how tough that can be - for various reasons).
It may be convenient to pander to ignorance in technical matters, but does
it really do anyone (except marketers) much good in the long run?
Bah humbug I say, if us pedants can't keep a little of our domain intact
in an area that demands accuracy for its basic function, where can we
then go? :-)
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 02:36:42 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: CNAM for toll-free numbers
Message-ID: <ifm3vp$r8a$1@news.albasani.net>
Greg Monti <gmonti@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I ran into an issue like this at one of my employer's offices. Our
>outgoing numeric caller ID (not a toll free number) was being
>displayed with four different CNAMs (Calling Names) depending on which
>local phone company the recipient of each call was subscribed to.
>Three of the four names were wrong, and one of the wrong ones was the
>name of a competitor.
>In the process of troubleshooting this issue, we found that:
>- Each local phone company that receives an incoming call from another
> company (whether local or long distance) receives only the 10-digit
> calling number, but no name. The name must be looked up in a Line
> Information Database (LIDB) to which the recipient's phone company
> subscribes.
>- There are on the order of 10 LIDB providers in North America
> including Neustar, TNS, Qwest, Sprint and Verisign. The ones that
> have familiar phone company names are run by corporate divisions
> separate from the named phone company. They all sell LIDB services
> to both related and unrelated phone companies.
There are 10 major sources of potential error? Hideous.
I would be very greatful if would post the list, with contacts, for comment.
>- Unlike the public DNS system used on the internet, there is
> apparently no authoritative "name server" which will always return
> the customer's desired CNAM for a given number and could therefore
> be used to keep all other LIDB's up to date.
Of course there is an authoritative answer. It comes from the database
the network the call originated on contributes records to. Linking this
with our recent discussion of Local Number Portability, this mess is an
example of how things go wrong when information isn't managed neutrally.
Also, there is an economic incentive to supply incorrect information
on incoming calls.
If the called party and the calling party are on two different networks,
there is a charge to the inbound network to dip the database of a foreign
network. To avoid this charge, the inbound network instead dips the
database you described instead. On that database, records don't expire
at times they should, like changing to another network per Local Number
Portability, change of billing name, or disconnect then reconnect at a
new service location with an unrelated subscriber.
The incentive isn't "Supply accurate information," but "Supply something,
anything at all."
Now, one hopes that a telephone company, no matter how many subscribers
it has, is capable of updating its own database with information about
changes in billing name, disconnects, telephone numbers donated to Local
Number Portability, and new connections/numbers received from LNP, even
if foreign networks refuse to pay for the dip. But I know of instances
in which a business's outbound trunks displayed CNAM of individuals
(presumably the subscribers who once had those lines) when calling numbers
belonging to the same telephone company.
But the economic incentives are all wrong. Why should the called party's
network be charged for CNAM? CNAM should be forwarded from the originating
network for all calls as in enhancement to ANI. I think ANI is the correct
model, not DNS.
>- Since we were not the customer who saw the wrong name displayed, we
> had to open a trouble ticket as a non-customer, which means the
> far-end phone company could not verify who we were through an
> account number and had to trust us to give the right CNAM. The
> three companies displaying the wrong name (which were corrected)
> were Cablevision Optimum, Verizon, and Service Electric (cable).
I'm amazed that, as a nonsubscriber, you were even able to open a ticket.
When I went through this with Comcast, the ticket had to be opened under
the account of a Digital Voice subscriber.
Of course, the correct solution to the error is to expire the record,
which forces a new dip the database of the originating record. But these
companies avoid paying for these dips like the plague, even though it's
got to cost them more to perform their own data entry than the fraction
of a cent the dip costs.
>- CNAMs are only displayed by the recipient's landline phone company
> (could be copper, fiber optic, cable TV or internet VoIP provider).
> You can't test for correct CNAM by calling to a cell phone. Cell
> phones use the address book inside the phone to come up with a name
> and don't use LIDB for that purpose.
>I'll bet the same applies when the originating 10-digit number is
>toll-free. You would need to find the names of each affected end-user
>phone company that is displaying the wrong name and have each one fix
>it. Then wait, and test it. You will have no idea if a rural
>independent in western Nebraska is dispalying the wrong name until
>someone there complains to you. Overall, not a stellar system.
Except that toll-free numbers CANNOT originate calls. A toll-free number
either points to a group of inbound trunks or an ordinary phone line, which
gives its own number in ANI. Outbound calls from a call center originate on
outbound trunks with their own ANI.
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>While there isn't a "root" LIDB database, the accuracy of the existing
>ones could be dramatically improved by allowing them to copy some
>items from the E911 database. . . .
"Root" is the database of the originating network, where all such information
should originate from. An E911 database is a third party, and shouldn't be
used as source.
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 02:39:53 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: iPhone rage: boy hit for refusing to switch off on plane
Message-ID: <ifm45p$r8a$2@news.albasani.net>
David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>I'm still waiting for the inevitable puns from this group re the iPhone
>and "battery charges"...
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>Ah, but "Assault and Battery" is different than "Assault with a battery"!
That would be "battery with a battery".
***** Moderator's Note *****
He won't be charged with anything that a high-powered lawyer can't
use to polarize a jury.
Bill "There's a million of 'em" Horne
Moderator
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 21:45:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: USA broadband isn't broadband per FCC report...
Message-ID: <7e32ba64-b23b-4e51-a4b0-f55f40e17158@r29g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 30, 7:09 pm, Wes Leatherock <wleat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Tue, 12/28/10, Neal McLain <nmcl...@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > Fortunately, "cable modem" has largely died out, but, unfortunately,
> > "HSI" hasn't caught on as a replacement. I've heard it called
> > "cable internet" and "cable DSL." I've even heard it called just
> > "DSL" by folks who apparently think "DSL" is a universal term for
> > HSI.
>
> Cox Cable in Oklahoma City (and I presume in other places they serve)
> within the last few months have been advertising a special including
> a "cable modem" for one cent if you buy their high speed internet
> service.
>
> Wes Leatherock
> wleat...@yahoo.com
> wesr...@aol.com
Cox is using the correct terminology: is uses "cable modem" to refer
to the modem itself, not the HSI service.
Neal McLain
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of The Telecom Digest (6 messages)
|
| |
or 