|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 146 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Feature Groups A, B, C, and D
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Payphones Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: Payphones Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI in real time
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
"recall" for some "Jitterbug" cell phones
Demonstration electromechanical switch
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI in real time (was: FTC builds case against telemarketers)
====== 27 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: Fri, 29 May 2009 09:25:30 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein.SeeSigSpambait@wn2.wn.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Feature Groups A, B, C, and D
Message-ID: <20090529132347.0E38148073@mailout.easydns.com>
Okay, let me clarify the terminology.
The Feature Groups were the four basic types of IXC trunking
arrangement created by the FCC's MTS/WATS decision of 1981, as
adapted for divestiture. The purpose was to implement Equal Access
and to let the LECs bill non-AT&T toll providers at a rate comparable
to what AT&T paid under the earlier (separations & settlements) regime.
The broader term is "switched access". These tariffs exist for both
interstate and intrastate usage, with the latter usually more
costly. So yes, it costs more (at least at wholesale) to call from
St. Louis to El Dorado Springs, Missouri than to call from St. Louis
to Shanghai, China.
Feature Group A refers to a line side connection to a switch, when
used for switched access. The 1987 "modem tax" canard was based on
an FCC proposal to treat calls to ESPs (predecessors of ISPs) as
FGA. Some ILECs still want to do this. Nowadays most FGA is ISDN
PRI, not analog, but the tariff treatment is FGA. Many billing
disputes center over whether a given call should be treated as
"local" or "FGA".
Feature Group B is a trunk-side connection accessed via
950-xxxx. This doesn't see much use nowadays but was useful before
equal access was finished in the 1980s.
Feature Group C refers to the pre-divestiture arrangements AT&T
had. This was phased out when Equal Access was implemented and AT&T
became FGD.
Feature Group D is the standard method of IXC trunking, supporting
equal access (101+xxxx and presubscription). Originally designed
with inband (MF) tones which indeed did send ANI, it is now almost
always done with Signaling System 7. While FGD is technically a
tariff used for IXC trunks, similar basic technical arrangements
(SS7) are used for end office trunks as well, both to the ILEC who
owns the Access Tandem (where most FGD trunks go) and on the "meet
point" trunks to other local carriers (CLEC and wireless) who subtend
the access tandem.
From my experience, the "calling party number" (CPN) delivered to
the destination switch carries the ANI and the caller ID when the two
are the same. When the caller ID differs from the ANI, the CPN
carries the Caller ID and the ANI is put in a separate information
element. Caller ID is *not* a billing number, and the calling party
does have the ability to block it (*67), or set it to a value of its
choice on some kinds of arrangement (like PRI). This is not
fraudulent. CID is like the "from" field of email, what you call
yourself, not authoritative. ANI cannot be blocked or changed by the
caller, is authoritative, but not usually sent to the called party,
unless the called party is an 800 number (in which case they own the billing).
--
Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 21:15:14 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <gvmut2$2a5$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <de0e98d1-5cb2-4eb2-a1bb-3c1a681c7354@u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>On May 28, 12:12 am, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
>wrote:
>> There are many _legitimate_ reasons for businesses to send 'caller ID'
>> info that is different from the actual line ID that the call is being
>> placed from.
>Could you elaborate on those reasons?
Sure. You'll hear all about the Abused Women's Shelters stuff, but
that's window dressing.
A more valid real world situation is that a hospital, say,
would set up their system so that the calls from pretty
much anywhere in their facility,whether the admissions office
or the fourth floor nursing station, or, for that matter,
a patient's room... would all display the main number.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
***** Moderator's Note *****
The problem with CLID from shelters for abused women is that their
abusers are sometimes policemen or other public-sector employees who
can get access to the restricted directories that show "non-published"
numbers and the associated addresses. This is the same problem faced
by operating company brass during strikes.
Of course, cell phones might seem an obvious solution, but shelters
are always run on very tight budgets, and can seldom afford to conduct
business by cell phone: they have to help their refugees contact a
wide variety of social-service agencies, doctors, lawyers, and, of
course, friends and coworkers. Cell charges add up fast, so cellular
phones are limited to unregistered units that can be used for 911 calls.
As with top executives of the ILEC's, the issue is addressed by
falsifying the address of the shelter in company records. Shelter
employees are trained to recite a script if they have to call 911,
which explains that they are calling from "a neighbor's house" and
stresses the need to repeat the actual address several times. Although
this change is usually accomplished through the sympathies of a
cooperative woman in the immediate area and a carefully buried stretch
of JK, there have been times when sympathetic telephone company
employees were prevailed upon to "miswire" the drop or to
"accidentally" connect the local pair to an internal line which could
be used without charge.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 20:34:46 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <bb9.44408922.375087a6@aol.com>
In a message dated 5/28/2009 3:03:29 PM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> Now that pay phones are rare and calls are cheap, many businesses
> will let a stranger make a quick local call as a courtesy. Many
> people will lend their cell phone to stranger, say at a train
> station, to make a quick call. This sort of thing happens quite
> frequently.
The number of pay phones certainly has declined, but I am surprised as how
many times I see them in use outside of convenience stores.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 20:37:59 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <bfd.591862d1.37508867@aol.com>
In a message dated 5/28/2009 3:27:36 PM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> ... also disagree that Caller ID is a "hard sell". IIRC, the price
> of it has doubled in recent years ($3 to $6 per line) yet it remains
> very popular. (I don't know actual subscriber base, but FWIW almost
> everyone I know has it in both work and home and all cell phones
> have it.) Indeed, some carriers offer it free as part of a package.
Many non-Bell landline service providers throw in Caller ID as a
freebie with their standard serice offering.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 09:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Payphones Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <3118d2d2-01fa-4aff-9475-d233d447fc9a@u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
On May 29, 12:25 pm, Wesr...@aol.com wrote:
> The number of pay phones certainly has declined, but I am surprised as how
> many times I see them in use outside of convenience stores.
My local convenience had two of them but they have been removed.
I was at a major railroad station and a couple of people were using
pay phones. The acoustics are horrible; the booths were removed years
ago. The pay phones are mounted flush on a masonry wall, no dividers
between them, in a noisy area. I had to use such a phone some years
ago and I could barely hear; that influenced me to go cellular.
Today, though, many pay phones have volume control which is a big
help. (The other day I made a quick local call from a pay phone in a
store since my cellphone battery was dead.)
Relating back to CLID, the instruction card on pay phones includes *67
to block the number. So if you want to hide your whereabouts when you
call someone from a pay phone, they tell you how to do it.
I wonder what today's revenue numbers are from baby bell provided pay
phones, both cash for local calls, and credit call and collect
revenues.
***** Moderator's Note *****
"Pubcom" revenues have been dropping for years, not only because of
cellular competition, but also because of COCOT phones, which the
owners of convenience stores find much more profitable than those
provided by ILECs.
Speaking of the need for rules enforecement, I've seen a lot of COCOT
phones that demanded payment for calls to information or 800 numbers,
which is, AFAIK, forbidden in this state.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
" Just do the dance that you've been shown
with everyone you've even known:
in the end there is one dance
you'll do alone."
-- Jackson Browne
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 11:41:29 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Payphones Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <u%VTl.17936$%54.13432@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On May 29, 12:25 pm, Wesr...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> The number of pay phones certainly has declined, but I am surprised as how
>> many times I see them in use outside of convenience stores.
>
> My local convenience had two of them but they have been removed.
>
> I was at a major railroad station and a couple of people were using
> pay phones. The acoustics are horrible; the booths were removed years
> ago. The pay phones are mounted flush on a masonry wall, no dividers
> between them, in a noisy area. I had to use such a phone some years
> ago and I could barely hear; that influenced me to go cellular.
> Today, though, many pay phones have volume control which is a big
> help. (The other day I made a quick local call from a pay phone in a
> store since my cellphone battery was dead.)
>
> Relating back to CLID, the instruction card on pay phones includes *67
> to block the number. So if you want to hide your whereabouts when you
> call someone from a pay phone, they tell you how to do it.
>
> I wonder what today's revenue numbers are from baby bell provided pay
> phones, both cash for local calls, and credit call and collect
> revenues.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> "Pubcom" revenues have been dropping for years, not only because of
> cellular competition, but also because of COCOT phones, which the
> owners of convenience stores find much more profitable than those
> provided by ILECs.
>
> Speaking of the need for rules enforecement, I've seen a lot of COCOT
> phones that demanded payment for calls to information or 800 numbers,
> which is, AFAIK, forbidden in this state.
>
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderator
When my daughter was in high school; before wide celular use, she
tried to call home from school using our PacificBell phone card, [but]
it was a COCCT payhone on the school grounds: it would not let her,
[so] she got some cash and made the call. I called the company and
complained about it to both the school and the COCOT, [but that] did
no good, [so I] went to the PUC: the next thing my daughter told me
was the phone was gone, shotly after a PacificBell phone showed up. I
don't know what the law was at the time.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 11:28:57 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <JPVTl.17935$%54.8036@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>
Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 5/28/2009 3:03:29 PM Central Daylight Time,
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>
>> Now that pay phones are rare and calls are cheap, many businesses
>> will let a stranger make a quick local call as a courtesy. Many
>> people will lend their cell phone to stranger, say at a train
>> station, to make a quick call. This sort of thing happens quite
>> frequently.
>
> The number of pay phones certainly has declined, but I am surprised as how
> many times I see them in use outside of convenience stores.
>
> Wes Leatherock
> wesrock@aol.com
> wleathus@yahoo.com
>
Verizon seems to have a lot of contracts with companies like 7-11,
Circle K, Albertsons, Ralph's (Kroger)for payphone, even out of their
own service area.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 22:36:19 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <6645152a0905292036p49177242k93332abdac867e79@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Steven Lichter
<diespammers@ikillspammers.com> wrote:
> Verizon seems to have a lot of contracts with companies like 7-11, Circle K,
> Albertsons, Ralph's (Kroger)for payphone, even out of their own service
> area.
I can verify this. I forget exactly where, but I have seen Verizon
payphones in Austin, deep inside SBC/at&t territory. And I don't mean
Georgetown, former GTE Texas, current Verizon territory, in the city
of Austin.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 15:07:43 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <lr2dneg5QcwS3b3XnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <bfd.591862d1.37508867@aol.com>, <Wesrock@aol.com> wrote:
>In a message dated 5/28/2009 3:27:36 PM Central Daylight Time,
>hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>
>> ... also disagree that Caller ID is a "hard sell". IIRC, the price
>> of it has doubled in recent years ($3 to $6 per line) yet it remains
>> very popular. (I don't know actual subscriber base, but FWIW almost
>> everyone I know has it in both work and home and all cell phones
>> have it.) Indeed, some carriers offer it free as part of a package.
>
> Many non-Bell landline service providers throw in Caller ID as a
>freebie with their standard serice offering.
And bump up the price of their 'standard service offering', whether or not
you want CLID. <wry grin>
I _like_ the option of a la carte pricing.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 19:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI in real time
Message-ID: <177100be-c084-42e3-bdfe-aa8f22b78bb5@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
On May 28, 3:58 pm, John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote:
> This reminds me of an argument I have with my son from time to time. His
> teachers forbid citing Wikipedia, which is understandable. But it's a
> great source for learning the basics and background of a topic. Also most
> articles have a list of authoratative sources at the end. I tell him he
> can use Wikipedia to understand a new subject and find sources he can use,
> but he stands by "teacher says I can't use Wikipedia"
> I personally wouldn't stake my reputation on anything in Wikipedia, but
> it's a good launch point.
That's exactly what teachers told us about using a regular
encyclopedia years ago--they didn't want us using a single source and
basically copying the article for our reports. They wanted us to
locate multiple books and dig stuff out of them. But as you say, the
encyclopedia was certainly a good starting point to explain a topic
and provide cross references.
However, I will note that the old printed encyclopedias were more
authoritative than Wikipedia is. On the other hand, Wiki has stuff on
all sorts of trivial stuff that printed matter did not have.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 05:40:13 GMT
From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <mvsu15hfmdq9j1db78h6mnacfhtq14e4ps@4ax.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>* Now that pay phones are rare and calls are cheap, many businesses
>will let a stranger make a quick local call as a courtesy. Many
>people will lend their cell phone to stranger, say at a train station,
>to make a quick call. This sort of thing happens quite frequently.
Then I'm trying to visit my brother at his new house in an unfamiliar
city. I dial his number in with a wrong digit while I'm driving.
(Yes, I know I shouldn't and I seldom use the phone while driving.
I'm pretty sure I was at a red light. Does that satisfy you?)
Call goes to voice mail and I realize it's not my brothers phone. So
at the next red light I re-enter my brothers phone number. While I'm
doing that the person at the wrong number phones me and ask if I
called her. I'm thinking to myself "You just cost me $0.55 on my
prepaid cell phone to prove you're an @#$%$ idiot." $0.30 per minute
network useage and $0.35 long distance. I politely told her that I
had called a wrong number and hung up. I do wish that cell phones had
a slaml-the-handset noise feature though.
Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 20:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <85a4d668-24a8-4895-aa25-1a05c3f9f8f2@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
On May 28, 4:27 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Central Office design is an _extremely_ conservative
> environment. Every software change is tested exhaustively, both for
> its intended functionality and to reveal any unintended side-effects.
That's very understandable.
But on the other hand, we're not still using the inter-office
protocols used by panel switches of the 1920s, or those of crossbar of
the 1960s. The Bell System, while moving slowly, still evolved over
time, as did other computer systems.
I forgot to mention, in response to the 'sabotage' concern, that the
old Bell System was a tightly closed environment. Pre-divesture
business customers had very limited access to the interfaces between a
C.O. and a customer switch. Today, as others describes, the customer
will get a "super trunk" to connect to their own PBX, so they could
send out whatever the heck they want.
As we've seen many times in this newsgroup over the years, some
customers accidently or intentionally abuse that connection
priviledge. That needs to be addressed or the network reliability is
at risk.
To put it another way, if people can't trust their Caller ID boxes,
they will stop paying for the service and the local companies will
lose out on revenue. It's also bad public relations.
Aside from technical improvements, IMHO we need better policy to
control this sort of thing. In the old days the Bell System was Lord
and Master of all. Who calls the shots for protocols and standards
today? Who says what rules carriers must follow in determining
whether they must accept a partner or must refuse a partner? Clearly
with all of today's problems improvements are needed.
Telephone service is NOT the same as a convenience store or gas
station. It's not as if you don't like McDonald's you simply go
across the street to Burger King. You can't do that with your
telephone service. You can't see your hamburger, you can't see the
kitchen as you can with fast food. With fast food there is some hope
that the local health dept monitors the place and the FDA monitors the
meat source. (It's not perfect but the occurence of foulups are very
rare).
> Changing ANI into CLID just isn't something Nortel or Lucent is going
> to do.
See above. As stated, the old network mgmt function of the Bell
System is gone, and nothing has replaced it. Looks like we do need an
external regulator to develop and enforce technical requirements to
protect the public, just as the FDA inspects meat at the
slaughterhouse.
***** Moderator's Note *****
While it's true that the Bell System evolved over time, IMNSHO the
period of evolution could be measured only in glacial epochs, and
that's too long an interval to be perceptable to mere mortals.
The sabotage problem isn't academic: both IXC and CLEC companies have
access to the SS7 network as peers, and that means that they also have
the ability to set up calls that won't appear on ANI records at the
originating switch. I suspect this is the reason that most IXC's hand
off their calls at access tandems, which can keep separate
records. Opinions?
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 14:52:13 +0000 (UTC)
From: ranck@vt.edu
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <gvosqt$lf7$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Changing ANI into CLID just isn't something Nortel or Lucent is going
> to do.
And, there is a legal issue to contend with. The rules governing CLID
say that the calling party must be able to block their number from
appearing. If you convert ANI to use as CLID you'd not be honoring
that blocking. This is fine for 800 service and 911, where there is
specific exception to the rules, but for regular home or even business
non-800 service that would violate FCC regulations.
I just wish they would crack down on the CLID spoofing that
telemarketers do. I have no problem with, say, a hospital putting
their general number on all outgoing calls, or any business for that
matter, but calls with 000-000-0000 as their CLID should not go
through. Blocking is fine, people can decide not to answer blocked
calls, but intentionally bogus CLID should be stopped.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Years ago, one telemarketeer appealed for help in this forum: he
bluntly stated that his firm was in the business of hyping record
sales, and that his employees called up the "request" lines of radio
stations all over the country, to generate airplay for releases which
he had been paid to promote.
He wanted, of course, to know how to falsify CLID info, which radio
stations had learned to depend on so as to keep their request lines
from being used for unpaid advertising. I don't recall if he ever got
a response, but the incident brings to my mind the slippery nature of
"truth" when money is at stake.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
"I hate graveyards and old pawnshops
for they always bring me tears -
I can't forgive the way they rob me
of my childhood souvenirs."
- John Prine
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 15:12:43 -0400
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: "recall" for some "Jitterbug" cell phones
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0905291458320.22677@panix5.panix.com>
"Jitterbug" is a line of cellular phones designed to provide
simple and uncomplicated voice service for people who just
want the basics. The phones have simple interfaces, large buttons,
easy to read displays, etc.
Pricing is a tad higher than others, but certainly in the
ballpark for light usage.
A week ago the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced
a "voluntary recall" in conjunction with Jitterbug and their
phone supplier, Samsung, for a "911 service" problem.
Quoting from the CPSC press release:
'Hazard: The recalled cell phones that are in a no-service area and
display an "out of range, try again later" message could fail to
connect to emergency 911.'
(This only applies to a couple of specific models).
The stories and writeups were a bit fuzzy. After all, if the phone
is out of range, how could any recall, other than retrofitting a
big antenna, help?
I _thought_ I knew what they meant, and was able to get ahold
of confirmatory info.
Under FCC regulations, any cell phone (and associated system) that
can reach a technologically compatable base station (same frequency
set, same encoding), _must_ be allowed to make a "911" call. This
applies whether or not the phone has a valid "account" on that system
(or, for that matter, any account).
What's been happening here is that in some areas the phones are getting
a signal, but it's _not_ from one of Jitterbug's cellular partners.
Hence the phone gives the owner that "no coverage" screen.
In reality they "could", if allowed, make that 911 call.
The recall is to reprogram the phones to make sure they understand
this process. Once the phone is updated, if you're in an area
that's got cellular coverage - but not from their partners, you'll
be able to make that call to the 911 center. You won't, though, be
able to reach your mother in law...
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09744.html
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 14:33:43 -0500
From: Michael Grigoni <michael.grigoni@cybertheque.org>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Demonstration electromechanical switch
Message-ID: <4A203897.3000804@cybertheque.org>
(Sorry, first e-mail omitted in the subject heading)
I would appreciate suggestions for building or acquiring an
electromechanical switch for demonstrating a small pulse
dialing exchange. I do have a sort of 'teletrainer' made
by our local chapter of Telephone Pioneers which works with
pulse dialing, but it uses 1A electronic key system components.
I would like the switch to handle perhaps a dozen extensions,
and at least do intercom and reach FXO lines by dialing '9'
using only 500 sets (or earlier).
I have the schematic for the 701 and 711 PBX; these are somewhat
overkill for this application. What smaller non-electronic
systems were ever available? Should I consider a homebrew
system using strowger relays or a small x-bar, glued together
with perhaps silver-wire (more modern) relays?
I have seen auction listings and catalogs of parts salvaged from
SxS systems which seem to be quite steeply priced. Is this for
some inflated collector's market?
Your replies are much appreciated.
Michael Grigoni
Cybertheque Museum
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 14:45:45 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <6ZKdna1KNKX0pr3XnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <3959ee3c-37f1-4505-bea8-1ea8d1d9a4fe@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On May 28, 12:24 am, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
>wrote:
>> |> With the right C.O. equipment, it is possible to capture the ANI
>> |> data in the call set-up and pass *THAT* information via the CLID
>> |> signalling to the end-user.
>> |What I don't understand why this isn't done universally.
>>
>> The issue to _all_ such questions is always "money": it costs a bunch
>> more to do things that way. Caller-ID is a hard-enough sell, due to the
>> prices that (particularly the former Baby Bells) charge, that the higher
>> pricing to recover the extra cost of the extra gear would eliminate *most*
>> of the customer base.
>
>Again, I am confused.
[Moderator snip]
> Isn't everything in a switch today done by software, not hardware?
"Proven reliable" software is *extremely* expensive. For critical
high-reliability items, the _testing_ regimen -- to _prove_ that it
"does what it's supposed to, _all_ the time", can easily exceed 95% of
the total development cost.
> It's not like the old days where they had to wire in expensive
> relays and electronic circuits in a trunking circuit to do a
> function. Given that the software would be used in thousands of
> switches the software cost would be amortized over a wide base.
> Further, the ongoing confusion from spoofing and other troubles
> undoubtedly is a headache for both the local and toll carriers.
You're wrong.
It's not a "problem" for the carriers, just for the _customers_.
And the carriers are not in the business of making life
simpler/easier/more- convenient for customers. They're in the
business of making money. Making as much money as they can, while
keeping the 'annoyance' level "just below" that which will run off
customers. No need to reduce annoyances below that point, it doesn't
affect their bottom line.
> Accordingly, I don't understand why it would "cost a bunch more
> money".
[There is a lot of effort] involved, [including] the amount of testing required (the amount of
dedicated 'lab' equipment to do that testing on, and the man-hours required),
nor the difficulty of coordinating the capability across _all_ the (a) manu-
facturers, (b) models, and (c) software versions of the existing central office
infrastructure. *ALL* of which have to be tested separately, and in combination.
>
>I also disagree that Caller ID is a "hard sell".
I don't know _anybody_ that shells out hard dollars for it.
> IIRC, the price of it has doubled in recent years ($3 to $6 per
> line), yet it remains very popular.
$6/line with a base cost for dial-tone of around $17 (before taxes, which
also run up the $6/line) is an over 33% increase in the cost of basic
phone service.
> (I don't know actual subscriber base, but FWIW almost everyone I
> know has it in both work and home and all cell phones have it.)
> Indeed, some carriers offer it free as part of a package.
For *FREE*??? *snicker*
It isn't free. It just _looks_ that way, because the extra cost of
providing it is "bundled" into the base price that everybody pays,
whether they want it or not.
Look at the typical monthly cost for a cell-phone 'package' today, and
compare it with a no-frills land-line, _or_ a basic service cell-phone
from years ago, and you'll begin to have an idea of what you're
actually paying for all those 'free' features -- WHETHER OR NOT you
want/use them. Those who don't use those 'gee whiz' features are
subsidizing those who do. Do you think _that_ is right?
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> The operating companies are _very_ reluctant to introduce _any_
>> non-standard feature or equipment.
>
> Sure, a "non-standard" feature. But it seems to me, given all the
> problems of spoofing and misuse, that it ought to be a 'standard'
> feature.
Why? How does it benefit the switch _operator_?
> Per above, I think the cost would be minimal.
Do you have any idea how many separate functions are in a C.O. switch?
What it takes to test *every*one* of them to make sure they still work
properly, under _all_ conditions, after you make a change to some part
of the system? *Even* *if* that change isn't "supposed" to affect this
function, you have to test it to make sure that it _didn't_.`
>> ANI info per se is NOT a substitute for CLID data, since the ANI
>> might or might not match the CLID (as for forwarded calls), so it's
>> not a reliable substiture for CLID.
>
> I don't understand the relevance of "forwarded calls".
So, you don't know what you don't know. :)
> If a call is forwarded, that is, Amy calls Ben and Ben calls Caz, it
> seems to me that Ben's number should appear on Caz's box. I believe
> that's how it work's now. As the forwarder, Ben is the caller and
> responsible for the call, not Amy.
If Amy calls Ben, and Ben's number is "call forwarded" to Caz's
number, then the Caz's CLID shows _AMY_'s number. After all that *is*
who is calling -- AND the number you should call back to reach the
party who called you. (the whole point of "caller ID", originally)
*BUT* the billing situation is different. *AMY* pays for the call to
where Ben's number is located. And Ben pays for the cost of a call
from his number location to Caz's.
Now, _if_ the number Ben's phone is 'call forwarded' to is a toll-free
number, Ben doesn't pay anything, instead the called party picks up
the cost of the call from Ben's number. Amy however, is _still_
paying for the cost of the call from Amy to Ben.
In the case of the toll-free number, they are paying for the call only
from Ben to them, the ANI shows BEN's number, not Amy's.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 15:05:47 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI in real time (was: FTC builds case against telemarketers)
Message-ID: <lr2dnek5QcyG3b3XnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <gvlbig$13v$1@news.albasani.net>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>>>>>The following article from the Phila Inqr describes some outrageous
>>>>>stuff pulled by telemarketers in violation of multiple laws and how
>>>>>people fought back. This includes spoofing the caller ID.
>
>>>>>See: http://www.philly.com/philly/business/personal_finance/45231832.html
>
>>>>>Would anyone know if Call Trace (1157) works when a telemarketer
>>>>>calls? That is, does Call Trace send the real ANI or the caller-ID to
>>>>>the Call Trace Bureau.
>
>>>>Unfortunately, ANI doesn't make it to your switch.
>
>>>For the hell of it, I read the Wikipedia entry on ANI.
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Number_Identification
>
>>>Wikipedia entries often drive me nuts due to their lack of citations, or
>>>citations to secondary sources that themselves cite no primary sources.
>
>>>Take this quote, for instance:
>
>>> Privacy
>>>
>>> Because ANI is unrelated to caller ID, the caller's telephone
>>> number and line type are captured by ANI equipment even if
>>> caller ID blocking is activated. The destination telephone
>>> company switching office can relay the originating telephone
>>> number to ANI delivery services subscribers. Toll-free Inward
>>> WATS number subscribers and large companies normally have access
>>> to ANI information, either instantly via installed equipment,
>>> or from a monthly billing statement. Residential subscribers can
>>> obtain access to ANI information through third party companies
>>> that charge for the service.
>
>>>On my home number, I can subscribe to a third-party service that will
>>>provide me ANI instantly? I had no idea. Due to there being no source
>>>provided, I still don't.
>
>>Would you believe "it depends"? <wry grin>
>
>>Some _facilities-based_ third-party dial-tone providers offer the option
>>of real-time ANI delivered as CLID. You can't buy it separately, still
>>getting dial-tone from your current preferred carrier.
>
>You mean if my carrier is a reseller?
I mean you can't get 'real time ANI' (delivered as CLID or otherwise) from
company 'A', and dial tone/incoming call handling from company 'B'.
The _only_ source for ANI data is the phone company handling your incoming
calls. And then only *IF* they offer it as a feature.
>>I've got no vendor names at this time, but it _is_ available.
>
>To a residential subscriber or a single-line business subscriber? That
>would be pretty neat.
Yuppers. <grin>
Makes for some "interesting" discussions, when you're shopping for a telecom
provider. Probably 90+% of the sales reps don't know what ANI is, and
assume you're talking about CLID. Of those who 'do', at least 90% will say
'we can't do that'.
------------------------------
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 Patrick Townson. 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 currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
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) 2008 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 (17 messages)
******************************
|
or 