|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 153 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: 1984 All Over Again?
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: Apt buildings--where is the demarc box?
====== 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: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:18:04 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <c48.37499455.3759be3c@aol.com>
In a message dated 6/4/2009 1:46:53 PM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
Note that while the traditional telephone companies publish a
directory which includes disclaimers; newcomer phone companies do not
have a directory.
----------------Reply-------------
My landline residential service bills (from AT&T) came today with a new
notice "AT&T Residential Service Agreement" and what appears to br the
same thing in Spanish.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:21:57 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <bcf.4924d174.3759bf25@aol.com>
In a message dated 6/4/2009 1:59:53 PM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> I'm one of those people who think ads should be (but hardly ever
> are) the literal truth,
------------------------------------Reply-------------------------------
You may recall the recent court decision in the case Pizza Hut brought
against Papa John's for its claims that Papa John's pizza had "Better
ingredients, better taste": the court found Papa John's was within
the bounds of commerical puffery.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
***** Moderator's Note *****
You mean there are bounds? ;-)
Bill "New and Improved" Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 03:13:33 GMT
From: "Gary" <fake-email-address@bogus.hotmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 1984 All Over Again?
Message-ID: <x30Wl.744$u86.106@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
"Bruce L.Bergman" <bruceNOSPAMbergman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:40ad255pt6pig08s0erilb52kuc6mfjlk3@4ax.com...
>
> Fiber and CATV Coax systems can NOT meet even a four-nines
> reliability, let alone five. Both services are dependent on utility
> power at the customer end point AND at several amplifiers and
> repeaters and concentrator cabinets along the way.
PON = Passive Optical Networking
ONT = Optical Network Termination
SFU-ONT = Single Family Unit ONT (i.e. a stand alone house)
MDU-ONT = Multiple Dwelling Unit ONT (i.e. apartments, ...)
OLT = Optical Line Termination (the central office equipment)
Verizon FIOS is PON.
Passive means no powered equipment between the OLT and ONTs. PON splitters
require no power. OLTs are almost always installed in CO's or CO like
facilities with good backup power.
In other words, any backup power required for PON is at the customer premise
or the CO. All that is in the field is glass. There are no amplifiers or
repeaters in PON
The fiber links in PON are more reliable that copper systems that have
powered units in the field; and many claim more reliable than a straight
copper run. Considering that fiber is not subject to corrosions due to wet
conditions, voltage transients due to bad grounds or surges due to
lightning; I'm inclined to agree.
Here's a good primer on PON (just don't tell your teacher where you read
it):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BPON
-Gary
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 07:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <37b1a09a-7648-4e4b-b4cb-ade424fec250@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 4, 3:58 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> >Can you find any representation where the telco acknowledges that the
> >information may not be accurate?
>
> I don't have to. They promise to deliver an ID string for the caller.
> They do that. If the caller provides his own ID string they 'accurately'
> pass it on.
I'm not a lawyer, but in law there is a basic principle of "what a
reasonable person thinks". If I buy a quart of milk in the store
there are several characteristics I can reasonably assume about that
milk even if it is not expressly stated on the container. They don't
say anywhere it's cow's milk but we can assume it's that. They don't
say it's been handled under sanitary conditions but we can assume that
(it does expressly say homogenized and pasteurized).
Indeed, I'm staring a can of soda pop and nowhere on the can does it
say "soda" (or "pop"), it merely gives the flavor. No where is there
a warning that the contents are pressurized and it could fizz out on
the person opening the can. (The bottles have that warning). The
point is that certain things may be safely assumed by a reasonable
person.
Today a reasonable person is not at all familiar with telephone switch
internals. They assume the name and number shown on the box is the
name and number of the caller. I think they're ok if it says
"BAYSHORE HOSP 555-2000" instead of "DR. SMITH 555-2368", but not
beyond that.
On cell phones, where one could be paying quite dearly to receive a
call, the information better be accurate. Today there is a problem
with spammer texters.
> The calling party _is_ free, under the law, to identify themselves "however
> they d*mn well please". It is not a crime to do so, _unless_ one is doing
> it to defraud. Note well, the operative word is "defraud", not 'deceive'.
Previously the legal definition of defraud was posted and it seemed
pretty broad I suppose if someone changed their display-name to
something obviously silly like "Mickey Mouse" there is no
mispresentation.
But if the law freely allows the caller to spof the law must be
changed.
The other issue the liability of the telco for knowingly selling a
service that isn't what is seems. But the solution for them is
simple--just put a disclaimer in the fine print with all the other
disclaimers.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 07:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <4b20d73d-e381-4a65-927a-163d5f24b6cf@z19g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 4, 4:07 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> >If the "common carrier" rules prohibit telcos doing this, they
> >should be changed. If telcos could but just won't, they need more
> >competition.
>
> Erm. There's one thing you're overlooking. *WHO*PAYS* for that
> extra work that said telco is doing? People _will_ switch dial-tone
> providers to save the small amounts of money a thing like this
> costs.
_ALL_ carriers should be required by law to properly validate input to
the network. This is for more than mere caller-ID accuraucy, but also
control of fraud from sleazy intermediaries, or accidental or
deliberate network disruption from major customers by an incompetent
or disgruntled technician.
In the old days of 'green on glass' mainframe on-line services,
computers were relatively slow compared to today and network managers
took great care to protect the network from screwups, both internal
and external.
> (Either the phone company can decide -- on whatever basis -- whom they
> want to accept calls from, or they *cannot*. there is no middle ground
> on the matter.)
There can be, by law, standards that must be met when calls are
exchanged.
After divesture, the newcomers demanded and received easy access to
make it easier for newcomers to get a foot in the door. We saw all
sorts of fraud and problems as a result--PBXs with bad dial-out
tables, unauthorized LD carrier switching, etc.
In the field of public utilities, we must remember that the holy grail
"competition" does not automatically equate to "public service".
Indeed, as we've seen, competition in some cases have led to _worse_
service since carriers are forced by price to drop down to the lowest
denonminator.
***** Modertor's Note *****
Previous posts have mentioned the conservative environment that
surrounds software development in the telecom world, and that
conservatism applies to modifying switches to perform caller-id
verification as well. If the software engineers were to add such a
capability to the network, they would have to make it compatible with
existing standards for international signalling, with legacy switches
owned by companies that don't choose to upgrade, and with CALEA
requirements.
I won't pick apart the problems that would follow: I'll just point out
that telco signalling has always been done with trusted endpoints,
i.e., that there is no provision in the system architecture to verify
either the validity of the data exchanged to set up a call, or the
authority of the endpoint to send it.
Like Internet spam, caller-id spoofing is a problem that can't be
solved by technical means: the cost to do so isn't worth the results
obtained. Passing laws isn't going to work either, since everyone
involved - and I mean _EVERYONE_ - would have to agree to enforce a
uniform standard.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:07:18 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Apt buildings--where is the demarc box?
Message-ID: <MPG.24922bbe7eebca7f989a44@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <RMUVl.1040$y42.344@newsfe21.iad>, sam@coldmail.com says...
>
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > In apartment, condo, and co-op multi-family buildings there is often
> > no individual "demarc" box for individual units. Rather, the lines
> > consolidate in large junction boxes which are maintained by the
> > telco. All an individual unit has is a plain phone jack.
> >
> > In the event there is trouble on the line where is the 'cut off' point
> > to determine responsibility for repair? To the subscriber, the cut
> > off point would appear to be in their own apt since they obviously
> > don't have (nor should have) access to the central junction box.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > (Any other information about line maintenance in multi-family housing
> > would be appreciated.)
> >
> I can only speak to California.
>
> 1. In an apartment building (rentals) the landlord is responsible for
> the inside wiring from the telco panel to the apartment jacks.
>
> 2. In condos the association is responsible for the wire from the telco
> panel until it enters the owner's unit. The common area wire is the
> responsibility of the association. We have a common-area wire
> maintenance contract with AT&T (Pacific Bell).
I can only answer this from a multi-tennant commercial
perspective. When [my employer, which is an agency of our state
government] relocated one of our facilities, the wiring planning was
all on us, but the building owner ran all of it and maintained it.
------------------------------
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 (6 messages)
******************************
|
or 