|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 163 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: Cal State Fullerton Area Code Changing to 657
Re: Cal State Fullerton Area Code Changing to 657
Re: Cal State Fullerton Area Code Changing to 657
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: Pulse vs. touch tone, was ANI
====== 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: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:20:05 +0000 (UTC)
From: Dave Close <dave@compata.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <h14lm5$3qn$1@aopen.compata.com>
I'm not sure what most of you mean by CID spoofing. Does that include
calls which are identified as "800 xxx xxxx TOLL FREE CALL"? That's
certainly not the actual CID associated with the calling number since
800 numbers only redirect to "real" numbers. If you don't regard this
as spoofing, how do you distinguish it from other changes to the CID
initiated by the caller?
--
Dave Close, Compata, Irvine CA +1 714 434 7359
dave@compata.com dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree,
is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:08:31 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <MPG.24a082555dca81a5989a54@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <h14lm5$3qn$1@aopen.compata.com>, dave@compata.com says...
>
> I'm not sure what most of you mean by CID spoofing. Does that include
> calls which are identified as "800 xxx xxxx TOLL FREE CALL"? That's
> certainly not the actual CID associated with the calling number since
> 800 numbers only redirect to "real" numbers. If you don't regard this
> as spoofing, how do you distinguish it from other changes to the CID
> initiated by the caller?
Spoofing scripts I've seen allow you to put ANY number you want in the
CLID string.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:11:30 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <h16de2$vgr$1@news.albasani.net>
Dave Close <dave@compata.com> wrote:
>I'm not sure what most of you mean by CID spoofing. Does that include
>calls which are identified as "800 xxx xxxx TOLL FREE CALL"? That's
>certainly not the actual CID associated with the calling number since
>800 numbers only redirect to "real" numbers. If you don't regard this
>as spoofing, how do you distinguish it from other changes to the CID
>initiated by the caller?
The term "spoofing" has been used inaccurately throughout this subthread.
Caller-defined Caller-ID isn't spoofed unless a number has been input
that isn't a line number subscribed to at that call center's location
(or perhaps at another call center of that company). If another number
was input that's subscribed to by an unrelated telephone subscriber,
then spoofing rises to the level of forgery. And if it's done for the
purpose of initiating a scam, it's fraud.
If a meaningless string of digits was input, say 9 digits in lieu of 10
or nonexistant area code-prefix combination, nothing has been spoofed.
When I receive an incoming call with no Name to look up, I'd find it
more meaningful if the field were blank. "Toll Free Call" is inaccurate.
I'm certain outbound call centers paid something for that call. It's
wrong for the telephone company to input a generic phrase meant to give
me an inducement to return a sales call, considering how cheap long
distance is these days. Telling me what state the area code is in is of
little help, too. The call center might be somewhere else anyway.
If the line number is all that's known, show that. Don't add generic
text in the Name field.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:15:04 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <d60.4f0c8b9d.37683e08@aol.com>
In a message dated 6/15/2009 9:37:27 AM Central Daylight Time,
dave@compata.com writes:
> I'm not sure what most of you mean by CID spoofing. Does that include
> calls which are identified as "800 xxx xxxx TOLL FREE CALL"? That's
> certainly not the actual CID associated with the calling number since
> 800 numbers only redirect to "real" numbers.
Many high volume 800 numbers do not redirect to "real numbers." The have
sufficent volume to consitute their own trunk group, which is accessed
directly from the toll switches.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: 15 Jun 2009 07:35:54 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cal State Fullerton Area Code Changing to 657
Message-ID: <20090615073554.1280.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>> Some authors (notably former TD contributor Mark Cuccia) have noted that
>> this change violates an underlying argument in favor of overlays:
>> "nobody has to change area codes." Well, that's true, but it doesn't
>> preclude Universities and similar bulk number users from voluntarily
>> switching to the overlay area code.
>>
>> Neal McLain
> Seems like a terrible waste of an area code unless it will be used as
> an overlay for the entire 714 NPA.
Ten seconds looking at nanpa.com reveals that 657 was added as an
overlay for 714 back in September.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 06:48:37 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cal State Fullerton Area Code Changing to 657
Message-ID: <4A363515.3060102@annsgarden.com>
I wrote:
> CSUF has a four-digit internal dialing plan covering the main
> campus at Fullerton (area code 714, recently overlaid by 657)
> and a branch campus at Irvine (area code 949).
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
> Seems like a terrible waste of an area code unless it will be
> used as an overlay for the entire 714 NPA.
It is an overlay of 714.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_code_714
Neal McLain
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:57:08 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cal State Fullerton Area Code Changing to 657
Message-ID: <EyrZl.633$cx5.40@newsfe01.iad>
Sam Spade wrote:
> Neal McLain wrote:
>
>>
>> Some authors (notably former TD contributor Mark Cuccia) have noted that
>> this change violates an underlying argument in favor of overlays:
>> "nobody has to change area codes." Well, that's true, but it doesn't
>> preclude Universities and similar bulk number users from voluntarily
>> switching to the overlay area code.
>>
>> Neal McLain
>>
>
> Seems like a terrible waste of an area code unless it will be used as an
> overlay for the entire 714 NPA.
>
After I posted this I checked the California PUC web site. It is an
overlay for the entire 714 NPA.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:50:49 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <vLydnbu5QJZ05qvXnZ2dnUVZ_h5i4p2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <1c654f3a-ad65-41f9-ad3f-9956f2f758a9@o21g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Jun 12, 6:51 pm, Robert Bonomi <bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you have *any* idea how much of the country now has
>_usage-based_billing_
>> for *LOCAL* calls as well as for 'long-distance' calls?
>
>P.S.
>
>Many places with measured service ("message rate") do NOT time local
>calls; that is, they only charge one message unit or equivalent.
Your experience apparently extends only to residential service.
Believe me, business service _is_ different.
And guess who places the vast majority of outgoing calls. <wry grin>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:46:32 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Pulse vs. touch tone, was ANI
Message-ID: <cGwZl.9565$f36.9452@newsfe19.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> In any event, computer memory is so incredibly cheap these days the
> cost of a some extra memory is trivial relative to the total cost of
> the switch. Think about how cheap PC memory has become and how much
> you get today compared to just ten years ago, let alone 20 years ago.
>
> There is no extra cost to provide pulse dialing.
>
This is probably true today. But, when the premium was being charged
the predominant switches were the 5XBAR and 1 or 1A ESS. Both had
origination hardware that had to be held on the line longer to accept
dial pulse.
------------------------------
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 (9 messages)
******************************
|
or 