|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 147 : "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: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: Demonstration electromechanical switch
Re: Payphones Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: Payphones Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
1984 All Over Again?
====== 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: Sat, 30 May 2009 10:51:14 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <c05.60b98faa.3752a1e2@aol.com>
In a message dated 5/29/2009 11:17:14 AM Central Daylight Time,
dannyb@panix.com writes:
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.
-------------------------Reply--------------------------------------
Not only in the hospital, but in doctors' offices, even off site, which
are served through the hospital switch, and which confusingly give the
main number of the hospital, and the caller name (if you subscribe to Caller
Name) is shown as the hospital.
The doctor's office may be many miles from the hospital and the call is
probably strictly about the doctor's office, nothing to do with the
hospital, even though the Caller ID Number and Name makes you think it's the
hospital calling about some grave emergency of a family member.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 10:53:56 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <bd0.53a4b79e.3752a284@aol.com>
In a message dated 5/29/2009 11:31:45 AM Central Daylight Time,
ttoews@telusplanet.net writes:
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.
------------------------------Reply------------------------------------
In that situation I had a person call me back and claim that I had
cursed them.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 10:56:11 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <d52.4bcca416.3752a30b@aol.com>
In a message dated 5/29/2009 11:44:50 AM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
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 have the choice in many places of the incumbent telco or the cable
comapny.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 11:46:31 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <c3e.4c5cd2fe.3752aed7@aol.com>
In a message dated 5/29/2009 10:52:16 PM Central Daylight Time,
bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com writes:
[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.
-------------------------Reply-----------------------------
I recall that the Bell Labs used a lot of software to test the first ESS
office in Morris, Illinois. As I recall their software tests showed it
would meet the objective of not more than one outage of not more than 15
minutes in 20 years of service.
As I recall, they cut over to it 2 a.m. CST, the normal time for making
changes, and irt had failed several times before morning.
Software can really be tested only by putting it in service. That's the
reason AT&T decided to put it in a test location to see what happened in the
real world beafore standardizing it and deploying it.
I have seen proofs of why it is impossible to create software which will
prove that another piece of software is error-free. (Not to mention the
additional fact that it is impossible that you can never predict completely
every input or demand that will be put on it--and users can do things you
never thought of so you didn't test for that.)
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 10:24:26 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <are525ddslrl8enekhjeko2u6rqqe7f16e@4ax.com>
On Sun, 31 May 2009 07:24:26 -0400 (EDT), Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>Software can really be tested only by putting it in service. That's the
>reason AT&T decided to put it in a test location to see what happened in the
>real world beafore standardizing it and deploying it.
Not only software. Hardware has to be extensively tested in the real
world. I worked for Bell Labs developing transmission systems
(microwave radio, coaxial carrier, etc.) from 1959 to 1990. Every
time a new system went into initial factory production, a route was
built somewhere in the country, and Bell labs had several months to
thouroughly test it and monitor it. Things happen in the real world
that you never can duplicate in the lab.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Since you've had a lot of experience testing microwave equipment in
the field, I'd appreciate your help to debunk some _very_ tall
tales. I have heard hundreds of apocryplal stories about microwave
failures due to utterly unbelievable causes. The list includes:
1. Melted coax due to concentrated solar energy, one one
particular day of the year.
2. Route switch looping, which turned out to be caused by cockroaches
running up and down inside waveguide, searching for the warmest spot.
3. Repeated failures at a hosptial STL link used for remote broadcasts,
supposedly tracedto frequency detuning caused by the MRI affecting the
magnetron in the STL.
Please tell us why these are nonsense, and supply a list of the most
exceptional failures you saw during field testing, and the root
cause(s) of each. TIA.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 11:33:59 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Demonstration electromechanical switch
Message-ID: <c7c.4e5ee296.3752abe7@aol.com>
In a message dated 5/29/2009 10:42:00 PM Central Daylight Time,
michael.grigoni@cybertheque.org writes:
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?
-------------------------Reply----------------------------
Probably most telcos had displays/exhibits made of 1 SxS components. They
were big heavy things, usually having four SxS switches and with their own
power supplies and ringing generators. They were bulky things which
usually had to be moved around by moving and warehousing companies and
shipped
by truck line.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 11:55:06 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Payphones Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <VaidnRMVbvl3-bzXnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
the telecom-digest moderator wrote:
>
> ***** 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.
Regarding 'toll-free' numbers, forbidden in -all- states -- an FCC rule.
If by 'information', you mean what is now called 'directory assistance',
with the exception of 800-555-1212, it is to be expected that there would
be a payment demand for -that-. "Everybody" charges for Directory assist.
calls these days. The third-party pay-phone operators (who place COCOTS
that _they_ own on other peoples property) are notorious for having DA,
like 'operator-assisted' calls handled by a contracted service of their
choice -- with exorbitant rates passed through to the customer.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 10:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Payphones Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <619e762e-013b-4a5b-8b16-b2c485dcc545@t10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>
On May 31, 7:25 am, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> If by 'information', you mean what is now called 'directory assistance',
> with the exception of 800-555-1212, it is to be expected that there would
> be a payment demand for -that-. "Everybody" charges for Directory assist.
> calls these days. The third-party pay-phone operators (who place COCOTS
> that _they_ own on other peoples property) are notorious for having DA,
> like 'operator-assisted' calls handled by a contracted service of their
> choice -- with exorbitant rates passed through to the customer.
The other day I was surprised to see not only a public pay phone, but
a telephone directory in the shelf underneath it.
In the old days most pay phones had phone books with them, some simply
free standing on a shelf underneath, many in binders attached in
various ways, from simple chains to pull out levers. Larger banks of
pay phones had a shelf of several local telephone books. Very large
banks had many telephone books available. Even as they switched from
booths to kiosks they provided a shelf for the directory.
I haven't checked lately, but I think the cost of directory assistance
these days is $1.00; even more from a cell phone ($1.50?). I don't
know if 1+NPA+555-1212 works anymore or what the charge is for that,
but local 411 often has national listings. In some places they're
providing, for a fee, other information too such as yellow pages
listing, such as restaurants in an area.
I could understand charging when a listing is in the book, but often
times someone has a new number that isn't available.
(Last night on the train I heard someone use their cell phone to call
Information, I wonder what it cost.)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 15:04:49 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <MPG.248b4d5a9cd35c4a989a32@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <gvmut2$2a5$1@reader1.panix.com>, dannyb@panix.com says...
>
> In <de0e98d1-5cb2-4eb2-a1bb-3c1a681c7354@u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>
> >On May 28, 12:12 am, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
> >wrote:
>
> >> There are many _legitimate_ reasons for businesses to send 'caller ID'
> >> info that is different from the actual line ID that the call is being
> >> placed from.
>
> >Could you elaborate on those reasons?
>
> Sure. You'll hear all about the Abused Women's Shelters stuff, but
> that's window dressing.
>
> A more valid real world situation is that a hospital, say,
> would set up their system so that the calls from pretty
> much anywhere in their facility,whether the admissions office
> or the fourth floor nursing station, or, for that matter,
> a patient's room... would all display the main number.
When I worked for the State AG we had all our outgoing lines block CLID.
This caused a few problems for me because I had turned on Anonymous Call
Rejection (ACR) on my home phone because I want to know who the hell is
calling. That's pretty much moot now with all the scammers playing with
CLID data.
The realy problem was that while our trunks were capable of unblocking
CLID on a dial basis, our Definity wouldn't pass the star codes. And
dialing 9+1182+NXX-XXXX would be the workaround but too unwieldly to
deal with on a regular basis.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 15:07:11 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <MPG.248b4dea95596b3b989a33@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <gvosqt$lf7$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, ranck@vt.edu says...
>
> 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.
I do know my Skype outbound display 001-234-5678 for my CLID.
And MagicJack - there was a PERL script where you could easily spoof the
CLID data. Useful if you want to hack a Sprint cellphone since Sprint
absolutely trusts CLID on their switches.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 09:23:22 -0600
From: Robert Neville <dont@bother.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: 1984 All Over Again?
Message-ID: <5v752512fb30p19rmk68ke3vthtks7t0ho@4ax.com>
Wow... I feel like I'm caught in a time warp. For the past few weeks, there's
been nothing but technical discussions about network operations and telecom
systems here. No political rants. No social appeals.Granted, mostly historical
telecom systems, but still...
------------------------------
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 (11 messages)
******************************
|
or 