Pat, the Editor

27 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

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: To: Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <> In a message dated 6/4/2009 1:46:53 PM Central Daylight Time, 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:21:57 EDT From: To: Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <> In a message dated 6/4/2009 1:59:53 PM Central Daylight Time, 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 ***** 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" <> To: Subject: Re: 1984 All Over Again? Message-ID: <x30Wl.744$> "Bruce L.Bergman" <> wrote in message > > 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): -Gary ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 07:27:04 -0700 (PDT) From: To: Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <> On Jun 4, 3:58 pm, (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: To: Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <> On Jun 4, 4:07 pm, (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 <> To: Subject: Re: Apt buildings--where is the demarc box? Message-ID: <> In article <RMUVl.1040$y42.344@newsfe21.iad>, says... > > 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 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: 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) ******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues