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 155 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
  Re: 1984 All Over Again? 
  Re: 1984 All Over Again? 
  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: ANI vs. Caller ID 
  Re: ANI vs. Caller ID 


====== 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: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 00:18:54 GMT From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 1984 All Over Again? Message-ID: <tf1m259h18ibikqa2n2pq1kfng5jjjmb8l@4ax.com> Richard <rng@richbonnie.com> wrote: >Another reason to keep POTS: in an disaster (earthquake, widespread >power failure, etc.), Agreed. >VOIP or cellular systems may stop working, but a >wired POTS line almost always will work. You may not be able to call >out of town, but at least you can call the local police or fire >departments. It's not so much that cellular systems stop working but they get overloaded much more rapidly than copper wires. When the media arrives on the scene of a disaster they keep redialing their office. As soon as they connect they keep the cell phone active even if it's for days. At the office end they just have it on a speaker phone. The above aise the battery systems in cell towers, if they have any, may only last eight hours. Here in Telus land in western Canada they will last 24 hours. And the batteries are checked annually. According to some Telus employeers who are friends. VOIP may work longer than any other method if there is even some capacity to get out of your area. I recall that during the San Francisco earthquake either the Internet or AOL and/or similar were the only thing working for a while. That said I'd trust VOIP more if provided by the telco rather than the cableco as it seems the telco understands 24x7 better. And if there is a disaster assume you won't be getting any food or water for ten days. FEMA states three days but one of my job titles is paranoid pessimist. 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: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 18:30:42 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 1984 All Over Again? Message-ID: <d502f090-4272-4c33-b8b0-7069508c9af3@u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com> On Jun 6, 7:08 pm, Richard <r...@richbonnie.com> wrote: > Another reason to keep POTS: in an disaster (earthquake, widespread > power failure, etc.), VOIP or cellular systems may stop working, but a > wired POTS line almost always will work.  You may not be able to call > out of town, but at least you can call the local police or fire > departments. For what it's worth, over a long period of time, in our own experience, we've never had a telephone line failure. There were times when we had annoying heavy static, but the phones still worked. There were a few times when dial tone was slow. In contrast, we've had numerous power failures, ranging from local ones to massive multi- state ones. A good deal, though obviously not all, of the telephone plant is underground, protecting it from storms and trees. ***** Moderator's Note ***** Complexity --> Brittleness --> Increased likelihood of failure The more complex a system, the more likely it is to fail: a truism of design in telecommunications, computer science, and military defense. Cell users choose portability, but give up survivability. VoIP users choose low cost, but endure latency, drop-outs, and hidden costs. POTS users served by copper pair get increased reliability, but endure all the shortcomings of service being tied to a single location, and higher prices for long-distance. There's no perfect solution. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 19:24:11 -0500 From: gordonb.nrwq3@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <TOWdnYGedd02lbbXnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica> >***** Moderator's Note ***** > > A government could "require" that caller-id be accurate, but that > won't stop telemarketeers and/or dunning agencies from spoofing it: > there's money at stake, and the fines that _might_ be imposed are > likely to be less than the profit to be had. I propose that anyone caught spoofing caller-ID would not be allowed to send caller-ID. They are permanently stuck on "private call" mode. The calls themselves will go through, but perhaps no one will answer them. Or how about a real simple solution: if you're not a telco, you DON'T get to send your own caller-ID, and if you try, it doesn't matter, because the telco isn't paying attention to it. This doesn't prevent collection agencies from becoming rogue telcos, but it could prevent a lot of the problems. ***** Moderator's Note ***** Your proposal needs a backer: someone with deep pockets, a lot of patience, and the political muscle to be heard in Washington. Absent such a Galahad, it's dead on arrival. Let's cut to the chase: ILECs and CLECs are paid per-call. They're not going to pay to modify their software, retrain their workforce, and fight legal battles just so they can alienate the high-volume callers who write five-figure checks, each and every month, as regular as clockwork. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 10:58:15 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <710aa71b-3bc5-4c8b-bfee-e4527f0bf0d5@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com> On Jun 7, 9:30 am, gordonb.nr...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote: > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > Your proposal needs a backer: someone with deep pockets, a lot of > patience, and the political muscle to be heard in Washington. Absent > such a Galahad, it's dead on arrival. > > Let's cut to the chase: ILECs and CLECs are paid per-call. They're not > going to pay to modify their software, retrain their workforce, and > fight legal battles just so they can alienate the high-volume callers > who write five-figure checks, each and every month, as regular as > clockwork. In response to this and other posts, I will agree that individuals can't force the issue to make the necessary changes. But I strongly do not agree that it's "not legal" or it's so "technically expensive" , or "too hard to change" to do so. With all due respect, they're just bureaucratic excuses. The law is not "frozen". The telephone network is not technically "frozen". I've heard such excuses for many ideas of reform over the years. Then suddenly, someone new comes into power, gives the order, and the changes are made, without the horrors predicted. In our discussion it could be someone from the Federal Trade Commission issuing an order, or the FCC, or an influence state PUC officer, or a telco official. It may be a telco losing a lawsuit from someone hurt by a false Caller-ID display. Once again, a single individual can't force this [to] happen, but a powerful person can. ***** Moderator's Note ***** In the end, we agree. Such changes need backing from those in power, but powerful people do not obtain their position by tilting at windmills. Forcing major corporations to bear the expense of verifying CLID information is asking for trouble, and savvy politicians never make an enemy when they don't have to. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 18:07:50 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <e2eac2c2-ec0b-4a7b-a763-e024f747af3b@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com> On Jun 7, 4:13 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > In the end, we agree. Such changes need backing from those in power, > but powerful people do not obtain their position by tilting at > windmills. > > Forcing major corporations to bear the expense of verifying CLID > information is asking for trouble, and savvy politicians never make > an enemy when they don't have to. I remembered a current example. In our town, the municipal utility charges a very high fixed charge, even if you use no services. Some of us feel that it is unfair to small users who end up paying more per unit than other users. When asked to go to a more usage-based rate system (with no change in overall revenues), some commissioners dug in their heels and made a long speech how that would be fiscally imprudent, violate the bond holder convenants, etc. It was all B/S. Some new commissioners were appointed and the rates will be changed. It does NOT affect the bond holders as was claimed. Now certain users will be upset since they will pay more, but they've been getting a big break for some years. The point is that the commissioners know they'll upset those users, but other users will be happy. So what we were told for years was "impossible" suddenly became quite easily done. ***** Moderator's Note ***** I'm very surprised that a municipality would assess a flat fee for services which vary by household: please tell me what town this is. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 19:47:47 EDT From: Wesrock@aol.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <be5.56299977.375daba3@aol.com> In a message dated 6/7/2009 3:06:26 PM Central Daylight Time, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > Also an excellent point. It's only a matter of time before spammers > get on the telephone network in high volume. Already spammers send > out fraud text messages to cell phones Denial of service attacks have been used, or at least threatened, by union members during labor negotiations with telcos. They have large numbers of people who will participate. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 19:55:10 EDT From: Wesrock@aol.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <d38.4d69e21c.375dad5e@aol.com> In a message dated 6/7/2009 6:16:23 PM Central Daylight Time, diespammers@ikillspammers.com writes: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> This is the model I'm trying to achieve. The similar (analogous) >> technique applied to TCP/IP works quite well against spam, and it's >> only a matter of time before the volume of junk/spoofed phone calls >> as a fraction of all traffic approaches that of spam. -----------------------------Reply----------------------------- I have to check the spam folder every day or so because an important message gets blocked as spam. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 10:50:46 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <009354fd-e828-43f3-938d-933e0ff2ccfc@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> On Jun 6, 6:36 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: > As our moderator pointed out downthread, any technical fix is going to > have to be installed and used on a switch-by-switch basis, since some > people who control switches won't cooperate or can't understand how. > So even if there is a law requiring all IDs sent to the network to be > adequately validated at the injection point, it simply won't happen. I don't agree with that. The Bell System--and the numerous Independents--have to deal with numerous protocols between manual, step, panel, crossbar, and ESS on both a local and long distance basis. Many different signalling arrangements--and this was electro- mechanical equipment. Somehow they managed to get everything together AND accomodate continuing improvements and expansions. With software it's much easier. As mentioned before, software changes have a huge economy of scale to spread out the cost to many different users. > But although a "good-guy" telco apparently cannot refuse any traffic > from other telcos (at least under the law as it is), Good point. The law needs to be changed so that telcos CAN refuse other traffic. > I see no reason > why that telco can't have its own list that names some of its own > neighbors (defined by network connectivity) as trustworthy and others > not.  Then the good-guy telco could use one bit in the CLID strings it > sends its own customers to tell them whether it regards the string as > trustworthy.  And if it doesn't, individual customers might choose to > block the call at their equipment. Good point, and ought to be implemented. > This is the model I'm trying to achieve.  The similar (analogous) > technique applied to TCP/IP works quite well against spam, and it's > only a matter of time before the volume of junk/spoofed phone calls > as a fraction of all traffic approaches that of spam. Also an excellent point. It's only a matter of time before spammers get on the telephone network in high volume. Already spammers send out fraud text messages to cell phones. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:17:18 -0700 From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <jfVWl.31710$YU2.13337@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Jun 6, 6:36 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> > wrote: > >> As our moderator pointed out downthread, any technical fix is going to >> have to be installed and used on a switch-by-switch basis, since some >> people who control switches won't cooperate or can't understand how. >> So even if there is a law requiring all IDs sent to the network to be >> adequately validated at the injection point, it simply won't happen. > > I don't agree with that. The Bell System--and the numerous > Independents--have to deal with numerous protocols between manual, > step, panel, crossbar, and ESS on both a local and long distance > basis. Many different signalling arrangements--and this was electro- > mechanical equipment. Somehow they managed to get everything together > AND accomodate continuing improvements and expansions. > > With software it's much easier. As mentioned before, software changes > have a huge economy of scale to spread out the cost to many different > users. > > >> But although a "good-guy" telco apparently cannot refuse any traffic >> from other telcos (at least under the law as it is), > > Good point. The law needs to be changed so that telcos CAN refuse > other traffic. > >> I see no reason >> why that telco can't have its own list that names some of its own >> neighbors (defined by network connectivity) as trustworthy and others >> not. Then the good-guy telco could use one bit in the CLID strings it >> sends its own customers to tell them whether it regards the string as >> trustworthy. And if it doesn't, individual customers might choose to >> block the call at their equipment. > > Good point, and ought to be implemented. > > >> This is the model I'm trying to achieve. The similar (analogous) >> technique applied to TCP/IP works quite well against spam, and it's >> only a matter of time before the volume of junk/spoofed phone calls >> as a fraction of all traffic approaches that of spam. > > Also an excellent point. It's only a matter of time before spammers > get on the telephone network in high volume. Already spammers send > out fraud text messages to cell phones. The Fax Spammers are already on the network; using spoofed CID. I made an error the other day and left the fax link on my computer open and came home to 200 faxes on my hard drive, most were just trash and one was porn, the number to get removed was one of those numbers you call overseas and get charged $6,000 a second and can't drop off. -- 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. ------------------------------ 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) ******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues