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 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) ******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues