Re: ANI vs. Caller ID [Telecom]

On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:11:44 -0400, hancock4 wrote: .......

Would it really?

The Internet has anybody (and everybody) able to connect and basically do what they like with the packets they transmit, but telephony is still essentially a controlled access network and those that provide the connections can still enforce - by disconnection if necessary - any sort of technical rule they like.

There are already all sorts of technical standards for connecting to the voice infrastructure, if accurate Caller ID was another then it shouldn't be that big a deal (for legitimate users, at least).

No, there is not. There are two _very_ different (from each other, and from what you claim) concepts, lumped under the general name of the "reasonable man hypothesis". One is what a hypothetical "reasonable man" _would_ believe (i.e. the 'most likely thing') in a given set of circumstances, the other is what said "reasonable man" _could_ believe (i.e. anything _not_ totally 'unbelieveable') in a given set of circumstances.

What the 'average' person does, or does *not* know about _anything_ is, legally, *irrelevant* to the 'reasonable man' hypotheses.

As for expectations, "Everyone has the inalienable right to be wrong." Sometimes you have to let them exercise their rights.

It is not the buisness of the law to protect [a] man from his _own_ stupidities.

Whatever you think it "better be", the reality is that it IS NOT. And _cannot_ be.

And with telemarketers who call numbers *without* verifying that they are not cell phones. Even using recorded announcements to make the solicitation. *yawn*

There is no such single, monolithic, thing as "the law", to change. There are, at a minimum_ some 246 *DIFFERENT* sets of laws that would have to _all_ be changed in exactly the same manner, and *then* the telcos would have to implement it. Ten years of design and testing later, it gets implemented. And *THEN* "somebody" has to enforce 'the law' -- correction, *ALL* 246 governments have to enforce it -- the changes/improvement you will see will be only as good as the _worst_ of those 246 governments do at enforcement. And, I guarantee you that there are at least 10-20 of them that, even if "the law" you demand were passed, [would be] venial enough and corrupt enough that [they] would take bribes from the low-lifes who wanted to continue the scamming.

The service in question _cannot_ do what "everybody thinks" it can do, under all circumstances. And there is *NO*POSSIBLE*WAY*, not even any 'theoretical' solution -- It can be mathematically _proven_ that it is impossible to accomplish -- for any legislation in this country to change that.

The -only- thing such legislation as you think 'must' be implemented will accomplish is to give people 'warm fuzzies' and even *more* 'misplaced trust' in a system that is not and -- without a *complete* redesign and re-implmentation of the *entire* network (worldwide!!) -- *CANNOT* be trustworthy to that degree.

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.

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

Please put [Telecom] at the end of your subject line, or I may never see your post! Thanks!

We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the digest, you don't need to change anything.

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.

Good point. The law needs to be changed so that telcos CAN refuse other traffic.

Good point, and ought to be implemented.

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.

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.

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

Please put [Telecom] at the end of your subject line, or I may never see your post! Thanks!

We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the digest, you don't need to change anything.

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.

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

Please put [Telecom] at the end of your subject line, or I may never see your post! Thanks!

We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the digest, you don't need to change anything.

Caller ID works for our residence. I have all our friend's and other known contacts Caller ID voice tagged in our Meridian 9516 telephone set. They are announecd in my voice. With occasional calls where we don't recognize the Caller ID we let it go to the Meridian's answering machine. Most of the clowns won't leave a message except for those recorded missives. And, even those, we only hear a few seconds before we use the erase function.

I've added SIT tones to my incoming message. Problem solved.

Bill Horne Temporary Moderator

Please put [Telecom] at the end of your subject line, or I may never see your post! Thanks!

We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the digest, you don't need to change anything.

That's long gone in California. But, it was still around for several years after all the end offices were electronic. As we all know, it costs more to process a dial pulse than a DTMF call origination.

If it costs more to process DP than DTMF, why doesn't DP access cost more?

Wasn't the increased cost the basis for charges when DTMF first appeared?

Bill, who is playing Devil's Advocate

Bill Horne Temporary Moderator

Please put [Telecom] at the end of your subject line, or I may never see your post! Thanks!

We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the digest, you don't need to change anything.

No Bill. DTMF was more valuable to the subscriber, according to Pacific Bell; thus a premium service. That was the line for quite a few years.

And, DTMF did cost more on SxS offices.

Who is a telco? Who isn't a telco? If I own my own PBX, am I a telco? What if I own a bunch of PBXes around the country on a private line network? What if I own a private line network and sell service on it? At what point do I become a telco?

--scott

How about [defining it as a] local exchange carrier?

All good questions.

In my opinion, it is very important to have these lines crystal line and the responsibilities of each clearly defined legally and by technical standards so as the network is protected.

But, IMHO, when the end-goal was competition and to make it as easy as possible for newcomers to enter the business, they intentionally blurred those lines.

I've heard all sorts of horror stories from people who tried alternative carriers and had to switch back due to lousy service or false price claims. The established carriers end up eating a lot of unnecessary cost. IMHO, that's money wasted and ought to be used for the service protections everyone says is too expensive to do.

And in the penultimate example, suppose you buy all the land and the telco; so you own it and the local police dept. and everything else. That's what Disney did in the Reedy Creek Improvement District.

I'm sure the FCC has an adequate legal definition of what a telco is, at least within the United States, and all sorts of regulations that telcos have to follow that others don't, like filing lots of reports with the FCC.

One guideline: you'd interact with other telcos as a peer, not a customer. You'd participate in the complicated call-rating system that divides call revenues between the originating and terminating telco. You'd also probably have to have CALEA automated wire-tapping equipment connected to the NSA.

No, that by itself doesn't make you a telco. And if these PBXs don't interconnect with the public telephone network, it's irrelevant anyway.

Pulse costs them more than Touch Tone? Why?

As I understand the technology, there is no hardware involved, just _existing_ software. The switch scans every line very often (in milliseconds) to scan for off or on hook and to act accordingly. Dial pulses would be interpreted during that scan process. That process is needed to know when people are making or terminating a call so it's not going anywhere.

Now perhaps some new PBX with newly written software might not support pulse phones or even traditional phone sets.

As to party lines, I understand that they required separate _hardware_ to apply the proper ringing current* to the line, and that is obsolete. Further, the ringing current variations (four types on baby bell systems) may not be compatible with modern loop concentrators. (*They vary grounding and bias, I believe, to get four combinations.)

I would guess the cost at first was for the costs involved in the extra hardware that was needed to Touch Tone., now as all have said it is software driven. It might cost more for DP now.

To quote Tevye: "Tradition!" *grin*

Yup.

Early-generation equipment to process DTMF cost more than the already in place electro-mechanical stuff.

With the price of "electronics" in those days, a _lot_ more.

These days, pulse dialing costs more, because they have to stick an additional 'pulse to DTMF converter' on the front of the line before the call hits the DTMF-only switch.

Politically, however, it is a 'no sale' to try to charge a premium, now, for what was the 'basic' service -- over what was hyped for years, if not decades as the premium ('worth paying extra for') services.

Because it's slower. When you're dialing a number, the switch needs to allocate a digit buffer (which has some other telco name I forget) until you've dialed all the digits, and that takes several times longer with pulse dialing. The switch needs to include enough buffers to handle the peak hour number of simultaneously dialed calls.

Switches don't have pulse to tone converters. Old switches were retrofitted with tone->pulse converters, but that was only because the switches predated the invention of tone dialing.

I believe a switch has some sort of status word containing various details of the call, and this exists for the duration of the call. It is built as the call progresses.

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.