It takes longer. It's holding the line up... and you can't bill the use of the line until the call supervision kicks in. So you have equipment and lines tied up for something you can't bill.
The thing is... you can charge the customer for touch tone. If you tried to charge the customer for pulse service, most of them wouldn't pay for it and then THOSE revenues would be lost.
--scott
The revenue loss from this must be inconsequential.
Here's why: First, it would only apply to toll colls where there is a usage charge, not local calls. Second, toll charges today are very low, and many subscribers pay a flat rate. Third, the _additional_ "non revenue" time required by dialing vs. keying would just be a few seconds and tiny part of the overall connect time (more time is wasted by waiting for the called party to answer). Fourth, toll lines are not occupied until the subscriber finishes dialing.
In the terms above--wasteful occupancy of equipment--requiring ten digit dialing for all calls is far more wasteful. That is, if the desire is to reduce equipment occupancy, then ten digit dialing ought to be eliminated. In a great many cases it was unnecessary and only introduced as a matter of _social policy,_ not technical need, so as to make it easier for newcomer companies to come in. Many newcomers soaked up exchange codes at an enormous rate, tieing up a block of
10,000 numbers for a tiny volume of subscribers. This soak-up created an explosion of new exchange codes which resulted in the need for more NPAs and overlays. To be "fair", they make EVERYBODY dial ten digits, not just people calling the newcomers (or special lines such as cell phones or faxes).Further, the requirement of ten digits introduces more chance of subscriber error which means wasted use of equipment and subscriber annoyance from wrong numbers.
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?
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.
Spoofing scripts I've seen allow you to put ANY number you want in the CLID string.
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.
What do you say to the argument about the cost of assigning real-time priorities to the switch's CPU? The gentleman who commented on that seem to have a great grasp of the concept.
Either hardware has to be present to buffer the origination dial pulsing or the switch has to "see" it as it's happening. I suppose the call program could create a software file each time someone goes off-hook but that would represent processor time as well.
I'm not sure what you mean by "assigning real time priorities". In computers, task-switching priority assignment is a built-in integral part of the multi-tasking process, so it's already there. Also, many people have commented, I'm not sure which person you're referring to.
In the time even an automatic dialer could input a Touch Tone number, the computer could be executing many other instructions. But often times it's a human tapping slowly on the keypad. Thus, the switch computer has to always be ready regardless what is entered.
I'm pretty sure a software entry is made everytime someone goes off- hook so as to have a tracking record of the call as it makes its way through the switch, waiting for the other party to answer, talking, and disconnecting. Remember, the switch is handling many calls at once.
I suspect the percentage of rotary-pulse calls placed through a switch (of all calls placed) is extremely low today. That means their impact on the switch is miniscule. It'd be like shooting a paper clip at a tank, the armour is so thick and the paper clip so thin it isn't noticed.
Now, in the old days, the difference might have been more significant. HOWEVER, electronics were terribly expensive in the old days and the cost of Touch Tone receivers/converters were very expensive. Actually, they were so expensive Western developed several models, expensive ones for heavy duty busy switches, and cheaper ones for PBXs and low volume Step exchanges. The Bell Labs history (Vol 2) goes into detail on this.
Cheap electronics--which allows for cheap terminal equipment--is a big reason that long distance calling is so inexpensive today.
If it's done for the purpose of preventing you from successfully filtering out unwanted calls, that's fraud too. "Meaningless" numbers qualify, IMO.
In the No. 5 crossbar, only the receiving register was occupied while the customer was dialing. Once dialing was completed, the receiving register was released for other calls, and the other components of common control were brought in.
Telephone equipment, then and now, is a series of tradeoffs. For example, while multiplexing saved line costs, it had terminal (multiplexing equipment at each end) costs. Depending on the circumstances, it may have been cheaper to run basic lines between two points rather than use carrier lines. (Today terminal costs are much lower).
The Bell System recognized that Touch Tone made better use of receiver registers. However, back then, the cost of providing Touch Tone service exceeded the savings it permitted. (They anticipated that would change in the future).
Note that crossbar and ESS supported faster 20 pulse/second dials, which would've made better use of registers. Certain subscribers (operators on big PBXs) had them, but the vast majority did not. One would think it would've been to everyone's advantage to give all crossbar and ESS customers 20 pps dials, but they obviously chose not to. (This was discussed on this group a while back.)
Also note that even in Step, the equipment is doing stuff 'behind the scenes' as a subscriber is dialing.
I appreciate the many views people have contributed to this discussion.
In my opinion, the present arrangements are broken and indefensible. I think the Federal Trade Commission ought to order that the carriers block spoofing on the grounds it is fraud. It's no different than when the FTC orders a company to stop deceptive advertising.
According to Merriam-Webster, a definition of 'spoof' is 'deceive', and the defintion of 'deceive' is "to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid"
So it seems to me that most, if not all, of the uses of the term "spoofing" have been accurate so far.
An extreme example of this: In the 1950's, for the TAT-1 transoceanic telephone cable, the terminal equipment would connect a user to one of the undersea voice circuits only when there was actual speach on the circuit in that direction. The path was disconnected not only when the other person was speaking, but also whenever an active speaker paused for a second. This process was called Time Assignment Speech Interpolation.
Does that include quoting me, but attributing my remarks to Dave Close? Please don't misattribute quotes on Usenet.
There's no deception if one hasn't revealed his identity, which is all that's happened if someone blocks Caller ID or inputs an invalid phone number into the field.
If you call me without telling me your name, you haven't deceived me. If you call me, stating that your name is Fred Willard but your name is actually John Drake, you have deceived me.
If you call me, state that your name is Fred Willard, representative of Xerox, to sell me a photocopier maintenance service on my machine, but you don't work for Xerox, that's fraud.
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:50:24 -0400, Adam H. Kerman wrote: ........
Deception for the purpose of gaining an advantage from someone - as in providing a false identity to circumvent any system designed to control access to all but specifically identified individuals - *is* fraud.
If identity is the key to access (as CLID can be), then changing that identity to obtain access is clearly fraudulent.
No, it is not clearly fraudulent. If all that has taken place is misrepresentation of identity, then it's just deception. There are situations independent of fraud in which deception in and of itself is a criminal act. Fraud and deception often go hand in hand, but they are two different acts.
If you call me, getting around my secretary by claiming to be someone whose call I would accept, that's deception, not fraud. Until you offer to sell me an item you do not own or a service you don't provide, you haven't committed fraud.
There are victims of actual fraud, who were deceived into participating in schemes resulting in the loss of property or possibly their life's savings.
If you accept a call from a telemarketer failing to identify himself in Caller ID, you are not a victim of fraud.
Please don't equate having had time wasted by a cold caller with the loss of unaffordable amounts of property or cash.
Whether it's "fraud" or "deception" or just plain "rudeness" is irrelevent.
Laws have been already passed to protect telephone subscribers, such as regulations on sales solicitations, even when everything is totally above-board.
IMHO, spoofing caller-id ought to be illegal. I can't imagine anyone would be against something like that except for their own selfish reasons. If they don't want others to see their real number, then block it (a convenient free service).
Someone mentioned a "woman's shelter". If confidentiality is so important, block the calls. Or, put in a generic phone line with some B/S name and use that for outgoing calls.
***** Moderator's Note *****Battered Women's shelters are a special case because some abusers are cops or firefighters who have access to Local Usage Detail records ("LUDs") which reveal the calling number even when CLID is blocked. As I wrote previously, it's common to falsify the records in such cases, with or without help from the LEC.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.