29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for March 07, 2011
Messages in this Issue:
====== 29 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
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, 06 Mar 2011 14:44:09 +0100 From: Gilles Ganault <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Ways for telco to signal answer/hangup? Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Hello I'm trying to figure out how Asterisk and an FXO module can detect that the remote end has answered and then hung up. Google and a check in the configuration of the Linksys 3102 POTS gateway seem to say that there are four ways for a telco to signal a hangup: Detect CPC (Calling Party Control): = open loop disconnect? www.sandman.com/cpcbull.html Detect Polarity Reversal: Detect Disconnect Tone: Detect PSTN Long Silence: Is this correct? As for signaling an answer, I guess two methods are available: Loop disconnect Polarity Reversal In addition, is there a tone-based way to tell that the remote end has answered, eg. listen for the ringback tone to stop? Thank you. ***** Moderator's Note ***** Giles, This is one of the oldest problems in telephone signalling. In no particular order, here are some of the questions involved: 1. Did the called party hang up, or did they just fumble or drop the phone, or did customers at two called-party extensions think the other person had the call? 2. Is the called party's line or instrument defective or has it been tampered with? "Ring trip silence" faults are common after rainstorms with copper cables, or when some kid finds an old copy of Ramparts magazine and tries to reinvent the black box. 3. Is the answering machine out of tape? Are its batteries failing? Well, you get the idea: the first problem is determining IF the called party hanged up. We must be sure that they did before we signal the calling party. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 16:54:11 -0800 (PST) From: Wes Leatherock <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Annoyance Calls Message-ID: <email@example.com> --- On Fri, 3/4/11, Fred Atkinson <firstname.lastname@example.org ash.com> wrote: > > The problem is: I don't know > who the violator is. > > And can I file against them in > New Mexico when they are on the opposite end of Texas from > me? I once filed a complaint with the FCC about a coin box in Longmont, Colo., that would not let me use another carrier. There was no number posted on the phone and nothing on it to name the owneer. The FCC replied this was a state matter. So I wrote the Colorado commission and got a reply they could do nothing without the telephone number. (I had described the location carefully.) This was before the days of cell phones. Wes Leatherock email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:16:54 -0800 From: Sam Spade <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Caller-Pays, Texting Message-ID: <1MudndGBEoCFAOzQnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@giganews.com> email@example.com wrote: > > As for text messaging, I simply told at&t/cingular that I don't text, > and never intend on texting anyone. I had been getting $pam texts of > "stock market quotes" from "brokers" in the middle of the night at > 1am or 2am, or $pam texts of sports scores and wanting me to > "purchase" their "package" of "unlimited" incoming texts of sports > scores. I don't think that these $pam texts were coming from > at&t/cingular, but rather from some $leazy $cumbag $pammer. It sort of > reminded me of the old 900/976 PAY numbers. > > I think that at&t/cingular removed the charges for receiving these > $pam texts, and the second time it happened, I called them up and told > them to simply BLOCK ALL texts. When I upgraded to my iPhone in Dec, 2008, I instituted text blocking on my account (wife has old Motorola, but it can receive text). I have not received any text messages from AT&T.
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 20:29:18 -0600 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Hal Murray) To: email@example.com. Subject: Number portability Message-ID: <6PudnZJUtM_jbO_QnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@megapath.net> > There's another difference to consider. In the USA there is no way > for the calling party to know whether the number he is calling is a > landline or a mobile. Indeed, because of number portability, a > number whose office code is for landlines could actually have been > ported to a mobile. Can you port a mobile number to a land line? In the old days, if you moved to a new house within the area served by your CO, you could keep your old number. Does the portability stuff let me keep my old number if I move to a new CO within the same phone company? Or move to a different area code? -- These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 19:18:03 -0800 From: "Jack Myers" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Annoyance Calls Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Lisa or Jeff <email@example.com> wrote: > [a google search on "Call Trace 57" yields many results.] Experiences with *57 seem to vary on a state-by-state basis. My ex was receiving harassing calls and hangups while I was out of town. (I did not let on that I was also receiving similar calls at work and at one particular job site because I did not want to involve my employer and client.) Can't remember whether the request had to originate with the police department, but she did have to agree to press charges. That requirement lead to a couple weeks delay because she feared the calls be coming from her 90-mumble year old grandmother. I finally convinced her that any prosecutor would make a compassionate exception, if that turned out to be the case. *57 registered on the second attempt. Me: "So who was it?" Her: "All they said was that she should not be receiving harassing calls from that particular number and it would not be happening again." -- Jack Myers / Westminster, California, USA Some animals are more equal than others. - George Orwell
Date: 5 Mar 2011 08:52:42 -0500 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Scott Dorsey) To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Annoyance Calls Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Lisa or Jeff <email@example.com> wrote: >On Mar 3, 3:34 pm, fatkinson.remove-t...@and-this-too.mishmash.com >wrote: > >> I have been getting annoyance calls from phone numbers in Harlingen, >> Texas. The latest numbers are . . . : > >Is it possible those numbers are spoofed? Of course they are spoofed, but that doesn't change the problem. >> I called my VOIP company. They are unable to help me contact the >> offenders. > >Why can't your carrier help you? Aren't they responsible to do so >as your telephone service provider? My local carrier has an office >specifically to deal with serious harrassment calls. The number is >reported by dialing 1157 immediately after the call is received. I >think that's a standard service, and I believe it uses the ANI, not >Caller-ID, so is more accurate. Because to do so would actually cost the carrier money. Since they aren't regulated and they aren't selling a tariffed service, there is no outside force to cause them to do this. Since they already have more customers than they really want, the threat of a customer leaving won't cause them to do it. Actually hiring customer service people to deal with problems would cost too much money. >sample description: >"Call Trace automatically initiates a trace of the last call you >received. You can use this feature to trace unlawful or threatening >calls that alarm, frighten, or harass you. The trace results include >the calling and called number and the date and the time of the call. >The results are sent to the Verizon Unlawful Call Center and are >stored for future action. You have just discovered the big difference between Verizon and the VOIP providers. Verizon has an Unlawful Call Center because the FCC and the PUC force them to have it. The VOIP providers do not have this pressure on them. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 12:09:17 -0700 From: Fred Atkinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Annoyance Calls Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> At 06:52 AM 3/5/2011, you wrote: >Lisa or Jeff <email@example.com> wrote: >You have just discovered the big difference between Verizon and the VOIP >providers. Verizon has an Unlawful Call Center because the FCC and the >PUC force them to have it. The VOIP providers do not have this pressure >on them. I have just discovered that Southwestern Bell refuses to stop one of its own customers from making annoyance calls. That's what I've discovered. Fred
Date: 5 Mar 2011 14:29:38 -0500 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Scott Dorsey) To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Annoyance Calls Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Fred Atkinson <email@example.com> wrote: > The carrier is Phone Power (http://www.phonepower.com). > > I gain nothing by getting the number. I've already got it. > > What I need is to know who that number belongs to. Not really, the number you have is from CNID and is almost certainly false. About all you can do is file a lawsuit against an unknown party, which gives you the ability to subpoena records from the VOIP provider. This is remarkably effective and will cost a minimal fee but can take a lot of trips to the courthouse. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 12:11:12 -0700 From: Fred Atkinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Annoyance Calls Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> At 12:29 PM 3/5/2011, you wrote: >Not really, the number you have is from CNID and is almost certainly >false. > >About all you can do is file a lawsuit against an unknown party, which >gives you the ability to subpoena records from the VOIP provider. This >is remarkably effective and will cost a minimal fee but can take a lot >of trips to the courthouse. >--scott > >-- >"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." I'd disagree with you that the numbers are false. When I dial them back, I hear an autodialer dialing over and over again. Apparently their system doesn't recognize that there isn't a dial tone (while I'm dialed into the line), dials anyway, waits a bit, and then dials again. Regards, Fred
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 Bill Horne. 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 moderated by Bill Horne. Contact information: Bill Horne Telecom Digest 43 Deerfield Road Sharon MA 02067-2301 781-784-7287 bill at horne dot net Subscribe: email@example.com?body=subscribe telecom Unsubscribe: firstname.lastname@example.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) 2009 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)