On 31-Mar-12 13:10, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 31-Mar-12 10:48, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
+ is the international instruction to dial the routing digits to make
an international call. I believe we all recognize it.

You'd be surprised. Many Americans probably don't know what our int'l
dialing prefix is since they've never used it--and it's not necessary
for int'l calls to other countries in the NANP.

I have a GSM handset.

So your dialing isn't broken by design, as it is with CDMA and iDEN
handsets (and, formerly, AMPS and TDMA).

Every call is dialed with country code, although I can dial 10 digits
domestically. I have to dial a literal + for international dialing
outside NANP.

If you dial "1" rather than "+1" for NANP calls, you are _not_ dialing
with a country code but rather with the long distance access code, which
AFAIK is optional on all NA mobile operators.

This is very confusing for most Merkins because our country code looks
very similar to our long-distance access code--only the presence of the
"+" distinguishes between the two.

Also, on some mobile phones, the int'l prefix is actually "01", which
many people may not distinguish from the "1" that sometimes precedes
NANP calls (including Caller ID, on some carriers).

I wonder why that is, as that would get you operator assistance on a
land line call.

I never asked when I was with that carrier; I just know that using 011
didn't work and Customer Service directed me to use 01.

There are several countries in the NANP that charge ridiculous int'l
toll rates for numbers, hoping that clueless Americans can be enticed
into dialing them, but that's it.

You're talking about that fraud. Calls didn't even terminate there. The
telecom was splitting the long distance settlement fees with those
call centers.

Also, there are new countries in the NANP.

The fraud was in _not terminating_ the calls in the country in question.
The ridiculous int'l tolls themselves were (and still are) legitimate
for calls _actually terminated_ in those countries, though they have
come down in recent years for unrelated reasons.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 04-Apr-12 03:14, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 03-Apr-12 14:49, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:

PBX trunks aren't numbered.

If outbound trunks aren't numbered, how does ANI work?

For a trunk, both called and calling number are explicitly signaled at
the start of each call in either direction.

So they are numbered.

There is not a 1:1 correspondence between trunks and numbers, as there
is with POTS lines. That is what makes them trunks!

I thought it was the bit that the PBX selects it for the outbound call,
possibly on a least cost routing basis.

If I have a block of 1000 directory numbers, all of them are routed to
the entire trunk group, so no trunk can be said to have any particular
number. Same if I only have one (high-volume) number: it is routed to
the entire trunk group, so all trunks have the "same" number, which also
means they don't have unique numbers.

Now you're moving the goal posts. I asked a VERY specific question about
outbound trunks. If you don't know the answer, don't post a followup.

Of course, trunks still have _circuit_ numbers for tracking and billing
purposes, but those are not dialable _directory_ numbers, which is what
we were discussing. For POTS lines, the directory number _is_ the
circuit number.

Why would you go off on a tangent about how outbound trunks aren't
dialable?

No ****!

ANI is about billing. The outbound trunk has to have a number, else the
call can't be billed. As far as I know, each outbound trunk has its own
number allowing specific calls to be logged to the specific trunk.

Inbound calls to a number (or set of numbers, eg. DID) are routed to any
available trunk in the trunk group.

Right. ANI must be passed along to the PBX so it knows what extension
to connect to.

DNIS (called number) is the opposite of ANI (calling number).

Pardon my error.

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 12:46:09 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Apr 3, 5:30*pm, wrote:
On Apr 3, 9:25*am, Stephen Furley wrote:

Ok, so when cell phones came out widely, did Britain convert to that
scheme? *What about older landline Touch Tone and rotary phones--did
the dial ring have to be converted?
Sorry, I don't understand this; what does the introduction of cell
phones have to do with letters/numbers, and converting other 'phones?

The letter/number matchup on US dials/keypads has been the same since
letters were introduced in the 1920s.

I understand that historically Britain used a different matchup.
Thus, when cellphones came out with the US matchup, there was some
sort of 'conversion' between historical British practice and modern
units. *That's what I'm trying to put into perspective.

I see what you're saying now. The fact that the Mitel IP 'phone
conforms to the same standard as cell 'phones suggests that this is
standard on all new 'phones. There was a considerable period when new
British 'phones didn't have letters at all, from the introduction of
all-figure dialing around the late '60s, until well into the push-
button era. Most of the button 'phones in my collection are 10 button
LD (pulse) models and most if not all of these lack letters, I don't
have all of them to hand to check. Many later 12 button DTMF or dual
signalling models also lack letters. Later, letters were re-
introduced, in the same pattern as on cell 'phones, which enabled
things like the TAXICAB example, but this is much less common here
than in the US. Because there was a long gap between the phasing out
of exchange names in numbers, such as ABBey 1234 and the use of
letters for other purposes the minor changes to the positions of a
couple of letters didn't really cause confusion. Most of the last
'phones to have letters on, or around, the dial would have been out of
use years before the re-introduction of letters to a slightly
different pattern, in fairly recent times.

Nobody seems to have mentioned New Zeeland, where the 0 is in the same
place, but the other digits run clockwise round the dial, so the 5 is
also in the same place, but all of the other digits are different.
The mechanism is the same as on a normal dial, so that dialing a digit
n generates 10-n pulses.


Yeah, I tried to explain that to a technician at then BC Tel in
Vancouver at the time when Teleglobe Canada introduced international
direct dialling (mid-70's?). He had a hard time getting his mind
around that anomaly. NZ's emergency number is 111, rather than 999.

Rotary phones had no letters on the face plate, but push buttons did
when introduced.

snipped

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 31-Mar-12 13:10, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 31-Mar-12 10:48, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

+ is the international instruction to dial the routing digits to make
an international call. I believe we all recognize it.

You'd be surprised. Many Americans probably don't know what our int'l
dialing prefix is since they've never used it--and it's not necessary
for int'l calls to other countries in the NANP.

I have a GSM handset.

So your dialing isn't broken by design, as it is with CDMA and iDEN
handsets (and, formerly, AMPS and TDMA).

You and your over-the-top opinions.

GSM dials calls in international format for the simple reason that it was
designed initially for European use, where there are 30 country codes.
How many country codes are there in the NANP, Steven?

If you dial "1" rather than "+1" for NANP calls, you are _not_ dialing
with a country code but rather with the long distance access code, which
AFAIK is optional on all NA mobile operators.

For the 27th time, Steven: GSM doesn't have a concept of trunk codes,
only international dialing format. My guess is that if the phone sees a
digit used as a trunk code from a land line, it eats it, but one of our
friends from UK with GSM, in which "0" is used as a trunk code from land
lines, would have to confirm that. The phone allows me to place calls
with certain shortcuts so I don't use the + nor "1" when calling within
NANP. Regardless, all calls are actually dialed in international dialing
format no matter what shortcut I might use.

In the area code of my cell phone's number, 7 digit home area code dialing
isn't allowed, so the cell phone is programmed not to use it as a shortcut.

Also, I assume that as all calls are dialed in international format,
the + doesn't actually insert the international dialing prefix in
any county. That would be as pointless as dialing plans that require use
of a trunk code even though both foreign and home area code calls are
dialed with the area code.

Inbound calls are presented with "1".

This is very confusing for most Merkins because our country code looks
very similar to our long-distance access code--only the presence of the
"+" distinguishes between the two.

You're the one who is confused here, as you seem to believe that GSM
has a concept of a trunk code as part of the way it sends the telephone
number. Also, "1" was never an NNTP-wide trunk code even though it was
somewhat common. It really depended on what switch the telephone company
deployed.

There are several countries in the NANP that charge ridiculous int'l
toll rates for numbers, hoping that clueless Americans can be enticed
into dialing them, but that's it.

You're talking about that fraud. Calls didn't even terminate there. The
telecom was splitting the long distance settlement fees with those
call centers.

Also, there are new countries in the NANP.

The fraud was in _not terminating_ the calls in the country in question.
The ridiculous int'l tolls themselves were (and still are) legitimate
for calls _actually terminated_ in those countries, though they have
come down in recent years for unrelated reasons.

No, they were premium rate numbers as well, not just ordinary international
per minute charges. They were attempting to collect a **** load of money.

On 04-Apr-12 12:51, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 04-Apr-12 03:14, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 03-Apr-12 14:49, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
PBX trunks aren't numbered.

If outbound trunks aren't numbered, how does ANI work?

For a trunk, both called and calling number are explicitly signaled at
the start of each call in either direction.

So they are numbered.

There is not a 1:1 correspondence between trunks and numbers, as there
is with POTS lines. That is what makes them trunks!

I thought it was the bit that the PBX selects it for the outbound call,
possibly on a least cost routing basis.

Huh? I don't see the relevance of that comment.

A PBX may have one trunk or multiple trunks. Multiple trunks may be to
the same carrier or to multiple carriers for redundancy or to take
advantage of cost differences. Multiple trunks to the same carrier will
usually be arranged in a trunk group, with all trunks within a group
being equal.

The customer can use _any_ of their numbers on _any_ of those trunks.

If I have a block of 1000 directory numbers, all of them are routed to
the entire trunk group, so no trunk can be said to have any particular
number. Same if I only have one (high-volume) number: it is routed to
the entire trunk group, so all trunks have the "same" number, which also
means they don't have unique numbers.

Now you're moving the goal posts.

No, I'm attempting to explain to you my original point that trunks are
not numbered, which you still don't seem to get.

I asked a VERY specific question about outbound trunks. If you don't
know the answer, don't post a followup.

I apparently didn't understand your question. Could you rephrase it?

Of course, trunks still have _circuit_ numbers for tracking and billing
purposes, but those are not dialable _directory_ numbers, which is what
we were discussing. For POTS lines, the directory number _is_ the
circuit number.

Why would you go off on a tangent about how outbound trunks aren't
dialable?

No ****!

There is no such thing as an "outbound trunk". Trunks are bidirectional.

(Certain esoteric analog MF trunks are unidirectional, eg. DID and CAMA,
but they aren't used much anymore--and they are unnumbered as well.
Today, "trunk" normally refers to E&M, T1 or PRI circuits.)

ANI is about billing.

No, it is not.

ANI provides an Inward WATS (aka toll-free) customer with the caller's
number so they can do intelligent things with it, like connect them to
the nearest store location. ANI is _not_ guaranteed; the customer gets
billed the appropriate amount even when it's not available. And it's
irrelevant to billing today anyway since customers pay a flat rate per
minute (~$0.01/min) or even a flat monthly rate regardless of the
calling numbers.


The outbound trunk has to have a number, else the call can't be billed.
As far as I know, each outbound trunk has its own number allowing
specific calls to be logged to the specific trunk.

Um, no.

Billing for outbound calls is _not_ based on the calling number (CNIS);
there is one bill is for all calls on the entire trunk group, with the
rate for each call determined by the called number (DNIS). If a calling
number (CNIS) is provided by the customer (it's optional), the carrier
will put it on the bill for the customer's convenience, eg. so they can
assign the cost of each call to the correct department. The carrier
doesn't care about those numbers itself, which is why they allow CNIS of
001-001-0001 if that's what customers send them.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

On 03-Apr-12 16:34, wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:03 pm, Stephen Sprunk wrote:


In the old Bell System days, despite continuing advances in
automation, they always insisted on having Operators handy in case
help was needed.

Great customer service is a luxury of companies that don't have to
compete on price and are guaranteed a profit no matter how high their
expenses are, i.e. monopolies.

Except the companies are NOT providing price discounts.

Right, that's why long distance and mobile rates are so much higher than
they were 30 years ago. Oh, wait, they've declined over 99% in that
time. Maybe customers _are_ getting lower prices!

They're getting away with non existent customer service because everyone
is doing it, and pocketing very nice comfortable profits.

They're "getting away with it" because the vast majority of customers,
when faced with a choice, consistently choose the lower-cost option even
if it means horrible customer service. They may complain about the
latter, but it doesn't seem to affect their buying habits.

And, yes, _some_ of the cost savings from cutting service levels goes to
higher profits. But _most_ of it goes to lower prices; if it didn't,
price competition would drive them out of business.

TODAY there are more monopolies or _effective_ monopolies so the
companies get a way with it.

There is a _lot_ more competition today than there was 30 years ago,
arguably too much in many industries, and the result is the typical
"race to the bottom".

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 04-Apr-12 12:51, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 04-Apr-12 03:14, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 03-Apr-12 14:49, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:

PBX trunks aren't numbered.

If outbound trunks aren't numbered, how does ANI work?

For a trunk, both called and calling number are explicitly signaled at
the start of each call in either direction.

So they are numbered.

There is not a 1:1 correspondence between trunks and numbers, as there
is with POTS lines. That is what makes them trunks!

I thought it was the bit that the PBX selects it for the outbound call,
possibly on a least cost routing basis.

Huh? I don't see the relevance of that comment.

A PBX may have one trunk or multiple trunks. Multiple trunks may be to
the same carrier or to multiple carriers for redundancy or to take
advantage of cost differences. Multiple trunks to the same carrier will
usually be arranged in a trunk group, with all trunks within a group
being equal.

The customer can use _any_ of their numbers on _any_ of those trunks.

The subscriber CANNOT set the number of the trunk that's sent in ANI.
If he could, phone companies would have a hell of a time billing.

If I have a block of 1000 directory numbers, all of them are routed to
the entire trunk group, so no trunk can be said to have any particular
number. Same if I only have one (high-volume) number: it is routed to
the entire trunk group, so all trunks have the "same" number, which also
means they don't have unique numbers.

Now you're moving the goal posts.

No, I'm attempting to explain to you my original point that trunks are
not numbered, which you still don't seem to get.

I didn't ask you about inbound trunks, Stephen. What I asked is quoted
above.

ANI is about billing.

No, it is not.

Yes it is.

ANI provides an Inward WATS (aka toll-free) customer with the caller's
number so they can do intelligent things with it, like connect them to
the nearest store location.

That works only if it's passed along PRI-ISDN or some similar digital
line. Analog? No real-time ANI, but it was logged on the bill.

The outbound trunk has to have a number, else the call can't be billed.
As far as I know, each outbound trunk has its own number allowing
specific calls to be logged to the specific trunk.

Um, no.

Billing for outbound calls is _not_ based on the calling number (CNIS);
there is one bill is for all calls on the entire trunk group, with the
rate for each call determined by the called number (DNIS).

One bill? No ****. You don't believe the carrier logs which trunk was
used regardless of whether it's reported to the subscriber on the bill?
You're wrong.

CNIS isn't the trunk number. For gawd's sake, will you knock off
these tangents?

On 03-Apr-12 11:51, wrote:
When they switched from analog to digital, some people said remote
areas would have problems. People in those areas retained their older
bag or car phones because they were higher powered and needed to work
in remote areas. How that was handled by digital I don't know.

That's why DAMPS (aka TDMA) was designed to be compatible with AMPS: it
used the same frequency slots and calls could be handed back and forth,
so there would be a gradual transition from analog to digital. None of
the new handsets were "high-powered", though, so they covered rural
areas with high-altitude towers and, where necessary due to topography,
denser towers. When coverage for low-power digital phones neared parity
with high-power analog phones, they turned off the AMPS network.

Other carriers, who were not constrained by backwards compatibility,
were all-digital (using CDMA, GSM or iDEN) from the start and served
only metro areas, where they could cover the most potential customers
for the least amount of money. As their customer base grew, they
extended coverage outwards and/or formed roaming agreements, but mainly
to serve customers from metro areas who wandered, eg. on freeways from
one city to another. They weren't, and still aren't, interested in
serving rural customers.

It does seem that anywhere there is a tower of any kind (high tension
line, water tower, building, etc) there are cell phone antenna
attached to it. Some old water towers are covered with antenna, kind
of freaky looking.

It's ugly, but it is unavoidable to an extent due to the different
technologies in use: you need, at minimum, one set of antennae for each.
However, in metro areas, there will often be one set of antennae _per
carrier_, even when they use the same technology, because there is
enough customer density that having their own is cheaper than paying
roaming fees--potentially to a competitor.

Also, rental of space on tall structures provides their owners with a
new income source, and it's arguably less of an eyesore than having a
cluster of separate mobile phone towers nearby.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

On Apr 4, 3:12*pm, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Other carriers, who were not constrained by backwards compatibility,
were all-digital (using CDMA, GSM or iDEN) from the start and served
only metro areas, where they could cover the most potential customers
for the least amount of money. *As their customer base grew, they
extended coverage outwards and/or formed roaming agreements, but mainly
to serve customers from metro areas who wandered, eg. on freeways from
one city to another. *They weren't, and still aren't, interested in
serving rural customers.

According to the fine print on my cell phone contract, I will get
charged for roaming if I end up in a rural area not served by the
carrier. But I think I'd have to go far off the beaten track to be in
such an area--they have the major Interstates and small towns covered.

(As mentioned, on my original old analog cell phone, the 'home area'
was only my metro area evem though the company covered a rather large
portion of the country.)

On 04-Apr-12 13:56, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 04-Apr-12 12:51, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 04-Apr-12 03:14, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 03-Apr-12 14:49, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
PBX trunks aren't numbered.

If outbound trunks aren't numbered, how does ANI work?

For a trunk, both called and calling number are explicitly signaled at
the start of each call in either direction.

So they are numbered.

There is not a 1:1 correspondence between trunks and numbers, as there
is with POTS lines. That is what makes them trunks!

I thought it was the bit that the PBX selects it for the outbound call,
possibly on a least cost routing basis.

Huh? I don't see the relevance of that comment.

A PBX may have one trunk or multiple trunks. Multiple trunks may be to
the same carrier or to multiple carriers for redundancy or to take
advantage of cost differences. Multiple trunks to the same carrier will
usually be arranged in a trunk group, with all trunks within a group
being equal.

The customer can use _any_ of their numbers on _any_ of those trunks.

The subscriber CANNOT set the number of the trunk that's sent in ANI.

Yes, Adam, they can--and do. I've been in the telecom industry for
nearly two decades, and we can set ANI/CNIS to whatever we want. The
carriers don't care.

If he could, phone companies would have a hell of a time billing.

Why? They bill WATS calls on a flat rate per minute; the calling number
is now only provided to the customer as a convenience.

They _used to_ care, so they configured their switches to restrict the
ANI/CNIS that customers set on a given trunk to numbers that were routed
_to_ that trunk, but that went away years ago.

If I have a block of 1000 directory numbers, all of them are routed to
the entire trunk group, so no trunk can be said to have any particular
number. Same if I only have one (high-volume) number: it is routed to
the entire trunk group, so all trunks have the "same" number, which also
means they don't have unique numbers.

Now you're moving the goal posts.

No, I'm attempting to explain to you my original point that trunks are
not numbered, which you still don't seem to get.

I didn't ask you about inbound trunks, Stephen. What I asked is quoted
above.

Trunks are bidirectional, Adam.

ANI is about billing.

No, it is not.

Yes it is.

No, it is not.

ANI provides an Inward WATS (aka toll-free) customer with the caller's
number so they can do intelligent things with it, like connect them to
the nearest store location.

That works only if it's passed along PRI-ISDN or some similar digital
line.

Trunks are now almost exclusively PRI or VoIP, both of which include
calling number.

Analog? No real-time ANI,

Analog trunks are almost unheard of today.

but it was logged on the bill.

Some customers like to see that information for statistical purposes,
but most don't care because they're now paying a flat rate per minute.

The outbound trunk has to have a number, else the call can't be billed.
As far as I know, each outbound trunk has its own number allowing
specific calls to be logged to the specific trunk.

Um, no.

Billing for outbound calls is _not_ based on the calling number (CNIS);
there is one bill is for all calls on the entire trunk group, with the
rate for each call determined by the called number (DNIS).

One bill? No ****. You don't believe the carrier logs which trunk was
used regardless of whether it's reported to the subscriber on the bill?
You're wrong.

The carrier doesn't _care_ which trunk was used. Why would they?

CNIS isn't the trunk number. For gawd's sake, will you knock off
these tangents?

These are not tangents, Adam. It is an explanation of complex things
that you simply don't understand and therefore mistakenly attribute to
other, unrelated things.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking