Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 04-Apr-12 13:56, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

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.

Is CNIS what shows up as Caller ID?

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.

The call has to be billed to somebody.

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.

Right. So don't make it seem like ANI was exclusively for billing purposes
on inward WATS.

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?

Carriers log everything.

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.

Statement: CNIS is not the trunk number. I notice you're not
disputing that. You're still arguing, though.

On 04-Apr-12 13:15, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
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?

GSM doesn't "dial calls" in any particular format, Abam. Users dial
calls, and the number is interpreted by the switch. All GSM switches
will accept calls in E.164 format (i.e. including the +) _as well as_
one or more local dialing formats.

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.

Wrong. See above.

My guess is that if the phone sees a digit used as a trunk code from a
land line, it eats it,

Wrong.

The phone doesn't _care_ what you dial, much less manipulate it; it
passes the number on as-is to the switch.

Unlike your claims, that is not a "guess".

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.

GSM works the same everywhere. In this respect, other technologies are
exactly the same, except some are unable to represent a "+" in the
dialed number.

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.

Wrong. See above.

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.

Wrong. See above.

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.

Wrong.

SS7 (the protocol between telco switches) has a bit that indicates if a
phone number is in "national" or "international" format. One of many
tasks of a customer-facing switch is to "normalize" every number dialed
into one of these two formats.

Within the NANP, the "national" format is ten digits; anything else
dialed by users (seven digits, 1+ten digits, etc.) is manipulated by
adding, removing, or changing digits until it conforms. The exact rules
for each switch depend on the defined dial plan, as determined by the
PUC for landlines or the carrier for mobiles.

The exception is if you dial "011..." within the NANP; the switch strips
off the 011 and tags the number as "international" format. The same
happens if you dial "+..." from a GSM phone.

Switches within each national phone network will forward any call to a
number tagged as "international", regardless of the number itself,
toward the nearest int'l gateway. The international network then routes
the call based on the country code to the correct country's gateway,
which then strips off the country code, changes the tag to "national",
and forwards the call to its own national network.

An interesting case is when you dial "+1...", which is tagged as
"18005551212" in "international" format, within the NANP. Normally,
this would be routed to the international network as above, but I highly
suspect that GSM carriers have configured their switches to recognize
this as a special case and do the conversion themselves, to avoid
bouncing such calls via an int'l gateway.

Inbound calls are presented with "1".

Possibly correct, but I suspect for the wrong reasons.

Customer-facing switches may de-normalize Caller ID information before
passing it to customers. In the NANP, that may mean prepending a "1"
for numbers tagged as "national" and "011" or "+" for numbers tagged as
"international".

Some carriers don't bother de-normalizing numbers--or do a bad job of
it--and the result may be something that isn't dialable. Oops.

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.

Wrong. See above.

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.

Doing so is perfectly legal, not fraud, as long as the call actually
terminates in that country.

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 13:15, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
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?

GSM doesn't "dial calls" in any particular format, Abam.

Wrong again, Stephen.

Users dial calls, and the number is interpreted by the switch.

It's a cell phone. "Switch" is not a concept that applies.

All GSM switches will accept calls in E.164 format (i.e. including the +)
_as well as_ one or more local dialing formats.

Must you be deliberately obtuse? No matter what diailng sequence the
phone accepts from me, the number is sent in international format.

This isn't a matter of controversy, so just drop this bull****.

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.

Wrong. See above.

You don't know what the **** you are talking about. You're now beyond
tiresome, so the rest is snipped.

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 16:20:44 -0700 (PDT), Owain
wrote:

On Apr 3, 8:39*pm, "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
Suppose we'd used a system like this for telephone numbers. Then exchanges
serving areas with lower populations could have issued shorter line numbers.
If the overall number length was to be the same a la ISBN, then the small
exchange codes themselves could have been longer.

which is, to some extent, how the British geographic numbering system
works. Number are 0+10* eg

(020) xxxx xxxx London
(029) xxxx xxxx Cardiff
(0113) xxx xxxx Leeds
(0116) xxx xxxx Leicester
(0131) xxx xxxx Edinburgh
(0151) xxx xxxx Liverpool
(01382) xxxxxx Dundee
(01386) xxxxxx Evesham
(01865) xxxxxx Oxford
(01792) xxxxxx Swansea

(01204) xxxxx Bolton *
(015396) xxxxx Sedbergh
(016977) xxxx Brampton


While number allocations can often be resolved to smaller blocks
matching older small exchange areas ITYF there are no longer any 4- or
5-digit directory numbers, such having been absorbed within the
general 6-digit numbering schemes usually identified by the main
exchange in a group (or the name of main city/town). It is mostly a
matter of convenience that the old allocations are usually adhered to
but if the numbers run out then there is generally no bar to using
number groups "robbed" from somewhere else in the same exchange group
as used to happen in Strowger/clockwork days either by extending
individual lines over junctions between exchanges or by routing calls
at an intermediate level over junctions from one exchange to another,
e.g. :-

N1-----N2------final selector 21xx "donor" exchange
|
junction
|
| **Exchange with number allocation used up**
|-----final selector 22xx "donated" range

N1-----N2------final selector 67xx allocated range

("donor"/"donated" used for convenience)
Where this arrangement involved a degree of permanence the donated
numbers would sometimes be allocated an exchange name either
non-specific or distinctive (often if they all served the same
establishment or area) which would be identified in records as a
"hypothetical" exchange thus providing a warning if e.g. somebody
complained that "when I [incorrectly] call ABCtown 2234 I go through
to DEFtown 2234".

The use of translation in director areas allowed other "fiddles" such
as having what was in reality a 5-digit exchange (i.e. N1st, N2nd,
N3rd, final selector) but with the first numerical selector receiving
the final routing digit. A similar effect was achieved at some
exchanges in central London by inserting an N3rd selector before
11-and-over final selectors (which operated off the first digit
received and discarded/ignored the final digit) thus increasing the
available directory numbers in the affected ranges by tenfold.

Confusion is avoided by always dialling the 0 for long distance calls,
and for calls being charged correctly regardless of whether the code
is dialled or not, for own-exchaneg calls.

Owain



* there are a few exceptions where a 01xxx code is followed by a 5-
digit subscriber number

On 04/04/2012 07:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 03/04/2012 23:06, wrote:
On 02/04/2012 14:43, wrote:
On Apr 1, 5:34 pm, wrote:

Are you finding that the inks which I pasted in don't work? I am, but
if I put the HTTP:// back in they do.

Yes, I got to it. Interesting stuff. thanks for sharing it.


Would you know if the British railway system ever had radio phones for
use by passengers as premier American trains did?

Also, at one time almost every US train station had a payphone, but
they are rare to find now. Some stations still have them mostly to
serve as an emergency phone (no charge to call police), though of
course one can still make a normal call. Overall, pay phones have
become rather rare in the US thanks to cell phones, and cheaper phone
rates.

Do British railway stations still have pay phones?


London Underground stations used to have pay phones, though no longer. I
can't understand why they would do that, however, because one cannot get
a signal on their mobile phones on the tube lines.

They also used to have to have Candbury's vending machines, though those
disappeared around 2006/07.

Too many people figured out how to get an extra free bar out of those
machines.


How so?

I did notice in the couple of instances that I used them that I would
get two chocolate bars, rather than the single one, for which I paid.

On 04/04/2012 16:35, wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:53 am, Graeme wrote:

They also used to have to have Candbury's vending machines, though those
disappeared around 2006/07.

Too many people figured out how to get an extra free bar out of those
machines.

the NYC subway used to have thin vending machines (candy, gum) that
mounted on pillars of the station. I think other cities had them,
too. The MTA got rid of them some years ago claiming they weren't
properly maintained.

We forget that in the old days vending machines were strictly
mechanical and did not make change. Today, I can't imagine a machine
not taking dollar bills and not making change.

In Philadelphia and NYC, often near subway and train stations, there
was a popular restaurant chain, "Horn& Hardart", that used vending
machines known as the Automat. The machines were constantly refreshed
by crews working behind them. They had good wholesome food at a
reasonable price. Unfortunately, times and tastes changed and the
business shut down.

Does the UK have fast food chains similar (or the same) as the US'
McDonald's, Burger King, etc.?

McDonald's? What's that?

On 04/04/2012 20:51, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:35:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 4, 2:53 am, Graeme wrote:

They also used to have to have Candbury's vending machines, though those
disappeared around 2006/07.

We forget that in the old days vending machines were strictly
mechanical and did not make change. Today, I can't imagine a machine
not taking dollar bills and not making change.

In Philadelphia and NYC, often near subway and train stations, there
was a popular restaurant chain, "Horn& Hardart", that used vending
machines known as the Automat. The machines were constantly refreshed
by crews working behind them. They had good wholesome food at a
reasonable price. Unfortunately, times and tastes changed and the
business shut down.
Fairly sure there was a place called Automat in Bellevue road
Southampton UK till around 1980 ish. No idea if the food was any good
though. Roughly between the Alexandra pub and that old bank that the
Police used to keep some low profile operations in .
G.Harman

They still have automats in the Netherlands, mind you? But they are not
the same as the Horn & Hardart ones that you saw in New York in the 1930s.

The Automat concept actually started in Berlin, IIRC.

On 04/04/2012 16:26, wrote:
On Apr 3, 6:06 pm,
wrote:

London Underground stations used to have pay phones, though no longer. I
can't understand why they would do that, however, because one cannot get
a signal on their mobile phones on the tube lines.

They also used to have to have Candbury's vending machines, though those
disappeared around 2006/07.

NYC subways still have pay phones. Mobile phones only work in
stations close to the surface, if even that. However, the MTA plans
to contract with vendors to install antenna and provide service. Some
people object to that since they don't want to be disturbed by cell
phone yackers. I certainly don't like cell phone users on trains.

Emirates aeroplanes are now equipped on certain routes with equipment
that allows in-flight mobile phone service.

On 03/04/2012 00:39, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:58:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Mar 30, 8:02 pm, Graham wrote:


IIRC they were also called cell phones in the UK back when analogue
cellular systems were new, complete with diagrams of hexagonal cells
covering the countryside. Mention of cell or cellular has fallen out
of use in the UK to be replaced by "mobile". But language keeps
moving on and for younger people (say, teens and twenties) mobiles
may just be referred to as "phones" now, as landline phones are
something only their parents will have.

In a Britsh TV show aired in the US, a teen referred to her cellular
phone as her "mobile", pronounced with three distinct syllables (mo bi
al). In the US, the word often comes out as two syllables, as "mo
bowl".

Curiously, some landline phones in the building were rotary--are
rotary sets still used in Britain?

They should still work on most if not all public exchanges but the
telephones (apart from various decorative/"special range" ones) will
be more than 25-30 years old by now.

They also command a premium purchase price, where you can find them,
because they are now "vintage."

On Apr 4, 8:47*pm, "
wrote:

Curiously, some landline phones in the building were rotary--are
rotary sets still used in Britain?

They should still work on most if not all public exchanges but the
telephones (apart from various decorative/"special range" ones) will
be more than 25-30 years old by now.

They also command a premium purchase price, where you can find them,
because they are now "vintage."-

In the US, plain Western Electric 500 sets in "as is condition pulled
from service" are often seen at yard sales pretty cheap. I just
picked up two for $5.00 (they need cleaning and cords.) A collector's
piece, such as a rare color of an older set in mint condition will
cost more.

For a while, everday people appreciated their durability and
reliability, but today people have gotten used to the features of
modern phones--like cordless phones, speed dial, and caller-ID
display--that a plain rotary phone is too inconvenient.