RE: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
One toll defeat trick that worked in GTE land in Southern California was to call the operator, then silently wait for them to hang up. Rattle the receiver hook several times for them to come back on the line and they would not know the caller's telephone number. -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+matthew.black=csulb@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Larry Sheldon Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 12:11 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences On 4/20/2016 10:15, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Apr 20, 2016, at 7:59 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei >> wrote: >> >> On 2016-04-20 10:52, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> For the most part, “long distance” calls within the US are a thing of the >>> past and at least one mobile carrier now treats US/CA/MX as a single >>> local calling area >> >> >> Is this a case of telcos having switched to IP trunks and can reach >> other carriers for "free" >> >> Or are wholesale long distance still billed between carriers but at >> prices so low that they can afford to offer "free" long distance at >> retail level ? > > I think it boiled down to a recognition that the costs of billing were > beginning to account for something like $0.99 of every $1 billed. I wonder if the costs of avoiding-preventing-investigating toll fraud final grow to consume the profit in the product. I know that long ago there were things that I thought were insanely silly. A few examples: As an ordinary citizen I was amused and annoyed, in the case where a toll charge had been contested (and perforce refunded) there would often be several non-revenue calls to the protesting number asking whoever answered if they knew anybody in the called city, or if they knew who the called number belonged to. (Proper answer in any case: Who or what I know is none of your business.) Often there would calls to the called number (super irritating because the error was in the recording--later learned to be poor handwriting) asking the reciprocal questions except that often they had no idea that a call had been made. I was a Toll Transmissionman for a number or years back in the last iceage and one of the onerous tasks the supervisor had was "verifying the phone bill" which might be a stack as much as six inches tall. The evening shift supervisor (or one of them in a large office, like Los Angeles 1 Telegraph, where I worked for a while) would go through the bill, line by line, page by page, looking at the called number an d if he recognized it and placing a check mark next to it, If he did not recognize it, he would search the many lists in the office to see it was shown, and adding a check mark if a list showed it for a likely sounding legal call. If that didn't work he would probably have to call the number to see who answered (adding a wasted revenue-call path to the wreckage). Most often it would turn out to be the home telephone number of a repair supervisor in West Sweatsock, Montana, who had been called because a somebody who protested the policy that the repairman going fishing meant some problem would not be addressed for several days. So he put a check mark next to the number and moved on. Which meant the number would show up on the next month's bill. And it would again not be recognized from memory. And so forth and so on. Until eventually, after several months, the number would be recognized, check-marked without drama, and disappear forever from the bill. Lastly, in later years I was assigned to the the Revenue Accounting organization (to write programs for printing telephone books) and came to realize that there were a LOT of people in RA working with a LOT of people in the Chief Special Agents organization using a LOT of computer time to analyze Toll records for fraud patterns. Oops, not quite lastly Looking back at my Toll Plant days in the heyday of Captain Crunch--there were a lot engineering hours redesigning Toll equipment, and plant hours modifying or replacing equipment do defeat the engineering efforts of the Blue Box Boys. -- "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." --Albert Einstein
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
>> On our VOIP service we include US, Canada and Puerto Rico as "local" >> calling. >I would imagine for VOIP that's because all three are country code 1 :) If you know a VoIP carrier that offers flat rates to 1-473, 1-664, and 1-767, I know some people who'd like to talk to you. At great length. R's, John
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 27/04/16 09:16, Owen DeLong wrote: > One thing I always found particularly amusing was that it used to be a toll > call to call from San Jose East (408238) to Sunnyvale (I forget the NPA/NXX), > but that there were several prefixes in San Jose West (e.g. 408360 IIRC) > where it was free to call from San Jose East and could place a free call to > Sunnyvale. > > I also discovered that a single line with call forwarding was relatively > cheap per month and could forward many calls into a hunt group. > > So, we used to extend the toll-free reach of BBS systems by finding “friends” > with houses in strategic prefixes and having them install a single telephone > line with call forwarding. Then, once the line was installed, we’d run over > to the location, program the forwarder to go to the BBS hunt lead number and > voila… Instant toll free unlimited BBS calling for another 20-30 prefixes for > less than $15/month and completely legal. > > At first, we thought we had to hide what we were doing as we were sure that > the phone company would object, but we later discovered that absent a PUC > proceeding to change the tariff they really didn’t have anything they could > say about it. We started showing up on the day of install to dial in the > forwarding and confirm functionality while the tech was still on site. You > should have seen some of the reactions when we showed up with a butt set, set > up call forwarding, told someone to make a test call and waited for positive > confirmation. Priceless. Similar things happened in Australia, with more than one ISP using this to offer lower-toll dial-in numbers to their customers back in the day.
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
I would imagine for VOIP that's because all three are country code 1 :) On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Ray Orsini wrote: > On our VOIP service we include US, Canada and Puerto Rico as "local" > calling. > > Regards, > > Ray Orsini – CEO > Orsini IT, LLC – Technology Consultants > VOICE DATA BANDWIDTH SECURITY SUPPORT > P: 305.967.6756 x1009 E: r...@orsiniit.com TF: 844.OIT.VOIP > 7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016 > http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices | View > Your Tickets > > > > -Original Message- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+ray=orsiniit@nanog.org] On Behalf Of > Larry Sheldon > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 3:11 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world > consequences > > > > On 4/20/2016 10:15, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > >> On Apr 20, 2016, at 7:59 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei > >> wrote: > >> > >> On 2016-04-20 10:52, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> > >>> For the most part, “long distance” calls within the US are a thing > >>> of the past and at least one mobile carrier now treats US/CA/MX as a > >>> single local calling area > >> > >> > >> Is this a case of telcos having switched to IP trunks and can reach > >> other carriers for "free" > >> > >> Or are wholesale long distance still billed between carriers but at > >> prices so low that they can afford to offer "free" long distance at > >> retail level ? > > > > I think it boiled down to a recognition that the costs of billing were > > beginning to account for something like $0.99 of every $1 billed. > > I wonder if the costs of avoiding-preventing-investigating toll fraud final > grow to consume the profit in the product. > > I know that long ago there were things that I thought were insanely silly. > A few examples: > > As an ordinary citizen I was amused and annoyed, in the case where a toll > charge had been contested (and perforce refunded) there would often be > several non-revenue calls to the protesting number asking whoever answered > if they knew anybody in the called city, or if they knew who > the called number belonged to. (Proper answer in any case: Who or > what I know is none of your business.) Often there would calls to the > called number (super irritating because the error was in the > recording--later learned to be poor handwriting) asking the reciprocal > questions except that often they had no idea that a call had been made. > > I was a Toll Transmissionman for a number or years back in the last iceage > and one of the onerous tasks the supervisor had was "verifying the phone > bill" which might be a stack as much as six inches tall. The evening shift > supervisor (or one of them in a large office, like Los Angeles 1 Telegraph, > where I worked for a while) would go through the bill, line by line, page > by > page, looking at the called number an d if he recognized it and placing a > check mark next to it, If he did not recognize it, he would search the > many > lists in the office to see it was shown, and adding a check mark if a list > showed it for a likely sounding legal call. If that didn't work he would > probably have to call the number to see who answered (adding a wasted > revenue-call path to the wreckage). Most often it would turn out to be the > home telephone number of a repair supervisor in West Sweatsock, Montana, > who > had been called because a somebody who protested the policy that the > repairman going fishing meant some problem would not be addressed for > several days. So he put a check mark next to the number and moved on. > > Which meant the number would show up on the next month's bill. And it > would > again not be recognized from memory. And so forth and so on. > Until eventually, after several months, the number would be recognized, > check-marked without drama, and disappear forever from the bill. > > Lastly, in later years I was assigned to the the Revenue Accounting > organization (to write programs for printing telephone books) and came to > realize that there were a LOT of people in RA working with a LOT of people > in the Chief Special Agents organization using a LOT of computer time to > analyze Toll records for fraud patterns. > > Oops, not quite lastly Looking back at my Toll Plant days in the > heyday > of Captain Crunch--there were a lot engineering hours redesigning Toll > equipment, and plant hours modifying or replacing equipment do defeat the > engineering efforts of the Blue Box Boys. > > -- > "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a > tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." > > --Albert Einstein >
RE: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On our VOIP service we include US, Canada and Puerto Rico as "local" calling. Regards, Ray Orsini – CEO Orsini IT, LLC – Technology Consultants VOICE DATA BANDWIDTH SECURITY SUPPORT P: 305.967.6756 x1009 E: r...@orsiniit.com TF: 844.OIT.VOIP 7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016 http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices | View Your Tickets -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+ray=orsiniit@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Larry Sheldon Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 3:11 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences On 4/20/2016 10:15, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Apr 20, 2016, at 7:59 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei >> wrote: >> >> On 2016-04-20 10:52, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> For the most part, “long distance” calls within the US are a thing >>> of the past and at least one mobile carrier now treats US/CA/MX as a >>> single local calling area >> >> >> Is this a case of telcos having switched to IP trunks and can reach >> other carriers for "free" >> >> Or are wholesale long distance still billed between carriers but at >> prices so low that they can afford to offer "free" long distance at >> retail level ? > > I think it boiled down to a recognition that the costs of billing were > beginning to account for something like $0.99 of every $1 billed. I wonder if the costs of avoiding-preventing-investigating toll fraud final grow to consume the profit in the product. I know that long ago there were things that I thought were insanely silly. A few examples: As an ordinary citizen I was amused and annoyed, in the case where a toll charge had been contested (and perforce refunded) there would often be several non-revenue calls to the protesting number asking whoever answered if they knew anybody in the called city, or if they knew who the called number belonged to. (Proper answer in any case: Who or what I know is none of your business.) Often there would calls to the called number (super irritating because the error was in the recording--later learned to be poor handwriting) asking the reciprocal questions except that often they had no idea that a call had been made. I was a Toll Transmissionman for a number or years back in the last iceage and one of the onerous tasks the supervisor had was "verifying the phone bill" which might be a stack as much as six inches tall. The evening shift supervisor (or one of them in a large office, like Los Angeles 1 Telegraph, where I worked for a while) would go through the bill, line by line, page by page, looking at the called number an d if he recognized it and placing a check mark next to it, If he did not recognize it, he would search the many lists in the office to see it was shown, and adding a check mark if a list showed it for a likely sounding legal call. If that didn't work he would probably have to call the number to see who answered (adding a wasted revenue-call path to the wreckage). Most often it would turn out to be the home telephone number of a repair supervisor in West Sweatsock, Montana, who had been called because a somebody who protested the policy that the repairman going fishing meant some problem would not be addressed for several days. So he put a check mark next to the number and moved on. Which meant the number would show up on the next month's bill. And it would again not be recognized from memory. And so forth and so on. Until eventually, after several months, the number would be recognized, check-marked without drama, and disappear forever from the bill. Lastly, in later years I was assigned to the the Revenue Accounting organization (to write programs for printing telephone books) and came to realize that there were a LOT of people in RA working with a LOT of people in the Chief Special Agents organization using a LOT of computer time to analyze Toll records for fraud patterns. Oops, not quite lastly Looking back at my Toll Plant days in the heyday of Captain Crunch--there were a lot engineering hours redesigning Toll equipment, and plant hours modifying or replacing equipment do defeat the engineering efforts of the Blue Box Boys. -- "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." --Albert Einstein
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
> On Apr 26, 2016, at 12:10 , Larry Sheldon wrote: > > > > On 4/20/2016 10:15, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> On Apr 20, 2016, at 7:59 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 2016-04-20 10:52, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> For the most part, “long distance” calls within the US are a thing of the past and at least one mobile carrier now treats US/CA/MX as a single local calling area >>> >>> >>> Is this a case of telcos having switched to IP trunks and can reach >>> other carriers for "free" >>> >>> Or are wholesale long distance still billed between carriers but at >>> prices so low that they can afford to offer "free" long distance at >>> retail level ? >> >> I think it boiled down to a recognition that the costs of billing were >> beginning to account for something like $0.99 of every $1 billed. > > I wonder if the costs of avoiding-preventing-investigating toll fraud final > grow to consume the profit in the product. IIRC, mostly it boiled down to the maintenance of the antiquated SMDR equipment and its interface to the even more antiquated billing systems was getting expensive to keep running and that there was no perceived potential whatsoever for ROI on building a new billing system or new SMDR capabilities. > I know that long ago there were things that I thought were insanely silly. A > few examples: > > As an ordinary citizen I was amused and annoyed, in the case where a toll > charge had been contested (and perforce refunded) there would often be > several non-revenue calls to the protesting number asking whoever answered if > they knew anybody in the called city, or if they knew who the called number > belonged to. (Proper answer in any case: Who or what I know is none of > your business.) Often there would calls to the called number (super > irritating because the error was in the recording--later learned to be poor > handwriting) asking the reciprocal questions except that often they had no > idea that a call had been made. ROFLMAO… Yeah. Next time we’re in the same locale, ask me about my 2.5 year argument with Pacific Bell about direct dial calls to Vietnam and the Philippines from my apartment in Richmond. There should be alcohol involved. > I was a Toll Transmissionman for a number or years back in the last iceage > and one of the onerous tasks the supervisor had was "verifying the phone > bill" which might be a stack as much as six inches tall. The evening shift > supervisor (or one of them in a large office, like Los Angeles 1 Telegraph, > where I worked for a while) would go through the bill, line by line, page by > page, looking at the called number an d if he recognized it and placing a > check mark next to it, If he did not recognize it, he would search the many > lists in the office to see it was shown, and adding a check mark if a list > showed it for a likely sounding legal call. If that didn't work he would > probably have to call the number to see who answered (adding a wasted > revenue-call path to the wreckage). Most often it would turn out to be the > home telephone number of a repair supervisor in West Sweatsock, Montana, who > had been called because a somebody who protested the policy that the > repairman going fishing meant some problem would not be addressed for several > days. So he put a check mark next to the number and moved on. > > Which meant the number would show up on the next month's bill. And it would > again not be recognized from memory. And so forth and so on. Until > eventually, after several months, the number would be recognized, > check-marked without drama, and disappear forever from the bill. > > Lastly, in later years I was assigned to the the Revenue Accounting > organization (to write programs for printing telephone books) and came to > realize that there were a LOT of people in RA working with a LOT of people in > the Chief Special Agents organization using a LOT of computer time to analyze > Toll records for fraud patterns. > > Oops, not quite lastly Looking back at my Toll Plant days in the heyday > of Captain Crunch--there were a lot engineering hours redesigning Toll > equipment, and plant hours modifying or replacing equipment do defeat the > engineering efforts of the Blue Box Boys. I really liked it while my Blue Box still worked. lol For a while, SS7 was the bane of my existence. Fun times!! When a minute of long distance from California to New York was $0.35+, there was enough money in the billing process to cover the costs of tracking the minute. Once it got down to $0.03 and then $0.01, that really took a lot of the margin away. One thing I always found particularly amusing was that it used to be a toll call to call from San Jose East (408238) to Sunnyvale (I forget the NPA/NXX), but that there were several prefixes in San Jose West (e.g. 408360 IIRC) where it was free to call from San Jose East and could place a free call to Sunnyvale. I
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 4/20/2016 10:15, Owen DeLong wrote: On Apr 20, 2016, at 7:59 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: On 2016-04-20 10:52, Owen DeLong wrote: For the most part, “long distance” calls within the US are a thing of the past and at least one mobile carrier now treats US/CA/MX as a single local calling area Is this a case of telcos having switched to IP trunks and can reach other carriers for "free" Or are wholesale long distance still billed between carriers but at prices so low that they can afford to offer "free" long distance at retail level ? I think it boiled down to a recognition that the costs of billing were beginning to account for something like $0.99 of every $1 billed. I wonder if the costs of avoiding-preventing-investigating toll fraud final grow to consume the profit in the product. I know that long ago there were things that I thought were insanely silly. A few examples: As an ordinary citizen I was amused and annoyed, in the case where a toll charge had been contested (and perforce refunded) there would often be several non-revenue calls to the protesting number asking whoever answered if they knew anybody in the called city, or if they knew who the called number belonged to. (Proper answer in any case: Who or what I know is none of your business.) Often there would calls to the called number (super irritating because the error was in the recording--later learned to be poor handwriting) asking the reciprocal questions except that often they had no idea that a call had been made. I was a Toll Transmissionman for a number or years back in the last iceage and one of the onerous tasks the supervisor had was "verifying the phone bill" which might be a stack as much as six inches tall. The evening shift supervisor (or one of them in a large office, like Los Angeles 1 Telegraph, where I worked for a while) would go through the bill, line by line, page by page, looking at the called number an d if he recognized it and placing a check mark next to it, If he did not recognize it, he would search the many lists in the office to see it was shown, and adding a check mark if a list showed it for a likely sounding legal call. If that didn't work he would probably have to call the number to see who answered (adding a wasted revenue-call path to the wreckage). Most often it would turn out to be the home telephone number of a repair supervisor in West Sweatsock, Montana, who had been called because a somebody who protested the policy that the repairman going fishing meant some problem would not be addressed for several days. So he put a check mark next to the number and moved on. Which meant the number would show up on the next month's bill. And it would again not be recognized from memory. And so forth and so on. Until eventually, after several months, the number would be recognized, check-marked without drama, and disappear forever from the bill. Lastly, in later years I was assigned to the the Revenue Accounting organization (to write programs for printing telephone books) and came to realize that there were a LOT of people in RA working with a LOT of people in the Chief Special Agents organization using a LOT of computer time to analyze Toll records for fraud patterns. Oops, not quite lastly Looking back at my Toll Plant days in the heyday of Captain Crunch--there were a lot engineering hours redesigning Toll equipment, and plant hours modifying or replacing equipment do defeat the engineering efforts of the Blue Box Boys. -- "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." --Albert Einstein
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
Dan, I think that you mean that AT&T is the 1-800 pound gorilla. I know engineers at AT&T that are bitter about that whole arrangement this many years on. I miss the glory days of everyone and their uncle spinning up a CLEC in the mid-90's. It made the ordering process complicated, especially if you were looking for local loop diversity and had to dig into which ILEC circuit things wee riding. Of course we were still doing lots of ISDN and the introduction of DSL was making life interesting for the smaller regional ISPs as well. Cheers, RT Sent from my PINE emulated client > On Apr 20, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Dan Lacey wrote: > > Great explanation! > > Remember that LECs (Local Exchange Carrier, CenturyLink, Verizon, etc.) > typically get to decide how this all works... > ATT is still an 800 pound gorilla and a couple years ago stopped ALL payments > to CLECs (Competitive Local Exchange Carrier, buy wholesale from LECs), took > them all to court (which for a CLEC, it is almost impossible to find a good > lawyer not on retainer to a LEC) and basically just told everyone what they > would pay... > > Since all the LECs started offering unlimited long distance, they could not > afford the termination fees. > So... They changed them!!! > > Telco is very different from data, not in the physical aspects, but in the > business and political areas. > > On 4/20/16 9:20 AM, John Levine wrote: For the most part, “long distance” calls within the US are a thing of the past and at least one mobile carrier now treats US/CA/MX as a single local calling area >>> Is this a case of telcos having switched to IP trunks and can reach >>> other carriers for "free" >> No, it's because fiber bandwidth is so cheap. It's equally cheap whether >> the framing is ATM or IP. >> >>> Or are wholesale long distance still billed between carriers but at >>> prices so low that they can afford to offer "free" long distance at >>> retail level ? >> Some of each. Some carriers do reciprocal compensation at very low >> rates, small fractions of a cent per minute, some do bill and keep >> with no settlements at all. >> >> The history of settlements is closely tied to the history of the >> Internet. Before the Bell breakup separations (within Bell) and >> settlements (between Bell and independents) were uncontentious, moving >> money around to make the rate of return on invested capital at each >> carrier come out right. >> >> Then when cell phones were new, the Bell companies observed that >> traffic was highly imbalanced, far more cell->landline than the other >> way, so they demanded high reciprocal compensation, and the cellcos >> were willing to pay since it gave the Bells the incentive to build the >> interconnecting trunks. One of Verizon's predecessors famously >> derided "bilk and keep." >> >> Then the dialup Internet became a big thing, the Bells ignored it as a >> passing fad (which it was, but not for the reasons they thought), and >> CLECs realized they could build modem banks and make a lot of money >> from the incoming calls from Bell customers to the modems. So the >> Bells did a pirouette and suddenly discovered that bill and keep was a >> law of nature and recip comp was a quaint artifact that needed to be >> snuffed out as fast as possible. >> >> These days the FCC likes to see cost justifications for settlements, >> and the actual per-minute cost of calls is tiny compared to the fixed >> costs of the links and equipment. The main place where you see >> settlements is to tiny local telcos with very high costs, with the per >> minute payments a deliberate subsidy to them. Then some greedy little >> telcos added conference call lines to pump up their incoming traffic ... >> >> R's, >> John >
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
Great explanation! Remember that LECs (Local Exchange Carrier, CenturyLink, Verizon, etc.) typically get to decide how this all works... ATT is still an 800 pound gorilla and a couple years ago stopped ALL payments to CLECs (Competitive Local Exchange Carrier, buy wholesale from LECs), took them all to court (which for a CLEC, it is almost impossible to find a good lawyer not on retainer to a LEC) and basically just told everyone what they would pay... Since all the LECs started offering unlimited long distance, they could not afford the termination fees. So... They changed them!!! Telco is very different from data, not in the physical aspects, but in the business and political areas. On 4/20/16 9:20 AM, John Levine wrote: For the most part, “long distance” calls within the US are a thing of the past and at least one mobile carrier now treats US/CA/MX as a single local calling area Is this a case of telcos having switched to IP trunks and can reach other carriers for "free" No, it's because fiber bandwidth is so cheap. It's equally cheap whether the framing is ATM or IP. Or are wholesale long distance still billed between carriers but at prices so low that they can afford to offer "free" long distance at retail level ? Some of each. Some carriers do reciprocal compensation at very low rates, small fractions of a cent per minute, some do bill and keep with no settlements at all. The history of settlements is closely tied to the history of the Internet. Before the Bell breakup separations (within Bell) and settlements (between Bell and independents) were uncontentious, moving money around to make the rate of return on invested capital at each carrier come out right. Then when cell phones were new, the Bell companies observed that traffic was highly imbalanced, far more cell->landline than the other way, so they demanded high reciprocal compensation, and the cellcos were willing to pay since it gave the Bells the incentive to build the interconnecting trunks. One of Verizon's predecessors famously derided "bilk and keep." Then the dialup Internet became a big thing, the Bells ignored it as a passing fad (which it was, but not for the reasons they thought), and CLECs realized they could build modem banks and make a lot of money from the incoming calls from Bell customers to the modems. So the Bells did a pirouette and suddenly discovered that bill and keep was a law of nature and recip comp was a quaint artifact that needed to be snuffed out as fast as possible. These days the FCC likes to see cost justifications for settlements, and the actual per-minute cost of calls is tiny compared to the fixed costs of the links and equipment. The main place where you see settlements is to tiny local telcos with very high costs, with the per minute payments a deliberate subsidy to them. Then some greedy little telcos added conference call lines to pump up their incoming traffic ... R's, John
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
>> For the most part, “long distance” calls within the US are a thing of the >> past and at least one mobile carrier now treats US/CA/MX as a single >> local calling area > >Is this a case of telcos having switched to IP trunks and can reach >other carriers for "free" No, it's because fiber bandwidth is so cheap. It's equally cheap whether the framing is ATM or IP. >Or are wholesale long distance still billed between carriers but at >prices so low that they can afford to offer "free" long distance at >retail level ? Some of each. Some carriers do reciprocal compensation at very low rates, small fractions of a cent per minute, some do bill and keep with no settlements at all. The history of settlements is closely tied to the history of the Internet. Before the Bell breakup separations (within Bell) and settlements (between Bell and independents) were uncontentious, moving money around to make the rate of return on invested capital at each carrier come out right. Then when cell phones were new, the Bell companies observed that traffic was highly imbalanced, far more cell->landline than the other way, so they demanded high reciprocal compensation, and the cellcos were willing to pay since it gave the Bells the incentive to build the interconnecting trunks. One of Verizon's predecessors famously derided "bilk and keep." Then the dialup Internet became a big thing, the Bells ignored it as a passing fad (which it was, but not for the reasons they thought), and CLECs realized they could build modem banks and make a lot of money from the incoming calls from Bell customers to the modems. So the Bells did a pirouette and suddenly discovered that bill and keep was a law of nature and recip comp was a quaint artifact that needed to be snuffed out as fast as possible. These days the FCC likes to see cost justifications for settlements, and the actual per-minute cost of calls is tiny compared to the fixed costs of the links and equipment. The main place where you see settlements is to tiny local telcos with very high costs, with the per minute payments a deliberate subsidy to them. Then some greedy little telcos added conference call lines to pump up their incoming traffic ... R's, John
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
> On Apr 20, 2016, at 7:59 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei > wrote: > > On 2016-04-20 10:52, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> For the most part, “long distance” calls within the US are a thing of the >> past and at least one mobile carrier now treats US/CA/MX as a single >> local calling area > > > Is this a case of telcos having switched to IP trunks and can reach > other carriers for "free" > > Or are wholesale long distance still billed between carriers but at > prices so low that they can afford to offer "free" long distance at > retail level ? I think it boiled down to a recognition that the costs of billing were beginning to account for something like $0.99 of every $1 billed. Owen
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 2016-04-20 10:52, Owen DeLong wrote: > For the most part, “long distance” calls within the US are a thing of the > past and at least one mobile carrier now treats US/CA/MX as a single > local calling area Is this a case of telcos having switched to IP trunks and can reach other carriers for "free" Or are wholesale long distance still billed between carriers but at prices so low that they can afford to offer "free" long distance at retail level ?
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
> On Apr 15, 2016, at 2:21 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > In message , David Barak > writes > : >>> On Apr 15, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: >>> >>> Australia is about the area as the US and has always had caller >>> pays and seperate area codes for mobiles. >> >> Australia has fewer people than Texas, and is more than an order of >> magnitude smaller than the US by population. Effects of scale apply here >> in terms of path dependence for solutions. >> >> David Barak >> Sent from mobile device, please excuse autocorrection artifacts > > NA has a 10 digit scheme (3 area code - 7 local) though most of the > time you end up dialing the 10 digits. Not an entirely accurate description. In fact, in the US, it’s more of a 3-tier mechanism… 3 area code, 3 prefix, 4 local. As a general rule, a prefix exists within a single CO (modulo cutouts for LNP, etc.). There are usually multiple prefixes per CO since most COs serve significantly more than 10,000 numbers. In the US, Area codes do not cross state lines and in most cases do not cross LATA boundaries, either. For the most part, “long distance” calls within the US are a thing of the past and at least one mobile carrier now treats US/CA/MX as a single local calling area (calls to/from anywhere in those three countries are the same price (generally included/free) as calls between two phones standing next to each other. > > Australia has a 9 digit scheme (1 area code - 8 local) > > Yes the area codes are huge (multi-state) and some "local" calls > are sometimes long distance. In my lifetime local calls have gone > from 6 digits to 7 and then 8 digits. The last change got rid of > lots of area codes and expanded all the local numbers to 8 digits. > This allows you to use what was a Canberra number in Sydney as they > are now all in the same area code. Canberra and Sydney are a 3 > hour drive apart. > > We are no longer in a age where we need to route calls on a digit > by digit basis. While this is true, there are still significant differences in scale and cost structures between AU and US. Owen
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
>The other answers address the history here better than I ever good, but >I wanted to point out one example I hadn't seen mentioned. > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_code_917 > >917 was originally a mobile only area code overlay in New York City. >For reasons that are unclear to me, after that experiment it was >decided that the US would never do that again. The FCC found in 1999 that service-specific overlays are "unreasonably discriminatory and anti-competitive." I gather the thinking at the time was that 917 was full of pagers, voice mail, and car phones, while "real" phones were in 212. Times have changed and they're now prepared to approve an overlay in Connecticut that would cover the whole state, both area codes 203 and 860, with the new area code used for services that are not location specific, for which they give mobile phones and Onstar as examples. R's, John
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
This makes me wonder what the 'market value' of a 212 DID is. I have seen them anywhere from $55 to $600 from providers specifically saying "buy this DID and port it out to your carrier of choice". On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 09:49:37AM +0100, > t...@pelican.org wrote: > > Out of curiosity, does anyone have a good pointer to the history of how > / why US mobile ended up in the same numbering plan as fixed-line? > > The other answers address the history here better than I ever good, but > I wanted to point out one example I hadn't seen mentioned. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_code_917 > > 917 was originally a mobile only area code overlay in New York City. > For reasons that are unclear to me, after that experiement it was > decided that the US would never do that again. > > -- > Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ >
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
In a message written on Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 09:49:37AM +0100, t...@pelican.org wrote: > Out of curiosity, does anyone have a good pointer to the history of how / why > US mobile ended up in the same numbering plan as fixed-line? The other answers address the history here better than I ever good, but I wanted to point out one example I hadn't seen mentioned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_code_917 917 was originally a mobile only area code overlay in New York City. For reasons that are unclear to me, after that experiement it was decided that the US would never do that again. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgp00UyD7hxZ7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
Where I live (Europe) most plans include a ton of free minutes including free calls and data in many other countries. Therefore nobody cares who pays anymore. While this is not universal yet, it probably will be within a decade. Voice calls are simply silly small amount of data that it does not make sense to charge for it and at the same time have gigs of free data included. Technically it is the receiver that pays the cell tax when accepting SIP calls. But nobody cares unless roaming in countries where you still pay data roaming tax at a rate that ought to be illegal. Regards Baldur
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
>NA has a 10 digit scheme (3 area code - 7 local) though most of the >time you end up dialing the 10 digits. > >Australia has a 9 digit scheme (1 area code - 8 local) ... North America uses en bloc signalling, Australia uses CCITT style compelled signalling. That's why you have variable length numbers and the split between area code and local number can change. >We are no longer in a age where we need to route calls on a digit >by digit basis. Right. North America left that age in 1947, the rest of the world only caught up in the 2000s. R's, John
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 2016-04-15 17:21, Mark Andrews wrote: > Yes the area codes are huge (multi-state) and some "local" calls > are sometimes long distance. Until early 1990s, the 819 area code spanned from the US/canada Border in Québec, around Montréal (514), included the Laurentians and just about everything north all the way to Grise Fiord on Ellesmere Island north of the magnetic north pole. Some exchanges reacheable only via satellite (what is now Nunavut) and some are near urban centres. And I reemember when one could dial 4 digits to call anyone in the cottage village (omitting the 819-687 prefix). When bell Canada bought northwestel, it transfered what is now Nunavut territory to NWTel which moved the 819 telephone numbers to its 867 area code which now spans from the Yukon/Alaska border to the Canada/Greenland border.
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
In message , David Barak writes : > > On Apr 15, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > Australia is about the area as the US and has always had caller > > pays and seperate area codes for mobiles. > > Australia has fewer people than Texas, and is more than an order of > magnitude smaller than the US by population. Effects of scale apply here > in terms of path dependence for solutions. > > David Barak > Sent from mobile device, please excuse autocorrection artifacts NA has a 10 digit scheme (3 area code - 7 local) though most of the time you end up dialing the 10 digits. Australia has a 9 digit scheme (1 area code - 8 local) Yes the area codes are huge (multi-state) and some "local" calls are sometimes long distance. In my lifetime local calls have gone from 6 digits to 7 and then 8 digits. The last change got rid of lots of area codes and expanded all the local numbers to 8 digits. This allows you to use what was a Canberra number in Sydney as they are now all in the same area code. Canberra and Sydney are a 3 hour drive apart. We are no longer in a age where we need to route calls on a digit by digit basis. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
> On Apr 15, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > Australia is about the area as the US and has always had caller > pays and seperate area codes for mobiles. Australia has fewer people than Texas, and is more than an order of magnitude smaller than the US by population. Effects of scale apply here in terms of path dependence for solutions. David Barak Sent from mobile device, please excuse autocorrection artifacts
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
> On Apr 15, 2016, at 12:09, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > In message <571105a6.3040...@nvcube.net>, Nikolay Shopik writes: >>> On 15/04/16 17:51, John R. Levine wrote: >>> Putting mobiles into a handful of non-geographic codes as they do in >>> Europe wouldn't work because the US is a very large country, long >>> distance costs and charges were important, and they needed to be able >>> to charge more for a mobile call across the country than across the >>> street. >> >> I would like to add that Russian mobiles in non-geographic codes and >> have free incoming calls (it wasn't until 2006) and also very large >> territory. But that created internal roaming prices within country. >> >> So if you are making call not from your home region you'll pay more also >> you may pay for incoming call too (unless you pay for such option to >> make your abroad incoming calls free) > > Australia is about the area as the US and has always had caller > pays and seperate area codes for mobiles. Call costs are independent > of the mobiles location unless you are OS where the callee picks > up the OS component of the voice call (incoming SMS's are usually > free even if you are OS, they slug you with replies however). AU has about the same area, but nowhere near the number/population density, so the comparison isn't particularly apt. > > I've also got a US SIM and had my credit run to zero dollars with > the phone turned off due to the sillyness of the US system. No > calls or SMS being delivered but I'm still getting charged. If you are going prepaid in the US, most likely you are transient (foreign traveler) or impoverished. As such, the companies want to collect something from you for the cost of keeping your account in the system. It's a way to avoid the costs associated with number abandonment. Usually within three months (or less) of your account going to $0, your number will be recycled and likely reissued to someone else within 60 days of being marked available. It's not so much silliness as a necessity in this market. Owen
Re: [lists] Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
I highly doubt that your SIM card is depleted due to the US mobile phone billing structure. Sounds like a bad contract with a carrier that is billing you for incoming calls even though you aren't on the network, or bills you a fee each month when your SIM is inactive. Don't blame a country's mobile telephone billing structure for a carrier's cell phone billing plan that seems confusing. That's like blaming the Department of Transportation for your faulty airbag. Beckman On Sat, 16 Apr 2016, Mark Andrews wrote: I've also got a US SIM and had my credit run to zero dollars with the phone turned off due to the sillyness of the US system. No calls or SMS being delivered but I'm still getting charged. --- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beck...@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ ---
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
In message <571105a6.3040...@nvcube.net>, Nikolay Shopik writes: > On 15/04/16 17:51, John R. Levine wrote: > > Putting mobiles into a handful of non-geographic codes as they do in > > Europe wouldn't work because the US is a very large country, long > > distance costs and charges were important, and they needed to be able > > to charge more for a mobile call across the country than across the > > street. > > I would like to add that Russian mobiles in non-geographic codes and > have free incoming calls (it wasn't until 2006) and also very large > territory. But that created internal roaming prices within country. > > So if you are making call not from your home region you'll pay more also > you may pay for incoming call too (unless you pay for such option to > make your abroad incoming calls free) Australia is about the area as the US and has always had caller pays and seperate area codes for mobiles. Call costs are independent of the mobiles location unless you are OS where the callee picks up the OS component of the voice call (incoming SMS's are usually free even if you are OS, they slug you with replies however). I've also got a US SIM and had my credit run to zero dollars with the phone turned off due to the sillyness of the US system. No calls or SMS being delivered but I'm still getting charged. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 15/04/16 17:51, John R. Levine wrote: > Putting mobiles into a handful of non-geographic codes as they do in > Europe wouldn't work because the US is a very large country, long > distance costs and charges were important, and they needed to be able > to charge more for a mobile call across the country than across the > street. I would like to add that Russian mobiles in non-geographic codes and have free incoming calls (it wasn't until 2006) and also very large territory. But that created internal roaming prices within country. So if you are making call not from your home region you'll pay more also you may pay for incoming call too (unless you pay for such option to make your abroad incoming calls free)
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On Friday, 15 April, 2016 15:51, "John R. Levine" said: > The US and most of the rest of North America have a fixed length > numbering plan designed in the 1940s by the Bell System. They offered > it to the CCITT which for political and technical reasons decided to > do something else. (So when anyone complains that the NANP is > "non-standard", you had your chance.) Fixed length numbers allowed > much more sophisticated call routing with mechanical switches than > variable length did. [and a bunch more stuff] Thanks John - no bashing was intended, genuinely interested in the different models / histories, and that helps. Regards, Tim.
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
So maybe 10% of all cell phones are primarly used in the "wrong" area? Out of curiosity, does anyone have a good pointer to the history of how / why US mobile ended up in the same numbering plan as fixed-line? The US and most of the rest of North America have a fixed length numbering plan designed in the 1940s by the Bell System. They offered it to the CCITT which for political and technical reasons decided to do something else. (So when anyone complains that the NANP is "non-standard", you had your chance.) Fixed length numbers allowed much more sophisticated call routing with mechanical switches than variable length did. For reasons not worth rehashing, there was no possibility whatsoever of adding digits or otherwise changing the numbering plan. So if they were going to do caller pays mobile, they'd need to overlay mobile area codes on top of existing codes, and there weren't enough spare codes to do that. Putting mobiles into a handful of non-geographic codes as they do in Europe wouldn't work because the US is a very large country, long distance costs and charges were important, and they needed to be able to charge more for a mobile call across the country than across the street. (The distance from Seattle to Miami or Boston to San Francisco is greater than Lisbon to Moscow or Paris to Teheran.) In the US, mobile long distance charges have mostly gone away, but my Canadian mobile still charges more for a call to a different province than one to the same city. So rather than doing caller-pays as in Europe, North America does mobile-pays, with the mobile user charged for both incoming and outgoing calls. There turn out to be good economic reasons for that -- European mobile users imagine that incoming calls are "free", but in fact they are very expensive to the caller because the caller has no say in choosing the carrier or the price. For all its faults, the competition in US mobile service drove down prices much faster than in Europe, and US users use more minutes/month than Europeans do. If you want me to call you in the UK, I'm happy to call your landline for 1.3c/min, not so happy to call your mobile at 26c/min. ObNanog: E.164 and VoIP don't make this any easier. R's, John
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On Thursday, 14 April, 2016 16:32, "Leo Bicknell" said: > So maybe 10% of all cell phones are primarly used in the "wrong" area? Out of curiosity, does anyone have a good pointer to the history of how / why US mobile ended up in the same numbering plan as fixed-line? Over here in the UK we had a very different approach where mobile phones went into their own area codes from the start, hence no confusion as to what type of device you were calling, and it was trivial to put the increased cost of the call on the caller. (It's *incredibly* rare, if not non-existent, here for the mobile user to pay for incoming calls or SMS). Of course, we got our own set of problems once number portability kicked in - a lot of operators had set up "free / cheap on the same network" tarrifs, which was easy while you knew for sure that 07aaa nn was Orange but 07bbb nn was O2. Once you could take your number with you to another network, it became a lot more guesss-work as to how much you were going to be billed for any given call... Regards, Tim.
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 4/14/2016 16:01, John Levine wrote: OK, let us suppose I want to be a law biding, up right American and use only a cellphone for the "right" area. I drive a big truck OTR. I usually know what part of which state I am in, but I frequently do not know which part of what state I will be in in 24 hours. What should I do? As previous messages have explained, mobile 9-1-1 uses a variety of GPS and tower info to determine where you are. Telcos, stupid though they may be, have figured out that people with mobile phones are likely to be, you know, mobile. If you drive a big truck, you're likely to spend a lot of time on major highways, and many of those highways have signs that tell you what to dial to contact the appropriate police for that road, e.g. *MSP on the Mass Pike. I understand all that. I quoted somebody as saying that some percentage of people use a cellphone in the wrong area code. I want never be caught in the wrong area code in my nomadic life. I think my best shot is to convince people that telephone numbers are not addresses of people and like my SSAN is assigned by somebody, I don't care who.
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
--- j...@kyneticwifi.com wrote: From: Josh Reynolds Is NANOG really the best place for this discussion? -- Filter it out. scott
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
> On Apr 14, 2016, at 14:01 , John Levine wrote:
>
>> OK, let us suppose I want to be a law biding, up right American and use
>> only a cellphone for the "right" area.
>>
>> I drive a big truck OTR. I usually know what part of which state I am
>> in, but I frequently do not know which part of what state I will be in
>> in 24 hours.
>>
>> What should I do?
>
> As previous messages have explained, mobile 9-1-1 uses a variety of
> GPS and tower info to determine where you are. Telcos, stupid though
> they may be, have figured out that people with mobile phones are
> likely to be, you know, mobile.
Now if they could only figure this out for VOIP clients.
I realize that there are fixed-location VOIP phones and they may be the
majority,
but I also know that there are quite a few of us with VOIP clients that are as
mobile as our mobile phones, sometimes more so since my VOIP client doesn’t turn
into $2/min. when I enter the wrong country. Amusingly, 128k free data from T-Mo
as a mobile hot spot in many countries is quite adequate for a VOIP client while
making a call on the phone would cost $$.
> If you drive a big truck, you're likely to spend a lot of time on
> major highways, and many of those highways have signs that tell you
> what to dial to contact the appropriate police for that road, e.g.
> *MSP on the Mass Pike.
Depends on where you are. I’ve never seen such a sign anywhere on any major
highway
in California and mobile 911 calls in this state often get “interesting”
routing.
Fortunately, I’ve never encountered a dispatcher that required answers to more
than
one additional question in order to comply with my request that they route to
the
correct agency (I usually start off with enough information to tell them I know
why
I want to speak to the agency I am specifying, such as “I’m reporting an
incident
on {US/Interstate/State Hwy specification, e.g. US 101}, please transfer me to
CHP”
(CHP = California Highway Patrol, which has dispatch jurisdiction for all state
and
federal highways within California).
OTOH, I’ve been in parts of Canada where the signs merely specify that there is
no
911 service beyond that point without offering any alternative. Of course most
of those
signs were encountered well after my mobile stopped having any service
whatsoever,
so I always found them mildly amusing. Most of them are a giant picture of a
motorola
Brick phone from the late ‘80s with the message “Leaving 911 service area”.
I can’t find an appropriate image to reference in a google search, but I assure
you
that they were common place, at least last time I was in the Yukon.
Owen
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
> On Apr 14, 2016, at 13:14 , Larry Sheldon wrote: > > On 4/14/2016 12:09, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> On Apr 14, 2016, at 05:46 , John Levine wrote: >>> If they're land lines, the NPA/NXX will be local to the CO so you won't have out-of-area numbers other than a rare corner case of a very expensive foreign exchange line. If they're VoIP lines, the address is *supposed* to be so registered, but softphones and even VoIP handsets tend to move around without the user considering 9-1-1. >>> >>> VoIP was dragged kicking and screaming into E911, so now they charge >>> extra and are quite clear about it. My VoIP provider regularly >>> reminds me to update my 9-1-1 address, but since I don't have to pay >>> the 9-1-1 fee if I lie and say I'm outside North America, that's what >>> I do. Since I also have a classic CO-powered copper landline (1/4 >>> mile from the CO, no concentrators or repeaters) and a couple of cell >>> phones, I think we're covered. >> >> With my VOIP provider, I didn’t quite have to lie. >> >> I generally don’t need my VOIP number when I’m in the US (cell is free here), >> so I simply told them “I do not intend to use this number or this service >> within the US”. >> >> The first time I sent them a marked-up contract, they contacted me with >> questions. The following year, the new version of the contract reflected >> my changes to their original wording. >> >> Since then, I’ve been pretty much satisfied with my service from callcentric >> and the price is right. > > Quick question: What happens (in the purely hypothetical case, I sincerely > hope) if the building is on fire and it turns out that the VOIP-phone is the > only one that works? That would be an interesting phenomenon since my VOIP clients are both dependent on data services working on one of laptop, iPad, iPhone. > Do you leave it turned off? Of course not, but since the building in question is very unlikely to have been any address I would have filed on said contract, it’s far better that the person at the other end is having to ask me for the address than to have emergency workers respond to some location that I’m not at. If, OTOH, the building in question is my home, I’m more likely to get a faster response by banging on a neighbors door than by struggling to get the VOIP phone up and running on some alternative connectivity. Owen
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
>OK, let us suppose I want to be a law biding, up right American and use >only a cellphone for the "right" area. > >I drive a big truck OTR. I usually know what part of which state I am >in, but I frequently do not know which part of what state I will be in >in 24 hours. > >What should I do? As previous messages have explained, mobile 9-1-1 uses a variety of GPS and tower info to determine where you are. Telcos, stupid though they may be, have figured out that people with mobile phones are likely to be, you know, mobile. If you drive a big truck, you're likely to spend a lot of time on major highways, and many of those highways have signs that tell you what to dial to contact the appropriate police for that road, e.g. *MSP on the Mass Pike. R's, John
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 4/14/2016 15:10, Larry Sheldon wrote: We wrote off a lot of revenue on calls that involved a company (if I remembered the name I still would not repeat it--ditto its location) which turn out to be pretty much one man who like to sell and install mobile radio telephone stations. And, it turns out, not even slightly interested in separations, bill and collecting, an other stuff that I think I meant "settlements", not "separations". But I'm not sure. dominates an Operating Company's attentions. -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 2016-04-14 16:14, Larry Sheldon wrote: > Quick question: What happens (in the purely hypothetical case, I > sincerely hope) if the building is on fire and it turns out that the > VOIP-phone is the only one that works? VOIP: Not purely theoretical situation. 911 where I live would take about 10 minutes of repeating my address and spelling it out to different people as I got passed around until I finally got to fire dept where I could finally and one last time spell out address. (I live on Fairwood, there is a street near here Sherwood). My ISP geolocates to a different down in south shore of montreal). What I do now: I have the actual telephone number for the fire station 3 blocks from where I live. When appt building alarm rings (we're not directly connected), I call the actual dept "have you received a call for , we're on fire". They say "no, we haven't". I say "expect one in about 10 minutes once I get through the 911 bozos". When you call 911, you first have to select from a gazillion languages. Cell phone: Got hit by hit and run, but managed to stay on my bike. Arm hurt like hell. Was mad as hell. Made mistake of calling 911 who refused to pass me to Sureté du Québec police (rural area). I was hoping they had a car that was in area and could intercept that white car as it intersected with main road a few km down the road. 911 insisted they send an ambulance, that I was in shock etc etc. They asked me to spell out the street I was on. Told them I had to get to the next intersection with a country rd to see the spelling. (meanwhile, they insist I don't move because they want to send ambulance, not believing I was still on my bike rolling at low speed). At no point did they give me ANY indication they had my location from towers or my iphone. When I finally go through to the SQ, we arranged to meet at intersection with main road. They saw my bruised arm, and saw I was quite mad/nervous/in shock. They told me to bypass 911 alltogether and call *4141 to get them right away and that they have the same tools to locate a call. ((in hindsight, drunk young guys accelerated to high speed and passed right next to me and threw something at me which it my arm at high speed. Initially though I had hit their mirror but mirror t low to have hit near shoulder).
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 4/14/2016 12:09, Owen DeLong wrote: On Apr 14, 2016, at 05:46 , John Levine wrote: If they're land lines, the NPA/NXX will be local to the CO so you won't have out-of-area numbers other than a rare corner case of a very expensive foreign exchange line. If they're VoIP lines, the address is *supposed* to be so registered, but softphones and even VoIP handsets tend to move around without the user considering 9-1-1. VoIP was dragged kicking and screaming into E911, so now they charge extra and are quite clear about it. My VoIP provider regularly reminds me to update my 9-1-1 address, but since I don't have to pay the 9-1-1 fee if I lie and say I'm outside North America, that's what I do. Since I also have a classic CO-powered copper landline (1/4 mile from the CO, no concentrators or repeaters) and a couple of cell phones, I think we're covered. With my VOIP provider, I didn’t quite have to lie. I generally don’t need my VOIP number when I’m in the US (cell is free here), so I simply told them “I do not intend to use this number or this service within the US”. The first time I sent them a marked-up contract, they contacted me with questions. The following year, the new version of the contract reflected my changes to their original wording. Since then, I’ve been pretty much satisfied with my service from callcentric and the price is right. Quick question: What happens (in the purely hypothetical case, I sincerely hope) if the building is on fire and it turns out that the VOIP-phone is the only one that works? Do you leave it turned off? -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 4/14/2016 10:45, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: . So maybe 10% of all cell phones are primarly used in the "wrong" area? Obligatory xkcd ref: https://xkcd.com/1129/ I am reminded of incidents many years ago when I worked in a Revenue Accounting Office of a Bell System Operating Company. One of my duties involved dealing with the mostly-manually-processed toll calls originating or terminating at a Mobile Telephone System station in our area (whatever the word "area" turns out to mean). We wrote off a lot of revenue on calls that involved a company (if I remembered the name I still would not repeat it--ditto its location) which turn out to be pretty much one man who like to sell and install mobile radio telephone stations. And, it turns out, not even slightly interested in separations, bill an collecting, an other stuff that dominates an Operating Company's attentions. -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 4/14/2016 10:32, Leo Bicknell wrote: In a message written on Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:29:39AM -, John Levine wrote: The people on nanog are not typical. I looked around for statistics and didn't find much, but it looks like only a few percent of numbers are ported each month, and it's often the same numbers being ported repeatedly. It's a big issue for political pollers, and they have some data: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/05/pew-research-center-will-call-75-cellphones-for-surveys-in-2016/ "roughly half (47%) of U.S. adults whose only phone is a cellphone." "in a recent national poll, 8% of people interviewed by cellphone in California had a phone number from a state other than California. Similarly, of the people called on a cellphone number associated with California, 10% were interviewed in a different state." So maybe 10% of all cell phones are primarly used in the "wrong" area? OK, let us suppose I want to be a law biding, up right American and use only a cellphone for the "right" area. I drive a big truck OTR. I usually know what part of which state I am in, but I frequently do not know which part of what state I will be in in 24 hours. What should I do? Suppose I was, instead, an aircrew member and the only truly stable datum is "Planet Earth"? -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
Since then, I’ve been pretty much satisfied with my service from callcentric and the price is right. That's who I use. Now there's just a box on the web site to say not in the US. R's, John
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
> On Apr 14, 2016, at 05:46 , John Levine wrote: > >> If they're land lines, the NPA/NXX will be local to the CO so you won't >> have out-of-area numbers other than a rare corner case of a very >> expensive foreign exchange line. If they're VoIP lines, the address is >> *supposed* to be so registered, but softphones and even VoIP handsets >> tend to move around without the user considering 9-1-1. > > VoIP was dragged kicking and screaming into E911, so now they charge > extra and are quite clear about it. My VoIP provider regularly > reminds me to update my 9-1-1 address, but since I don't have to pay > the 9-1-1 fee if I lie and say I'm outside North America, that's what > I do. Since I also have a classic CO-powered copper landline (1/4 > mile from the CO, no concentrators or repeaters) and a couple of cell > phones, I think we're covered. With my VOIP provider, I didn’t quite have to lie. I generally don’t need my VOIP number when I’m in the US (cell is free here), so I simply told them “I do not intend to use this number or this service within the US”. The first time I sent them a marked-up contract, they contacted me with questions. The following year, the new version of the contract reflected my changes to their original wording. Since then, I’ve been pretty much satisfied with my service from callcentric and the price is right. Owen
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
All, Is NANOG really the best place for this discussion? On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > . >> So maybe 10% of all cell phones are primarly used in the "wrong" area? > > Obligatory xkcd ref: https://xkcd.com/1129/
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: . > So maybe 10% of all cell phones are primarly used in the "wrong" area? Obligatory xkcd ref: https://xkcd.com/1129/
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
In a message written on Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:29:39AM -, John Levine wrote: > The people on nanog are not typical. I looked around for statistics > and didn't find much, but it looks like only a few percent of numbers > are ported each month, and it's often the same numbers being ported > repeatedly. It's a big issue for political pollers, and they have some data: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/05/pew-research-center-will-call-75-cellphones-for-surveys-in-2016/ "roughly half (47%) of U.S. adults whose only phone is a cellphone." "in a recent national poll, 8% of people interviewed by cellphone in California had a phone number from a state other than California. Similarly, of the people called on a cellphone number associated with California, 10% were interviewed in a different state." So maybe 10% of all cell phones are primarly used in the "wrong" area? -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpw6JzSDGLKQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
"If they're land lines, the NPA/NXX will be local to the CO so you won't have out-of-area numbers other than a rare corner case of a very expensive foreign exchange line." This hasn't been a true statement since Local Number Portability. NPA/NXX is nothing more than 'where the number originally was assigned from', and that only for the ones issued BEFORE LNP started; since is anyone's guess. They follow something similiar to what a routed phone call does, but ties into slightly different information that is 'supposed' to associate the end-client address with said LNI that is 'supposed' to be populated with accurate street address information. Similar to what VoIP has had to deal with since, most charge a fee, disclaim any responsibility as to the accuracy of the information that the end user provides. I am sure litigation on/around THAT particular issue is just around the corner. Regards, Jonathan Smith On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote: > On 4/13/16 8:54 PM, Peter Beckman wrote: > >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016, Jay Hennigan wrote: >> > > When either of those people dial 9-1-1, where does the ambulance show up? >>> >> >> I suspect your response was sarcastic, but when you dig into what really >> happens, it's not nearly as sophisticated as one might hope. >> >> If the numbers are land or VoIP lines, and the address associated with >> the >> numbers are registered with the Automatic Location Information (ALI) >> database run by ILECs or 3rd parties to fetch the address keyed on the >> calling number, and the 911 PSAP is E911 capable, they operator will see >> the ALI address. >> > > If they're land lines, the NPA/NXX will be local to the CO so you won't > have out-of-area numbers other than a rare corner case of a very expensive > foreign exchange line. If they're VoIP lines, the address is *supposed* to > be so registered, but softphones and even VoIP handsets tend to move around > without the user considering 9-1-1. > > VoIP was the scenario to which I was referring. A VoIP phone native to > 408-land that moves with a remote office worker to Boston without a > conscious effort on his company and VoIP provider to track it down and > update ALI will reach a PSAP in San Jose or thereabouts. The PSAPs have > forwarding capability but generally only to neighboring PSAPs with a single > button. How quickly will they be able to get the call routed to Boston, if > at all? And as we saw at the beginning of the thread, forget geo-IP. The > ambulance goes to the Vogelmans' farm. If a remote office worker, it could > be VPN back to the VoIP PBX in 408-land anyway. > > So, it isn't just IP addresses that aren't easily geo-referenced. It's > also phone numbers. The number may start as a well-referenced PRI going to > an IP-PBX after which all bets are off. If the ANI is the company's HQ main > number where the PRI and IP-PBX are located, then it's just about > impossible to route 9-1-1 from a worker's IP phone in Boston to the right > PSAP. > > If they are mobile devices, it depends. Basic gives you nothing (all >> phones >> since 2003 should have GPS, but people hang on to phones a long time..); >> > > Mobile is a separate case where it's expected that the NPA-NXX isn't going > to be tied to a location. In California, mobile 9-1-1 goes to the CHP and > not the local PSAP based on the cell tower or GPS for that reason. If not a > traffic incident, they forward to the appropriate PSAP based on the > caller's info or perhaps whatever ALI (or estimate) they get from the > cellular provider. > > > -- > Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net > Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ > Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV >
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
>If they're land lines, the NPA/NXX will be local to the CO so you won't >have out-of-area numbers other than a rare corner case of a very >expensive foreign exchange line. If they're VoIP lines, the address is >*supposed* to be so registered, but softphones and even VoIP handsets >tend to move around without the user considering 9-1-1. VoIP was dragged kicking and screaming into E911, so now they charge extra and are quite clear about it. My VoIP provider regularly reminds me to update my 9-1-1 address, but since I don't have to pay the 9-1-1 fee if I lie and say I'm outside North America, that's what I do. Since I also have a classic CO-powered copper landline (1/4 mile from the CO, no concentrators or repeaters) and a couple of cell phones, I think we're covered. R's, John
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 4/13/16 8:54 PM, Peter Beckman wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2016, Jay Hennigan wrote: When either of those people dial 9-1-1, where does the ambulance show up? I suspect your response was sarcastic, but when you dig into what really happens, it's not nearly as sophisticated as one might hope. If the numbers are land or VoIP lines, and the address associated with the numbers are registered with the Automatic Location Information (ALI) database run by ILECs or 3rd parties to fetch the address keyed on the calling number, and the 911 PSAP is E911 capable, they operator will see the ALI address. If they're land lines, the NPA/NXX will be local to the CO so you won't have out-of-area numbers other than a rare corner case of a very expensive foreign exchange line. If they're VoIP lines, the address is *supposed* to be so registered, but softphones and even VoIP handsets tend to move around without the user considering 9-1-1. VoIP was the scenario to which I was referring. A VoIP phone native to 408-land that moves with a remote office worker to Boston without a conscious effort on his company and VoIP provider to track it down and update ALI will reach a PSAP in San Jose or thereabouts. The PSAPs have forwarding capability but generally only to neighboring PSAPs with a single button. How quickly will they be able to get the call routed to Boston, if at all? And as we saw at the beginning of the thread, forget geo-IP. The ambulance goes to the Vogelmans' farm. If a remote office worker, it could be VPN back to the VoIP PBX in 408-land anyway. So, it isn't just IP addresses that aren't easily geo-referenced. It's also phone numbers. The number may start as a well-referenced PRI going to an IP-PBX after which all bets are off. If the ANI is the company's HQ main number where the PRI and IP-PBX are located, then it's just about impossible to route 9-1-1 from a worker's IP phone in Boston to the right PSAP. If they are mobile devices, it depends. Basic gives you nothing (all phones since 2003 should have GPS, but people hang on to phones a long time..); Mobile is a separate case where it's expected that the NPA-NXX isn't going to be tied to a location. In California, mobile 9-1-1 goes to the CHP and not the local PSAP based on the cell tower or GPS for that reason. If not a traffic incident, they forward to the appropriate PSAP based on the caller's info or perhaps whatever ALI (or estimate) they get from the cellular provider. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016, Jay Hennigan wrote: On 4/13/16 4:28 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: I am in frequent contact by a person that has a 917 NNX--numbered telephone who spends a lot of time with a person that has a 408 NNX--numbered telephone, and they both live in Metropolitan Boston When either of those people dial 9-1-1, where does the ambulance show up? I suspect your response was sarcastic, but when you dig into what really happens, it's not nearly as sophisticated as one might hope. If the numbers are land or VoIP lines, and the address associated with the numbers are registered with the Automatic Location Information (ALI) database run by ILECs or 3rd parties to fetch the address keyed on the calling number, and the 911 PSAP is E911 capable, they operator will see the ALI address. If they are mobile devices, it depends. Basic gives you nothing (all phones since 2003 should have GPS, but people hang on to phones a long time..); Phase I Enhanced gives you the location of the cell site/tower, Phase II gives you lat/lon within 50 to 300 meters within 6 minutes of a request by the PSAP. Yep, the PSAP has to make a request for the phone location to the carrier, in which they have 6 minutes to reply. I assume this is or can be automated. After 6 minutes, you could be a long way away from where you started the call. If the phone numbers are not in the ALI, or are not wireless, or the PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point, the 911 office) is not set up for e911, they probably get nothing, relying solely on the caller to provide location information. Beckman --- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beck...@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ ---
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 4/13/16 4:28 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: I am in frequent contact by a person that has a 917 NNX--numbered telephone who spends a lot of time with a person that has a 408 NNX--numbered telephone, and they both live in Metropolitan Boston When either of those people dial 9-1-1, where does the ambulance show up? -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
John Levine: > > Bonus question: is there any way to find out whether and where a > number's been ported without spending telco level amounts of money? > Free would be nice. https://www.npac.com/the-npac/access/permitted-uses-of-user-data-contact-list Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone)
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
>I question whether (on a global scale) the odds are above 50-50 that a >number (other than a test line) is served by the switch NANPA associates >with the number. The people on nanog are not typical. I looked around for statistics and didn't find much, but it looks like only a few percent of numbers are ported each month, and it's often the same numbers being ported repeatedly. I'd also expect to find a lot more porting in the highly competitive wireless industry than in the monopolistic wireline biz. R's, John
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 4/13/2016 15:12, Owen DeLong wrote: I guarantee you that many, if not most at this point, of those numbers are no longer actually handled by that switch most of the time. I suspect that there are more SS7 exceptions than default within that particular prefix which is why I chose it. I question whether (on a global scale) the odds are above 50-50 that a number (other than a test line) is served by the switch NANPA associates with the number. I am in frequent contact by a person that has a 917 NNX--numbered telephone who spends a lot of time with a person that has a 408 NNX--numbered telephone, and they both live in Metropolitan Boston The number I offer as my "home" telephone number "belongs" to a CO in a town 11 miles south of here and is not switched by the company that "owns" it. Knowing a telephone number or an IP address means that on a good day, you know how to make a connection with an instrument associated with it. Which may well be in the possession of Mrs. Calabash. -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 4/13/2016 14:45, John R. Levine wrote: NANP geographical numbers can be located to a switch (give or take number portability within a LATA), but non-geographic numbers can really go anywhere. On the third hand, it's still true that the large majority of them are in the U.S. Would you agree that 408-921 is a geographic number? No. It's a prefix, assigned to the at&t switch in west San Jose. I guarantee you that there are phones within that prefix within US/Calif/LATA-1 and also some well outside of that, probably not even in the same country. Who said anything about phones? Could you describe what "geographic numbers can be located to a switch" means to you? Lemmee see, the issue is, whose barn do we burn down, based on the telephone number associated with it--the one the with the switch or the one with the telephone? There right answer is predicated on the the facts that the number (IP or telephone or serial number plate) is of NO use what ever in locating anything, certainly not as a cause for action. Anybody who acts different;y should have painful things done to them. I don't care what expert tells you different. A case in point--the other day I had need for the ZIP code for the house I lived in at age 10. So I Binged the address for a ZIP code and got one. Along with a Googlish picture that goes with the address. When I was 10, the address was for one of four tiny houses on a small city lot. (Which, I discovered in later years was in a barrio, and populated by people at of below the poverty line, if anybody had used that terminology then.) The picture was of a KITCHEN! that appeared to be bigger than the house I lived in--the Zillow entry for the property now was 3/4 of a million dollars. Knowing the address of a place is not definitive of the place. Period. -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
>Is there the equivalent of BGP for number portability where every telco >has the full table of who owns each prefix as well as individual routes >for ported numbers ? Not really. There's a switch database used for routing calls, but that's different from LNP which is a layer sort of above that. >Or is there a central database that is consulted before a dialed number >starts to be connected so originating telco knows to send call ? Often, if the switch can't tell that the number hasn't been ported. >Or does the originating telco route the call to the original onwer of >the prefix and lets that original owner figure out how to terminate the >call ? That's called Onward Routing. They do it some places but not in North America. See RFC 3482 for a well written overview of number portability. >From a long distance billing point of view, if Bell Canada connects to a >number originally onwed by AT&T but ported to Verizon, with whom would >Bell share long distance revenues ? They pay whatever long distance company they use, and that company pays the owner of the switch to which it's delivered. The long distance company also pays a very small amount to Telcordia which runs the LNP database to tell whether the number's been ported and if so to which switch. R's, John
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
> And further to that, throw in Local Number Portability (LNP) and you > really need to know the full number in order to know which switch the > specific number is assigned to. Not all 408-921 prefixed numbers will go > to that switch in West San Jose. Right, like I said three messages ago but that some people seem to have missed: NANP geographical numbers can be located to a switch (give or take number portability within a LATA), > A phone number, like an IP address, can only imply a physical location. It > is not a guarantee, and that hint can range from moderately accurate to > wildly wrong. Quite right. US mobile carriers let you take your phone number anywhere in the country, so people do. There's also a fair amount of VoIP where again the phone need not be anywhere near the switch -- I have landline phone numbers in NYC, Santa Cruz, Monreal, and Cambridge UK, and don't live in any of those places. Bonus question: is there any way to find out whether and where a number's been ported without spending telco level amounts of money? Free would be nice. R's, John
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
> On Apr 13, 2016, at 13:34 , Jean-Francois Mezei > wrote: > > On 2016-04-13 16:18, Peter Beckman wrote: > >> And further to that, throw in Local Number Portability (LNP) and you >> really need to know the full number in order to know which switch the >> specific number is assigned to. Not all 408-921 prefixed numbers will go >> to that switch in West San Jose. > > > Is there the equivalent of BGP for number portability where every telco > has the full table of who owns each prefix as well as individual routes > for ported numbers ? Sort of, but it’s called SS7 and it’s really more like multiple layers of DNS than like BGP. > Or is there a central database that is consulted before a dialed number > starts to be connected so originating telco knows to send call ? Well, yes and no, but AIUI, the common SS7 database is a lot more like the DNS root zone. > Or does the originating telco route the call to the original onwer of > the prefix and lets that original owner figure out how to terminate the > call ? Generally within a country code (NANP is one country code even though it’s many countries (US, CA, much of the Caribbean), the central SS7 database will do a longest-match pointed to the correct Telco and possibly the correct switch at that telco. However, there are all kinds of different redirects possible within said telco as well, such as call forwarding (in multiple forms), cellular registration, VOIP gateways with portable SIP registrations, etc. >> From a long distance billing point of view, if Bell Canada connects to a > number originally onwed by AT&T but ported to Verizon, with whom would > Bell share long distance revenues ? Generally, Verizon. AT&T won’t usually participate in the call process at all. (see above). Owen
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 2016-04-13 16:18, Peter Beckman wrote: > And further to that, throw in Local Number Portability (LNP) and you > really need to know the full number in order to know which switch the > specific number is assigned to. Not all 408-921 prefixed numbers will go > to that switch in West San Jose. Is there the equivalent of BGP for number portability where every telco has the full table of who owns each prefix as well as individual routes for ported numbers ? Or is there a central database that is consulted before a dialed number starts to be connected so originating telco knows to send call ? Or does the originating telco route the call to the original onwer of the prefix and lets that original owner figure out how to terminate the call ? >From a long distance billing point of view, if Bell Canada connects to a number originally onwed by AT&T but ported to Verizon, with whom would Bell share long distance revenues ?
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016, John R. Levine wrote: NANP geographical numbers can be located to a switch (give or take number portability within a LATA), but non-geographic numbers can really go anywhere. On the third hand, it's still true that the large majority of them are in the U.S. Would you agree that 408-921 is a geographic number? No. It's a prefix, assigned to the at&t switch in west San Jose. And further to that, throw in Local Number Portability (LNP) and you really need to know the full number in order to know which switch the specific number is assigned to. Not all 408-921 prefixed numbers will go to that switch in West San Jose. I guarantee you that there are phones within that prefix within US/Calif/LATA-1 and also some well outside of that, probably not even in the same country. Who said anything about phones? Could you describe what "geographic numbers can be located to a switch" means to you? In the same way that an IP address and it's "location" is amorphous, the physical location in which a phone call to a given phone number is answered could be anywhere. There could be a forward on it that sends a call made to US number +1 408-192-4135[1] to a phone in Latvia. Or it rings to a computer in London, which forwards it to Brussels. A phone number, like an IP address, can only imply a physical location. It is not a guarantee, and that hint can range from moderately accurate to wildly wrong. Beckman [1] Intentionally invalid NANPA, for example purposes only --- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beck...@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ ---
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
> On Apr 13, 2016, at 12:45 , John R. Levine wrote: > >>> NANP geographical numbers can be located to a switch (give >>> or take number portability within a LATA), but non-geographic numbers >>> can really go anywhere. On the third hand, it's still true that the >>> large majority of them are in the U.S. >> >> Would you agree that 408-921 is a geographic number? > > No. It's a prefix, assigned to the at&t switch in west San Jose. > >> I guarantee you that there are phones within that prefix within >> US/Calif/LATA-1 and also some well outside of that, probably not even in the >> same country. > > Who said anything about phones? Could you describe what "geographic numbers > can be located to a switch" means to you? I guarantee you that many, if not most at this point, of those numbers are no longer actually handled by that switch most of the time. I suspect that there are more SS7 exceptions than default within that particular prefix which is why I chose it. Owen
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
NANP geographical numbers can be located to a switch (give or take number portability within a LATA), but non-geographic numbers can really go anywhere. On the third hand, it's still true that the large majority of them are in the U.S. Would you agree that 408-921 is a geographic number? No. It's a prefix, assigned to the at&t switch in west San Jose. I guarantee you that there are phones within that prefix within US/Calif/LATA-1 and also some well outside of that, probably not even in the same country. Who said anything about phones? Could you describe what "geographic numbers can be located to a switch" means to you? Helpfully, John
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
> On Apr 13, 2016, at 12:15 , John Levine wrote: > >>> Actually, it's probably both US and Canadian. When you call an 8xx >>> toll free number, the switch uses a database to route the call to >>> whatever carrier handles it, who can then do whatever they want. The >>> provider for that number, Callture, is in Ontario but they can >>> terminate the calls anywhere, and send each call to a different place. >> >> I was careful to pick a number on a Canadian company's website. > > Doesn't matter. In the NANP, toll free 8xx numbers are routed by > carrier, not by geography, and it looks like this company handles > traffic in the US, too. It's entirely possible that when you call > that number during the day you get someone in Toronto, and when you > call it at night, you get an answering service in the Phillipines. > >>> Also, in fairness, the US is about 90% of the NANP, so guessing that >>> an 8XX number is in the US is usually correct. >> >> That's another way of saying that it's deliberately wrong 10% of the >> time for pan-NANP prefixes. Better to say "I don't know" than to just >> guess. > > Really, they're not assigned to locations, they're assigned to > carriers. They can even be assigned to different carriers in > different countries although that's not common. > > More to the point, saying "somewhere in the US", even if it's > occasionally wrong, will not send nitwits with guns to a particular > location. NANP geographical numbers can be located to a switch (give > or take number portability within a LATA), but non-geographic numbers > can really go anywhere. On the third hand, it's still true that the > large majority of them are in the U.S. Would you agree that 408-921 is a geographic number? I guarantee you that there are phones within that prefix within US/Calif/LATA-1 and also some well outside of that, probably not even in the same country. I will also guarantee you that those phones move locations quite frequently. Owen
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
>> Actually, it's probably both US and Canadian. When you call an 8xx >> toll free number, the switch uses a database to route the call to >> whatever carrier handles it, who can then do whatever they want. The >> provider for that number, Callture, is in Ontario but they can >> terminate the calls anywhere, and send each call to a different place. > >I was careful to pick a number on a Canadian company's website. Doesn't matter. In the NANP, toll free 8xx numbers are routed by carrier, not by geography, and it looks like this company handles traffic in the US, too. It's entirely possible that when you call that number during the day you get someone in Toronto, and when you call it at night, you get an answering service in the Phillipines. >> Also, in fairness, the US is about 90% of the NANP, so guessing that >> an 8XX number is in the US is usually correct. > >That's another way of saying that it's deliberately wrong 10% of the >time for pan-NANP prefixes. Better to say "I don't know" than to just >guess. Really, they're not assigned to locations, they're assigned to carriers. They can even be assigned to different carriers in different countries although that's not common. More to the point, saying "somewhere in the US", even if it's occasionally wrong, will not send nitwits with guns to a particular location. NANP geographical numbers can be located to a switch (give or take number portability within a LATA), but non-geographic numbers can really go anywhere. On the third hand, it's still true that the large majority of them are in the U.S. R's, John
