Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [local-calling-guide] 632?

Expand Messages
  • Neil Stewart
    I agree with this explanation more than the others, as I work with Manila resources whose calls routinely come in on caller ID as 632-9XX-XXXX (made to fit the
    Message 1 of 18 , Jul 1, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree with this explanation more than the others, as
      I work with Manila resources whose calls routinely
      come in on caller ID as 632-9XX-XXXX (made to fit the
      format and look like a 10-digit US number).

      Neil
      --- Stanley Cline <sc1@...> wrote:
      > On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:21:27 -0000, garko@...
      > <garko@...> wrote:
      >
      > > I have several odd questions. My wife just
      > received a call for me
      > > from 632-911-8866, which came up as "unavailable"
      > on the caller id.
      > > They didn't give her a name; said they would just
      > call back later.
      > >
      > > Here are my questions:
      > >
      > > 1. Since I have privacy manager, how did an
      > "unavailable" call come
      > > through to the house?
      >
      > Since there was a number for caller ID to show it
      > got through; the
      > privacy manager will only kick in if there's no
      > caller ID number at
      > all, or the caller has blocked display of their
      > number.
      >
      > > 2. What kind of number is 632-911-8866? Never
      > heard of 632 before.
      > > 3. What kind of exchange is 911?
      >
      > Area code 632 doesn't exist, and 911 isn't a valid
      > prefix. It sounds
      > like the call actually came from +63 2 9118866 --
      > i.e., Manila,
      > Phillipines, where there are a number of offshore
      > telemarketing and
      > call centers -- and the international caller ID got
      > twisted into North
      > American format, which is rare but does happen.
      >
      > -SC
      > --
      > Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org --
      > http://www.roamer1.org/
      > ...
      > "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today.
      > There might
      > be a law against it by that time."
      > -/usr/games/fortune
      >




      __________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
      http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
    • cgordon55
      ... phone number assigned to it for any incoming calls from the regular DDD network. ... actual telephone number from the RBOC to supply you with outgoing Dial
      Message 2 of 18 , Jul 1, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com, Dennis McLeod
        <dmcleod@o...> wrote:
        >
        > One thing that can cause this is a VOIP line that has no "actual"
        phone number assigned to it for any incoming calls from the regular
        DDD network.
        >
        > In this case the VOIP supplier can get around having to lease an
        actual telephone number from the RBOC to supply you with outgoing
        Dial tone service. But to increase profits to the VOIP supplier he
        can provide a restricted access incoming service where by he can
        assign any number he wishes(since the number is specific to his
        private network only to facilitate the incoming call.
        >
        > For instance in my own case I have gone to a VOIP supplier for a
        VOIP line for specifically making outbound calls to any exchange that
        can be reached for free from any of the VOIP suppliers access points.
        My number is 705-950-6003 (A virtual Phone Number)(It can be any
        number I choose as long as it isn't assigned anywhere else on the
        VOIP system I am on, it can be working anywhere else on the DDD
        network) and it shows up as CLID at the receiving party. Looks like a
        real number but it isn't. If you dial the number directly by DDD you
        will go nowhere near me. Because I wanted a cheap incoming service
        for some testing purposes, I pay a small premium to obtain reverse
        calling. To obtain incoming calls, one has to call a 10 digit access
        number in any given community center, receive DT and then you can
        dial the VOIP number which was displayed on the incoming call. If I
        had chosen to have a real number I could receive calls directly from
        the DDD Network without the use of the access numb
        > er.
        >
        > The advantage is I get free unlimited calling, both in and oubound,
        throughout the VOIP's serving area for a lot less than I can get
        from my regional carrier Bell Canada and with many addition features
        included.
        >
        > The number you are getting sure fits this scenario for a VOIP
        operated Call Center that has access to free calling in your area,
        wants to look like a legitimate caller on CLID but doesn't want you
        to be able to call back to them. They also have there name blocked in
        your case.
        >
        > From the example that I have going you can start to see what would
        have happened if I had chosen a virtual number that was the same as
        some ones working DDD network number just to confuse the call
        receiver.
        >
        > This is just one of the many things that VOIP service will have to
        solve in its evolution.
        >
        > Dennis McLeod

        If you called 911 from your VOIP number - -how does 911 find your
        location???
      • joiseyjoe
        I realize the cited example below is Canada, but I wonder how much of this is being done in the US. Wouldn t this be a illegal circumvention of access charges
        Message 3 of 18 , Jul 1, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          I realize the cited example below is Canada, but I wonder how much of
          this is being done in the US. Wouldn't this be a illegal
          circumvention of access charges based on the recent FCC ruling on
          AT&T's VOIP traffic? It appears to me that they would be trying to
          classify an interLATA call as a local call by doing this. SBC is
          suing AT&T for this reason.
          (http://www.x-changemag.com/articles/461front4.html)

          --- In local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com, Dennis McLeod
          <dmcleod@o...> wrote:
          > On 2004/06/30 14:21, you wrote:
          > >I have several odd questions. My wife just received a call for me
          > >from 632-911-8866, which came up as "unavailable" on the caller id.
          > >They didn't give her a name; said they would just call back later.
          > >
          > >Here are my questions:
          > >
          > >1. Since I have privacy manager, how did an "unavailable" call come
          > >through to the house?
          > >2. What kind of number is 632-911-8866? Never heard of 632 before.
          > >3. What kind of exchange is 911?
          > >
          > >Strange, isn't it? Any thoughts or clues to this mystery would help
          > >greatly.
          > >
          > >Thanks!
          > >John
          > >Columbus, OH (614)
          > End of Quoted Message - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          >
          > One thing that can cause this is a VOIP line that has no "actual"
          phone number assigned to it for any incoming calls from the regular
          DDD network.
          >
          > In this case the VOIP supplier can get around having to lease an
          actual telephone number from the RBOC to supply you with outgoing Dial
          tone service. But to increase profits to the VOIP supplier he can
          provide a restricted access incoming service where by he can assign
          any number he wishes(since the number is specific to his private
          network only to facilitate the incoming call.
          >
          > For instance in my own case I have gone to a VOIP supplier for a
          VOIP line for specifically making outbound calls to any exchange that
          can be reached for free from any of the VOIP suppliers access points.
          My number is 705-950-6003 (A virtual Phone Number)(It can be any
          number I choose as long as it isn't assigned anywhere else on the VOIP
          system I am on, it can be working anywhere else on the DDD network)
          and it shows up as CLID at the receiving party. Looks like a real
          number but it isn't. If you dial the number directly by DDD you will
          go nowhere near me. Because I wanted a cheap incoming service for some
          testing purposes, I pay a small premium to obtain reverse calling. To
          obtain incoming calls, one has to call a 10 digit access number in any
          given community center, receive DT and then you can dial the VOIP
          number which was displayed on the incoming call. If I had chosen to
          have a real number I could receive calls directly from the DDD Network
          without the use of the access numb
          > er.
          >
          > The advantage is I get free unlimited calling, both in and oubound,
          throughout the VOIP's serving area for a lot less than I can get from
          my regional carrier Bell Canada and with many addition features included.
          >
          > The number you are getting sure fits this scenario for a VOIP
          operated Call Center that has access to free calling in your area,
          wants to look like a legitimate caller on CLID but doesn't want you to
          be able to call back to them. They also have there name blocked in
          your case.
          >
          > From the example that I have going you can start to see what would
          have happened if I had chosen a virtual number that was the same as
          some ones working DDD network number just to confuse the call receiver.
          >
          > This is just one of the many things that VOIP service will have to
          solve in its evolution.
          >
          > Dennis McLeod
        • Mike Chase
          This seems to be the current method of operation by most VoIP service providers (not including mine). These providers are not LECs and usually have no PSTN
          Message 4 of 18 , Jul 1, 2004
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            This seems to be the current method of operation by most VoIP service providers (not including mine). These providers are not LECs and usually have no PSTN switching facilities. They lease switching from other CLECs and use the CLEC's Local Interconnection (LIS) facilities to terminate calls to LECs rather than deliver them to the IXC where the terminating LEC would receive it's due access rate. This is used to create extended local calling areas to make the product more attractive as a toll-bypass product, relying on the circumvention of the current access arrangement to offer very low-cost service.

            These carriers also are not 911 compliant in most cases (also not including mine). Typically, the 911 call is simply forwarded to the 911 PSAP's Directory Number. This line does not terminate to the operator stations as a normal 911 call, and is answered with the lowest priority.

            Regulation has not yet caught up to these issues, but will soon I presume. In addition, LECs are taking new steps to audit the traffic present on their LIS trunking facilities to look for this very thing.



            ----- Original Message -----
            From: joiseyjoe
            To: local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:08 AM
            Subject: [local-calling-guide] Re: 632?


            I realize the cited example below is Canada, but I wonder how much of
            this is being done in the US. Wouldn't this be a illegal
            circumvention of access charges based on the recent FCC ruling on
            AT&T's VOIP traffic? It appears to me that they would be trying to
            classify an interLATA call as a local call by doing this. SBC is
            suing AT&T for this reason.
            (http://www.x-changemag.com/articles/461front4.html)

            --- In local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com, Dennis McLeod
            <dmcleod@o...> wrote:
            > On 2004/06/30 14:21, you wrote:
            > >I have several odd questions. My wife just received a call for me
            > >from 632-911-8866, which came up as "unavailable" on the caller id.
            > >They didn't give her a name; said they would just call back later.
            > >
            > >Here are my questions:
            > >
            > >1. Since I have privacy manager, how did an "unavailable" call come
            > >through to the house?
            > >2. What kind of number is 632-911-8866? Never heard of 632 before.
            > >3. What kind of exchange is 911?
            > >
            > >Strange, isn't it? Any thoughts or clues to this mystery would help
            > >greatly.
            > >
            > >Thanks!
            > >John
            > >Columbus, OH (614)
            > End of Quoted Message - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            >
            > One thing that can cause this is a VOIP line that has no "actual"
            phone number assigned to it for any incoming calls from the regular
            DDD network.
            >
            > In this case the VOIP supplier can get around having to lease an
            actual telephone number from the RBOC to supply you with outgoing Dial
            tone service. But to increase profits to the VOIP supplier he can
            provide a restricted access incoming service where by he can assign
            any number he wishes(since the number is specific to his private
            network only to facilitate the incoming call.
            >
            > For instance in my own case I have gone to a VOIP supplier for a
            VOIP line for specifically making outbound calls to any exchange that
            can be reached for free from any of the VOIP suppliers access points.
            My number is 705-950-6003 (A virtual Phone Number)(It can be any
            number I choose as long as it isn't assigned anywhere else on the VOIP
            system I am on, it can be working anywhere else on the DDD network)
            and it shows up as CLID at the receiving party. Looks like a real
            number but it isn't. If you dial the number directly by DDD you will
            go nowhere near me. Because I wanted a cheap incoming service for some
            testing purposes, I pay a small premium to obtain reverse calling. To
            obtain incoming calls, one has to call a 10 digit access number in any
            given community center, receive DT and then you can dial the VOIP
            number which was displayed on the incoming call. If I had chosen to
            have a real number I could receive calls directly from the DDD Network
            without the use of the access numb
            > er.
            >
            > The advantage is I get free unlimited calling, both in and oubound,
            throughout the VOIP's serving area for a lot less than I can get from
            my regional carrier Bell Canada and with many addition features included.
            >
            > The number you are getting sure fits this scenario for a VOIP
            operated Call Center that has access to free calling in your area,
            wants to look like a legitimate caller on CLID but doesn't want you to
            be able to call back to them. They also have there name blocked in
            your case.
            >
            > From the example that I have going you can start to see what would
            have happened if I had chosen a virtual number that was the same as
            some ones working DDD network number just to confuse the call receiver.
            >
            > This is just one of the many things that VOIP service will have to
            solve in its evolution.
            >
            > Dennis McLeod


            Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            ADVERTISEMENT





            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Yahoo! Groups Links

            a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/local-calling-guide/

            b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            local-calling-guide-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Mike Chase
            It doesnt, unless you can tell them. ... From: cgordon55 To: local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:07 AM Subject:
            Message 5 of 18 , Jul 1, 2004
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              It doesnt, unless you can tell them.
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: cgordon55
              To: local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:07 AM
              Subject: [local-calling-guide] Re: 632?


              --- In local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com, Dennis McLeod
              <dmcleod@o...> wrote:
              >
              > One thing that can cause this is a VOIP line that has no "actual"
              phone number assigned to it for any incoming calls from the regular
              DDD network.
              >
              > In this case the VOIP supplier can get around having to lease an
              actual telephone number from the RBOC to supply you with outgoing
              Dial tone service. But to increase profits to the VOIP supplier he
              can provide a restricted access incoming service where by he can
              assign any number he wishes(since the number is specific to his
              private network only to facilitate the incoming call.
              >
              > For instance in my own case I have gone to a VOIP supplier for a
              VOIP line for specifically making outbound calls to any exchange that
              can be reached for free from any of the VOIP suppliers access points.
              My number is 705-950-6003 (A virtual Phone Number)(It can be any
              number I choose as long as it isn't assigned anywhere else on the
              VOIP system I am on, it can be working anywhere else on the DDD
              network) and it shows up as CLID at the receiving party. Looks like a
              real number but it isn't. If you dial the number directly by DDD you
              will go nowhere near me. Because I wanted a cheap incoming service
              for some testing purposes, I pay a small premium to obtain reverse
              calling. To obtain incoming calls, one has to call a 10 digit access
              number in any given community center, receive DT and then you can
              dial the VOIP number which was displayed on the incoming call. If I
              had chosen to have a real number I could receive calls directly from
              the DDD Network without the use of the access numb
              > er.
              >
              > The advantage is I get free unlimited calling, both in and oubound,
              throughout the VOIP's serving area for a lot less than I can get
              from my regional carrier Bell Canada and with many addition features
              included.
              >
              > The number you are getting sure fits this scenario for a VOIP
              operated Call Center that has access to free calling in your area,
              wants to look like a legitimate caller on CLID but doesn't want you
              to be able to call back to them. They also have there name blocked in
              your case.
              >
              > From the example that I have going you can start to see what would
              have happened if I had chosen a virtual number that was the same as
              some ones working DDD network number just to confuse the call
              receiver.
              >
              > This is just one of the many things that VOIP service will have to
              solve in its evolution.
              >
              > Dennis McLeod

              If you called 911 from your VOIP number - -how does 911 find your
              location???



              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT





              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Yahoo! Groups Links

              a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/local-calling-guide/

              b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              local-calling-guide-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • jack-yahoogroups@workbench.net
              ... In the situation covered by that lawsuit, calls originated on the PSTN and terminated on the PSTN. In this case, calls originate on the PSTN but are
              Message 6 of 18 , Jul 1, 2004
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                At 01:08 PM 7/1/2004 +0000, you wrote:
                >I realize the cited example below is Canada, but I wonder how much of
                >this is being done in the US. Wouldn't this be a illegal
                >circumvention of access charges based on the recent FCC ruling on
                >AT&T's VOIP traffic? It appears to me that they would be trying to
                >classify an interLATA call as a local call by doing this. SBC is
                >suing AT&T for this reason.
                >(http://www.x-changemag.com/articles/461front4.html)

                In the situation covered by that lawsuit, calls originated on the PSTN and terminated on the PSTN. In this case, calls originate on the PSTN but are converted to VoIP (data) and stay as VoIP - the call is not normally* terminated back on the PSTN. You may recall that when people first started using local access numbers to connect to services such as Compuserve, the Bells wanted those calls classified as toll also, but the government essentially took the position that once the call was converted to data it was out of their hands.

                In the present, and probably for the foreseeable future, pure VoIP calls are considered data, and not subject to access charges of any kind (Google the "Pulver decision" for more information). Therefore, logic would say that when a call is handed off to VoIP, and not converted back to a PSTN call at some point, it's no different than one of those old local access numbers for Compuserve, or a present-day local access number for AOL or Earthlink.

                * Granted that occasionally such calls will splash back to the PSTN due to action by the customer, for example setting call-forwarding to go to a PSTN number. But that would be a customer-initiated action, and not the primary purpose of such numbers. However, this helps illustrate how crazy the whole access charge regime is. The sooner they do away with the whole thing and go to a "bill and keep" system, the better. If it weren't for the reluctance of the rural carriers, who use such access charges as a form of "corporate welfare", we'd be well on our way to seeing that archaic system eliminated.

                _____
                Interested in VoIP news? Subscribe to the VoIP News list:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/voipnews/
                How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home:
                http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html
                If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/
                Resources for Michigan Telephone Users web site:
                http://michigantelephone.mi.org/
              • Dennis McLeod
                ... End of Quoted Message - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No 911 service provided.
                Message 7 of 18 , Jul 1, 2004
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 2004/07/01 09:07, you wrote:
                  >If you called 911 from your VOIP number - -how does 911 find your
                  >location???
                  End of Quoted Message - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  No 911 service provided.
                • czg7777
                  ... At Joe s request I ve removed the original reply, which contained his signature and email address, but I ve left the URL in case anyone wants it.
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jul 1, 2004
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com, Dennis McLeod
                    <dmcleod@o...> wrote:
                    > On 2004/06/30 20:22, you wrote:
                    > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
                    > >
                    > >Can you share the name of the VoIP Service provider
                    > >referenced in your e-mail? Just curious. I currently
                    > >work in the VoIP space (supporting both SIP & packetcable).
                    > >
                    > >=====
                    > >
                    > >JOSEPH G. FARRUGIA
                    >
                    >
                    > Here you go.
                    >
                    > http://www.talknet.ca/resiline.asp
                    >
                    > Dennis

                    At Joe's request I've removed the original reply, which contained his
                    signature and email address, but I've left the URL in case anyone
                    wants it.
                  • Matthew Burgoon
                    It depends on the VoIP provider. Some smaller VoIP providers only provide IP IP connectivity, which is obviously the cheapest and easiest (not to mention law
                    Message 9 of 18 , Jul 1, 2004
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      It depends on the VoIP provider. Some smaller VoIP providers only
                      provide IP<->IP connectivity, which is obviously the cheapest and
                      easiest (not to mention law free) solution, but the bigger VoIP
                      providers do provide PSTN origination and termination. It depends on how
                      the VoIP provider went about to providing this PSTN connectivity, some
                      use their own AS5300's with PRI's attached and some use third party
                      vendors. Not all of these VoIP providers who talk to the PSTN do 911 in
                      any way shape or form, and for the moment can get away with that due to
                      the lack of regulatory rules and clarification on the subject, but I
                      think we all know that this will change eventually. Other VoIP providers
                      do 10 digit PSAP dialing, and they hit the administrative line at the
                      PSAP, and as someone previously stated, gets the lowest priority. Those
                      VoIP providers who use their own AS5300's probably don't have the
                      resources to do e911 trunking, as they're technically not a xLEC. But
                      those the third party providers who some VoIP providers use to terminate
                      their traffic might have the resources to do e911 trunking, so 911 calls
                      might actually hit the PSAP as if you had done it from your land line,
                      although the rules for this vary depending on how brave the third party
                      provider is, but I do know some providers do do this.

                      Mike Chase wrote:

                      >This seems to be the current method of operation by most VoIP service providers (not including mine). These providers are not LECs and usually have no PSTN switching facilities. They lease switching from other CLECs and use the CLEC's Local Interconnection (LIS) facilities to terminate calls to LECs rather than deliver them to the IXC where the terminating LEC would receive it's due access rate. This is used to create extended local calling areas to make the product more attractive as a toll-bypass product, relying on the circumvention of the current access arrangement to offer very low-cost service.
                      >
                      >These carriers also are not 911 compliant in most cases (also not including mine). Typically, the 911 call is simply forwarded to the 911 PSAP's Directory Number. This line does not terminate to the operator stations as a normal 911 call, and is answered with the lowest priority.
                      >
                      >Regulation has not yet caught up to these issues, but will soon I presume. In addition, LECs are taking new steps to audit the traffic present on their LIS trunking facilities to look for this very thing.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: joiseyjoe
                      > To: local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:08 AM
                      > Subject: [local-calling-guide] Re: 632?
                      >
                      >
                      > I realize the cited example below is Canada, but I wonder how much of
                      > this is being done in the US. Wouldn't this be a illegal
                      > circumvention of access charges based on the recent FCC ruling on
                      > AT&T's VOIP traffic? It appears to me that they would be trying to
                      > classify an interLATA call as a local call by doing this. SBC is
                      > suing AT&T for this reason.
                      > (http://www.x-changemag.com/articles/461front4.html)
                      >
                      > --- In local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com, Dennis McLeod
                      > <dmcleod@o...> wrote:
                      > > On 2004/06/30 14:21, you wrote:
                      > > >I have several odd questions. My wife just received a call for me
                      > > >from 632-911-8866, which came up as "unavailable" on the caller id.
                      > > >They didn't give her a name; said they would just call back later.
                      > > >
                      > > >Here are my questions:
                      > > >
                      > > >1. Since I have privacy manager, how did an "unavailable" call come
                      > > >through to the house?
                      > > >2. What kind of number is 632-911-8866? Never heard of 632 before.
                      > > >3. What kind of exchange is 911?
                      > > >
                      > > >Strange, isn't it? Any thoughts or clues to this mystery would help
                      > > >greatly.
                      > > >
                      > > >Thanks!
                      > > >John
                      > > >Columbus, OH (614)
                      > > End of Quoted Message - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      > >
                      > > One thing that can cause this is a VOIP line that has no "actual"
                      > phone number assigned to it for any incoming calls from the regular
                      > DDD network.
                      > >
                      > > In this case the VOIP supplier can get around having to lease an
                      > actual telephone number from the RBOC to supply you with outgoing Dial
                      > tone service. But to increase profits to the VOIP supplier he can
                      > provide a restricted access incoming service where by he can assign
                      > any number he wishes(since the number is specific to his private
                      > network only to facilitate the incoming call.
                      > >
                      > > For instance in my own case I have gone to a VOIP supplier for a
                      > VOIP line for specifically making outbound calls to any exchange that
                      > can be reached for free from any of the VOIP suppliers access points.
                      > My number is 705-950-6003 (A virtual Phone Number)(It can be any
                      > number I choose as long as it isn't assigned anywhere else on the VOIP
                      > system I am on, it can be working anywhere else on the DDD network)
                      > and it shows up as CLID at the receiving party. Looks like a real
                      > number but it isn't. If you dial the number directly by DDD you will
                      > go nowhere near me. Because I wanted a cheap incoming service for some
                      > testing purposes, I pay a small premium to obtain reverse calling. To
                      > obtain incoming calls, one has to call a 10 digit access number in any
                      > given community center, receive DT and then you can dial the VOIP
                      > number which was displayed on the incoming call. If I had chosen to
                      > have a real number I could receive calls directly from the DDD Network
                      > without the use of the access numb
                      > > er.
                      > >
                      > > The advantage is I get free unlimited calling, both in and oubound,
                      > throughout the VOIP's serving area for a lot less than I can get from
                      > my regional carrier Bell Canada and with many addition features included.
                      > >
                      > > The number you are getting sure fits this scenario for a VOIP
                      > operated Call Center that has access to free calling in your area,
                      > wants to look like a legitimate caller on CLID but doesn't want you to
                      > be able to call back to them. They also have there name blocked in
                      > your case.
                      > >
                      > > From the example that I have going you can start to see what would
                      > have happened if I had chosen a virtual number that was the same as
                      > some ones working DDD network number just to confuse the call receiver.
                      > >
                      > > This is just one of the many things that VOIP service will have to
                      > solve in its evolution.
                      > >
                      > > Dennis McLeod
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      > ADVERTISEMENT
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/local-calling-guide/
                      >
                      > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > local-calling-guide-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • Art Stone
                      ... [...] ... id. In the past few days, Slashdot.com highlighted an article at SecurityFocus.com discussing how VoIP providers may be opening up security holes
                      Message 10 of 18 , Jul 8, 2004
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com, garko@y... wrote:
                        [...]
                        > I have several odd questions. My wife just received a call for me
                        > from 632-911-8866, which came up as "unavailable" on the caller
                        id.

                        In the past few days, Slashdot.com highlighted an article at
                        SecurityFocus.com discussing how VoIP providers may be opening up
                        security holes with Callerid - as their gateways allow spoofing of
                        callerid information, and allow the recipient to see the caller's
                        phone number - even if the call is set to block callerid information.

                        http://securityfocus.com/news/9061

                        Note that CallerID and ANI (incoming number identification on toll-
                        free lines) are different things... Other people have pointed out
                        that ISDN lines and PBXs also have the ability to supply invalid
                        callerID information.

                        This may add fuel to the regulatory fire currently going on over how
                        much and to what degree VoIP needs to be regulated... Anyone
                        relying solely on callerid data to authenticate incoming callers is
                        asking for trouble.
                        --
                        Fred Stiening
                        fred300@...
                      • Aaron Angel
                        For that matter, anyone relying on the telco industry to come up with sane ways to do things needs to be drug out in the street and flogged with some generally
                        Message 11 of 18 , Jul 8, 2004
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          For that matter, anyone relying on the telco industry to come up with sane ways to do things needs to be drug out in the street and flogged with some generally annoying, but harmless object.

                          Art Stone <artstone@...> wrote:--- In local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com, garko@y... wrote:
                          [...]
                          > I have several odd questions. My wife just received a call for me
                          > from 632-911-8866, which came up as "unavailable" on the caller
                          id.

                          In the past few days, Slashdot.com highlighted an article at
                          SecurityFocus.com discussing how VoIP providers may be opening up
                          security holes with Callerid - as their gateways allow spoofing of
                          callerid information, and allow the recipient to see the caller's
                          phone number - even if the call is set to block callerid information.

                          http://securityfocus.com/news/9061

                          Note that CallerID and ANI (incoming number identification on toll-
                          free lines) are different things... Other people have pointed out
                          that ISDN lines and PBXs also have the ability to supply invalid
                          callerID information.

                          This may add fuel to the regulatory fire currently going on over how
                          much and to what degree VoIP needs to be regulated... Anyone
                          relying solely on callerid data to authenticate incoming callers is
                          asking for trouble.
                          --
                          Fred Stiening
                          fred300@...






                          Yahoo! Groups Links








                          ---------------------------------
                          Do you Yahoo!?
                          Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.