[188956] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: phone fun,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Blair Trosper)
Tue Apr 26 22:55:51 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <ed4bd4d99be36456b6d9b87be3de6848@mail.gmail.com>
From: Blair Trosper <blair.trosper@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 19:55:07 -0700
To: Ray Orsini <ray@orsiniit.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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 <ray@orsiniit.com> wrote:
> On our VOIP service we include US, Canada and Puerto Rico as "local"
> calling.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ray Orsini =E2=80=93 CEO
> Orsini IT, LLC =E2=80=93 Technology Consultants
> VOICE =EF=82=96DATA =EF=82=96 BANDWIDTH =EF=82=96 SECURITY =EF=82=96 SUPP=
ORT
> P: 305.967.6756 x1009 E: ray@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 | Vie=
w
> Your Tickets
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+ray=3Dorsiniit.com@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
> >> <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2016-04-20 10:52, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >>
> >>> For the most part, =E2=80=9Clong distance=E2=80=9D calls within the U=
S 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 fin=
al
> 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 answere=
d
> 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 icea=
ge
> 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 shi=
ft
> supervisor (or one of them in a large office, like Los Angeles 1 Telegrap=
h,
> 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 lis=
t
> 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 t=
he
> 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 peopl=
e
> 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
>
