telecom, Number Not in Use

by **Ned Protter** » Sun, 15 Aug 2004 09:31:51 GMT

Today my answering machine received a telemarketing message telling me
to press 1 if I was interested.

I was interested. I got the number from Call Return. I wrote it down
and reread it when they announced it the second time.

I dialed it. After two rings I got three shrill tones and an
announcement that the number was not in service. I dialed again with
the same result.

How could I receive a call from an out-of-service number?

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You got that recording because the
company which called you diddled with their caller ID to keep you from
finding out what number they were really at. Its a very common technique
telemarketers use. I do not know if your comment 'I was interested'
was because you really were interested or if it was tongue in cheek
and you actually more interested in making trouble for the telemarketer,
but in any event they assumed you would not be interested and took
measures to assure you would not get back to them. PAT]

by **Ned Protter** » Tue, 17 Aug 2004 03:28:57 GMT

n article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Ned Protter
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:

Do they diddle with their caller ID because it's illegal for them to
block it? Is it illegal to fake their caller ID? Could the phone
company trace them anyway?

Can they fake the area code and exchange as well as the OCN?

The message intrigued me for two reasons. First, all I got was the last
few seconds. She said it was a medical and dental discount plan for
$129 a month. My machine's announcement is only four seconds, so it
seems as if their message must have started before my machine answered.

Second, the going rate for discount plans seems to be $129 per year, not
per month.

A couple of weeks ago, my machine recorded a message saying I'd won a
trip. There was a thirteen-second delay before it started, and it was
very distorted. It had come from a cell phone, as if somebody had
dialed me and held the cell phone over an answering machine that played
back a telemarketing message.

I wonder if the discount-plan message was also a prank. In the exchange
area I got from Call Return is a household where the father and son are
IT professionals who love games. The message may have been designed to
raise eyebrows if it had not started prematurely. If their computer was
set to tell callers the number was out of service, Caller ID would give
them a list of people who had been intrigued enough to call back.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Its not illegal for them to block their
number; that is what *67 is used for. But many recipients of telephone
calls choose not to answer calls with blocked ID; in fact telco also
sells a 'blocking blocked ID' service just to accomodate those folks.
But if a person subscribes to 'blocking blocked ID service'it will
*not* work if the caller puts any sort of squibble at all in your
caller ID device. In other words, if they give their name as "NOTCHUR
BIZ" and their 'phone number' as 000-000-0000 some of the telcos
will insist (SBC is notorious in this way) that a 'valid number and
valid ID has been presented' therefore block-blocking does not apply.
SBC says "we did our part of the deal, now you do your part and pay
your damn phone bill". I've had calls from Notchur at his office and
gotten similar very insolent and arrogant comments from the flunkies
at SBC who respond in the name of their chairman. The only thing no
one is able to lie about is the pairs used for the connection, but
telcos won't give that information out. I'd much rather see something
like "Chicago-Kedzie, cable 2933, pair 2711" on my caller ID instead
of some of the Bologna that shows up now, but telcos won't do that.
Maybe it has something to do with 'terrorism' which is everyone's
favorite red herring these days. PAT]

by **pv+usenet** » Tue, 17 Aug 2004 06:43:31 GMT

Ned Protter < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:

It's been illegal for the last 6 months to block or alter caller ID on
a telemarketing call -- the number must show, and must be the 'get me
off your dang list' number. If you know the company that's calling,
file a complaint with the FTC -- it's an $11,000 per occurrence fine.

Anything at all in a caller-id record can be faked.

The real boiler-room operators (and you can definitely count the
free-trip ones in that category) are often running old crappy
equipment. Think of it as the telemarketing equivalent of the
massively misspelled spam email. It might attract your attention, but
not in a GOOD way.

Not for telemarketers. They can't block the number, period. *

* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.

by **bonomi** » Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:56:37 GMT

n article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
Ned Protter < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:

Historically, such operations have 'diddled' with their caller-ID info
because the telco they connected through would insert _accurate_ data
if they didn't provide 'something'.

Recent rule-making by the FTC requires that caller-ID info be
presented, 'whenever technically possible'.

By the same FTC rule-making *accurate* info is required.

That is a complicated question. <grin>

For inter-carrier "settlement" purposes, your local telco maintains a
record of all calls between their network and any other telco. The
local telco _could_ identify _where_ (carrier, trunk, circuit) that
call 'came from' -- as far as the carrier that delivered the call _to_
them. They will, however, resist any demand for such information. A
court order would be needed. _Then_ you get to repeat the whole
process with the next 'upstream' carrier. Again, and again, until you
reach the 'originating' carrier who can identify the customer who
actually originated the call.

Yup. with the right equipment and telco-connection, the _entire_
caller-ID data is under the control of the customer. They can make it
say _anything_ they want it to.

BZZZZT! Thank you for playing.

It *IS* illegal for a telemarketer to block their number.

Recent FTC rule-making *requires* the marketeers to (a) provide
caller-ID info 'whenever technically possible', and that the data
provided MUST BE ACCURATE.

Penalties of up to $11,000 _per_call_ in violation.

by **spuorgelgoog** » Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:55:50 GMT

Are you sure the announcement was a genuine telephone company
announcement, or had the telemarketer put an answering machine on the
line with a fake annoucement? I'd expect a genuine announcement not to
ring first.

Owain

by **T. Sean Weintz** » Wed, 18 Aug 2004 03:29:32 GMT

Oh yeah, with a VOIP extension at home to our PBX here at work, which
has two PRI's for it's outgoing/incoming calls, I have been sorely
tempted to play prank call games at night with friends. The potential is
unlimited.

I mean what would YOU do if you got call at 3:00am from some idiot
insisting that he wants to order a pizza, and caller ID said it was
from the whitehouse ...

People just don't know how easy it is to spoof caller ID if ya got ISDN.

ANI is another matter, of course.

by **Steven J Sobol** » Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:32:17 GMT

In my experience, if a number is disconnected, the line may ring once before
you get the telco intercept message. YMMV

JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / XXXX@XXXXX.COM
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

by **bonomi** » Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:32:22 GMT

n article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Owain
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:

Your expectations are *NOT* in line with reality. <grin>

Mobile (cell) phone carriers are notorious for having 'slow' and
*inconsistent* cut-in of intercept messages. I had occasion to call a
friend the other day, who's phone had gotten temporarily cut off.
First time, the intercept kicked in _after_ three rings. Of course,
it doesn't say _what_ number was called, so, I suspected a mis-dial.
Re-dialed, and the intercept took over _before_ the 1st ring. In the
_middle_ of the 'not in service' message. Just for grins, tried it
again about 5 minutes later -- 3 rings and then the intercept. (Two
days later, the number _was_ working, and the friend confirmed that it
_was_ a carrier cut-off/intercept.)

Or, for example if the number is in a DID block assigned to an
"answering service's" PBX. The telco 'thinks' the number _is_ in
service, and pipes it down the (analog) trunk to the PBX. which,
after rummaging in it's database decides it it _not_ assigned, and
plays its 'not in service' message. The _caller_ may hear 'ringing'
from the point the telco starts to pipe the call down the DID trunk to
the PBX, *before* the PBX figures out 'what to do' with the call.

Those issues don't arise _if_ the signalling is 'pure digital' (i.e.,
SS7 and/or ISDN) all the way to the _last_ switch. Anything that
"looks" like analog circuits, including DS-0's on a channelized T-1
(or above), and the fun-and-games _does_ commence.

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, T. Sean Weintz
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:

"I'm sorry, Mr. Gore. Your credit card does not match the address you've
given us. We are unable to accept your order. <click>"

_Next_ question? <grin>

But, then, I've had to, over the years, deal with a _lot_ of strange
calls. Many pranks, some deadly serious. Like a hospital emergency
room trying to locate the physician of an only-partially coherent
patient. Couldn't get a precise ID from the victim, and were calling
anybody who's name appeared "close" to what they understood her to be
saying. At the time, I was the _only_ person listed in the entire
greater Chicago area, with my last name. (heck, there's less than 200
people with that name in the entire U.S. :)

How life gets _really_ confusing. This all started _late_ one evening.
I'm working that nite at 'xyz software labs'. The call comes in at home.
My room-mate, *sleepily* answers the phone. Hears the name, and says 'He's
at work. call XXX-XXXX', so they do. I answer the 'nite line' from the
computer room, with all the attendant background noise. In that kind of
environment, "Doctor' can sound an awful lot like 'Robert'. They _know_
they've reached a 'lab' facility, and are talking to the 'Doctor'. I'm
really a computer-systems guy, running tests of new software, that has to
be done in 'non-production' time. "Massive confusion" would be a gross
understatement for describing the first moments of -that- call.

Now, the 'small world' department intervenes. A high-school
acquaintance had recently moved to town, joining the nursing faculty
at one of the local med schools. Had, a week or so previously, told
me that she'd seen a listing for somebody with "my" last name, in the
med school faculty, and the department that he was in. Thus I could
tell that ER caller that "there _is_ a Doctor by t

by **T. Sean Weintz** » Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:00:27 GMT

Likely was a real telco recording. Back here, the recorded "not in
service" messages ALWAYS ring first -- sometimes as many as five or
six times before the message plays (one time I counted 8 times!)

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Five or six times? Eight times? By
that point most people would be ready to assume their party was
not at home, rather than had the phone turned off. I am reminded
of when Chicago-Wabash central office was very old, back in the
panel/step-switch days. If you called someone whose line was busy
only occassionally would you get a busy signal right away; usually
it would ring one or two times *then* cut into busy. If the handful
of 'busy noise makers' were all in use, you could wait four or five
'rings' before you got cut into one. PAT]

by **Nick Landsberg** » Fri, 20 Aug 2004 05:14:12 GMT

Most folks in this forum already know this, but it may be worth
repeating. When you hear ringing, you're not actually hearing
the phone you just dialed ringing, you are hearing a "ring-back
tone" being played from the CO or other piece of equipment in the
network. So, Pat is right, if the "busy tone generators" were all
busy you might hear any number of rings until one of them became
clear to provide the buzzing sound. Similarly, you may hear
any number of rings while the far-end system is trying to complete
the call, only to eventually hear "<whistle-whistle-bop> We're
sorry, the number you have dialed is not in service, please hang
up and try again. Code 9523"

By the way, I had heard an urban legend that "ring back tones" were
established in order to try to prevent what the Telco termed "theft of
service." Consider the following example:

"Mom, I'll call you when I get there and hang up after exactly two
rings. I should be there around 8 PM or so." Some say that the
Telco's were concerned that they were losing money because the
customers were communicating "out of band" but never completing a
billable call.

Can anyone confirm this (or deny this)? Can anyone put an approximate
date when they started using "ring back tones" rather than you hearing
the electrical buzz from the actual ringer on the far end phone?

Thanks, NPL

"It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so
ingenious" - A. Bloch

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The way I heard it was, telco only
put the (artificial) ringing on the line because they did not want
people thinking the line was of order. On the old style manual
switchboards you did not hear ringing tone, just silence after
asking the operator for a connection until eventually either your
party responded and spoke up or the operator returned to say 'there
is no answer' or 'the line is busy'. PAT]

by **Wesrock** » Sat, 21 Aug 2004 04:38:30 GMT

In a message dated Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:14:12 GMT, Nick Landsberg
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:

With step euipment originally some of the ringing current was fed
back to the calling party. So you did hear the actual ringing and
that form of code calling was indeed not uncommon.

Even after they used a separate ringing tone, it was usually
operated by the same relay that applied ringing current to the called
party.

Wes Leatherock
XXXX@XXXXX.COM

by **Tony P.** » Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:05:47 GMT

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, XXXX@XXXXX.COM
says:

Not anymore. I tried a test and called my home number from my cell --
heard ring tone on the cell but the home phone rang about a second AFTER
ring tone had ended.

by **Tim** » Sat, 21 Aug 2004 21:18:14 GMT

Of course, "not anymore." The reference was to how the ringing tone
was changed on step-by-step switches. On electronic switching, which
is all there is around these days, the ring voltage and ring tone have
always been independent functions, since circa 1965.

by **Paul Coxwell** » Sun, 22 Aug 2004 06:15:08 GMT

>> Even after they used a separate ringing tone, it was usually

Even back in the days when SxS was the main switching system over here
in Britain, there was no guarantee that ringback tones would be in
phase with the applied ringing on the line. Ringing machines
typically had two or three different outputs for actual ring voltage
and for tone, and each final selector (connector in U.S. terminology)
could be wired to any combination of outputs.

Many people tried the fixed-number-of-rings trick, not realizing that
the tones they heard back might or might not correspond with the
actual ringing depending upon which selector they happened to hit for
the last two digits.

Paul

telecom, Number Not in Use

telecom >> Number Not in Use

telecom >> Number Not in Use

telecom >> Number Not in Use

telecom >> Number Not in Use

telecom >> Number Not in Use

telecom >> Number Not in Use

telecom >> Number Not in Use

telecom >> Number Not in Use

telecom >> Number Not in Use

telecom >> Number Not in Use

telecom >> Number Not in Use

telecom >> Number Not in Use

telecom >> Number Not in Use

telecom >> Number Not in Use