MYERSTON@SRI-KL.ARPA (HECTOR MYERSTON) (12/17/85)
In his otherwise very erudite treatise on incoming call ID Larry
Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp makes this categorical statements:
" Not only that, but even in the most sophisticated ESS central offices
if the call originated in ANY OTHER CO, the destination CO has NO information
anywhere in its processor as to the identity of the calling party other than on
what interoffice trunk the call came in on.
There is no possible motivation for an operating telephone company to
install apparatus in its CO to make calling party identification available to
subscribers - even if the information were available. "
I suggest the research by Recognition Research into the following might
be of some value!:
1. ISDN
2. CCITT Signalling Scheme # 7
3. The Field Trial of CCITT#7 in Orlando FL
-------telecom@ucbvax.UUCP (12/25/85)
> In his otherwise very erudite treatise on incoming call ID Larry > Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp makes this categorical statements: > > " Not only that, but even in the most sophisticated ESS central offices > if the call originated in ANY OTHER CO, the destination CO has NO information > anywhere in its processor as to identity of the calling party other than on > what interoffice trunk the call came in on. > There is no possible motivation for an operating telephone company to > install apparatus in its CO to make calling party identification available to > subscribers - even if the information were available. " > > I suggest the research by Recognition Research into the following might > be of some value!: > 1. ISDN > 2. CCITT Signalling Scheme # 7 > 3. The Field Trial of CCITT#7 in Orlando FL I am quite aware of the above. In my article I was referring to the telephone central offices in North America up to and including the PRESENT TIME. The simple fact remains that the calling party indentification devices which I was referring to had, and still have no factual basis for operation. Most CCIS in use today by the [former] "Bell System" is on intertoll trunks between Class 1 through 4 toll centers; there is comparatively little used with Class 5 end offices. Therefore, the calling party indentification is not and can not be transmitted TODAY to the called end office. CCITT #7 is NOT CCIS. One of the motivations behind eventually using CCITT #7 was the position of AT&T that CCIS per se is proprietary and would not be made available to other carriers. >IF< CCITT #7 is universally implemented, it will allow the end office to have the calling number identity. This will hardly happen overnight! The cost of going to CCITT #7 (or CCIS for that matter) is VERY GREAT. For an ESS office to go CCITT #7 or CCIS requires: 1. Scrapping all existing interoffice MF and DP E&M trunks and replacing them with those having CCITT #7 or CCIS capability. I am not aware of any modifications or appliques which will permit any interface of E&M trunk hardware to CCITT #7 or CCIS apparatus, thereby reducing cost of installation. 2. Modification of T-carrier and N-carrier (if left) apparatus to accomodate the above new trunks. 3. Installation and testing of new ESS software. 4. In essence, all converted interoffice trunks will have to be engineered almost from scratch. The above efforts cost money. Previous advances in carrier/signalling technology - like from N3 carrier/ F-signalling --> T carrier - resulted in an order of magnitude reduction in apparatus size and trunk maintenance-repair time. This situation is NOT so with making the next transition to CCITT #7 or CCIS. The cost savings to be inured by such a conversion do not readily justify doing so. So, getting back to my original article, what MOTIVATES an operating telephone company to make a signaling conversion to CCITT #7 or CCIS for ALL of its interoffice trunks? Note that I stated ALL, so I am not referring to a conversion for `equal access' purposes. Please don't get me wrong - I AM in favor of technological progress. Hell, I'd even like to calling party identification on my own telephones. But how does an operating telephone company justify the cost - which has to be borne by its subscribers? Also, to be realistic, how many people will pay a rate for calling party identifcation service which is commensurate with the cost of providing same? ==> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <== ==> UUCP {decvax|dual|rocksanne|rocksvax|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <== ==> VOICE 716/741-9185 {rice|shell}!baylor!/ <== ==> FAX 716/741-9635 {G1, G2, G3 modes} duke!ethos!/ <== ==> burl!gladys!/ <== ==> "Have you hugged your cat today?" ihnp4!/ <==