m21198@mwvm.mitre.org (John McHarry) (06/08/90)
In Volume 10: Issue 419 Paul Flynn <pvf@houdi.att.com> discussed
some of the limitations on CLASS (I think CLASS is a Registered
Service Mark, or some such, of Bellcore.) services due to the current
lack of SS7 interconnectivity between carriers. This reminded me of a
similar issue I have been meaning to mention:
Calling Line ID (CLID, "ANI", etc) is, as currently implemented
under the CLASS specifications (there are other extent ways to do it),
an SS7 based feature insofar as it operates between switches. Since
interexchange carriers (IXCs) don't currently connect to the local
exchange carriers (LECs) via SS7 to any significant degree, CLID is
not available on inter-LATA calls. Thus, I can't use it to
differentiate my mother calling me from the, more usual, boiler room
call. Thus, it is not worth much to me, nor, I suspect, to a fair
number of potential customers.
Of course, the people touting CLID are aware of this limitation
and are trying to remedy it by arranging for ANI spill from the IXCs.
Current trunking arrangements spill ANI from the LEC to the IXC, but
not vice-versa. The LECs would like to convert their incoming IXC
trunks to deliver ANI. This could be done via SS7 interconnectivity,
but I doubt that SS7 is required.
Sound simple? Au contraire: It appears that the IXCs are more
than willing to provide the information, but at a price. I guess the
reasoning is that the LEC wants the calling number information in
order to sell it, so the provider, the IXC, should be paid also. The
LECs seem to argue that what is good for the goose is good for the
gander. They provide ANI to the IXC at "no" charge (ANI spill is
included in the tariff for the current interconnect trunks), so they
should get it from them for free also. Of course, the IXCs need the
info for billing, but they also sell it to some of their customers.
It is beginning to look like this may develop into an amusing
little brouhaha. There have already been some positions put forward
at some of the standards meetings that appear subtly linked to this
issue. At any rate, its outcome should have some interesting
implications. For example, if the IXC is entitled to payment for the
information, by parity of reasoning, isn't the calling party entitled
to compensation also? One, if one were an LEC, might argue that the
calling party is compensated in lower rates, but with price cap
regulation that is a harder case to make with a straight face.
#include disclaimer.standard
* John McHarry (703)883-6100 McHarry@MITRE.ORG *peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (06/10/90)
In article <8817@accuvax.nwu.edu> m21198@mwvm.mitre.org (John McHarry) writes: > CLID is not available on inter-LATA calls. Thus, I can't use it to > differentiate my mother calling me from the, more usual, boiler room > call. Thus, it is not worth much to me, nor, I suspect, to a fair > number of potential customers. I don't understand this point at all. I don't care about boiler-room calls. I can hang up on them, and they're not repeated. It's just not a big deal. The worst they can do is make my answering-machine run out of tape. The real problem is repeated nuisance calls and casual harrassment. And for that I need Caller-ID. I've never had to deal with a big enough problem to get SWBell interested... besides, who wants to sic the phone cops on a kid? Not me. `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com> 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> @FIN Dirty words: Zhghnyyl erphefvir vayvar shapgvbaf.