TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: 2002220000 Given as Caller ID

Re: 2002220000 Given as Caller ID

Dean (cjmebox-telecomdigest@yahoo.com)
2 Mar 2005 11:54:37 -0800

In fact I think this is not only an indication of VoIP, although it
probably was in this case. I think incumbent operators in various
countries tend to alter (or completely remove) the calling number from
the signaling, as practcally nobody validates that number in order to
route the call. It's my understanding that the reason behind this
tactic is to avoid paying the agreed upon fees from sending
international calls to each other.

For example if country A wants to send calls to country C it can opt
to send them via country B if the economics favor it. I imagine this
is probably illegal -- if indeed it is still going on -- since it
probably violates agreements in place but that whole accounting system
is unstable anyway. Most operators know this and will block calls
without A-numbers but there are always ways around that too if you're
not too honest.

In the end it seems that all "distance" must become irrelevant in the
pricing schemes, as it is more and more difficult to separate local
not only from long distance but from international too. On the other
hand isn't it precisely this flattening of the cost vs distance curve
that, at least in the short term, drives a lot of VoIP offerings?

Maybe the only solution to that problem -- if it is a problem -- is to
regulate that every communication device (hard or soft) must have a
GPS chip which will relate its location to the operator (regardless if
the operator is VoIP, CLEC, ILEC, Wireless or whatever), so that
location based billing structures can stay in place. Now _that_ would
be a crazy idea wouldn't it?

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: John Bartley: "Re: Other Firmware For Linksys wrt54g? Satori"
Go to Previous message: jared: "Re: GSM Cell Density in Metropolitan Areas"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page