http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Apr-07-Wed-2004/business/23605095.ht\
ml

Thousands-block pooling data are now available for US prefixes. To
search for assigned blocks, use the normal NPA-NXX search at
http://members.dandy.net/~czg/search.html. Any prefixes with
thousands-block information will have a "blocks" link in the last
column of the table. Let me know if you find this useful.

You probably came across the LERG already.  That is the only monthly
compliled DB I know of.  But it is not cheap and it does not include a
"local to and from" guide.  That's another monthly CD subscription u
have to pay for.  Again not very cheap.


--- In local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Shepler"
<jshepler@e...> wrote:
> Wow, that's a lot of time to pull all that together. No wonder
people are
> selling this information.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't have that kind of time. I've done a little
looking
> around for a database to purchase and I'm not very happy with what
I've
> found so far. Either it doesn't have all the information I want or
it has
> way too much information costing more than what I can get approval
for. Can
> anyone suggest a reasonably priced solution that will provide me a
database
> that meets the following:
>
> 1. List of every areacode/prefix with city, state, long/latt (or
something I
> can use to map out areas) in the US and Canada
>
> 2. List what areacodes/prefixes are local to each areacode/prefix
>
> 3. Preferably an SQL database, but anything that I can extract the
> information out of to put in an SQL database (i.e.. Access, Excel,
> comma-delimited, etc.).
>
> 4. Updates. Free is always  nice, but subscription-based will work.
I don't
> know how often information would need to be updated. Quarterly?
Monthly?
> Yearly? How often do new exchanges get added?
>
> Thanks,
> -jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "czg7777" <czg7777@f...>
> To: <local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 7:00 AM
> Subject: [local-calling-guide] Re: Howdy
>
>
> > --- In local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Shepler"
> > <jshepler@e...> wrote:
> > >[...]
> > > After doing some research, I've found that there isn't a nice
> > > cut-n-dry way of determining who can call what number locally.
> > > I came across areacode-info.com and the searchable database
provided
> > > by Ray Chow and hence this group. I've also came across a
> > > downloadable list of areacodes/exchanges/states/rate centers,
> > > but it doesn't include any cities.
> > >[...]
> > > I'm looking for a list of all the active areacodes/exchanges and
> > > what city/state they're in as well as being able to keep it
current.
> > >
> > > How important is the rate center information for what I want to
do?
> > >
> > > How do I figure out the local calling area for a particular
number?
> > > I was thinking the LATA determined the local calling area, but
I've
> > > been reading some information that seems to indicate this isn't
the
> > > case.
> >
> > As Jack Decker mentioned, the tariffs are supposed to be the
> > authoritative source for local calling information. Most of the
larger
> > carriers have them online, but many of the smaller ones do not. My
> > site links to most of the incumbent carriers (see
> > http://members.dandy.net/~czg/tariff.php )
> >
> > The rate centre is the basic unit for determining how much a call
> > costs. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule; the most
> > prominent one I can think of would be Chicago, where SBC-Ameritech
> > (the dominant carrier) rates calls at the wire centre (switch)
level.
> > The LATA is not very useful for determining local calling areas.
These
> > days it seems to be mostly a historical relic...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

http://www.puc.state.nv.us/TELCOM/dkt_04-1008/04-1008.htm
http://www.puc.state.nv.us/TELCOM/dkt_04-1008/04-1008o.pdf

I found something that some of you might find of interest at BT's
(British Telecom's) website, a lookup page of your "local calling area".

Although "all" (POTS type) calls in the UK actually cost "something"
(similar to message/measured/zoned/etc. local calling in many major
metro areas in the US, some "optional", some of it is the DEFAULT),
in the UK, calls within one's Area/STD code are classed as "local"
(although I don't know if there are some "home" area code calls which
actually are TOLL, dialed as "straight" six/seven/eight digits though),
but there ARE calls that are classed as "local" which go outside of
one's STD/area code.

http://www.bt.com/localarea/index.jsp

is a "lookup" page of your local calling within the UK...

Quoting from that page:

"A local call is not just to numbers with the same area code -
it can go much further than that to include surrounding area codes
as well. This site has been designed to help you find out exactly
what that means for you."


You key in your "base" or "home" Area/STD code, which MUST begin with
the leading '0' "access" digit, and at least two more significant digits
must follow...

"All area codes must start with 0 and must be at least 3 digits long.
Please try again."

Also, I think it will only accept (0)1X(XXX) and (0)2X(XXX) codes,
i.e., the geographic/POTS "area/STD" codes, and NOT any of the other
"special functions" code ranges.

A (free) web-based lookup like this would be nice for the NANP,
something set up by Telcordia-TRA or Neustar-NANPA, or the FCC with the
state regs (and the CRTC for Canada), etc...

At least we do have Ray Chow's website for local calling areas within
the NANP (US and Canada) :-)
http://members.dandy.net/~czg/
http://members.dandy.net/~czg/search.html


Mark J. Cuccia
mcuccia@...
mcuccia (at) tulane (dot) edu
New Orleans LA CSA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.puc.state.or.us/press/2004/2004-019.htm

Hello!

I have several odd questions.  My wife just received a call for me
from 632-911-8866, which came up as "unavailable" on the caller id.
They didn't give her a name; said they would just call back later.

Here are my questions:

1.  Since I have privacy manager, how did an "unavailable" call come
through to the house?
2.  What kind of number is 632-911-8866?  Never heard of 632 before.
3.  What kind of exchange is 911?

Strange, isn't it?  Any thoughts or clues to this mystery would help
greatly.

Thanks!
John
Columbus, OH (614)

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:21:27 -0000, garko@... <garko@...> wrote:

> I have several odd questions.  My wife just received a call for me
> from 632-911-8866, which came up as "unavailable" on the caller id.
> They didn't give her a name; said they would just call back later.
>
> Here are my questions:
>
> 1.  Since I have privacy manager, how did an "unavailable" call come
> through to the house?

Since there was a number for caller ID to show it got through; the
privacy manager will only kick in if there's no caller ID number at
all, or the caller has blocked display of their number.

> 2.  What kind of number is 632-911-8866?  Never heard of 632 before.
> 3.  What kind of exchange is 911?

Area code 632 doesn't exist, and 911 isn't a valid prefix.  It sounds
like the call actually came from +63 2 9118866 -- i.e., Manila,
Phillipines, where there are a number of offshore telemarketing and
call centers -- and the international caller ID got twisted into North
American format, which is rare but does happen.

-SC
--
Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/
...
"Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today.  There might
be a law against it by that time."  -/usr/games/fortune

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 garko@... wrote:

> Hello!
>
> I have several odd questions.  My wife just received a call for me
> from 632-911-8866, which came up as "unavailable" on the caller id.
> They didn't give her a name; said they would just call back later.
>
> Here are my questions:
>
> 1.  Since I have privacy manager, how did an "unavailable" call come
> through to the house?
> 2.  What kind of number is 632-911-8866?  Never heard of 632 before.
> 3.  What kind of exchange is 911?
>
> Strange, isn't it?  Any thoughts or clues to this mystery would help
> greatly.
>
> Thanks!
> John
> Columbus, OH (614)


This was a call from either...

- telemarketing spam/sleaze/scum/slime, pure and simple.
They can "claim" that they sent out "some" form of Caller-ID, regardless
of whether it is valid or completely invalid (and this is TOTALLY
invalid). Most local telco "privacy manager" systems really don't make
any "attempts" to screen out totally known bogus numbers. The
telemarketing a-hole could have sent out a string of ten '0s' (zeros)
and SBC-Ameritech (or whoever your local telco is) would most likely
have let it thru anyhow.

- maybe someone was trying to call you collect or with a calling card,
thru some form of prepaid card platform or (unbeknownst to them) sleazy
"operator" service. Invalid numbers like that have been known to show up
all the time from such card-platforms or sleazy private (and exhorbitant
cost) "operator" (collect) companies.

- and then there could have been a "glitch" that happened as well.

I see that Stan just replied on this as well, right as I'm composing
this... I hadn't thought about the "international" (non-NANP) format,
which also "could" have happened, and that would be more of a "glitch",
it can happen, but it is rare -- most of the time, someone trying to
call a (non-ISDN) North American telephone from outside of the North
American network, will simply show up as "unavailable" or "out of area"
with NO attempt at displaying any numeric information.

"area code" 632 is NOT presently assigned, nor is it even "known" to
have a specific future geographic reservation

"c.o.code" 911 is NEVER used as a real c.o.code in ANY North American
area codes or "special/service area codes" (such as 800/888/877/866,
900, 500, etc). This is to prevent complications which might occur with
trying to call the three-digit 911 "Emergency" code.

And except for c.o.codes 211, 311, 411, 511, 611, 711, 811 (but not 911)
being available within the toll-free "special" area codes
(800/888/877/866/ and future ones), the 'N11' format of (eight) codes
are NOT  used as "real" office codes in ANY geographic "real" area codes
in North America, whether currently in existance, future "known" area
codes, and obviously not in any unassigned/unreserved area codes such as
631.

I remember some years back, a friend was being called "collect" day
after day by someone in jail from one of those "collect only" phone
systems which use some of the sleaziest "operator" companies. He had no
idea of why he was being called, but the number was 407-511-xxxx. Now
area code 407 is a valid area code in central Florida, but the 511
"office code" is flagged NOT to be assigned in ANYTHING except the
toll-free "area" codes. His C-ID box did display a name, simply
"FLORIDA CALL". Usually, if no name is available, it will display the
"city" and "state/province" (ratecenter) in the name field, such as for
403-313-xxxx it will display "CALGARY, AB" (sometimes without the
comma). Not all local telcos will even be that descriptive though, but
BellSouth usually is. But for the calls coming collect from the payphone
in the prison (WHEREVER THE HELL THE JAIL was located, which could have
even been here in New Orleans for all we know, not really in Florida, or
it could have been elsewhere in the US), the 407-511-xxxx number
obviously didn't have a "name" associated, because the 511 "office" code
is not "real". But BellSouth in New Orleans did attempt to resolve a
"name" for the 407 area code, which of course came up with
"FLORIDA CALL"


Mark J. Cuccia
mcuccia (at) tulane (dot) edu
New Orleans LA CSA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Privacy Manager will not only intercept calls without a calling party
number present, it will also intercept calls that return a Caller ID
of Anonymous, Unavailable, Out-of-Area, or Private.  However the
Privacy Manager feature was useless in this case because of the
international origin of this call.

--- In local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com, Stanley Cline <sc1@r...>
wrote:

> Since there was a number for caller ID to show it got through; the
> privacy manager will only kick in if there's no caller ID number at
> all, or the caller has blocked display of their number.
>
> -SC
> --
> Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/
> ...
> "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today.  There might
> be a law against it by that time."  -/usr/games/fortune

Or it could be several other things that sneaky folks do.  If you have
reason to be concerned let me know and I will try to assist or direct you.


Vicki Siedow
Siedow & Associates Investigations
& Custom Legal Support Services
2629 Foothill Blvd. #262
La Crescenta (Los Angeles area), CA 91214
818-242-0130
800-448-6431
818-688-3295 fax
Siedow@...
http://Siedow.LawAndOrder.com
CA Lic. PI #22852
Need economical legal help?
http://www.prepaidlegal.com/hub/vsiedow


-----Original Message-----
From: Stanley Cline [mailto:sc1@...]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 11:35 AM
To: local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [local-calling-guide] 632?

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:21:27 -0000, garko@... <garko@...> wrote:

> I have several odd questions.  My wife just received a call for me
> from 632-911-8866, which came up as "unavailable" on the caller id.
> They didn't give her a name; said they would just call back later.
>
> Here are my questions:
>
> 1.  Since I have privacy manager, how did an "unavailable" call come
> through to the house?

Since there was a number for caller ID to show it got through; the privacy
manager will only kick in if there's no caller ID number at all, or the
caller has blocked display of their number.

> 2.  What kind of number is 632-911-8866?  Never heard of 632 before.
> 3.  What kind of exchange is 911?

Area code 632 doesn't exist, and 911 isn't a valid prefix.  It sounds like
the call actually came from +63 2 9118866 -- i.e., Manila, Phillipines,
where there are a number of offshore telemarketing and call centers -- and
the international caller ID got twisted into North American format, which is
rare but does happen.

-SC
--
Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ ...
"Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today.  There might be a law
against it by that time."  -/usr/games/fortune

Great info!

I appreciate the time some of you took to reply.

Thanks!!
John

On 2004/06/30 14:21, you wrote:
>I have several odd questions.  My wife just received a call for me
>from 632-911-8866, which came up as "unavailable" on the caller id.
>They didn't give her a name; said they would just call back later.
>
>Here are my questions:
>
>1.  Since I have privacy manager, how did an "unavailable" call come
>through to the house?
>2.  What kind of number is 632-911-8866?  Never heard of 632 before.
>3.  What kind of exchange is 911?
>
>Strange, isn't it?  Any thoughts or clues to this mystery would help
>greatly.
>
>Thanks!
>John
>Columbus, OH (614)
End of Quoted Message - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

One thing that can cause this is a VOIP line that has no "actual" phone number
assigned to it for any incoming calls from the regular DDD network.

In this case the VOIP supplier can get around having to lease an actual
telephone number from the RBOC to supply you with outgoing Dial tone service.
But to increase profits to the VOIP supplier he can provide a restricted access
incoming service where by he can assign any number he wishes(since the number is
specific to his private network only to facilitate the incoming call.

For instance in my own case I have gone to a VOIP supplier for a VOIP line for
specifically making outbound calls to any exchange that can be reached for free
from any of the VOIP suppliers access points. My number is 705-950-6003 (A
virtual Phone Number)(It can be any number I choose as long as it isn't assigned
anywhere else on the VOIP system I am on, it can be working anywhere else on the
DDD network) and it shows up as CLID at the receiving party. Looks like a real
number but it isn't. If you dial the number directly by DDD you will go nowhere
near me. Because I wanted a cheap incoming service for some testing purposes, I
pay a small premium to obtain reverse calling. To obtain incoming calls, one has
to call a 10 digit access number in any given community center, receive DT and
then you can dial the VOIP number which was displayed on the incoming call. If I
had chosen to have a real number I could receive calls directly from the DDD
Network without the use of the access numb
er.

The advantage is I get free unlimited calling, both in and oubound, throughout
the VOIP's serving area for a  lot less than I can get from my regional carrier
Bell Canada and with many addition features included.

The number you are getting sure fits this scenario for a VOIP operated Call
Center that has access to free calling in your area, wants to look like a
legitimate caller on CLID but doesn't want you to be able to call back to them.
They also have there name blocked in your case.

  From the example that I have going you can start to see what would have
happened if I had chosen a virtual number that was the same as some ones working
DDD network number just to confuse the call receiver.

This is just one of the many things that VOIP service will have to solve in its
evolution.

Dennis McLeod

I agree with this explanation more than the others, as
I work with Manila resources whose calls routinely
come in on caller ID as 632-9XX-XXXX (made to fit the
format and look like a 10-digit US number).

Neil
--- Stanley Cline <sc1@...> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:21:27 -0000, garko@...
> <garko@...> wrote:
>
> > I have several odd questions.  My wife just
> received a call for me
> > from 632-911-8866, which came up as "unavailable"
> on the caller id.
> > They didn't give her a name; said they would just
> call back later.
> >
> > Here are my questions:
> >
> > 1.  Since I have privacy manager, how did an
> "unavailable" call come
> > through to the house?
>
> Since there was a number for caller ID to show it
> got through; the
> privacy manager will only kick in if there's no
> caller ID number at
> all, or the caller has blocked display of their
> number.
>
> > 2.  What kind of number is 632-911-8866?  Never
> heard of 632 before.
> > 3.  What kind of exchange is 911?
>
> Area code 632 doesn't exist, and 911 isn't a valid
> prefix.  It sounds
> like the call actually came from +63 2 9118866 --
> i.e., Manila,
> Phillipines, where there are a number of offshore
> telemarketing and
> call centers -- and the international caller ID got
> twisted into North
> American format, which is rare but does happen.
>
> -SC
> --
> Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org --
> http://www.roamer1.org/
> ...
> "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today.
>  There might
> be a law against it by that time."
> -/usr/games/fortune
>




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

--- In local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com, Dennis McLeod
<dmcleod@o...> wrote:
>
> One thing that can cause this is a VOIP line that has no "actual"
phone number assigned to it for any incoming calls from the regular
DDD network.
>
> In this case the VOIP supplier can get around having to lease an
actual telephone number from the RBOC to supply you with outgoing
Dial tone service. But to increase profits to the VOIP supplier he
can provide a restricted access incoming service where by he can
assign any number he wishes(since the number is specific to his
private network only to facilitate the incoming call.
>
> For instance in my own case I have gone to a VOIP supplier for a
VOIP line for specifically making outbound calls to any exchange that
can be reached for free from any of the VOIP suppliers access points.
My number is 705-950-6003 (A virtual Phone Number)(It can be any
number I choose as long as it isn't assigned anywhere else on the
VOIP system I am on, it can be working anywhere else on the DDD
network) and it shows up as CLID at the receiving party. Looks like a
real number but it isn't. If you dial the number directly by DDD you
will go nowhere near me. Because I wanted a cheap incoming service
for some testing purposes, I pay a small premium to obtain reverse
calling. To obtain incoming calls, one has to call a 10 digit access
number in any given community center, receive DT and then you can
dial the VOIP number which was displayed on the incoming call. If I
had chosen to have a real number I could receive calls directly from
the DDD Network without the use of the access numb
> er.
>
> The advantage is I get free unlimited calling, both in and oubound,
throughout the VOIP's serving area for a  lot less than I can get
from my regional carrier Bell Canada and with many addition features
included.
>
> The number you are getting sure fits this scenario for a VOIP
operated Call Center that has access to free calling in your area,
wants to look like a legitimate caller on CLID but doesn't want you
to be able to call back to them. They also have there name blocked in
your case.
>
>  From the example that I have going you can start to see what would
have happened if I had chosen a virtual number that was the same as
some ones working DDD network number just to confuse the call
receiver.
>
> This is just one of the many things that VOIP service will have to
solve in its evolution.
>
> Dennis McLeod

If you called 911 from your VOIP number - -how does 911 find your
location???

I realize the cited example below is Canada, but I wonder how much of
this is being done in the US.  Wouldn't this be a illegal
circumvention of access charges based on the recent FCC ruling on
AT&T's VOIP traffic?  It appears to me that they would be trying to
classify an interLATA call as a local call by doing this.  SBC is
suing AT&T for this reason.
(http://www.x-changemag.com/articles/461front4.html)

--- In local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com, Dennis McLeod
<dmcleod@o...> wrote:
> On 2004/06/30 14:21, you wrote:
> >I have several odd questions.  My wife just received a call for me
> >from 632-911-8866, which came up as "unavailable" on the caller id.
> >They didn't give her a name; said they would just call back later.
> >
> >Here are my questions:
> >
> >1.  Since I have privacy manager, how did an "unavailable" call come
> >through to the house?
> >2.  What kind of number is 632-911-8866?  Never heard of 632 before.
> >3.  What kind of exchange is 911?
> >
> >Strange, isn't it?  Any thoughts or clues to this mystery would help
> >greatly.
> >
> >Thanks!
> >John
> >Columbus, OH (614)
> End of Quoted Message - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> One thing that can cause this is a VOIP line that has no "actual"
phone number assigned to it for any incoming calls from the regular
DDD network.
>
> In this case the VOIP supplier can get around having to lease an
actual telephone number from the RBOC to supply you with outgoing Dial
tone service. But to increase profits to the VOIP supplier he can
provide a restricted access incoming service where by he can assign
any number he wishes(since the number is specific to his private
network only to facilitate the incoming call.
>
> For instance in my own case I have gone to a VOIP supplier for a
VOIP line for specifically making outbound calls to any exchange that
can be reached for free from any of the VOIP suppliers access points.
My number is 705-950-6003 (A virtual Phone Number)(It can be any
number I choose as long as it isn't assigned anywhere else on the VOIP
system I am on, it can be working anywhere else on the DDD network)
and it shows up as CLID at the receiving party. Looks like a real
number but it isn't. If you dial the number directly by DDD you will
go nowhere near me. Because I wanted a cheap incoming service for some
testing purposes, I pay a small premium to obtain reverse calling. To
obtain incoming calls, one has to call a 10 digit access number in any
given community center, receive DT and then you can dial the VOIP
number which was displayed on the incoming call. If I had chosen to
have a real number I could receive calls directly from the DDD Network
without the use of the access numb
> er.
>
> The advantage is I get free unlimited calling, both in and oubound,
throughout the VOIP's serving area for a  lot less than I can get from
my regional carrier Bell Canada and with many addition features included.
>
> The number you are getting sure fits this scenario for a VOIP
operated Call Center that has access to free calling in your area,
wants to look like a legitimate caller on CLID but doesn't want you to
be able to call back to them. They also have there name blocked in
your case.
>
>  From the example that I have going you can start to see what would
have happened if I had chosen a virtual number that was the same as
some ones working DDD network number just to confuse the call receiver.
>
> This is just one of the many things that VOIP service will have to
solve in its evolution.
>
> Dennis McLeod

This seems to be the current method of operation by most VoIP service providers
(not including mine).  These providers are not LECs and usually have no PSTN
switching facilities.  They lease switching from other CLECs and use the CLEC's
Local Interconnection (LIS) facilities to terminate calls to LECs rather than
deliver them to the IXC where the terminating LEC would receive it's due access
rate.  This is used to create extended local calling areas to make the product
more attractive as a toll-bypass product, relying on the circumvention of the
current access arrangement to offer very low-cost service.

These carriers also are not 911 compliant in most cases (also not including
mine).  Typically, the 911 call is simply forwarded to the 911 PSAP's Directory
Number.  This line does not terminate to the operator stations as a normal 911
call, and is answered with the lowest priority.

Regulation has not yet caught up to these issues, but will soon I presume.  In
addition, LECs are taking new steps to audit the traffic present on their LIS
trunking facilities to look for this very thing.



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: joiseyjoe
   To: local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:08 AM
   Subject: [local-calling-guide] Re: 632?


   I realize the cited example below is Canada, but I wonder how much of
   this is being done in the US.  Wouldn't this be a illegal
   circumvention of access charges based on the recent FCC ruling on
   AT&T's VOIP traffic?  It appears to me that they would be trying to
   classify an interLATA call as a local call by doing this.  SBC is
   suing AT&T for this reason.
   (http://www.x-changemag.com/articles/461front4.html)

   --- In local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com, Dennis McLeod
   <dmcleod@o...> wrote:
   > On 2004/06/30 14:21, you wrote:
   > >I have several odd questions.  My wife just received a call for me
   > >from 632-911-8866, which came up as "unavailable" on the caller id.
   > >They didn't give her a name; said they would just call back later.
   > >
   > >Here are my questions:
   > >
   > >1.  Since I have privacy manager, how did an "unavailable" call come
   > >through to the house?
   > >2.  What kind of number is 632-911-8866?  Never heard of 632 before.
   > >3.  What kind of exchange is 911?
   > >
   > >Strange, isn't it?  Any thoughts or clues to this mystery would help
   > >greatly.
   > >
   > >Thanks!
   > >John
   > >Columbus, OH (614)
   > End of Quoted Message - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
   >
   > One thing that can cause this is a VOIP line that has no "actual"
   phone number assigned to it for any incoming calls from the regular
   DDD network.
   >
   > In this case the VOIP supplier can get around having to lease an
   actual telephone number from the RBOC to supply you with outgoing Dial
   tone service. But to increase profits to the VOIP supplier he can
   provide a restricted access incoming service where by he can assign
   any number he wishes(since the number is specific to his private
   network only to facilitate the incoming call.
   >
   > For instance in my own case I have gone to a VOIP supplier for a
   VOIP line for specifically making outbound calls to any exchange that
   can be reached for free from any of the VOIP suppliers access points.
   My number is 705-950-6003 (A virtual Phone Number)(It can be any
   number I choose as long as it isn't assigned anywhere else on the VOIP
   system I am on, it can be working anywhere else on the DDD network)
   and it shows up as CLID at the receiving party. Looks like a real
   number but it isn't. If you dial the number directly by DDD you will
   go nowhere near me. Because I wanted a cheap incoming service for some
   testing purposes, I pay a small premium to obtain reverse calling. To
   obtain incoming calls, one has to call a 10 digit access number in any
   given community center, receive DT and then you can dial the VOIP
   number which was displayed on the incoming call. If I had chosen to
   have a real number I could receive calls directly from the DDD Network
   without the use of the access numb
   > er.
   >
   > The advantage is I get free unlimited calling, both in and oubound,
   throughout the VOIP's serving area for a  lot less than I can get from
   my regional carrier Bell Canada and with many addition features included.
   >
   > The number you are getting sure fits this scenario for a VOIP
   operated Call Center that has access to free calling in your area,
   wants to look like a legitimate caller on CLID but doesn't want you to
   be able to call back to them. They also have there name blocked in
   your case.
   >
   >  From the example that I have going you can start to see what would
   have happened if I had chosen a virtual number that was the same as
   some ones working DDD network number just to confuse the call receiver.
   >
   > This is just one of the many things that VOIP service will have to
   solve in its evolution.
   >
   > Dennis McLeod


         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/local-calling-guide/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     local-calling-guide-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It doesnt, unless you can tell them.
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: cgordon55
   To: local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:07 AM
   Subject: [local-calling-guide] Re: 632?


   --- In local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com, Dennis McLeod
   <dmcleod@o...> wrote:
   >
   > One thing that can cause this is a VOIP line that has no "actual"
   phone number assigned to it for any incoming calls from the regular
   DDD network.
   >
   > In this case the VOIP supplier can get around having to lease an
   actual telephone number from the RBOC to supply you with outgoing
   Dial tone service. But to increase profits to the VOIP supplier he
   can provide a restricted access incoming service where by he can
   assign any number he wishes(since the number is specific to his
   private network only to facilitate the incoming call.
   >
   > For instance in my own case I have gone to a VOIP supplier for a
   VOIP line for specifically making outbound calls to any exchange that
   can be reached for free from any of the VOIP suppliers access points.
   My number is 705-950-6003 (A virtual Phone Number)(It can be any
   number I choose as long as it isn't assigned anywhere else on the
   VOIP system I am on, it can be working anywhere else on the DDD
   network) and it shows up as CLID at the receiving party. Looks like a
   real number but it isn't. If you dial the number directly by DDD you
   will go nowhere near me. Because I wanted a cheap incoming service
   for some testing purposes, I pay a small premium to obtain reverse
   calling. To obtain incoming calls, one has to call a 10 digit access
   number in any given community center, receive DT and then you can
   dial the VOIP number which was displayed on the incoming call. If I
   had chosen to have a real number I could receive calls directly from
   the DDD Network without the use of the access numb
   > er.
   >
   > The advantage is I get free unlimited calling, both in and oubound,
   throughout the VOIP's serving area for a  lot less than I can get
   from my regional carrier Bell Canada and with many addition features
   included.
   >
   > The number you are getting sure fits this scenario for a VOIP
   operated Call Center that has access to free calling in your area,
   wants to look like a legitimate caller on CLID but doesn't want you
   to be able to call back to them. They also have there name blocked in
   your case.
   >
   >  From the example that I have going you can start to see what would
   have happened if I had chosen a virtual number that was the same as
   some ones working DDD network number just to confuse the call
   receiver.
   >
   > This is just one of the many things that VOIP service will have to
   solve in its evolution.
   >
   > Dennis McLeod

   If you called 911 from your VOIP number - -how does 911 find your
   location???



         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/local-calling-guide/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     local-calling-guide-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 01:08 PM 7/1/2004 +0000, you wrote:
>I realize the cited example below is Canada, but I wonder how much of
>this is being done in the US.  Wouldn't this be a illegal
>circumvention of access charges based on the recent FCC ruling on
>AT&T's VOIP traffic?  It appears to me that they would be trying to
>classify an interLATA call as a local call by doing this.  SBC is
>suing AT&T for this reason.
>(http://www.x-changemag.com/articles/461front4.html)

In the situation covered by that lawsuit, calls originated on the PSTN and
terminated on the PSTN.  In this case, calls originate on the PSTN but are
converted to VoIP (data) and stay as VoIP - the call is not normally* terminated
back on the PSTN.  You may recall that when people first started using local
access numbers to connect to services such as Compuserve, the Bells wanted those
calls classified as toll also, but the government essentially took the position
that once the call was converted to data it was out of their hands.

In the present, and probably for the foreseeable future, pure VoIP calls are
considered data, and not subject to access charges of any kind (Google the
"Pulver decision" for more information). Therefore, logic would say that when a
call is handed off to VoIP, and not converted back to a PSTN call at some point,
it's no different than one of those old local access numbers for Compuserve, or
a present-day local access number for AOL or Earthlink.

* Granted that occasionally such calls will splash back to the PSTN due to
action by the customer, for example setting call-forwarding to go to a PSTN
number.  But that would be a customer-initiated action, and not the primary
purpose of such numbers.  However, this helps illustrate how crazy the whole
access charge regime is.  The sooner they do away with the whole thing and go to
a "bill and keep" system, the better.  If it weren't for the reluctance of the
rural carriers, who use such access charges as a form of "corporate welfare",
we'd be well on our way to seeing that archaic system eliminated.

_____
Interested in VoIP news? Subscribe to the VoIP News list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/voipnews/
How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home:
http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html
If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/
Resources for Michigan Telephone Users web site:
http://michigantelephone.mi.org/

On 2004/07/01 09:07, you wrote:
>If you called 911 from your VOIP number - -how does 911 find your
>location???
End of Quoted Message - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
No 911 service provided.

--- In local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com, Dennis McLeod
<dmcleod@o...> wrote:
> On 2004/06/30 20:22, you wrote:
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> >Can you share the name of the VoIP Service provider
> >referenced in your e-mail?  Just curious.  I currently
> >work in the VoIP space (supporting both SIP & packetcable).
> >
> >=====
> >
> >JOSEPH G. FARRUGIA
>
>
> Here you go.
>
> http://www.talknet.ca/resiline.asp
>
> Dennis

At Joe's request I've removed the original reply, which contained his
signature and email address, but I've left the URL in case anyone
wants it.

It depends on the VoIP provider. Some smaller VoIP providers only
provide IP<->IP connectivity, which is obviously the cheapest and
easiest (not to mention law free) solution, but the bigger VoIP
providers do provide PSTN origination and termination. It depends on how
the VoIP provider went about to providing this PSTN connectivity, some
use their own AS5300's with PRI's attached and some use third party
vendors. Not all of these VoIP providers who talk to the PSTN do 911 in
any way shape or form, and for the moment can get away with that due to
the lack of regulatory rules and clarification on the subject, but I
think we all know that this will change eventually. Other VoIP providers
do 10 digit PSAP dialing, and they hit the administrative line at the
PSAP, and as someone previously stated, gets the lowest priority. Those
VoIP providers who use their own AS5300's probably don't have the
resources to do e911 trunking, as they're technically not a xLEC. But
those the third party providers who some VoIP providers use to terminate
their traffic might have the resources to do e911 trunking, so 911 calls
might actually hit the PSAP as if you had done it from your land line,
although the rules for this vary depending on how brave the third party
provider is, but I do know some providers do do this.

Mike Chase wrote:

>This seems to be the current method of operation by most VoIP service providers
(not including mine).  These providers are not LECs and usually have no PSTN
switching facilities.  They lease switching from other CLECs and use the CLEC's
Local Interconnection (LIS) facilities to terminate calls to LECs rather than
deliver them to the IXC where the terminating LEC would receive it's due access
rate.  This is used to create extended local calling areas to make the product
more attractive as a toll-bypass product, relying on the circumvention of the
current access arrangement to offer very low-cost service.
>
>These carriers also are not 911 compliant in most cases (also not including
mine).  Typically, the 911 call is simply forwarded to the 911 PSAP's Directory
Number.  This line does not terminate to the operator stations as a normal 911
call, and is answered with the lowest priority.
>
>Regulation has not yet caught up to these issues, but will soon I presume.  In
addition, LECs are taking new steps to audit the traffic present on their LIS
trunking facilities to look for this very thing.
>
>
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: joiseyjoe
>  To: local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com
>  Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:08 AM
>  Subject: [local-calling-guide] Re: 632?
>
>
>  I realize the cited example below is Canada, but I wonder how much of
>  this is being done in the US.  Wouldn't this be a illegal
>  circumvention of access charges based on the recent FCC ruling on
>  AT&T's VOIP traffic?  It appears to me that they would be trying to
>  classify an interLATA call as a local call by doing this.  SBC is
>  suing AT&T for this reason.
>  (http://www.x-changemag.com/articles/461front4.html)
>
>  --- In local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com, Dennis McLeod
>  <dmcleod@o...> wrote:
>  > On 2004/06/30 14:21, you wrote:
>  > >I have several odd questions.  My wife just received a call for me
>  > >from 632-911-8866, which came up as "unavailable" on the caller id.
>  > >They didn't give her a name; said they would just call back later.
>  > >
>  > >Here are my questions:
>  > >
>  > >1.  Since I have privacy manager, how did an "unavailable" call come
>  > >through to the house?
>  > >2.  What kind of number is 632-911-8866?  Never heard of 632 before.
>  > >3.  What kind of exchange is 911?
>  > >
>  > >Strange, isn't it?  Any thoughts or clues to this mystery would help
>  > >greatly.
>  > >
>  > >Thanks!
>  > >John
>  > >Columbus, OH (614)
>  > End of Quoted Message - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>  >
>  > One thing that can cause this is a VOIP line that has no "actual"
>  phone number assigned to it for any incoming calls from the regular
>  DDD network.
>  >
>  > In this case the VOIP supplier can get around having to lease an
>  actual telephone number from the RBOC to supply you with outgoing Dial
>  tone service. But to increase profits to the VOIP supplier he can
>  provide a restricted access incoming service where by he can assign
>  any number he wishes(since the number is specific to his private
>  network only to facilitate the incoming call.
>  >
>  > For instance in my own case I have gone to a VOIP supplier for a
>  VOIP line for specifically making outbound calls to any exchange that
>  can be reached for free from any of the VOIP suppliers access points.
>  My number is 705-950-6003 (A virtual Phone Number)(It can be any
>  number I choose as long as it isn't assigned anywhere else on the VOIP
>  system I am on, it can be working anywhere else on the DDD network)
>  and it shows up as CLID at the receiving party. Looks like a real
>  number but it isn't. If you dial the number directly by DDD you will
>  go nowhere near me. Because I wanted a cheap incoming service for some
>  testing purposes, I pay a small premium to obtain reverse calling. To
>  obtain incoming calls, one has to call a 10 digit access number in any
>  given community center, receive DT and then you can dial the VOIP
>  number which was displayed on the incoming call. If I had chosen to
>  have a real number I could receive calls directly from the DDD Network
>  without the use of the access numb
>  > er.
>  >
>  > The advantage is I get free unlimited calling, both in and oubound,
>  throughout the VOIP's serving area for a  lot less than I can get from
>  my regional carrier Bell Canada and with many addition features included.
>  >
>  > The number you are getting sure fits this scenario for a VOIP
>  operated Call Center that has access to free calling in your area,
>  wants to look like a legitimate caller on CLID but doesn't want you to
>  be able to call back to them. They also have there name blocked in
>  your case.
>  >
>  >  From the example that I have going you can start to see what would
>  have happened if I had chosen a virtual number that was the same as
>  some ones working DDD network number just to confuse the call receiver.
>  >
>  > This is just one of the many things that VOIP service will have to
>  solve in its evolution.
>  >
>  > Dennis McLeod
>
>
>        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>              ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/local-calling-guide/
>
>    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>    local-calling-guide-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com, garko@y... wrote:
[...]
> I have several odd questions.  My wife just received a call for me
> from 632-911-8866, which came up as "unavailable" on the caller
id.

In the past few days, Slashdot.com highlighted an article at
SecurityFocus.com discussing how VoIP providers may be opening up
security holes with Callerid - as their gateways allow spoofing of
callerid information, and allow the recipient to see the caller's
phone number - even if the call is set to block callerid information.

http://securityfocus.com/news/9061

Note that CallerID and ANI (incoming number identification on toll-
free lines) are different things...   Other people have pointed out
that ISDN lines and PBXs also have the ability to supply invalid
callerID information.

This may add fuel to the regulatory fire currently going on over how
much and to what degree VoIP needs to be regulated...   Anyone
relying solely on callerid data to authenticate incoming callers is
asking for trouble.
--
Fred Stiening
fred300@...

For that matter, anyone relying on the telco industry to come up with sane ways
to do things needs to be drug out in the street and flogged with some generally
annoying, but harmless object.

Art Stone <artstone@...> wrote:--- In local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com,
garko@y... wrote:
[...]
> I have several odd questions. My wife just received a call for me
> from 632-911-8866, which came up as "unavailable" on the caller
id.

In the past few days, Slashdot.com highlighted an article at
SecurityFocus.com discussing how VoIP providers may be opening up
security holes with Callerid - as their gateways allow spoofing of
callerid information, and allow the recipient to see the caller's
phone number - even if the call is set to block callerid information.

http://securityfocus.com/news/9061

Note that CallerID and ANI (incoming number identification on toll-
free lines) are different things... Other people have pointed out
that ISDN lines and PBXs also have the ability to supply invalid
callerID information.

This may add fuel to the regulatory fire currently going on over how
much and to what degree VoIP needs to be regulated... Anyone
relying solely on callerid data to authenticate incoming callers is
asking for trouble.
--
Fred Stiening
fred300@...






Yahoo! Groups Links








---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kudos to Ray for an amazing job with the 'Local Calling Guide'.   Wow!

I must have skipped geography classes - cause I can't figure out how I can
use the V and H coordinates.  I have Microsoft MapPoint, and was trying to
enter the coordinates - can the V/H be mapped as Latitude/Longitude?


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Look here:

http://www.voip-info.org/wiki-V+and+H+Coordinates


Jim

James H. Thompson
jht@...

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Mike Derouin
   To: local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 8:31 AM
   Subject: [local-calling-guide] The V and H coordinates on the 'Local Calling
Guide'


   Kudos to Ray for an amazing job with the 'Local Calling Guide'.   Wow!

   I must have skipped geography classes - cause I can't figure out how I can
   use the V and H coordinates.  I have Microsoft MapPoint, and was trying to
   enter the coordinates - can the V/H be mapped as Latitude/Longitude?


   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/local-calling-guide/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     local-calling-guide-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Derouin"
<mderouin@m...> wrote:
> Kudos to Ray for an amazing job with the 'Local Calling Guide'.   Wow!
>
> I must have skipped geography classes - cause I can't figure out how
I can
> use the V and H coordinates.  I have Microsoft MapPoint, and was
trying to
> enter the coordinates - can the V/H be mapped as Latitude/Longitude?
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

See also
http://members.dandy.net/~czg/vh2ll.c
for a V/H to lat/long conversion program in C that I found in Telecom
Digest several years ago, but be careful when using the command line
to enter V/H coordinates, since it will give incorrect results for
negative numbers (which is a concern mostly for southern points like
Puerto Rico).

When I wrote a perl module to do the conversion, I found that I had to study all
of the various examples I could find on the net (c, fortran, and java) to come
up with something that would work over the complete V and H range.
I just added the URL below to the the V and H page at www.voip-info.org


See also
http://members.dandy.net/~czg/vh2ll.c
for a V/H to lat/long conversion program in C that I found in Telecom
Digest several years ago, but be careful when using the command line
to enter V/H coordinates, since it will give incorrect results for
negative numbers (which is a concern mostly for southern points like
Puerto Rico).



       Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
             ADVERTISEMENT







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/local-calling-guide/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     local-calling-guide-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, czg7777 wrote:

> See also
> http://members.dandy.net/~czg/vh2ll.c
> for a V/H to lat/long conversion program in C that I found in Telecom
> Digest several years ago, but be careful when using the command line
> to enter V/H coordinates, since it will give incorrect results for
> negative numbers (which is a concern mostly for southern points like
> Puerto Rico).


Actually, you mean the most "eastern" points when referring to
"negative" value V&H co-ordinates for PR/USVI.

American Samoa is about to soon join the NANP, and it will have positive
values in both the V&H parts, and it is actually SOUTH of the equator.

And while Mexico is not part of the NANP, AT&T did extrapolate and
assign V&H co-ordinates to Mexico many years ago, for distance-based
billing/rating. Mexico is strictly "positive" for its V&H co-ordinate
values.

The "0-0 starting point" of the V&H grid is actually somewhere in
northeastern Canada, I think near Greenland.

Telcordia-TRA has some generic V&H maps of the US/Canada:
http://www.trainfo.com/products_services/tra/vhpage.html

and a self-extracting .exe file for downloadable generic US/Canada VH maps
http://www.trainfo.com/products_services/tra/downloads/vhmaps.exe


Mark J. Cuccia
mcuccia (at) tulane (dot) edu
New Orleans LA CSA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- In local-calling-guide@yahoogroups.com, Mark J Cuccia
<mcuccia@t...> wrote:
> Actually, you mean the most "eastern" points when referring to
> "negative" value V&H co-ordinates for PR/USVI.

Right you are. Oops.

> The "0-0 starting point" of the V&H grid is actually somewhere in
> northeastern Canada, I think near Greenland.

Yes, there are several points in northern Nunavut where the V
co-ordinate is 1. Grise Fiord/Ausuittuq NU (V=1 H=6929) is the most
northerly community (and telephone exchange) in Canada.