[VoiceOps] Unallocated Number Behavior

[Ivan Kovacevic]

The standards would be very similar and well defined. ISP Telecom is
opening themselves up to a CRTC (FCC equivalent) complaint for
noncompliance.

That being said, this is a pretty interesting (albeit non-standard) way to
deal with voice spammers and sequential dialers... may raise their costs
just enough to make voice spamming for Cruises, Interest rate reduction,
duct cleaning services etc unfeasible.

Ivan Kovacevic
www.startelecom.ca | SIP Based Services for Contact Centers

-----Original Message-----
From: VoiceOps [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Justin
B Newman
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 8:17 PM
To: Jared Geiger
Cc: VoiceOps
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Unallocated Number Behavior

In the US, the FCC regulations, as well as most interconnection
agreements, generally codify a variety of Bellcore standards. Which are
reasonably clear about such things. Even more, one could make a pretty
good case for this as an example of access stimulation, without regard to
standards...

I can't speak to Canada.

-jbn


On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Jared Geiger <jared at compuwizz.net>
wrote:
> Are there rules/guidelines on how an unallocated number should respond?
>
> We are seeing unallocated numbers on a Canadian LEC, ISP Telecom, that
> in the 183 response it plays back "Unallocated Number. Please check
> the number and try again. Unallocated Number. Please check the number
and try again."
> then the call answers with "Hello" and plays music on hold indefinitely.
>
> A sample is 1-289-999-9348.
>
> ~Jared
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>
_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps at voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops