[asterisk-users] Forwarding to a caller-pays mobile

[Brandon Galbraith]

No counter argument, but this may not be solved with a technical fix. It may
be policy that needs to be set (i.e, if you forward your phone to a number
you know is a mobile number, you'll be responbile for any costs we incur to
forward calls to that number). You can then use CDR to track the info you'd
need to put that policy into place.

-brandon

On 9/23/06, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 04:18:25PM +0200, Michiel van Baak wrote:
> > On 15:49, Sat 23 Sep 06, Leif Neland wrote:
> > > >How might you identify a mobile #? (assuming you refer to cellular
> > > >phones) Now that phone companies are allowing you to transfer your
> > > >land line to a mobile, it's no longer practical to use prefix
> > > >blocking.
> > >
> > > If a land line is transfered to mobile, does it cost more to call it
> than a
> > > real land line?
> > >
> > > If it does; I'd require the phone company to give me a warning tone
> when I
> > > call a disguised mobile.
> > > If it doesn't, then don't bother to block mobiles.
> >
> > The costs for the call to mobile are for the person that
> > forwards his/her number to mobile.
>
> Ah, yes...
>
> the old "caller-pays" dispute.
>
> By way of background (this is an *old* topic on the telecom groups), in
> the United States (and perhaps a few other places), calls to mobile
> phones charge the *called party* -- the one who has the mobile phone,
> and always have, back to the days of 150MHz band MTS and IMTS.
>
> In most of the rest of the world, the *caller to the mobile* pays the
> surcharge.
>
> I've always come down on the "cell phone subscriber pays" side of the
> ledger, for two reasons which seem perfectly sensible -- and overriding
> -- to *me*:
>
> 1) pragmatically, there's no reliable way to signal to the caller that
> they're placing a call to a number that will charge them $0.35 to $0.80
> or more per minute, over any long-distance tolls they might expect to
> pay.  Remember before commenting on this that I mean "a signal that
> could be detected automatically by equipment" like Asterisk -- which
> was out topic on point.  There's no standard in-band way to carry
> rating information in the PSTN -- the best you can do is intuit it from
> the destination DN and your knowledge of the selected carrier.
>
> And remember too, that that intuition works even less well in these
> days of Wireless Number Portability.
>
> 2) ethically, the cell subscriber should be the one whose payng,
> anyway: it is to *them* that the convenience of the mobile phone
> accrues, not to the caller.
>
> So, if you live in a jurisdiction with both WNP *and* caller-pays,
> and the abililty to forward calls to a mobile, you're pretty much
> screwed: there's *no* reliable way to protect yourself in advance from
> people incurring charges to you by using a forwarding service you
> provide to forward their calls to a mobile.
>
> I'll repeat that: *No reliable way*.
>
> Anyone got an informed counter argument?
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth
> jra at baylink.com
> Designer                          Baylink                             RFC
> 2100
> Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87
> e24
> St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647
> 1274
>
>         "That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
>           they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie;
> _Fast_Women_
> _______________________________________________
> --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>



-- 
Brandon Galbraith
Email: brandon.galbraith at gmail.com
AIM: brandong00
Voice: 630.400.6992
"A true pirate starts drinking before the sun hits the yard-arm. Yarrrr.
--thelost"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20060923/7fefce6a/attachment.htm