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