Digits bowl phones out

The_Unbeliever

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
103,197
Why not allocate 0760 and 0790 to Vodacom instead of 0740? Or make that 0761 even?

Is this some underhanded tactic to undermine cellC?
 

Pilgrim

Wugger
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,094
Tough luck. So we need to update our PABX settings? It needs to be done sooner or later.

Be thankful! We are finally entering an era in SA where there are not just 4 types of numbers. (telscum, VC, MTN and Cell C) but more. A lot more.
 

spacemuis

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
270
Is this some underhanded tactic to undermine cellC?

If anything, this will benefit CellC - all those Vodacom calls will be routed through their network, garnering them more of those yummy interconnect charges!
 

XCentricdave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
325
Doesn't this all get very complicated with MNP? Then the number prefix will no longer tell you which network someone is on?

Then how do you configure your PABX to route the calls? Presumably you take the risk that most prefixes do correctly identify the network and route accordingly. When someone has ported, the company will pay extra for that call.

Won't this cause problems for the least cost routing people?

Interesting...
 

risingtide

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
693
I don't see where the problem is. Surely the routing is just a lookup table?
It should be possble to set up the routing right down to individual numbers so that even MNP can be taken care of, and it should be so simple that any user is capabale of setting it up.
It would probably take about an hour of programming time to set set up a protoype/demo system like that from scratch.
 
Last edited:

Tns

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2005
Messages
5,608
All this sounds like someone haven't planned this well at all. why didnt they make mtn 083 073 063 and vodacom and cel c likewise numberrs?

looks like the only plan they can make is to get more dough nuts and gravy
 

risingtide

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
693
I'm sure it must create massive complications...

It should be easy to solve. When the connection is established the receiver sends a 2 digit number back using the usual tone encoding. This will allow for 99 networks. The calling PABX recognises this code number as one of the providers and then updates the routing table. Next time the same number is called it knows how to route it and if the receiver has changed the network, updates the table again.

It would only require a little bit of cooperation from everyone.
 

bwana

MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
80,780
It should be easy to solve. When the connection is established the receiver sends a 2 digit number back using the usual tone encoding. This will allow for 99 networks. The calling PABX recognises this code number as one of the providers and then updates the routing table. Next time the same number is called it knows how to route it and if the receiver has changed the network, updates the table again.

It would only require a little bit of cooperation from everyone.
Wouldnt recognising the ringing pattern serve the same ends and, as they're all currently different, negate the co-operative requirement?
 

risingtide

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
693
Wouldnt recognising the ringing pattern serve the same ends and, as they're all currently different, negate the co-operative requirement?
I wasn't aware that they have different ringing patterns, I hardly ever use my cell to make calls. It could probably be used, although this may ultimately be more limiting and may not be as reliable. In whatever way it is solved, my point is that technologically this routing thing is child's play even with MNP.
 

bekdik

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
12,860
With number migration across networks, surely none of this applies anyway?
 

risingtide

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
693
With number migration across networks, surely none of this applies anyway?
With some thought, and some enforced regulations it would be easy.

Fax machines 'talk' to each other to establish at what speed the transmission can occur. Why should cell phones and/or PABX's not be able to 'talk' to each other about the network they are connected to and the use that information for further routing? I think that to determine the cell network would be far easier than to determine the speed for a fax transmission.
I bet that you will find a couple of whizzkids in a kindergarten who would be able to design and write the basic software to manage the PABX routing.
 

risingtide

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
693
Having thought some more, there is already behind the scene communication before the phone rings, because you see the callers number. The MIE (?) number also has to be sent, at least to the network operator, otherwise a phone could not be blacklisted.
I would be most surprised if the initial data transmitted would not include a global network identifier.
We probably have everything in place already except that the data necessary for LC routing is not passed on to the end-user.
 

antowan

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
13,025
This to me sounds like a non issue. If the numbers can be given on the networks the systems must keep up. Simple. Fix the bloody problem on the stupid tele systems.
 
Top