Talk:Intelligent network

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:TEL This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project as a "full time member" and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Intelligent computer network

ΤΑĿŀΒΑΝIntelligent computer network was proposed for deletion as containing the same thing as the better article Intelligent network. To me as a layman, it looks like Intelligent computer network may have some unique content, or it might serve as a good general intro to this more technical article.Thatcher131 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IN Misconcept

I work in the IN industry since 2001 and the concept of "Computer Intelligent Network" has REALLY nothing to do with "Intelligent Networks (IN)" of telecom networks.

The given explanation the IN is one kind of "Computer Intelligent Network" is total misconcept.


[edit] IN belongs to Telecoms

Intelligent Network has nothing to do with Computer and IT systems, it is pure and simple Telecoms.


Hi All ,

I have been in both the computer-science and telecom and i strongly feel that its better to leave the topics seperate because both have nothing in common except for having similar terminology.

[edit] Wrong Proposal

Intelligent network is not the same same Intelligent computer network.

The Above Statement Is Very True.

[edit] Should not

I am developing IN SSP software since 2004 and i REALLY am sure that these two subjects have nothing in common. First of all Intelligent Networks are not Computer Networks, although they sound familier.

[edit] Subjects not related

It seems a few of us posting here work in telecoms engineering and associated fields - agreed that IN must remain separate from Intelligent Computer Network. It's a whole subject in itself and refers to enhanced switching facilities in SS7 networks. I'd recommend the section on IN in the Intelligent Computer Networks article be removed also.


REMOVE THIS CONTENT PLEASE !!!! Hi all , i too agree this is not a proper Explanations... Some may get Wrong inFormation.. Please delete this Page..... Include Correct Explanations Please... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.160.118 (talk) 11:57, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Is the article okay now? We avoid deleting things we don't agree with at Wikipedia, instead we improve and rephrase. And we add warning templates. Why not improve the article your self, or be more specific? Mange01 (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IN and IMS

I removed the sentence "The upcoming IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) standards can be seen as a hybrid of intelligent network services and Internet services for cellular multimedia communication." Reason: IMS is a way to utilize packet networks for telecommunications and so replace PSTN (POTS and ISDN) and PLMN. IN added the possible use of external databases for call control decisions in telecommunication switches. ETSI defines the relationship between IMS and IN: "The purpose of the IM SSF is to enable access to IN service logic programs hosted in legacy SCPs".--Kgfleischmann (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thnx for the reply. Is it okay to somehow mention the relation in the Intelligent network#Future section, and also in the IP Multimedia Subsystem article? Mange01 (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I think, there is no need. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You even removed IMS from the "See also" list. Why? There is a clear relation according to your quote above. Why hide it?
To my understanding, IMS is "IN reinvented". A partly similar philosophy. Am I wrong? And if there is a difference, the articles should clarify that.
The SS7 protocol is a key part of IN as well as IMS. IMS gives telecom operators increased control over the services, and the ability to charge people for them instead of only charging per megabyte. I suppose the idea is that the telecoms should offer many of the IMS services on the server side, and/or as client applications on the mobile side, and compete with non-standardized and often free Internet services such as Skype, youtube, etc. Mange01 (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
NO, IMS is a suite of telecommunication oriented protocols, you may compare it with SS7 based circuit switched protocols (ISUP, TUP) or mobile protocols (GSM, CDMA, ...). IN is an add on to circuit switched protocols.
NO, SS7 protocol is NOT a key part of IN, but IN data are transported via SS7. As IMS is concerned, it may access IN data via its Parlay interface.
Conclusion, there is no need to mention IMS here:
  1. unless you want to talk about IMS-interfaces to IN. I believe, the IMS-page could be a better place for this.
  2. or want to talk about telecommunication protocols which make use of IN. But please do not forget to mention the others.
--Kgfleischmann (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
@Mange01: have a look to IP Multimedia Subsystem#Application servers for more about the IN-interface of IMS. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
also @Mange01: have look at the first lines of the article, there you find the phrase "to the standard telecom services such as PSTN, ISDN and GSM" services, a possible place to mention IMS, Isn't it? --Kgfleischmann (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)