Talk:Intelligent Network

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Telecommunications This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Intelligent 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)Reply

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.

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.

Intelligent network is not the same same Intelligent computer network.

The Above Statement Is Very True.

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.

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

I think, there is no need. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

I really feel that we should at least mention IMS on this page. IMS is probably the platform that a greenfield operator will choose in a few years and it can bee wieved as the result of the convering communications and transport networks. IMS is more than a suite of protocolls, it is a concept where most of the old networks have converged and been redeisgned. One will probably keep IN nodes connected for several years to come because reimplementing working services makes no sense, but new services will be implemented in IMS's own services execution environments. While the communication is transparrent, the IN and IN world is indeed related to IMS. Filiusvitae (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like predicting the future (and crystal ball gazing at that) rather than writing Wikipedia articles. Even if the prediction is sound, no original work please: can you find a verifiable source citation that makes these same statements? If someone can, the addition is trivial; if not, these types of statements have no place. — Dgtsyb (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Everybody ,

"Virtual Private networks" link under "Examples of IN services" in the IN artical is linked computer VPN page . I guess this is not correct , in Telecom Sense a Virtual private network is a phone user group which has a specal call rate to talk to each other. a good example of this is "Family Group" calling pakages ,

modified it as ,

Virtual private networks (eg : Family group calling)

Is there really a point to providing external links to Telcordia documents that takes you to an abstract, an order form and big price tag? Perhaps these should be references instead. — Dgtsyb (talk) 06:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

May be worth pointing out the similarity of IN with SDN, where both architectures are a move away from a distributed network to a network with centralised control, i.e. SCF/SCP and SDN Controller respectively. 82.21.133.132 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

This article is a train wreck.

There is nothing wrong with including technical information about the subject of the article. But this article demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what an encyclopedia article is.

Do not bombard the reader with technical information when you have not even explained what the subject of the article is. This must be done in ordinary language that most readers can understand without technical training.

Then you can get to the details.2600:1700:E1C0:F340:80C9:C5BD:71CD:C1CE (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply