Talk:Intelligent Network

	Telecommunication portal 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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Intelligent computer network

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]

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.

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.

Wrong Proposal

Intelligent network is not the same same Intelligent computer network.

The Above Statement Is Very True.

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.

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)[reply]

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)[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:

unless you want to talk about IMS-interfaces to IN. I believe, the IMS-page could be a better place for this.
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]

Virtual Private networks in Telecommunication

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)

External links to Telcordia

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]

Comparison with Software-Defined Networks

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]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. The consensus below is that the article is about a specific architecture, the Intelligent Network and that, as a proper noun, should be capitalized. --regentspark (comment) 13:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent network -> Intelligent Network

Per WP:CAPS and WP:TITLE: this is a proper noun referring to a standardized, single, worldwide network ala PSTN. It does not refer to general networks that happen to be intelligent. — Dgtsyb (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is not a proper name. A Googlebook search on "intelligent networks" shows clearly that it is is used generally for entities of a particular class, even if that class is itself identified by reference to a unique architecture or protocol. Two of the four references for this article include the words "intelligent networks", plural.

Neither WP:CAPS nor WP:TITLE gives support to this RM.

Noetica^Tea? 01:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not a proper name, intelligent network is just a concept. Stick with the MoS - no need for an exception here. Joja lozzo 02:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Not even a proper noun. Postal services are also "a standardized, single, worldwide network", but we don't write "Postal Services". $Tony (talk)$ 04:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is a concept, and not a specific, single network. Nageh (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is not about the general concept of "intelligent networks". This is the specific Intelligent Network standard defined by the specific body ITU-T, part of the specific "Public Switched Telephone Network/Intelligent Network (PSTN/IN) protocol", described in rfc 3298 rfc 3976. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That is not borne out by the links you provide, Enric. The second, for example, has this text: "IN is an architectural concept for the real-time execution of network services and customer applications [1]. IN is, by design, de-coupled from the call processing component of the PSTN." An architectural concept, fine: but that in itself is not a "specific Intelligent Network standard", as you put it. These sources use upper case promiscuously, as a style choice. That style is like capitalising "California Bungalow" (as some sources do). Intelligent networks, like California bungalows, are particular entities that conform to types, paradigms, protocols, models, templates, or what you will. But the same is true of cars! We do not name the type, paradigm, protocol, model, or template to which every individual car conforms with a capital "C", and therefore call every car a "Car" because of its relation to that abstract ideal notion. So with intelligent networks. Is there is an official protocol, described by some regulative authority, called precisely "Intelligent Network", and distinguishing the networks that adhere to it from mere generic intelligent networks? That has not been shown, and so far it appears not to be the case. Noetica^Tea? 00:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ITU-T Recommendation Q.1200 is the primary ITU document. As it is a complex standard, (after all it describe a standard for an entire network), additional documents in the Q.1200 series describes particular areas of the standard. — Dgtsyb (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Enric is right. This is a standardized framework with specific interfaces and protocols. Not a generic concept. Nageh (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is the Intelligent Network, as opposed to other intelligent networks. It is a prototypical proper noun and should be capitalised. Andrewa (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks like this is in fact an article about something specific identified with a proper noun, not about "intelligent networks" (for which an article like intelligent computer network might be developed).--Kotniski (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Train wreck of an article

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]