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