mtv@milton.u.washington.edu (David Schanen) (08/05/90)
In article <10445@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> writes: Stuff deleted... >Remember -- when you call an 800 number, the call is carried by the >IXC assigned to the 800 prefix, NOT the default carrier that may be >assigned to your phone. More Stuff deleted... >Ok, folks, time to set this straight. There is confusion here. 800 ANI >sends the CALLING number NOT the billing number. ........ More stuff deleted... Thanks for confirming that for us John! What I don't understand is why the telcos are allowed to have the *complete* number of the calling party. They should only be allowed the local prefix, for billing purposes (IMHO.) Is this an invasion of our privacy? Anyone have any opinions, ideas? Dave Internet: mtv@milton.u.washington.edu * UUNET: ...uunet!uw-beaver!u!mtv [Moderator's Note: It is not an invasion of your privacy when you ask me to pay for your telephone call and I ask for the number of the telephone. By your thinking, the information provided to the person paying the bill for a collect call would also be an 'invasion of privacy' since that person gets your number. As long as I am paying, I want the details of what I am paying for. The way you avoid this 'invasion of privacy' is by sending the call at your expense instead of mine; i.e. dial my regular long distance number instead of my 800 number. PT]
"John R. Levine" <johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> (08/07/90)
In article <10462@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: > What I don't understand is why the telcos are allowed to have the >*complete* number of the calling party. They should only be allowed >the local prefix, for billing purposes (IMHO.) Funny you should mention that. In France, itemized phone bills have only become available in the past few years. Before that, it was just impulse counts like most other places outside North America. French phone bills leave out the last few digits of each number, explicitly for privacy purposes. I don't know if there's any way to get the omitted digits if you want them, or if they are even stored anywhere. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl
Ken Abrams <kabra437@pallas.athenanet.com> (08/07/90)
In article <10462@accuvax.nwu.edu> mtv@milton.u.washington.edu (David Schanen) writes: >In article <10445@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> >writes: >>Ok, folks, time to set this straight. There is confusion here. 800 ANI >>sends the CALLING number NOT the billing number. ........ > Thanks for confirming that for us John! Now for an un-confirmation........ Sorry I missed the original post but it appears that there is still some confusion. The reason being, undoubtedly, that it works slightly differently depending on where the call originates and MAY even work differently from different lines in the same C.O. In addition to the "real" number, a billing number can be programmed into the serving switch (telco, that is, not PBX). If this is done, then the billing number is all that is ever sent out as ANI and the 800 provider can provide only that since it is all he knows. It is not common practice to do that so in most cases John is correct (but there are exceptions). Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965
Ken Greer <kgreer@mcnc.org> (08/07/90)
In article <10508@accuvax.nwu.edu> johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: >French phone bills leave out the last few digits of each number, >explicitly for privacy purposes. I don't know if there's any way to >get the omitted digits if you want them, or if they are even stored >anywhere. Privacy ?? I'm confused. You mean that in France I can "non-invade" someone's privacy by calling him, but "invade" his privacy by knowing his phone # (which I would know, since I had called him) ? What a philosophy. Is this from the Jerry Lewis School of Higher Thinking? Seriously, how would anyone contest a wrongly charged call ? Perhaps a better question would be: Are you even allowed to contest a charge ? Kim L. Greer try: klg@orion.mc.duke.edu Duke University Medical Center kgreer@mcnc.org Div. Nuclear Medicine POB 3949 klg@dukeac.ac.duke.edu Durham, NC 27710 919-660-2711x5223 fax: 919-681-5636
ben@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Benjamin Ellsworth) (08/09/90)
> [Moderator's Note: It is not an invasion of your privacy when you ask > me to pay for your telephone call and I ask for the number of the > telephone. By your thinking, the information provided to the person > paying the bill for a collect call would also be an 'invasion of > privacy' since that person gets your number. As long as I am paying, I > want the details of what I am paying for. ... PT] Hmmm... it seems to me that ANY time someone calls me that person is making use of a service that I pay for. I pay for the ability to receive calls at my home. If you call me, you are partially using my money. Why can't I get "the details of what I am paying for?" Trying to draw a distinction between facilities charges and connect- time charges seems spurious. It seems very clear to me that if CID is illegal in PA that calling number provision for collect calls, and 800 service providers should also be ruled illegal. I also think that we need to be careful in our use of the term "invasion of privacy." It appears to be valid to say that any time you willingly surrender information there has been no "invasion." Hence, one might conclude that our moderator's assertion is correct. However, by so doing we must agree that general CID also not an invasion of privacy -- if you choose to take advantage of the site facility that I pay for and maintain you must surrender your identity. "I want the details of what I am paying for." Would our Moderator or others agree? Benjamin Ellsworth ben@cv.hp.com All possibly relevant disclaimers apply. [Moderator's Note: Well, I have always felt if someone wanted to call me they had to surrender some of their privacy in the process. PT]
John Decatur KA2QHD <johnd@ocpt.ccur.com> (08/09/90)
In article <10462@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mtv@milton.u.washington.edu (David Schanen) writes: > In article <10445@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> > writes: > >Ok, folks, time to set this straight. There is confusion here. 800 ANI > >sends the CALLING number NOT the billing number. ........ Ack. No it doesn't. Sorry John. The IXC receives only the billing number via carrier interconnection signaling. The IXC never receives the calling party number; therefore, it is only possible for the IXC to deliver to the called party the billing number. All the stories about the ANI identifier number being posted should confirm this -- all those weird numbers (the BBN number from 25 years ago, an undialable IBT number, switchboards, and various undialable numbers) are all billing numbers for various centrex groups, PBXes, etc. David G Lewis Teleport Communications -- New York +1.718.983.2079 Engineer -- New Technologies !att!tsdiag!ka2qhd!deej
SDRY@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Sergio Gelato) (08/10/90)
In article <10575@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Ken Greer <kgreer@mcnc.org> writes: In article <10508@accuvax.nwu.edu> johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: >>French phone bills leave out the last few digits of each number, >>explicitly for privacy purposes. I don't know if there's any way to >>get the omitted digits if you want them, or if they are even stored >>anywhere. >Privacy ?? I'm confused. You mean that in France I can >"non-invade" someone's privacy by calling him, but "invade" his >privacy by knowing his phone # (which I would know, since I had called >him) ? It isn't a matter of your knowing the phone number you called, but of too much data being stored on computer media about your life and activities. The law that prohibits the disclosure of the full numbers is the one known as "informatique et liberte"; it is intended mainly to prevent the kind of thing some people have complained about in this forum, that anyone who looks at your credit record will get a very good idea of your personal tastes and lifestyle. In the case of phone numbers, Mr. X probably wouldn't want anyone to tell his wife that all these calls to 4787-XXXX are not to his old aunt. His privacy should be respected, and the information not be disclosed to anyone. Hence, it should never appear in print anywhere (not even on a phone bill), and in fact should not even be stored on France Telecom's computers (in case one of their employees should try blackmail, for example; or in case someone breaks into those computers). >Seriously, how would anyone contest a wrongly charged call ? >Perhaps a better question would be: Are you even allowed to contest a >charge ? Contesting charges is probably more common in the USA than in France (disclaimer: I don't have any hard statistics -- this is just a guess). However, you should still be able to say "I never called anyone in exchange YYYY on that day", in the same way as you can tell a US telephone company "I never called (XXX)XXX-XXXX". Anyway, any form of detailed billing is an improvement on the previous state of affairs (when you only got a lump charge for the month's calls). And privacy is worth more than a few extra francs on a bill (at least to me). Sergio Gelato <gelato@AstroSun.TN.Cornell.Edu>
dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net (Dave Levenson) (08/11/90)
In article <10640@accuvax.nwu.edu>, SDRY@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Sergio Gelato) writes: > guess). However, you should still be able to say "I never called > anyone in exchange YYYY on that day", in the same way as you can tell > a US telephone company "I never called (XXX)XXX-XXXX". In the U.S. you can claim: "I never called anybody at (201) 234 5678. They can look up the records for calls originated by the subscriber whose number is (201) 234 5678 and see if they've ever called you. That's known as "checking returns" and is routinely done in an attempt to see if your claim is reasonable. If they called you, it's less likely that you never called them. I guess in France, they would have to check returns on several hundred numbers, depending upon how many of the digits are omitted from the billing "detail" records. Dave Levenson Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers |att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave
John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> (08/11/90)
John Decatur KA2QHD <johnd@ocpt.ccur.com> writes: > Ack. No it doesn't. Sorry John. The IXC receives only the billing > number via carrier interconnection signaling. The IXC never receives > the calling party number; therefore, it is only possible for the IXC > to deliver to the called party the billing number. Oops! My original statement was based on observation of Pac*Bell, and as usual the practices are out of step with the real world. In the lion's share of cases, Pac*Bell makes the billing number the same as the directory number, even in cases where there are actually alternate billing arrangements. In the case of my accounts (and all those of my clients), our "Fun with ANI" number returns the directory number of the calling line even though that number is billed to a completely different (or even ficticious) number. > All the stories about the ANI identifier number being posted should > confirm this -- all those weird numbers (the BBN number from 25 years > ago, an undialable IBT number, switchboards, and various undialable > numbers) are all billing numbers for various centrex groups, PBXes, > etc. Now here's a question: what does the number readback return? Before you answer -- a short story. I happened to be going through some RJ21X positions in a client's phone room and found some lines that read back a number that was not known. I went through all of the customer's records and couldn't find the number anywhere. Four of the trunks read back this strange number and all of them were working and connected to the switch. It turns out that these lines were part of the main local group. The readback was just WRONG. Calls made on them were properly billed, and they responded properly to incoming calls. Pac*Bell corrected the readback. So what is the readback linked to? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
"Marc T. Kaufman" <kaufman@neon.stanford.edu> (08/12/90)
In article <10702@accuvax.nwu.edu> johnd@ocpt.ccur.com (John Decatur KA2QHD) writes: -> In article <10445@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> -> writes: -> >Ok, folks, time to set this straight. There is confusion here. 800 ANI -> >sends the CALLING number NOT the billing number. ........ >Ack. No it doesn't. Sorry John. The IXC receives only the billing >number via carrier interconnection signaling. The IXC never receives >the calling party number; therefore, it is only possible for the IXC >to deliver to the called party the billing number. I expect the truth lies somewhere between these two. On my residential two-line hunt group each line is identified by its CALLING number when I called the ANI test. Both lines are billed to the same number. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) [Moderator's Note: My two lines are both BILLED on the first line. I get one bill each month, with long distance charges from the second line appended on a separate page. When I tried the ANI number just now from the second line, it read me the second, or calling number. Maybe 'billing number' is a local matter, depending on how your local telco chooses to handle it. Maybe in my case I have two 'billing numbers' with both bills shown on one monthly statement. I think there are some semantics used here to define 'billing' and 'calling' numbers. PAT]