slr@csvax.caltech.edu (07/05/90)
When calling an 800 number from my Pasadena, CA exchange (818-794 - 1AESS), I have found that I can prevent the called party from receiving my number simply by routing the call through the "O" operator (Pac*Bell's TOPS). Normally, when I call one of MCI's, SPRINT's or AT&T's 800 numbers, my number will show up on the called party's call detail. If I simply Dial "O", and "have trouble reaching 800-xxx-xxxx" the call detail doesn't have my number. (Yes, the TOPS operator does have it.) I've only tried this with the above-mentioned 800 providers. My question: Is this just a fluke ? Is there some type of convention for TOPS to pass the calling number to the 800 service provider ? Has anyone else tried this ? Does it work elsewhere ? On a related question: For those of you with Caller*ID, what happens when you get a call routed through the "O" operator ? (the called party being someone that you would normally get a calling number from on your Caller*ID display). Steve US mail: Post Office Box 1000, Mount Wilson, Calif. 91023 UUCP: ...elroy!cit-vax!riot!slr Internet: slr@riot.caltech.edu voice-mail: (818) 794-6004
dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net (Dave Levenson) (07/09/90)
In article <9481@accuvax.nwu.edu>, riot!slr@csvax.caltech.edu writes: > On a related question: For those of you with Caller*ID, what happens > when you get a call routed through the "O" operator ? (the called > party being someone that you would normally get a calling number from > on your Caller*ID display). Here in New Jersey, local calls placed through the operator are displayed as "OUT OF AREA" on the Caller*ID display. This makes them indistinguishable from calls which originate out of the LATA or from CO's which are not equipped with SS7. This is also true of calls dialed as 0+ and charged to a calling card, without any communication with a human operator. Dave Levenson Voice: 201 647 0900 Fax: 201 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney]
"Fred R. Goldstein" <goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com> (07/11/90)
In article <9529@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net (Dave Levenson) writes... >>In article <9481@accuvax.nwu.edu>, riot!slr@csvax.caltech.edu writes: >> On a related question: For those of you with Caller*ID, what happens >> when you get a call routed through the "O" operator ? >Here in New Jersey, local calls placed through the operator are >displayed as "OUT OF AREA" on the Caller*ID display. The Canadian Radio-Television Commission, in approving Caller ID for Bell Canada (which serves most of Ontario and Quebec), stated that per-call blocking by dialing "0" was adequate. Bell Canada filed a tariff charging $.75/call for that service; I don't know if it was approved. This has the advantage, in the short term, of allowing call blocking on demand from ALL exchanges, including electromechanical ones that don't support feature code dialing. In the long term, this will probably be phased out in favor of a dialable prefix. Logically the price should fall too, since the 75 cents is basically a charge for the operator's time. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388
root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) (07/12/90)
In article <9581@accuvax.nwu.edu> goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: >The Canadian Radio-Television Commission, in approving Caller ID for >Bell Canada (which serves most of Ontario and Quebec), stated that >per-call blocking by dialing "0" was adequate. Bell Canada filed a >tariff charging $.75/call for that service; I don't know if it was >approved. The tariff (Item 86 of CRTC tariff 6716) was approved. There is an additional provision to the charge that calls originating from "certified shelters for victims of domestic violence" will not be subject to the charge. When the tariff was considered, there were a number of representations made to the effect that battered wives etc. might somehow be found through the use of caller ID. ||| Marcel D. Mongeon ||| e-mail: ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root or ||| joymrmn!marcelm
Dave Levenson <dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net> (07/12/90)
In article <9581@accuvax.nwu.edu>, goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: > The Canadian Radio-Television Commission, in approving Caller ID for > Bell Canada (which serves most of Ontario and Quebec), stated that > per-call blocking by dialing "0" was adequate. ...... > This has the advantage, in the short term, of allowing call blocking > on demand from ALL exchanges, including electromechanical ones that > don't support feature code dialing. While this is certainly true, my experience here in NJ indicates that callers from electromechanical exchanges don't need to do anything special to block their numbers from the destination Caller*Id feature -- the crossbar switches don't seem to send any ID anyway. Calls from these CO's show up as "OUT OF AREA". Dave Levenson Voice: 201 647 0900 Fax: 201 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney]