croll@wonder.enet.dec.com (10/17/89)
At the risk of being the straw that broke the camel's back... In Telecom V9:454, John Levine (johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us) writes: >By the way, I called American Express last week to argue about my >bill. Amex has been reported to have an 800 version of Caller ID that >looks up the phone number of each call and translates it to the >caller's card number. When the person who answered asked me for my >card number, I asked whether she could tell it from my phone number >and she said she couldn't. Either she was lying or they've turned it >off. I remember reading in Forbes (I think, it was some time ago) that American Express Customer Services folks used to greet callers by name as they answered the phone, taking advantage of the features of the 800 version of Caller ID to automatically look up the caller's account. They no longer do this, because it was so disconcerting to their customers. They received so many complaints from enough people that they either turned it off, or instructed their people to no longer say anything about it. The article didn't say explicitly whether they had turned it off, however. From this, my own conclusion is that the reaction to caller ID isn't so much the explicit invasion of privacy as the fear that Big Brother is always watching. I know that this is just about the same thing, but there is a difference between the abstract feeling that your privacy isn't perfect and having your nose rubbed in it every time you make a phone call. After all, many times when you call someone you wind up telling them who you are, anyway; having them greet you with your name before you even get a word out is, to say the least, disconcerting. It puts the control of the conversation immediately into the callee's hands, instead of the caller's. John
bill@toto.UUCP (Bill Cerny) (10/18/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0454m03@vector.dallas.tx.us>, John R. Levine writes: > By the way, I called American Express last week to argue about my > bill. Amex has been reported to have an 800 version of Caller ID that > looks up the phone number of each call and translates it to the > caller's card number. When the person who answered asked me for my > card number, I asked whether she could tell it from my phone number > and she said she couldn't. Either she was lying or they've turned it > off. When American Express starting routing their Megacom traffic over the primary rate interface (PRI), they also subscribed to Calling Number Delivery (no monthly, just 3 cents per number delivered). When the agents answered, "Good morning Mr. Goldberg, how may I help you?" the customers were awestruck, and wanted to know how they knew their identity before answering the call. This resulted in much more time wasted than was saved thru auto-retrieval of the account with CND. I was told that AmEx changed the script for their agents: greet, ask for the acct. number (verify it with what's already on the screen), and say, "Yes Mr. Goldberg, I have your records right here..." The agents are discouraged to discuss any of the wizardry of the new system, since AmEx's purpose for subscribing to CND is to save time. Bill Cerny "The cost of living just went up another $1 a fifth." Internet: bill@toto.cts.com - W. C. Fields
ben@sybase.com (ben ullrich) (10/20/89)
> By the way, I called American Express last week to argue about my > bill. Amex has been reported to have an 800 version of Caller ID that > looks up the phone number of each call and translates it to the > caller's card number. When the person who answered asked me for my > card number, I asked whether she could tell it from my phone number > and she said she couldn't. Either she was lying or they've turned it > off. I doubt they've turned it off. They'll always ask for your account number for identity verification, just as they ask for your name after getting your account number. I've noticed that most of the time, I don't hear any typing or delays as I give them my account number, as if they are reading it on their screen instead of typing it in. I should test this by calling in on my unlisted number sometime, and see if the response is any different from when I call from my other, listed number, the one that appears on their records. ben ullrich consider my words disclaimed,if you consider them at all sybase, inc., emeryville, ca "When you deal with human beings, a certain +1 (415) 596 - 3500 amount of nonsense is inevitable." - mike trout ben@sybase.com {pyramid,pacbell,sun,lll-tis}!sybase!ben
langz@asylum.sf.ca.us (Lang Zerner) (10/20/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0454m03@vector.dallas.tx.us> johnl@esegue.segue. boston.ma.us writes: >[American Express] has been reported to have an 800 version of Caller ID that >looks up the phone number of each call and translates it to the >caller's card number. When the person who answered asked me for my >card number, I asked whether she could tell it from my phone number >and she said she couldn't. Either she was lying or they've turned it >off. I recall having read a few little "FYI" type articles in various technical and marketing trade rags that said Amex got a lot of nasty letters and calls from customers who were startled, perplexed, and/or annoyed at Amex about the addition of the "service." Apparently, someone at Amex marketing thought it would be friendlier to answer the phone, "Good morning Mr. Zerner." A lot of people (myself included) thought it was pompous and not beneficial. At least one person encountered communication difficulties because he was calling from another cardholder's phone. Enough of these dissatisfied customers wrote and called in nastygrams expressing their dislike of Amex' use of the technology that Amex ended up pulling the idea. I still have one or two of the articles floating around somewhere. If you're really interested, though, you'll probably get a faster response from a commercial text-retrieval service or library CD periodicals index. Be seeing you... Lang Zerner langz@asylum.sf.ca.us UUCP:bionet!asylum!langz ARPA:langz@athena.mit.edu "...and every morning we had to go and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!"
klg@dukeac.UUCP (Kim Greer) (10/26/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0464m06@vector.dallas.tx.us> langz@asylum.UUCP (Lang Zerner) writes: >In article <telecom-v09i0454m03@vector.dallas.tx.us> johnl@esegue.segue. >>[American Express] has been reported to have an 800 version of Caller ID that >I recall having read a few little "FYI" type articles in various >technical and marketing trade rags that said Amex got a lot of nasty >letters and calls from customers who were startled, perplexed, and/or >annoyed at Amex about the addition of the "service." >Apparently, someone at Amex marketing thought it would be friendlier >to answer the phone, "Good morning Mr. Zerner." A lot of people >(myself included) thought it was pompous and not beneficial. At least >one person encountered communication difficulties because he was >calling from another cardholder's phone. Enough of these dissatisfied >customers wrote and called in nastygrams expressing their dislike of >Amex' use of the technology that Amex ended up pulling the idea. Actually, I would prefer that a company that is dealing with my money, would be able to be able to tell who I am. With phone fraud as rampant as it is, I encourage technology that will allow Amex or whoever to filter out spooks trying to weasal out info/money of mine. I prefer that a company that I'm dealing with to have instantly available information concerning my address/phone#/etc. (NOTE: I did not say that I prefer every XYZ Corp. to have it, just the ones I deal with). This saves having to waste time having someone re-type in my name/address/location/ account#/etc every time I call them. Kim Greer Duke Univ Med Ctr klg@orion.mc.duke.edu
deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) (10/29/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0475m07@vector.dallas.tx.us>, klg@dukeac.UUCP (Kim Greer) writes: > In article <telecom-v09i0464m06@vector.dallas.tx.us> langz@asylum.UUCP (Lang > Zerner) writes: > >In article <telecom-v09i0454m03@vector.dallas.tx.us> johnl@esegue.segue. > > >>[American Express] has been reported to have an 800 version of Caller ID > >Apparently, someone at Amex marketing thought it would be friendlier > >to answer the phone, "Good morning Mr. Zerner." A lot of people > >(myself included) thought it was pompous and not beneficial. At least > >one person encountered communication difficulties because he was > >calling from another cardholder's phone. Enough of these dissatisfied > >customers wrote and called in nastygrams expressing their dislike of > >Amex' use of the technology that Amex ended up pulling the idea. First, technical commentary. AT&T offers a service which I believe is called Account Match (although I wouldn't swear to it, and it may be a Service Mark if it is). Customers who subscribe to AT&T 800 service and who have an AT&T PBX can get a direct trunk connection from the AT&T Point of Termination to their AT&T PBX. Over this trunk connection AT&T will deliver the ANI (Automatic Number Identification) of the calling party. The AT&T PBX can then send the ANI to an attached application processor (which, surprise surprise, AT&T will be happy to provide) which will do a database lookup and fetch the account record corresponding to the calling ANI. This is not *exactly* calling number delivery; instead, it's a service built on ANI delivery. Calling number = ANI for almost all residential numbers; however, calling number != ANI for a large number of moderately sized business numbers -- ANI is the *billing* number, and many businesses have a single billing number defined for centralized accounting. Therefore, if you're calling from a Centrex line, or from a PBX trunk, the ANI may be irrelevant to the calling party number. (If you're calling from a PBX, of course, the calling number itself may be irrelevant unless the PBX sends it to the CO, and I don't know if any do.) Another note; I've heard that MCI is sponsoring/has sponsored an "ANI Developer's Conference". MCI will begin providing ANI to 800 customers in the near future, and wants to build a base of applications like the above to offer as well. In the anecdote I heard (from an unnamed source at AT&T Naperville), the customer didn't cancel their service; they just instructed their operators to stop greeting callers by their name and collecting their name *first*, so they would present the appearance of using the name to look up the account... This story also allows us to launch into an exciting discussion of bypass, if anyone is so moved... Like, I hear from sources that AT&T is offering ISDN PRI access from its long distance point of termination to customers with AT&T PBXs and trying to steal a march on the LECs... Disclaimer: AT&T? What do I know from AT&T? I work for Bellcore, and *everyone* knows that there's no connection between AT&T and Bellcore. (Hello, Judge Green!) David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."