dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
20
share rss forum feed


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

2 edits
reply to DaveSin

Re: Choosing the Primary SIP server

said by Davesnothere:

So, should there be any way for me to determine for sure what is happening, possibly either from my Anveo portal call logs, or by fiddling with the NAME fields of my Callcentric portal 'address' page ? (mentioned in my 'Early Results' post)

said by DaveSin:

It is possible the name information was passed from your PAP2T-NA (or whatever ATA or IP Phone that you are using) "Display Name:" field? Try playing with this field with different information to see what is displayed on incoming calls to your Anveo DID.

At one stage, I could change the "Display Name:" field to any 15-character and it would displayed on the incoming T-Mobile @Home system.

 
I was thinking about that last night at one point (while horizontal), but had forgotten about it by today when I made the post to which you replied. (Does that mean it was a dream ?)

On other occasions, I have wondered what purpose that this ATA field served.

And I think I remember Anveo specifying to enter Anveo into that field, but I believe I left my own name there from the last provider's settings.

Later on today, I will investigate the several possibilities and provide an update.

Thanks.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

1 edit
said by Davesnothere:

said by Davesnothere:

So, should there be any way for me to determine for sure what is happening, possibly either from my Anveo portal call logs, or by fiddling with the NAME fields of my Callcentric portal 'address' page ? (mentioned in my 'Early Results' post)

said by DaveSin:

It is possible the name information was passed from your PAP2T-NA (or whatever ATA or IP Phone that you are using) "Display Name:" field? Try playing with this field with different information to see what is displayed on incoming calls to your Anveo DID.

At one stage, I could change the "Display Name:" field to any 15-character and it would displayed on the incoming T-Mobile @Home system.

 
....I think I remember Anveo specifying to enter Anveo into that field, but I believe I left my own name there from the last provider's settings.

Later on today, I will investigate the several possibilities and provide an update.

Thanks.

 
UPDATE :

I have just performed the following tests :

(1) Changed the 'Display Name' field in the CallCentric channel of my ATA to something unique and placed a call from my CC number to my Anveo number.

Results : NO CHANGES to what I reported in the 2nd post of this thread.
quote:
[Incoming] from my CallCentric DID :
Number - the correct 11 digits, properly delimited with dashes
Name - Surname, followed by Given name, exactly as I had entered within the CallCentric web portal under Preferences>Address (unless I just now missed a more specific place in there where I had entered it for outbound CNAM), in MiXeD case - no truncation/abbreviation, as they total less than 15 characters including spaces

 
(2) Changed the 'Last Name' field in the CallCentric web portal Preferences>Address page to something further unique and placed a call from my CC number to my Anveo number.

Results : Still NO CHANGEs

(3) Waited a few minutes for my ATA to re-register (in case THAT might matter to any of my newest changes being passed as data) and placed one more call.

Results : Still NO CHANGES - proper last and first name appeared

So, the big $64,000 question : Is CallCentric doing more for us than they advertise ?


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

4 edits

Test of *67

 
I figured that if I could not make a difference in my immediate above tests, then what if I tried to block CID altogether ?

CallCentric's FAQ »www.callcentric.com/faq/31/221 describes this procedure.

So I entered *67 and waited for the 2nd dial tone, like I have done like forever on POTS lines.

Then I dialed the Anveo number.

MY FULL INFO APPEARED AS BEFORE !

Weird !

I hit the Redial and then Talk button.

This time I get another number, accompanied by Glendora CA.

It turns out that this is the number mentioned in the above CC FAQ.

After that, I dialed once again as above.

MY FULL INFO AGAIN APPEARED AS BEFORE !

Hmmmm....

Looks like *67 DOES block CID (and indirectly CNAM) on an outbound CallCentric call on a per-call basis.

BUT :

It also looks like you must NOT wait for a 2nd dial tone ! (even though it gives you one)

(Redialing just spews out a continuous string and THAT time, things went as the CC FAQ predicted.)

OLD HABITS ARE HARD TO BREAK !

I wonder whether or not CallCentric is aware of this behaviour of their service, and whether they could/would consider fixing it to match industry standard ?

= = = = = = = = = =

Next, I plan to examine my Anveo web portal incoming call log to search for clues.

DaveSin

join:2009-07-17
Is the CC DID a number you ported in to CC?


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

2 edits
reply to Davesnothere

Anveo Call Log Analysis

 
The Anveo Call Log generated me various reports, one of which showed me a transaction for each of my incoming test calls for doing the CNAM dip, but not what data it found, nor where it might have found it.

Result : INCONCLUSIVE, but it looks like the CNAM data displayed by Anveo came as a result of a dip.

So, if that is true, then CallCentric must have published my number and name into an LIDB, based on what Trev suggested a few posts ago.

It's a bit of a blur - I remember that CC & VMS refuse to say from which provider they get their CNAM dips, but did we know which one that ANVEO uses ?

Would someone be so kind as to refresh me on which provider is used by Anveo for their CNAM dips ?


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

1 edit
reply to DaveSin

Re: ANVEO Inbound CID-CNAM Report

said by DaveSin:

Is the CC DID a number you ported in to CC?

 
Good question !

(and I know why you asked it, as I have some residual CNAM/directory-listings which may come as baggage when I DO get around to porting in 1 or 2 numbers which I have.)

But no, it was a fresh DID number from CC.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to Davesnothere

Where Am I Listed ?

 
I just looked up my CC number on TNID.US and it gives me the City and Province, and the name of my CLEC, but not MY name and not CallCentric's name.

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
reply to Davesnothere

Re: Test of *67

said by Davesnothere:

CallCentric's FAQ »www.callcentric.com/faq/31/221 describes this procedure.

So I entered *67 and waited for the 2nd dial tone, like I have done like forever on POTS lines.

Then I dialed the Anveo number.

This is not correct.

You do NOT wait for a 2nd dial tone. CC, thanks be to God, is not POTS.

You should examine your CC outbound call logs.

Also, note that you need to dial *671XXXXXXXXXX rather than *67xxxxxxxxxx

Thus, your experiment had two different chances of error.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
said by PX Eliezer70:

....Thus, your experiment had two different chances of error.

 
Actually just the one chance, as I have been dialing 11 digits since (I think) CallWithUs required it ?

Would CC have accepted 10 digits for general domestic use ?

As posted above, I did figure out that I should not be pausing, but if CC and/or VoIPPs in general do something procedurally differently than POTS, ought not they to say so in their FAQ(s), and ought not they disable what appears to be the ubiquitous second dial tone and replace it with an indication of error, such as a busy signal or something ?

Anyway, it was a minor distraction from my quest, and I will check my CC outbound call logs as you suggested, just to see what they show.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

4 edits
reply to PX Eliezer70

Anveo's CNAM Dip Partner

 
So did you or anyone else here recently post the name of Anveo's CNAM Dip Partner, or am I mistaken ?

If yes, then please would you/they post it again ?


I would still like to formally troubleshoot how/why my name is appearing when I dial my Anveo number from my CC one.

And if CallCentric has published my name and number into some LIDB or whatever so that a partner of Anveo can dip it (if I understand that to be the correct description of the procedure - thanks Trev), should CC not have informed me of this, or even first asked me whether I wanted it to be done ?

What if I did not want it to be listed at all ?

And what of privacy issues ?

I WAS seriously considering asking to have purged the existing LIDB/CNAM/directory listings of whatever numbers I may port in to a VoIPP, and would also be quite curious how successful I would be in such a regard.

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
People gripe if a VoIPP [does] do LIDB population, and they gripe if it [does not].

Nobody's ever happy, it seems.

This is why VoIP engineers get prematurely gray in the US, and prematurely grey in Canada.

--------------------------

I find this quite interesting.

On one hand, you repeatedly say that VoIPP should follow POTS traditions.

On the other hand, you take issue with a VoIPP possibly doing LIDB population. But doing that is the gold standard for POTS! So the VoIPP would be doing exactly that which you claim to desire.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
said by PX Eliezer70:

People gripe....

 
Yes, the strange paradox that is ME !

(aka "Please all, please none")

Actually, I am a small 'c' conservative late adopter of new things who just thinks that POTS costs too much for what they give you, but would be willing to pay VoIPPs somewhat more than many of them ask if they would just let me have what I want in phone functionality, and leave off what I don't, and communicate properly with me about all of it.

Kind of like the perennial BK ad hook.

BTW, customers can go grey/gray while sorting thru all of this too.

And some with few hairs TO change hue.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

1 edit
reply to PX Eliezer70
said by PX Eliezer70:

People gripe if a VoIPP [does] do LIDB population, and [yet] they gripe if it [does not].

[for example] On one hand, you repeatedly say that VoIPP should follow POTS traditions.

On the other hand, you take issue with a VoIPP possibly doing LIDB population.

But doing that is the gold standard for POTS!

So the VoIPP would be doing exactly that which you claim to desire.

 
Just call me Mister Irony !

Hmmmm - now THAT's what I ought to request for my outbound CNAM/LIDB entry !

(and mayhaps my tombstone ? )


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

4 edits
reply to Davesnothere

Re: Where Am I Listed ?

said by Davesnothere:

I just looked up my CC number on TNID.US and it gives me the City and Province, and the name of my CLEC, but not MY name and not CallCentric's name.

 
Today, I performed another test to try to determine how my Anveo number seems to be finding valid and correct CNAM info when I dial to it from my CallCentric number, when CC clearly states in their FAQ that they do not support outbound CNAM.

»www.callcentric.com/faq/31/222

I dialed from my CallCentric number to the same party whose POTS line had called my Anveo line for one of the main tests of this thread, and interestingly enough, Bell's CNAM dip came up empty !

The party told me that it showed my CC number, and 'Unknown' in the name field.

[The thick plottens !]

So once again, I turn to the residents of the 'DLSR VTC Gurus Gallery' to speculate along with me as to how Anveo is finding a proper CNAM listing for my CallCentric number, when Bell, our local POTS ILEC, is not ?

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
Re: Where Am I Listed ?

While Ross Perot amused crowds with his snarky comments, his running mate, Vietnam War hero Admiral James Stockdale, struggled to transform himself into a public figure. The famously self-deprecating Stockdale opened the vice-presidential debate in 1992 by asking, "Who am I? Why am I here?"

The line, meant to poke fun at his lack of political experience, left viewers simply wondering....

»www.time.com/time/specials/packa···,00.html

Speculation:

BellCanada may primarily use its own POTS LIDB database, and also trade info with other major Canadian Potsies.

Simply because they ARE the northern branch of the evil empire, they may feel they do NOT need to pay any outside company for LIDB information.

By contrast, Anveo and other VoIPP [do] pay good money to major LIDB accumulators, so Anveo's data may be superior to BellCanada's.

[Now that Malheur Bell was merged out of existence, the only two North Am telecom companies that still use Mr. Bell's name are BellCanada and Cincinnati Bell. And I wish that BellCanada wouldn't.]

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
reply to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:

....CC clearly states in their FAQ that they do not support outbound CNAM....

Mayhaps they do try to provide it, but don't want to guarantee it.


Trev
IP Telephony Addict
Premium
join:2009-06-29
Victoria, BC
kudos:6
reply to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:

I dialed from my CallCentric number to the same party whose POTS line had called my Anveo line for one of the main tests of this thread, and interestingly enough, Bell's CNAM dip came up empty !

I think you'll find Bell will never query a database other than their own. They will show a name if its included in the call setup, however.

Same goes for Telus out here.
--
Wondering what I do? Find out at »www.digitalcon.ca
Get your Obihai ATA in Canada.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

4 edits
reply to PX Eliezer70
said by PX Eliezer70:

said by Davesnothere:

....CC clearly states in their FAQ that they do not support outbound CNAM....

Mayhaps they do try to provide it, but don't want to guarantee it.

 
Could be.

And if your thought is correct, then we may just now have discovered the first occasion when the CallCentric FAQ does not explain something, or not accurately so.

But in that case, shouldn't they change their wording about this to include language something like how they explain their position about international CID ?

»www.callcentric.com/faq/31/217
quote:
NOTE : Callcentric does not support or guarantee the delivery of international caller ID.

If you are able to send international caller IDs for some time and then are suddenly not able to, then there is nothing we can do in this scenario.

 
Or (my preferred way) they could state that they DO populate an LIDB somewhere with your CID-CNAM listing, and that if you do NOT want them to do so, to please tell them so. (as this is also a potential PRIVACY issue)

They could even add a tick box to enable/disable this functionality into the portal page Preferences>Address, stating that they would use the name information from that page if you were to enable outbound CNAM.

You see, even if they ARE publishing me to an LIDB somewhere, I am not sure to exactly what part of their local database they synced the listing, as changing the fields a day or two ago in Preferences>Address did not make any difference to what my Anveo number received for CNAM when I called it from my CC number, and still does not when I tested it again while composing this post.

I did however receive an email from CC mentioning the change, and asking my to contact them if I had not been the maker of the change.

Good Security !


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

1 edit
reply to Trev
said by Trev:

said by Davesnothere:

I dialed from my CallCentric number to the same party whose POTS line had called my Anveo line for one of the main tests of this thread, and interestingly enough, Bell's CNAM dip came up empty !

I think you'll find Bell will never query a database other than their own.

They will show a name if its included in the call setup, however.

Same goes for Telus out here.

 
I guess that that makes sense, from THEIR corporate perspectives, and I see that PX reached a similar thought as yours.

"in the Call Setup" - does that mean "if it is sent on-the-fly by the caller's phone provider" ?

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
reply to Davesnothere
Suppose I make an outbound call on AT&T, Verizon, Embarq/Century, Comcast, Cox, Optimum/Cablevision, TimeWarner, AT&T Wireless, or Verizon Wireless....

That accounts for the vast majority of US calls.

All those companies send along the numeric CID (as indeed they must) and all except for Verizon Wireless populate the LIDB databases for caller name (CNAM).

So why would one be surprised if a VoIPP did the same?

It might be interesting if CC offered LIDB opt-out as an option, but I think the demand for it would be pretty low. Maybe just one person....

I've never been to a diner where the waiter asks, should I omit the crackers for your soup? Most people are glad to get such crackers, and the large majority of people (including here) view LIDB population as a good thing.

The larger issue is why should CC be singled out to do things differently from all the other companies (especially in the absence of demand). I suppose that CC should be flattered.

In telecom, CID and CNAM have always been tied together.

If a customer wants privacy, that's what *67 is for, and CallCentric's *67 is superior, because it isn't just a privacy tag that could be ignored, but rather a full hard substitution to [Glendora CA 1-626-771-0198].

I've never seen or conceived of a situation where CID would be transmitted but CNAM would be blocked. Face it, if someone has your CID, they will get your CNAM one way or another. The simplest way being to call you back and see who answers, but there are plenty of fancy ways as well....

"in the Call Setup" - does that mean "if it is sent on-the-fly by the caller's phone provider" ?

Yes, as is often done in Canadian calling.


grand total

join:2005-10-26
Mississauga
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia
·Anveo
said by PX Eliezer70:

If a customer wants privacy, that's what *67 is for, and CallCentric's *67 is superior, because it isn't just a privacy tag that could be ignored, but rather a full hard substitution to [Glendora CA 1-626-771-0198].

Superior is definitely a matter of opinion because I would not want a provider to do that on my behalf.
--
DPC3825 - WRT610N - SPA2102 - Asterisk 1.8.11.0 with Asterisk GUI on Virtual Server
Anveo - Voxbeam - Localphone - Numbergroup - Callcentric- VoIP.MS - UKDDI


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to PX Eliezer70
said by PX Eliezer70:

said by Davesnothere:

"in the Call Setup" - does that mean "if it is sent on-the-fly by the caller's phone provider" ?

Yes, [and] as is often done in Canadian calling.

 
A-Ha-Ha-Haaaaaaa !

So, before I veer off on a possibly unjustified tangent here, let me paraphrase back, to make sure I understand this properly, as I may be heading somewhere with this.

In the case where Subscriber 'A' calls Subscriber 'B' :

Most incumbent landline phone providers (never mind cellular for now) will populate an LIDB with a record reflecting the phone number and name of each of their subscribers (or business name if a business), so that a recipient of a call (Subscriber 'B') from one of their customers (Subscriber 'A') can do a CNAM lookup based on the CID (the number) being broadcast for Subscriber 'A', and at least in theory should get the name which matches, to display on Subscriber 'B's phone.

I believe that scenario to be how Trev explained it earlier in this thread, IIRC, and possibly on other occasions.

However, in answer to my last question, YOU said that CNAM can also (or alternately) be sent on-the-fly (aka in the Call Setup).

If I am correct so far, then the most important remaining factor which must be considered is what the recipient's phone provider does with this potential plethora of info.

i.e. If a CNAM record exists in the LIDB for Subscriber 'A', but one is also being broadcast on-the-fly, then which one of these wins out and appears on Subscriber 'B's phone ?

= = = = = = = = =

said by PX Eliezer70:

I've never been to a diner where the waiter asks, should I omit the crackers for your soup? Most people are glad to get such crackers....

 
OTOH, I've never been to a restaurant where the waiter asks whether or not you would want any FLIES which might possibly be in your soup to be removed, or left in there.

Alternately, I suppose that you could ask that your soup be served 'on-the-fly'. - BZZZZZZT !


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to grand total
said by grand total:

said by PX Eliezer70:

If a customer wants privacy, that's what *67 is for, and CallCentric's *67 is superior, because it isn't just a privacy tag that could be ignored, but rather a full hard substitution to [Glendora CA 1-626-771-0198].

Superior is definitely a matter of opinion because I would not want a provider to do that on my behalf.

 
Although we are talking about a different function here than the one about which I had raised discussion, I would say that I agree with you that I would not want a phone provider to make a judgement regarding what is best for me, the subscriber, and not at least explain up-front to me that this is how they do things, and that for perhaps the first time ever, I do feel that I have caught the otherwise untarnishable CallCentric doing just that.

As nobody here can say for absolute sure what is happening with them, regarding what they SAY they do for outbound CNAM (which is supposedly nothing at all), and what they APPEAR to be doing, which is either populating an LIDB on my behalf without asking (or even telling) me of it, or sending CNAM on-the-fly on that same basis, I thus will have no other choice but to open a repair ticket with them on Monday to try to get a formal answer about it.

Privacy issues and laws are at stake here too, as I have alluded earlier.

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
reply to grand total
said by grand total:

Superior is definitely a matter of opinion because I would not want a provider to do that on my behalf.

With other providers' usage of *67 your information is [not] protected, and will still be displayed if the phone company at destination ignores the privacy tag (by accident or on purpose).

And:

With other providers' usage of *67 your information is [not] protected at all when you call a tollfree number.

Also:

You might be calling a tollfree number without realizing it, because some people forward their regular phone number to a TF number, for the specific purpose of penetrating any *67 from inbound callers.

--------------------------

CallCentric's solution avoids all 3 of these very real problems.

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:

I would not want a phone provider to make a judgement regarding what is best for me, the subscriber, and not at least explain up-front to me that this is how they do things....

They probably should explain that specifically in the FAQ, but it's hardly a secret. Has been discussed here many times over the years.

Suppose you have CC service for outbound calls, but have [not] purchased a DID? In that case, the same 626-771-0198 trunk number will show up as CID, unless you have arranged for an alternate number to be displayed.

Again, not unusual.

If you make an outbound call on Voip.MS Value routing, your CID may show up as a Voip.MS trunk number, often a 720 Denver number in the case of US subscribers.

See for example:
»VoIP.ms does not send CID as configured at PBXes.com

------------------------------------

said by Davesnothere:

....which is either populating an LIDB on my behalf without asking (or even telling) me of it....

When such is [absolutely the standard way] for phone companies to operate in the US and much of Canada?

said by Davesnothere:

....or sending CNAM on-the-fly on that same basis....

Which is [absolutely the standard] for the remainder of Canada?

said by Davesnothere:

Privacy issues and laws are at stake here too, as I have alluded earlier.

I think that's one of the silliest things that I have ever heard....

Everything herein is well known to the CRTC and FCC, by the way, especially the SS7 signaling in Canada. All the things about which you take such quixotic umbrage, are a basic part of the telephone system.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

4 edits
reply to PX Eliezer70

*67, the CallCentric way

 
said by PX Eliezer70:

[Advantages of *67 done the CallCentric way :]

(1) With other providers' usage of *67, your information is not protected, and will still be displayed if the phone company at destination ignores the privacy tag (by accident or on purpose).

(2) With other providers' usage of *67, your information is not protected at all when you call a tollfree number.

(3) You might be calling a tollfree number without realizing it, because some people forward their regular phone number to a TF number, for the specific purpose of penetrating any *67 from inbound callers, [and as such, your information is not protected under this circumstance either.]

CallCentric's solution avoids all 3 of these very real problems.

 
Very well said.

I was using Grand Total's post more as an example of having similar feelings about different issues on his and my behalfs, but I agree with you on what you say here (and earlier) about *67 in particular.

CallCentric might do well to incorporate your above explanation into their FAQ on *67.

However CallCentric would also do well to explain in their FAQ that the 2nd dialtone which you get if you dial *67 and wait (like POTS requires before dialing the eventual number) is not going to allow their superior *67 to work at all (as I discovered earlier during this thread).

People transitioning from POTS, cable, and cellular services are for the most part familiar with the traditional functionality of *67, and if it is going to be changed by a progressive (and also conscientious) VoIPP, then they ought to make us aware of how theirs works, AND/OR, as I suggested earlier, make an error message or a busy signal to let us know that something is not as we had expected, when we dial *67 and wait....

After all, we DSLR participants, in all of our alleged and sometimes self-proclaimed eliteness, are the minority of folks overall, and something should also be done for John Q. Public and HIS level of awareness of all this high tech stuff (IMNSHO).

= = = = = = = = = =

Also, as I might have to use CC's version of *67 as part of a dialing plan work-around, to avoid the manner in which I feel that they are handling their outbound CNAM/LIDB policies, I have a larger interest in understanding *67 than I did in the past.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

4 edits
reply to PX Eliezer70

Re: Where Am I Listed ?

said by PX Eliezer70:

said by Davesnothere:

I would not want a phone provider to make a judgement regarding what is best for me, the subscriber, and not at least explain up-front to me that this is how they do things....

They probably should explain that specifically in the FAQ, but it's hardly a secret.

Has been discussed here many times over the years.

 
Possibly true.

However, posts quickly get buried in THIS forum, AND, as I romanticised immediately above, DSLR participants are but a small splinter of the general public, which itself does not get to read, [and in many cases] much less understand the things that we geeks post here.

------------------------------------

said by PX Eliezer70:

said by Davesnothere:

....which is either populating an LIDB on my behalf without asking (or even telling) me of it....

When such is [absolutely the standard way] for phone companies to operate in the US and much of Canada?

said by Davesnothere:

Privacy issues and laws are at stake here too, as I have alluded earlier.

I think that's one of the silliest things that I have ever heard....

Everything herein is well known to the CRTC and FCC, by the way, especially the SS7 signaling in Canada.

All the things about which you take such quixotic umbrage, are a basic part of the telephone system.

 
Be that as it may, I accept what you say about my opinions.

And unlike SOME parties, at least you are communicating with me.

However, as for what you suggest about my wishes/requirements being so unique, think of it THIS way :

How many ILEC customers would simply rather have an unlisted number, and so not have to deal with *67 and such (which they wonder why doesn't work sometimes anyway - your explanation applies there), and also put and end to telemarketers and other lowlife calling, yet without learning how to manage a blacklist in a web portal ?

Some of these folks even consciously CHOOSE a cellular (or VoIP) provider for the express purpose of [escaping the 'absolute standard' way of the ILECs, and] achieving just that, as at least initially, alternate phone providers did not list your number (a possible PLUS to this group of folks), and many ALTPPs did not do the outbound CNAM/LIDB thing either.

Mayhaps I am just one of that silent group of cord-cutters who are not [only] doing it to save on our monthly phone bills.

When I don my John Q. Public chapeau and T-shirt, I sure seem to FEEL that way.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

4 edits
reply to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:

 
....I would not want a phone provider to make a judgement regarding what is best for me, the subscriber, and not at least explain up-front to me that this is how they do things, and that for perhaps the first time ever, I do feel that I have caught the otherwise untarnishable CallCentric doing just that.

As nobody here can say for absolute sure what is happening with them, regarding what they SAY they do for outbound CNAM (which is supposedly nothing at all), and what they APPEAR to be doing, which is either populating an LIDB on my behalf without asking (or even telling) me of it, or sending CNAM on-the-fly on that same basis, I thus will have no other choice but to open a repair ticket with them on Monday to try to get a formal answer about it.

Privacy issues and laws are at stake here too, as I have alluded earlier.

 
EUREKA UPDATE :

I just thought of another place at which I could check for a listing of my CC number.

So I went to the CallWithUs (CWU) website, logged into my account, and did a .0063 cent USD lookup (Targus, I believe) of my CC number.

YES, WE HAVE SOME BANANAS !

My CallCentric number AND NAME are in the Targus database !


It shows other things too, such as the name of my/CallCentric's CLEC, but not CC's name outright.

So, does this mean that CallCentric uses Targus as their CNAM lookup partner, and would Targus also be who ANVEO uses ?

As I posted earlier, it was ANVEO doing a CNAM lookup and unexpectedly finding my correct name during the primary tests for this thread, which sparked my investigation of this matter in the first place.

= = = = = = = = = =

SUMMARY :

My tests of ANVEO's CNAM lookups (and other offshoot tests) have led me to these observations :

(1) Anveo's inbound CNAM lookup is pretty decent for Canadian numbers - that is IF you know where in their portal to find and enable it (as the public part of their site does not even say that they HAVE this service), and if you do not mind that there is a small cost to use it.

(2) CallCentric seems to support LIDB/CNAM population for at least SOME of their DID numbers, even though their official position (see their website FAQ) is that they do not. - And so far it seems that ANVEO does NOT support LIDB/CNAM population, and I do not recall whether or not they say so on their website.

(3) Based on my tests, I am speculating that CallCentric and Anveo each use the same LIDB/CNAM-Lookup partner as CallWithUs does - that being TARGUS.

(4) CallCentric and Anveo do NOT use the same CLEC to service my rate centre.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

2 edits
reply to PX Eliezer70

Vitelity's Website & CNAM

Click for full size
 
I noticed that you have done a review of them (as well as posted about them occasionally), so I read it.

What you wrote impressed me enough to read some of the other folks' reviews.

One of those reviews mentioned a $10 one-time fee for LIDB/CNAM population for outbound calling.

I went to the website of the provider and was further impressed.

WHAT a well constructed site !

It did not take very long at all to find out most of what I wanted to know (though a few things would require registering a portal login to see them).

I seem to recall yourself and/or someone else saying here that they are a CLEC, and that they provide much of the USA footprint for VOIP.MS - and that $10 LIDB/CNAM fee seems familiar too in commentary about VOIP.MS.

Unfortunately their support of Canadian rate centres seems to be rather sparse.

Above is a screenshot of how VITELITY does CNAM - simple to understand, though not free - you choose what you want and they provide it - no surprises and no mysteries.

I am in love with their website's conciseness, clarity, and structure.

Many other VoIPPs could learn something (or in some cases almost everything ) from examining it, and we know who we mean.

Cheers !

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
Vitelity just recently revamped their website.

Still, in many ways they are simply [not] up to the level of CallCentric or Voip.MS in many aspects of call control and account/CDR information available.

Vitelity also charges for [outbound] CNAM---not only a $ 10 setup fee but ALSO an ongoing charge of $ 1.49 a month. I think that's pretty high.

Not impressed with the overall picture.

I would not praise or damn a VoIPP based on one minor attribute; that's my opinion anyway.