| |
to Davesnothere
Re: tnid.us gone!? Can others confirm it?said by Davesnothere: Yeah, no respect for us Canucks, eh ? [Dave adjusts his toque] I'll say. This doesn't even list any Canadian numbers as far as I can tell, so it's not actually targeted for general internet usage. [Ole puts on his snowshoes] |
|
 dev_nullPithy tag line goes here.
join:2002-08-14
New England
Asus RT-AC66U B1
|
to pinky321
So I apparently still have some leftover credit or something and I tried the same 6 numbers in the V2 api on opencnam and guess what? All the same (wrong) information!
Select > Bookmark > TNID.US -- "click" Delete
Select > Bookmark > opencnam -- "click" Delete
An inauspicious start for sure.
u1. |
|
| |
That's too bad. I put a couple of test numbers into TNID and their statement "We currently support data for US and Canada." turns out to be wrong. Fine, but opencnam looked good if one got a professional account (which would presumably cost next to nothing for a hobbyist). However their hobbyist account doesn't resolve the old Canadian numbers I tried either.
I've just wasted my time looking into this. I'm not sure these guys have any marketing skills, but they should know that if they waste people's time they're likely to get badmouthed and that it would be better policy to be respectful of users.
So .... what's a good alternative to TNID and opencnam? |
|
 TrevAcroVoice & DryVoIP Official Rep
Premium Member
join:2009-06-29
Victoria, BC
1 recommendation |
Trev
Premium Member
2014-Aug-11 7:15 pm
said by Ole Juul:So .... what's a good alternative to TNID and opencnam? www.cnam.info I may be 100% affiliated with this service, though  There is a minimum bill of $2/month so do consider that if you're just wanting to use it to play with and not seriously use. |
|
 arpawocky
Premium Member
join:2014-04-13
Columbus, OH |
to Ole Juul
said by Ole Juul:So .... what's a good alternative to TNID and opencnam? cidname.com cnam.info and, there *may* be another good alternative very very soon *evil-grin* |
|
| |
Thanks Trev and arpawocky. Nice to see the choices available.
However, those are suitable for providers, and not really worth the trouble for a casual end user like me. Are there any free services that are available to use for free if one only needs the occasional access?
PS: I've noted in trying different web sites that supposedly do this for free, that the information can be outdated or wrong - (not to mention sometimes convoluted, irritating, and actually expensive.) |
|
 DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada
4 edits |
said by Ole Juul:....However, those are suitable for providers, and not really worth the trouble for a casual end user like me. Are there any free services that are available to use for free if one only needs the occasional access?
PS: I've noted in trying different web sites that supposedly do this for free, that the information can be outdated or wrong - (not to mention sometimes convoluted, irritating, and actually expensive.) I think that this is the whole 'disconnect' on the matter; that there is precious little for the casual user who just wants a bit of accurate CNAM from time to time. Not sure whether we have a tougher time of it here in Canada, but as a Canadian myself, it feels like we do, overall. I use canada411.ca a lot, for anticipated legit Canadian listings, and 800notes.com to make suspected scum float to the surface. Those are both free, and between them and whatever my primary VoIPP (Anveo) presents from THEIR lookups, I generally learn enough about enough of my callers. Once in a while, I punch a number into Google if the above came up short and I still want to know, but there are so many '800 Notes wannabes' out there ! Or occasionally, I log in to my CallWithUs account and do a lookup there, for a fraction of a cent, which also is close to what Anveo charges. That's MY current plan for CNAM. = = = = = = = I have in the past posted here of my suspicions that CallWithUs, Anveo, and CallCentric all use the respected Targus LIDB, but most of those parties are not commenting on my thoughts. |
|
| Davesnothere |
to arpawocky
said by arpawocky:said by Ole Juul:So .... what's a good alternative to TNID and opencnam? cidname.com cnam.info and, there *may* be another good alternative very very soon *evil-grin* And in anticipation of that, we are like the cat who ate some cheese and lurked outside the mouses' door, with 'baited' breath.  |
|
TrevAcroVoice & DryVoIP Official Rep
Premium Member
join:2009-06-29
Victoria, BC |
to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:Not sure whether we have a tougher time of it here in Canada, but as a Canadian myself, it feels like we do, overall. We do a bit. That privacy thing is a bigger deal up here than down there, which I believe is a big reason why our data costs more to get to. It's nontrivial to buy a list of every Canadian phone subscriber, whereas in the USA they almost hand it out like candy at a parade (or so it seems). AcroVoice uses the very service offered at cnam.info plus accepts names in the SS7 signalling from other Canadian carriers which has very high accuracy results. Just because we're on the topic of Canadian CNAM -- soon AcroVoice will be accessing Telus' database directly to be able to access all of their caller names which means we will be able to show the exact same name Telus landline subscribers in BC/AB would see when they call each other. Due to contractual obligations, this won't be available on cnam.info, but we do resell Canadian DIDs to several other providers where the name lookups are bundled in. These providers and our own subscribers will see that upgrade in a month or two if all goes well! |
|
arpawocky
Premium Member
join:2014-04-13
Columbus, OH |
to Ole Juul
said by Ole Juul:However, those are suitable for providers, and not really worth the trouble for a casual end user like me. Are there any free services that are available to use for free if one only needs the occasional access? People change providers. People change numbers. Numbers get re-assigned all the time. The provider's cost of obtaining up-to-date data is non-zero. Free and accurate are not likely to go hand-in-hand. |
|
| |
said by arpawocky:People change providers. People change numbers. Numbers get re-assigned all the time. The provider's cost of obtaining up-to-date data is non-zero. Free and accurate are not likely to go hand-in-hand. Fine, so charge. I just don't want a monthly subscription with $100 down. I'm sure the charges are fine, but I still have legitimate needs which are not met by those services. An easy way to provide that service would be for VoIP providers to have it on their site for paying users. That would allow for a suitable charge without a billing problem. Perhaps some of them do that already. Callcentric doesn't. Also, although it would incur a little coding, having an interface with limited access (eg. 10 dips per hour or day) would not cut into commercial sales. In fact it might be possible to monetize such a site. No? |
|
 nightshade74Yet another genxer
Premium Member
join:2004-11-06
Prattville, AL |
I've been very happy with "callwithus.com" I see the ability to add paypal funds starts at $5. If you use the API you can do A CNAM dip cost $0.006 A LRN lookup cost $0.0003 Their web interface does both costing $0.0063 This should give you 793 queries... |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada
4 edits |
to Ole Juul
said by Ole Juul:Fine, so charge. I just don't want a monthly subscription with $100 down. I'm sure the charges are fine, but I still have legitimate needs which are not met by those services.
An easy way to provide that service would be for VoIP providers to have it on their site for paying users. That would allow for a suitable charge without a billing problem. Perhaps some of them do that already. Callcentric doesn't.... So we are looking for a middle ground which has a lower upfront and/or monthly $$ commitment. In that regard, yes, CWU has an a-la-carte query form while you are logged in to their portal with at least a few pennies sitting in your account, and the costs are as stated by nightshade74. Anveo has it optionally toggled to all incoming calls configurable to each phone number (DID) that you have with them, drawing from your account funds pool. IIRC, each dip costs .9 cent, and only happens if the caller is not in your contacts list there, and also is not broadcasting OTF (Canadian-style) CNAM. CallCentric includes CNAM dips in all of their plans for inbound calls, IIRC. But neither CC nor Anveo seem to have an a-la-carte way to query. And do ANY of the US-based services (including the above-mentioned) have included a proper access to the Canadian databases(s) ? I agree that it would be hard for some of us to justify spending a flat $2 (example) more per month to have CNAM, when we in many cases only spend $2 per month for our DID, and in some cases this even includes free inbound calls. OTOH, look at how little overall value which many of us VoIPers so recently received from Bell landlines, for so much money spent per month ! |
|
nightshade74Yet another genxer
Premium Member
join:2004-11-06
Prattville, AL |
said by Davesnothere:But neither CC nor Anveo seem to have an a-la-carte way to query. FWIW -- Anveo seems to have an API... » www.anveo.com/api.asp?co ··· pi_type= |
|
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada |
Is that something which 'John Q. Public' would already know how to use, or maybe only some of us geeks ? The CWU one is just a form to fill, on one of the pages inside of their portal. |
|
nightshade74Yet another genxer
Premium Member
join:2004-11-06
Prattville, AL |
Yes... Obviously Anveo's and VOIPs target market is John Q Public. |
|
arpawocky
Premium Member
join:2014-04-13
Columbus, OH |
to Ole Juul
said by Ole Juul:Fine, so charge. I just don't want a monthly subscription with $100 down. I'm sure the charges are fine, but I still have legitimate needs which are not met by those services. CIDname.com is pay per query (less than $0.01/query) - no monthly subscription cnam.info has a $2.00 per month minimum If that kind of pricing is not reasonable, IDK what is. |
|
| |
to pinky321
I use phonevalidator.com to query if a number is google voice or VOIP or cell or landline.
It's free and easy to use |
|
arpawocky
Premium Member
join:2014-04-13
Columbus, OH |
said by imanogre:I use phonevalidator.com to query if a number is google voice or VOIP or cell or landline.
It's free and easy to use And doesnt check to see if a number is ported, and returns results based on original carrier. IE, it checks the thousands block of the number to see which carrier the thousands block is assigned to. Tested with a bunch of voip numbers that used to be with various wireless carriers way back when - all of them came up as wireless. |
|
| |
Right. That site is not very useful.
It does not check if a number has been ported, even several years ago.
As for my Google Voice number, it said "Voip possibly Skype or Vonage" and had the CLEC wrong as well.
That site would show Manhattan Island as still belonging to the Native Americans, and it would show Ronald Reagan as a Democrat! |
|
arpawocky
Premium Member
join:2014-04-13
Columbus, OH |
Hey now,
Ronald Reagan IS still a Democrat, and he lives (present tense) in California. Some database sourced in public records and proprietary data said so. People never change party affiliation, phone number, telecom carrier, email address, physical address, marital status, employer, gender, name, citizenship, etc. Once valid, always valid. It must be that way, since there is a huge industry based upon it being that way..... :P
Now, if only I could use that kind of broken logic to get into my ex-wife's pants one more time*
*I would never actually try to do that - My current wife would chop me up into little pieces, mix said pieces into concrete, and then redo the driveway.. |
|
| |
to arpawocky
said by arpawocky: CIDname.com is pay per query (less than $0.01/query) - no monthly subscription
cnam.info has a $2.00 per month minimum
If that kind of pricing is not reasonable, IDK what is. It certainly seems reasonable. For me, however, cnam.info would end up being between $1 and $2 per dip, which is a little steep. That's just me though, and the price is no doubt very reasonable for a heavy user. As for CIDname.com, that would be a great price (I'd gladly pay much more) but I'm not eligible for their service. |
|
arpawocky
Premium Member
join:2014-04-13
Columbus, OH |
said by Ole Juul:As for CIDname.com, that would be a great price (I'd gladly pay much more) but I'm not eligible for their service. Why not eligible? Due to being in Canada, or some other reason? |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada
2 edits |
to arpawocky
said by arpawocky:said by imanogre:I use phonevalidator.com to query if a number is google voice or VOIP or cell or landline.
It's free and easy to use And doesnt check to see if a number is ported, and returns results based on original carrier. IE, it checks the thousands block of the number to see which carrier the thousands block is assigned to. Tested with a bunch of voip numbers that used to be with various wireless carriers way back when - all of them came up as wireless. It says that my 2 numbers are still Bell Canada landlines, when one went to VoIP and the other to Cell, each some time ago. So Phoney-Validator.com seemed to just look at the originally assigned NPA-NXX, which is not good enough. Even TNID did no better in that regard, during its elevenure. The only lookup which got the current CLEC right was FreeRevCell, which is gone too now. Last time I checked, CWU did not yield the current CLEC (or any CLEC ?). Not everyone cares to know the CLEC, but sometimes it matters to me. Getting the CNAM right OUGHT to be a defacto standard, yet many threads like this one each seem to conclude that even CNAM lookups have a long way to go. |
|
PuffertyPerpetual Newbie
join:2014-07-07
Rockville, MD |
said by Davesnothere:Getting the CNAM right OUGHT to be a defacto standard, yet many threads like this one each seem to conclude that even CNAM lookups have a long way to go. I guess my earlier statement in this thread stands. |
|
1 recommendation |
to arpawocky
said by arpawocky:Why not eligible? Due to being in Canada, or some other reason? Yes, the signup form requires a State and a US zip code. I suppose I could lie, but that's not my style. You know, I have no problem with their service being for US residents only. Perhaps too, they only have a US database. That's all fair enough. It would however be more transparent to declare both of those, or whatever really applies, at the top of their web page. I don't want to harp too much on that subject in this thread, but I'm tired of these kinds of companies who haven't yet discovered that the internet is a world phenomenon and that their page is advertised for all and sundry to see. Frankly, I think it's both provincial and rude. |
|
| |
CIDname.com says: Blame Canada.said by Ole Juul:....Yes, the [CIDname.com] signup form requires a State and a US zip code. I suppose I could lie, but that's not my style.
You know, I have no problem with their service being for US residents only. Perhaps too, they only have a US database. That's all fair enough. It would however be more transparent to declare both of those, or whatever really applies, at the top of their web page. I don't want to harp too much on that subject in this thread, but I'm tired of these kinds of companies who haven't yet discovered that the internet is a world phenomenon and that their page is advertised for all and sundry to see. Frankly, I think it's both provincial and rude.... And ironically, even though Canadians are not allowed to sign up, they ALSO say: Coverage includes all of the United States and Canada. So while I agree with you, I think that even worse than rudeness and provincialism, is the combination of ignorance and bad programming! |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada |
to Pufferty
Re: tnid.us gone!? Can others confirm it?said by Pufferty:said by Davesnothere:Getting the CNAM right OUGHT to be a defacto standard, yet many threads like this one each seem to conclude that even CNAM lookups have a long way to go. I guess my earlier statement in this thread stands. You made several, plus some questions. (I THINK you are agreeing with me.) |
|
| Davesnothere |
to Ole Juul
said by Ole Juul:....Frankly, I think it's both provincial and rude. Not only THAT, it's also opaque.  |
|
PuffertyPerpetual Newbie
join:2014-07-07
Rockville, MD |
to Davesnothere
|
|
