If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by danny burstein on March 1, 2009, 11:14 am
background: This company lets users of _some_ cellular phones,
when receiving a "blocked-CNID" call, hit a few buttons, and
then, through some magic, the CNID appears.
I've just duplicated the probable sequence using my own cellphone,
(without using TelTech) and yes, I was able to get the "blocked"
CNID to appear.
The trick, so to speak, is two fold:
a: when you "bounce" or "forward" a call aimed at a cellphone
(at least of some companies), that second call is treated by
the phone network, in many aspects, as a brand new one from
the original caller - but this time to the third party. Hence
the CNID is transmitted (unless blocked) to that third party.
b: calls to "toll free" numbers such as "1-800" _do_ pass
along the CNID even when "blocked". (ok, often it's ANI
rather than CNID, but the concept is the same).
So... I set up my cell phone to bounce (when I hit a key)
the calls to my own toll free number [a], which routed to
my landline. I then made some tests.
First, calling my cellphone using a "blocked" CNID (by prepending
the "*67) did, as expected, get me a "private call"
(that is, no CNID) on the display.
I then made another blocked call to the cellphone, which, as before,
got a "private" flag. I "bounced" the call to my tollfree number,
which routed to my landline. And eyup, a couple of seconds later
my landline rang _and_ it displayed the CNID.
Finally, I reset my tollfree number to route to my cellphone.
I wasn't sure whether I could "bounce" a call from my cellphone,
out to the tollfree number, and then back to my cellphone.
It worked. When I called my cellphone (again, with a
blocked CNID), the initial display said "private". I hit
the "bounce" key, it routed out _and back_ through the
tollfree vendor, and eyup, I got to see the CNID.
[a] I use "kall8" as my "tollfree" supplier. Their rates
are decent, although not the greatest. Their key advantage
is their realtime web-based control page, letting you
designate the "real" number the tollfree one routes to
with just a few clickthroughs. They also have very good
management options - such as deciding which areas can
get through to you and which should be blocked, also
via that real time interface.
Oh, and the calls I made immediately showed up on their
web page, and the billing info also appeared in my e-mail
inbox a moment later. This included the CNID...
No other connection with them except as a satisfied customer.
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
***** Moderator's Note *****
Privacy, like spam, is an arms race. The US/Canada phone
system uses a "Payee wins" paradigm, where the company
paying for the call gets to know which number dialed it
even if the caller doesn't like that; ergo, toll-free
numbers pass along ANI info.
In the future, however, we might change to a bidding model,
where a caller can pay more for privacy than a recipient
is willing to bid to know the number.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
Please put [Telecom] at the end of your subject line, or I may never
see your post! Thanks!
We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator
atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via
email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the
digest, you don't need to change anything.
|
|
Posted by Robert Bonomi on March 24, 2009, 1:25 pm
the Telecom Digest Temporary Moderator wrote:
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>Privacy, like spam, is an arms race. The US/Canada phone
>system uses a "Payee wins" paradigm, where the company
>paying for the call gets to know which number dialed it
>even if the caller doesn't like that; ergo, toll-free
>numbers pass along ANI info.
>In the future, however, we might change to a bidding model,
>where a caller can pay more for privacy than a recipient
>is willing to bid to know the number.
That will -never- happen. For one simple reason -- if the paying
party cannot tell where _both_ endpoints of the call are, they
cannot tell if they are being charged properly for the call.
Making it impossible to tell if (read as "how much" to be more accurate :-\ )
they are being overcharged by their "carrier of choice".
There's a _reason_ that an entire industry exists for 'auditing'
phone bills for accuracy. <wry -- *very* WRY -- grin>
***** Moderator's Note *****
I wasn't talking about the mileage-sensitive part of the _call_, but
rather about the idea of bidding on the charge for knowing or
concealing the identity of the caller, which is a simple process that
could be handled with SS7 datagrams during call setup.
The process would be simple:
a. Originating end sends bid for privacy with call originate message
b. Terminating end sends binary decision and amount to charge/credit
c. Call proceeds normally.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
Please put [Telecom] at the end of your subject line, or I may never
see your post! Thanks!
We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator
atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via
email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the
digest, you don't need to change anything.
|
|
Posted by Gordon Burditt on March 24, 2009, 10:09 pm
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>I wasn't talking about the mileage-sensitive part of the _call_, but
>rather about the idea of bidding on the charge for knowing or
>concealing the identity of the caller, which is a simple process that
>could be handled with SS7 datagrams during call setup.
>The process would be simple:
>a. Originating end sends bid for privacy with call originate message
>b. Terminating end sends binary decision and amount to charge/credit
>c. Call proceeds normally.
>Bill Horne
>Temporary Moderator
I think this is *TOO* simple. It doesn't contain any provision for
aborting the call at the request of the loser of the bid (whichever
end that is).
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: update on TeleTrap from TelTech Systems [telecom] | March 2, 2009, 5:32 pm |
| TeleTrap from TelTech Systems [Telecom] | February 18, 2009, 6:42 pm |
| Re: TeleTrap from TelTech Systems [Telecom] | February 18, 2009, 8:02 pm |
| Re: TeleTrap from TelTech Systems [Telecom] | February 21, 2009, 11:36 am |
| Re: TeleTrap from TelTech Systems [Telecom] | February 22, 2009, 7:51 pm |
| Phone Systems [Telecom] | April 16, 2009, 10:32 pm |
| Manual and Magneto Phone Systems [Telecom] | August 15, 2008, 10:50 am |
| Multiline expandable cordless systems [Telecom] | September 5, 2008, 10:40 am |
| Question on ESI Communications Phone Systems [Telecom] | December 12, 2009, 1:18 am |
| Product Reviews of Online Voicemail Systems [Telecom] | June 29, 2008, 7:48 am |
|
|
![update on TeleTrap from TelTech Systems [telecom]](/images/header.jpg)
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map
>Privacy, like spam, is an arms race. The US/Canada phone
>system uses a "Payee wins" paradigm, where the company
>paying for the call gets to know which number dialed it
>even if the caller doesn't like that; ergo, toll-free
>numbers pass along ANI info.
>In the future, however, we might change to a bidding model,
>where a caller can pay more for privacy than a recipient
>is willing to bid to know the number.