Caller ID Incoming Calls (Billing)

Is there any "real" reason that Sprint does not provide the caller ID for
incoming calls on the monthly invoice? It seems that if they can send the
ID information to your phone they could capture it for billing for no
additional effort than printing "INCOMING" on your invoice instead of the
number.

They don't want to emnbaress people in case a signifiant other sees the bill?

In article <6Zbtb.5274$uw5.1270@fe2.columbus.rr.com>,=20
scannellscannell@columbus.rr.com says...
> Is there any "real" reason that Sprint does not provide the caller ID for
> incoming calls on the monthly invoice? It seems that if they can send th=
e
> ID information to your phone they could capture it for billing for no
> additional effort than printing "INCOMING" on your invoice instead of the
> number.

From what I understand, Phill's onto the basic idea. It's a=20
privacy thing.

--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.

411 and operator assisted calls used to also not show the number you were
connected through, I think for the very same reason.

I know in the coming data is a hot mess coming from various local & wireless
networks. Some send name & number, others the state & number, some just the
number, some nothing at all. I think the lack of any kind of standard would
also hamper putting the info on the bill.

Do other carriers have the incoming call data on their invoices?

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a1f6ba8a0bd7ecd989881@netnews.comcast.ne t...
In article <6Zbtb.5274$uw5.1270@fe2.columbus.rr.com>,
scannellscannell@columbus.rr.com says...
> Is there any "real" reason that Sprint does not provide the caller ID for
> incoming calls on the monthly invoice? It seems that if they can send the
> ID information to your phone they could capture it for billing for no
> additional effort than printing "INCOMING" on your invoice instead of the
> number.

From what I understand, Phill's onto the basic idea. It's a
privacy thing.

--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.

> In article <6Zbtb.5274$uw5.1270@fe2.columbus.rr.com>,
> scannellscannell@columbus.rr.com says...
>> Is there any "real" reason that Sprint does not provide the caller ID for
>> incoming calls on the monthly invoice? It seems that if they can send the
>> ID information to your phone they could capture it for billing for no
>> additional effort than printing "INCOMING" on your invoice instead of the
>> number.
>
> From what I understand, Phill's onto the basic idea. It's a
> privacy thing.

My right to know who's costing me money trumps the caller's right to
privacy. The caller doesn't get to hide their Caller ID when calling my
toll-free numbers, since toll-free numbers have Automatic Number ID which
works even if you've blocked CLID. That works for me, as I pay incoming
long-distance charges for those calls. The same thing should hold with
incoming calls to a cell.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net

Steven J Sobol wrote:

>> In article <6Zbtb.5274$uw5.1270@fe2.columbus.rr.com>,
>> scannellscannell@columbus.rr.com says...
>>> Is there any "real" reason that Sprint does not provide the caller ID
>>> for
>>> incoming calls on the monthly invoice? It seems that if they can send
>>> the ID information to your phone they could capture it for billing for
>>> no additional effort than printing "INCOMING" on your invoice instead of
>>> the number.
>>
>> From what I understand, Phill's onto the basic idea. It's a
>> privacy thing.
>
> My right to know who's costing me money trumps the caller's right to
> privacy. The caller doesn't get to hide their Caller ID when calling my
> toll-free numbers, since toll-free numbers have Automatic Number ID which
> works even if you've blocked CLID. That works for me, as I pay incoming
> long-distance charges for those calls. The same thing should hold with
> incoming calls to a cell.
>


Isn't this thread about the number appearing on the invoice? By then, its a
done deal. If you're so concerned about the cost, don't answer the phone
when a strange number comes up. The number appearing or not appearing on
the invoice does not do anything to help reduce cost. That is done when
you decide whether or not to say 'hello'.

Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>> My right to know who's costing me money trumps the caller's right to
>> privacy. The caller doesn't get to hide their Caller ID when calling my
>> toll-free numbers, since toll-free numbers have Automatic Number ID which
>> works even if you've blocked CLID. That works for me, as I pay incoming
>> long-distance charges for those calls. The same thing should hold with
>> incoming calls to a cell.
>
> Isn't this thread about the number appearing on the invoice? By then, its a
> done deal.

If they have CLID blocked, the number won't show up on the phone display.


> If you're so concerned about the cost, don't answer the phone
> when a strange number comes up. The number appearing or not appearing on
> the invoice does not do anything to help reduce cost.

Understood, but that's not what I'm saying. What I *am* saying is that since
I am expected to pay for all calls, either by minutes taken out of my monthly
allotment or by per-minute charges for overages, I have a right to expect a
full accounting. In fact, it may be difficult for me to ignore calls that are
from numbers I don't recognize, as they may be from new or prospective
clients (my cell phone number is on my business cards, so I expect that at
least some people will use it).

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 22:57:40 -0600, "Fellow Traveler"
<Noemail@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>Do other carriers have the incoming call data on their invoices?
>

In the days T-mobile was Aerial, the ALL numbers were on the invoice -
Calls IN and OUT.

In article <W4-dnb2OfMdw5yuiRVn-jA@lmi.net>, sjsobol@JustThe.net says...
> Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >> My right to know who's costing me money trumps the caller's right to
> >> privacy. The caller doesn't get to hide their Caller ID when calling my
> >> toll-free numbers, since toll-free numbers have Automatic Number ID which
> >> works even if you've blocked CLID. That works for me, as I pay incoming
> >> long-distance charges for those calls. The same thing should hold with
> >> incoming calls to a cell.
> >
> > Isn't this thread about the number appearing on the invoice? By then, its a
> > done deal.
>
> If they have CLID blocked, the number won't show up on the phone display.
>
>
> > If you're so concerned about the cost, don't answer the phone
> > when a strange number comes up. The number appearing or not appearing on
> > the invoice does not do anything to help reduce cost.
>
> Understood, but that's not what I'm saying. What I *am* saying is that since
> I am expected to pay for all calls, either by minutes taken out of my monthly
> allotment or by per-minute charges for overages, I have a right to expect a
> full accounting. In fact, it may be difficult for me to ignore calls that are
> from numbers I don't recognize, as they may be from new or prospective
> clients (my cell phone number is on my business cards, so I expect that at
> least some people will use it).
>
>
Not to mention that since we are charged for minutes used by
voicemail, even if as suggested earlier we don't answer calls, if the
caller leaves vmail, we still get charged.

I agree with wanting my in/out call numbers listed on my bill. It was
one of the things I used to like about CellOne/Airtouch years ago.
Shame they dropped it.

My thoughts, if you are attached to someone, you deserve to get caught
if you are trying to hide stuff from them.

"Stromm Sarnac" <strommsarnac@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a20a9d6b334c9849898d9@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
<snipped>

> Not to mention that since we are charged for minutes used by
> voicemail, even if as suggested earlier we don't answer calls, if the
> caller leaves vmail, we still get charged.
>

Yes and no. If you call your voicemail via your cell phone, minutes are
used. If you dial your voice mail via landline, no minutes are used. More
more point to make. If you aren't exceeding your monthly plan allocated
minutes, you aren't charged when using your cellular minutes.

> I agree with wanting my in/out call numbers listed on my bill. It was
> one of the things I used to like about CellOne/Airtouch years ago.
> Shame they dropped it.
>
> My thoughts, if you are attached to someone, you deserve to get caught
> if you are trying to hide stuff from them.

Well, some folks will agree with that, and some won't.

Bob

O/Siris wrote in message ...

> From what I understand, Phill's onto the basic idea. It's a
> privacy thing.



I've heard that.

My reply was, what if nobody at all called with their number blocked. Then
all the numbers where thrown away with no need to.

I for one, have had cell phones that listed the incoming number. It was
really neat when I wanted to know if an incoming call was work related or
not. Too bad none of the ones that used to do that, do it any more.

I have my cell phone setup so it will not ring on "Private" or "Unknown" and
I think that works out pretty well. The problem is, I also forward my home
number to my cell and I will get a whole string of "Unknown" callers that
end up going to voice mail.

I've been thinking of changing my voicemail prompt so it tells them, my
phone will not even ring if you show up as "Private" or "Unknown."

For some people that use their personal phone for work and business,
it would be nice to be able to show to your work which incoming calls
were work related on an expense report if they dont cover your whole
bill, just the work calls. (not a diss on you Scott, I respect your
writings in this NG. just letting you know how some people expense
their cell phone bill)


> Isn't this thread about the number appearing on the invoice? By then, its a
> done deal. If you're so concerned about the cost, don't answer the phone
> when a strange number comes up. The number appearing or not appearing on
> the invoice does not do anything to help reduce cost. That is done when
> you decide whether or not to say 'hello'.

JWP7000 wrote:

> For some people that use their personal phone for work and business,
> it would be nice to be able to show to your work which incoming calls
> were work related on an expense report if they dont cover your whole
> bill, just the work calls. (not a diss on you Scott, I respect your
> writings in this NG. just letting you know how some people expense
> their cell phone bill)
>
>

I uderstand what everyone is saying here, and expensing calls is certainly a
legitimate point. I think the best you could ever expect is a listing of
the numbers themselves- I'm not aware of any 'master list' tying names to
numbers, so the ability to see who it was that called is going to be a
tough hurdle.

What burns my ass is that most (if not all) cellular companies are getting
away from detailed billing, unless you want to pay a premium for it.
Steven makes a great point that if you are being charged by the minute, you
should be able to see not only the numnber of minutes you use, but the
detail of those minutes to track errors. I don't worry about it myself (my
primary cell is paid for for by my employer), but I know a lot of people
that would sleep better at night if they could reconcile their account
every month.

Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

> I uderstand what everyone is saying here, and expensing calls is certainly a
> legitimate point. I think the best you could ever expect is a listing of
> the numbers themselves- I'm not aware of any 'master list' tying names to
> numbers, so the ability to see who it was that called is going to be a
> tough hurdle.
>
> What burns my ass is that most (if not all) cellular companies are getting
> away from detailed billing, unless you want to pay a premium for it.

Yep. Verizon is doing it - the only reason I didn't have to pay for it when
I moved my account from Ohio to California is because I was grandfathered;
I already had free detailed billing in Ohio. And actually, I did get charged
last month (it was a mistake, and they credited it, but...)

> Steven makes a great point that if you are being charged by the minute, you
> should be able to see not only the numnber of minutes you use, but the
> detail of those minutes to track errors. I don't worry about it myself (my
> primary cell is paid for for by my employer), but I know a lot of people
> that would sleep better at night if they could reconcile their account
> every month.

Yup. I don't generally demand free stuff from the cellular companies, but
no one should be charging for detailed billing (IMHO).

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net

I am not sure under the broader context of "Privacy" that incoming would be
any different than outgoing.

scannell
cols. oh

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a1f6ba8a0bd7ecd989881@netnews.comcast.ne t...
In article <6Zbtb.5274$uw5.1270@fe2.columbus.rr.com>,
scannellscannell@columbus.rr.com says...
> Is there any "real" reason that Sprint does not provide the caller ID for
> incoming calls on the monthly invoice? It seems that if they can send the
> ID information to your phone they could capture it for billing for no
> additional effort than printing "INCOMING" on your invoice instead of the
> number.

From what I understand, Phill's onto the basic idea. It's a
privacy thing.

--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.