Re: National Access on AC Family plan

In article <1080269997.547721@sj-nntpcache-3>,
Quick <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote:
>
>"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:9L2dnSMPNvzFCP7d4p2dnA@adelphia.com...
>>
>> "Quick" <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote in message
>> news:1080267898.133140@sj-nntpcache-3...
>>
>> >
>> > This I would be very very surprised at. The switch knows
>> > who you are regardless of caller id blocking.
>> >
>>
>> I'd be just as surprised, but this, in combination to the inability to
>> provide incoming call detail, makes a guy wonder- is it possible that all
>of
>> the detail is not making its way into the billing software? True, the
>> switch does know both parties on a call, but could it be that the billing
>> software isn't intelligent enough (or have the functionality) to determine
>> more than the phone is in use when called? Could the billing software
>rely
>> on the actual CID information as the only source of identification? In
>this
>> case, that would certainly appear to be the case.
>
>No. It is the switch that talks (sends billing information) to the billing
>software.
>If the billing software can determine in-net when caller id is not blocked
>then it can determine in-net when the caller id is blocked.

I can understand (sort of) that for incoming calls, if caller id is
*unavailable*, that M2M might not apply. But that is unrelated to if the
caller "blocked" CID. "Unavailable" means that the CID information somehow
got dropped between the calling and called switch, usually due to obsolete
software somewhere in the path (e.g., a "mom-n-pop" cellular company).
But "blocking" by the user just sets a presentation bit in the CID info (
which is still sent down the network with the call), telling the final
switch not to send the info to end-user's phone. The VZW switch has
the info (which it can use for M2M determination), but won't send it to
the handset. This distinction is used in the landline system to allow
features like distinctive ringing, call-return, and selective blocking
to work even if the caller has "blocked" the CID.

"CharlesH" <hoch@exemplary.invalid> wrote
>
> I can understand (sort of) that for incoming calls, if caller id is
> *unavailable*, that M2M might not apply.

It should still apply and the billing software *could/should* correlate
the call. Otherwise it would be difficult to properly bill the calling
party right? If its a M2M then both parties are VZW numbers.
This could be difficult if the billing system is not unified but everything
has been switched over now hasn't it?

-Quick

In article <1080346844.611547@sj-nntpcache-3>,
Quick <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote:
>
>"CharlesH" <hoch@exemplary.invalid> wrote
>>
>> I can understand (sort of) that for incoming calls, if caller id is
>> *unavailable*, that M2M might not apply.
>
>It should still apply and the billing software *could/should* correlate
>the call. Otherwise it would be difficult to properly bill the calling
>party right? If its a M2M then both parties are VZW numbers.
>This could be difficult if the billing system is not unified but everything
>has been switched over now hasn't it?

If it is a call from a VZW user roaming on Podunk Bar & Grill & Cellular,
the VZW switch may not be getting any info about the caller. Only later,
when PB&G&C sends the roaming bill to VZW, would VZW discover that the
call was from a VZW user. I know that the roamer had to be authenticated
by PB&G&C by verifying the phone status with VZW, but I can reasonably
believe that that would be a different system. But your point is taken
that at the point when VZW gets the bill, the VZW billing system would
be told the caller's number and recognize one of its own.

"CharlesH" <hoch@exemplary.invalid> wrote in message
news:c42k8k0sg2@enews3.newsguy.com...
> In article <1080346844.611547@sj-nntpcache-3>,
> Quick <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote:
> >
> >"CharlesH" <hoch@exemplary.invalid> wrote
> >>
> >> I can understand (sort of) that for incoming calls, if caller id is
> >> *unavailable*, that M2M might not apply.
> >
> >It should still apply and the billing software *could/should* correlate
> >the call. Otherwise it would be difficult to properly bill the calling
> >party right? If its a M2M then both parties are VZW numbers.
> >This could be difficult if the billing system is not unified but
everything
> >has been switched over now hasn't it?
>
> If it is a call from a VZW user roaming on Podunk Bar & Grill & Cellular,
> the VZW switch may not be getting any info about the caller. Only later,
> when PB&G&C sends the roaming bill to VZW, would VZW discover that the
> call was from a VZW user. I know that the roamer had to be authenticated
> by PB&G&C by verifying the phone status with VZW, but I can reasonably
> believe that that would be a different system. But your point is taken
> that at the point when VZW gets the bill, the VZW billing system would
> be told the caller's number and recognize one of its own.

True. This should only effect the billing of the called number and not the
caller's billing (if the caller originated from Podunk it wouldn't show on
the bill until the info got to VZW).

I'm too lazy to read the feature details but I'm assuming that calling and
called have to be "In Net". So your example would assume that Podunk
is a VZW extended network partner?

-Quick

In article <1080353482.48914@sj-nntpcache-5>,
Quick <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote:
>I'm too lazy to read the feature details but I'm assuming that calling and
>called have to be "In Net". So your example would assume that Podunk
>is a VZW extended network partner?

A response from VZW "contact us" told me that both callers need *not*
both be in VZW systems (or even extended network), but only the phone
which was "In Net" would be billed per M2M. My example intended to
suggest that "Podunk" was a small local company which did not have very
sophisticated networking capability.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:28:55 -0700, "Scott Stephenson"
<scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> chose to add this to the great equation
of life, the universe, and everything:

>"Quick" <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote in message
>news:1080267898.133140@sj-nntpcache-3...
>
>> This I would be very very surprised at. The switch knows
>> who you are regardless of caller id blocking.
>
>I'd be just as surprised, but this, in combination to the inability to
>provide incoming call detail, makes a guy wonder- is it possible that all of
>the detail is not making its way into the billing software? True, the

It's not inability, it's refusal. A year ago, my bill showed who my
incoming calls came from. A couple months later, they stopped. When I
inquired about it, they gave me some BS about privacy. AFAIAA, the Chicago
market did not have a change in billing system then.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Statistics show that teen pregnancy drops off significantly after age 25."
- Mary Anne Tebedo, Republican state senator from Colorado Springs

"David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
news:lote609iknb9otea5ahgdp0r1v18kvr2m6@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:28:55 -0700, "Scott Stephenson"
> <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> chose to add this to the great equation
> of life, the universe, and everything:
>
> >"Quick" <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote in message
> >news:1080267898.133140@sj-nntpcache-3...
> >
> >> This I would be very very surprised at. The switch knows
> >> who you are regardless of caller id blocking.
> >
> >I'd be just as surprised, but this, in combination to the inability to
> >provide incoming call detail, makes a guy wonder- is it possible that all
of
> >the detail is not making its way into the billing software? True, the
>
> It's not inability, it's refusal. A year ago, my bill showed who my
> incoming calls came from. A couple months later, they stopped. When I
> inquired about it, they gave me some BS about privacy. AFAIAA, the Chicago
> market did not have a change in billing system then.

Privacy/showing who incoming calls come from is one issue -- I feel you
pain.
Billing them as M2M or not is an independent issue.

-Quick

"CharlesH" <hoch@exemplary.invalid> wrote
> In article <1080353482.48914@sj-nntpcache-5>,
> Quick <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote:
> >I'm too lazy to read the feature details but I'm assuming that calling
and
> >called have to be "In Net". So your example would assume that Podunk
> >is a VZW extended network partner?
>
> A response from VZW "contact us" told me that both callers need *not*
> both be in VZW systems (or even extended network), but only the phone
> which was "In Net" would be billed per M2M. My example intended to
> suggest that "Podunk" was a small local company which did not have very
> sophisticated networking capability.

Yes, I understood that. They have to know the calling number (or at least
the
ESN if its not one of their's) and the called number. Those would be given
to VZW when billed and could be correlated then.

I wonder if they will change the ERI to match the new terminology.
Have it say something like "Verizon In Net"?

-Quick

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:46:55 -0800, "Quick" <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:

>"David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
>news:lote609iknb9otea5ahgdp0r1v18kvr2m6@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:28:55 -0700, "Scott Stephenson"
>> <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> chose to add this to the great equation
>> of life, the universe, and everything:
>>
>> >"Quick" <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1080267898.133140@sj-nntpcache-3...
>> >
>> >> This I would be very very surprised at. The switch knows
>> >> who you are regardless of caller id blocking.
>> >
>> >I'd be just as surprised, but this, in combination to the inability to
>> >provide incoming call detail, makes a guy wonder- is it possible that all of
>> >the detail is not making its way into the billing software? True, the
>>
>> It's not inability, it's refusal. A year ago, my bill showed who my
>> incoming calls came from. A couple months later, they stopped. When I
>> inquired about it, they gave me some BS about privacy. AFAIAA, the Chicago
>> market did not have a change in billing system then.
>
>Privacy/showing who incoming calls come from is one issue -- I feel you pain.
>Billing them as M2M or not is an independent issue.

I'm just saying that they can't use "inability to provide incoming detail"
as an excuse for not billing IN correctly.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Ah, sure, I know, but aren't they *all* witches inside?" - Bugs Bunny

"Peter Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c3vfak$2a23a9$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
> The MOU (Minutes Of Use) is a description of the effect, not an actual name.
> IE the Minutes you are online (whether prime or non-prime) are charged as
> Minutes of Use (one minute charged to your plan for one minute used)

And if the browser connection times out or is interrupted, it's
entirley possible to get billed for three minutes of use, within one
minute of actual time:-(
I guess that's just like making three phone calls within one minute.
However, re-connections are less noticable, when using the wireless
web.

-
David