Re: Incoming phone # on the billing statement

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 12:02:10 -0500, The Ghost of General Lee
<ghost@general.lee> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the
universe, and everything:

>On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 05:03:34 GMT, David S
><dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
>
>>BUT I *used to* get incoming numbers on my VZW bill. That changed in the
>>spring of 2003.
>>
>>I don't know if I was switched to a different billing system then, but
>>obviously at least one system *was* programmed to capture CID and/or ANI.
>
>You must have been switched. I've been a VZW/BANM/BAM customer for
>over 9 years, and I've never had incoming call numbers listed on my
>bills.

But they didn't say it was because of a billing system switch, they said it
was "privacy."

--
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.
"I know how France can be: the wine, the cheese, a little Jerry Lewis in
the night, la vie sur la [something]..." - Joshua Nankin

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 03:55:03 GMT, David S
<dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

>>You must have been switched. I've been a VZW/BANM/BAM customer for
>>over 9 years, and I've never had incoming call numbers listed on my
>>bills.
>
>But they didn't say it was because of a billing system switch, they said it
>was "privacy."

I'll bet "they" don't know their ass from a hole in the ground,
either.

I believe that's what you were told (it's quite characteristic for
them, actually), but I don't think VZW is being honest about the true
reason. It's easier to shut someone up by telling them it's due to
"privacy" concerns rather than investigate or admit what the true
issue is.

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:42:54 -0400, The Ghost of General Lee
<ghost@general.lee> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the
universe, and everything:

>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:15:49 GMT, hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <ju3gn0pj9hbnc5eastl8v59enov815lcvl@4ax.com>,
>> <ilikegame@game.com> wrote:
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I'm curious to find out how many people would like to see incoming
>>>phone# on their billing statement.
>>>
>>>Verizon indicated due the privacy issue, they do not show the incoming
>>>phone #. But I think every service providers do show incoming phone#
>>>on their statement.
>>
>>Their privacy issue is totally bogus. They could honor the CID "block"
>>flag and show the calling number in the bill if the call was not blocked,
>>just like it is handled on the phone at the time the call is received. It
>>is complete nonsense that it is a privacy issue on the bill, but not
>>when the CID shows up on your phone. They just don't want to bother to
>>have the CID captured for the billing system.
>
>In VZW's defense, it is a considerable programming job, especially
>since they don't even have all of their billing systems fully combined
>yet. I'd imagine their programming staff is pretty busy now.
>
>>Why honor the CID block flag on calls you are paying for, when 800 numbers
>>report the ANI unconditionally? Answer: When you call a toll-free number,
>>you should know that your ANI is unconditionally showing up at the other
>>end, but since wireless numbers are indistinguishable from landline
>>numbers (in the US/Canada, anyway), the caller to a wireless number
>>has an expectation that their number was not going to be revealed if
>>they block the CID.
>
>I'd buy into that argument if VZW offered anonymous call reject
>service. If a caller has the expectation of calling me and having me
>pay the charges, and expects to do it without disclosing his number,
>then I want the option to reject his call. I'm really surprised this
>feature hasn't been offered by now. My landline provider has for
>years, but why not VZW? Or Alltel? Or Sprint? Or Cingular?, etc.,
>etc.
>
>The basic truth of the matter is WATS service was a Bell product long
>before the breakup in 1984. The software for call routing and billing
>had always been written (under a single standard, set by AT&T) to
>provide the ANI number to the WATS customer. When cellular really
>started rolling in the mid to late 80's, CID was just catching on,
>too, and I'll bet it was simply a matter of not planning for passing
>the captured CID number to the billing system. The cellcos didn't
>grow up in the pre-breakup days, and some old habits (like ANI for
>WATS) never filtered down to the new companies.

BUT I *used to* get incoming numbers on my VZW bill. That changed in the
spring of 2003.

I don't know if I was switched to a different billing system then, but
obviously at least one system *was* programmed to capture CID and/or ANI.

--
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.
"Embrace your guppiness." - Det. Danny Sorensen

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 05:03:34 GMT, David S
<dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

>BUT I *used to* get incoming numbers on my VZW bill. That changed in the
>spring of 2003.
>
>I don't know if I was switched to a different billing system then, but
>obviously at least one system *was* programmed to capture CID and/or ANI.

You must have been switched. I've been a VZW/BANM/BAM customer for
over 9 years, and I've never had incoming call numbers listed on my
bills.