why no name with caller id number?

The phones I've had and those of some friends all just show a number
for caller ID but not a name. On my home phone these same callers will
show with name and number. Is it certain phones, or certain services,
or the whole cell/mobile system that drops the name? And why? Caller ID
looses most of its value when the name is dropped.

Thanks,
Tom

---

› See More: why no name with caller id number?

In message <[email protected]>
"njem" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The phones I've had and those of some friends all just show a number
>for caller ID but not a name. On my home phone these same callers will
>show with name and number. Is it certain phones, or certain services,
>or the whole cell/mobile system that drops the name? And why? Caller ID
>looses most of its value when the name is dropped.

Rogers is just starting to roll out name display, but other then that,
I'm not aware of any cell phone companies which offer name display
inbound or outbound.

--
The Dalai Lama visited the White House and told the president that
he could teach him to find a higher state of consciousness.

Then after talking to Bush for a few minutes, he said,
"You know what? Let's just grab lunch."

-- Bill Maher

At 12 Sep 2006 18:12:59 -0500 DevilsPGD wrote:

> Rogers is just starting to roll out name display, but other then that,
> I'm not aware of any cell phone companies which offer name display
> inbound or outbound.

Inbound, I don't know of any US providers, but T-Mo provides my name on
my outbound calls to landlines (at least about 75% of the time- the other
times it says "wireless caller"!)




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In message <[email protected]> Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

>At 12 Sep 2006 18:12:59 -0500 DevilsPGD wrote:
>
>> Rogers is just starting to roll out name display, but other then that,
>> I'm not aware of any cell phone companies which offer name display
>> inbound or outbound.
>
>Inbound, I don't know of any US providers, but T-Mo provides my name on
>my outbound calls to landlines (at least about 75% of the time- the other
>times it says "wireless caller"!)

Prepaid or post-paid? Last I checked my prepaid doesn't, but I haven't
haven't been to the US in a couple months.

--
The preceding post may have contained foul language,
and should not have been read by young children.

At 13 Sep 2006 06:24:29 +0000 DevilsPGD wrote:

> >Inbound, I don't know of any US providers, but T-Mo provides my name on
> >my outbound calls to landlines (at least about 75% of the time- the
other
> >times it says "wireless caller"!)
>
> Prepaid or post-paid? Last I checked my prepaid doesn't, but I haven't
> haven't been to the US in a couple months.
>
Postpaid. My wife's prepaid doesn't show my name on outgoing calls, even
though I gave T-Mo my name and address on the prepaid account.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

At 13 Sep 2006 06:24:29 +0000 DevilsPGD wrote:

> >Inbound, I don't know of any US providers, but T-Mo provides my name on
> >my outbound calls to landlines (at least about 75% of the time- the
other
> >times it says "wireless caller"!)
>
> Prepaid or post-paid? Last I checked my prepaid doesn't, but I haven't
> haven't been to the US in a couple months.
>
Postpaid. My wife's prepaid doesn't show my name on outgoing calls, even
though I gave T-Mo my name and address on the prepaid account.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In message <[email protected]> Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

>At 13 Sep 2006 06:24:29 +0000 DevilsPGD wrote:
>
>> >Inbound, I don't know of any US providers, but T-Mo provides my name on
>> >my outbound calls to landlines (at least about 75% of the time- the
>other
>> >times it says "wireless caller"!)
>>
>> Prepaid or post-paid? Last I checked my prepaid doesn't, but I haven't
>> haven't been to the US in a couple months.
>>
>Postpaid. My wife's prepaid doesn't show my name on outgoing calls, even
>though I gave T-Mo my name and address on the prepaid account.

Ahh... I'm prepaid too, and T-Mobile definitely has my information...

--
Nobody ever suspects the butterfly.

In message <[email protected]> Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

>At 13 Sep 2006 06:24:29 +0000 DevilsPGD wrote:
>
>> >Inbound, I don't know of any US providers, but T-Mo provides my name on
>> >my outbound calls to landlines (at least about 75% of the time- the
>other
>> >times it says "wireless caller"!)
>>
>> Prepaid or post-paid? Last I checked my prepaid doesn't, but I haven't
>> haven't been to the US in a couple months.
>>
>Postpaid. My wife's prepaid doesn't show my name on outgoing calls, even
>though I gave T-Mo my name and address on the prepaid account.

Ahh... I'm prepaid too, and T-Mobile definitely has my information...

--
Nobody ever suspects the butterfly.

Marina <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> At 12 Sep 2006 18:12:59 -0500 DevilsPGD wrote:
>>
>>> Rogers is just starting to roll out name display, but other then
>>> that, I'm not aware of any cell phone companies which offer name
>>> display inbound or outbound.
>>
>> Inbound, I don't know of any US providers, but T-Mo provides my name
>> on my outbound calls to landlines (at least about 75% of the time-
>> the other times it says "wireless caller"!)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I have Tracfone. I get just the phone numbers on Inbound calls. When
> I call out my phone number appears on the landline caller ID.
> Sometimes it just says Wireless Caller.
>

This one of my major complaints. At some point in Cell phone history,
someone had to have made a conscious decision to not display name
information. That makes my blood boil! arrrgh! WHY??!?

buck

buck rojerz <[email protected]> wrote in news:Xns983F8E8683650ou812@
216.168.3.50:

> This one of my major complaints. At some point in Cell phone history,
> someone had to have made a conscious decision to not display name
> information. That makes my blood boil! arrrgh! WHY??!?
>
>

Just follow the money trail.......

Someone calls you and you see it's John Smith, not 404-123-3434. You say
to yourself, "Geez, not again. He's an idiot and I don't want to talk to
him." So, you don't answer the call. John gives up and hangs up. The
cellphone company makes money on AIRTIME. You didn't use airtime, or worse
yet, overuse airtime...so they made nothing. So, to try to prevent this
from happening, the stupid decision by some company bureaucrat with nothing
else to do (like improve coverage) was made to NOT send nameservice data to
any cellphones, probably except for himself and the other company
bureaucrats. He think's John is an idiot, too, and HE certainly wants to
know when John calls...



--
There's amazing intelligence in the Universe.
You can tell because none of them ever called Earth.

Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> buck rojerz <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:Xns983F8E8683650ou812@ 216.168.3.50:
>
>> This one of my major complaints. At some point in Cell phone
>> history, someone had to have made a conscious decision to not display
>> name information. That makes my blood boil! arrrgh! WHY??!?
>>
>>
>
> Just follow the money trail.......
>
> Someone calls you and you see it's John Smith, not 404-123-3434. You
> say to yourself, "Geez, not again. He's an idiot and I don't want to
> talk to him." So, you don't answer the call. John gives up and hangs
> up. The cellphone company makes money on AIRTIME. You didn't use
> airtime, or worse yet, overuse airtime...so they made nothing. So, to
> try to prevent this from happening, the stupid decision by some
> company bureaucrat with nothing else to do (like improve coverage) was
> made to NOT send nameservice data to any cellphones, probably except
> for himself and the other company bureaucrats. He think's John is an
> idiot, too, and HE certainly wants to know when John calls...
>
>
>

A nice story but that is just that. A story. I respect your opinon, but I
disagree. The reason you have presented is not realistic. The same thing
can happen by observing the number.

I think there is another answer. I imagine that some greedy CEO has had
your thought, but this name thing was left out, a long time ago.

respectfully
buck

I suspect that it is a money thing...

If you think about it there are millions of cell phone numbers and you
NEED that information to activate the connection so there is little
overhead to pass that information along to the called phone since it
would be used in the connection diagnostics. Now the name related to
that number is additional information that represents an sizable
investment to pass on not to mention that the information can also
change.

Now if you were going to squeeze profits out of the customers, would
you spend the millions to pass on the name of the caller?

Not likely.

TMT
buck rojerz wrote:
> Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > buck rojerz <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:Xns983F8E8683650ou812@ 216.168.3.50:
> >
> >> This one of my major complaints. At some point in Cell phone
> >> history, someone had to have made a conscious decision to not display
> >> name information. That makes my blood boil! arrrgh! WHY??!?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Just follow the money trail.......
> >
> > Someone calls you and you see it's John Smith, not 404-123-3434. You
> > say to yourself, "Geez, not again. He's an idiot and I don't want to
> > talk to him." So, you don't answer the call. John gives up and hangs
> > up. The cellphone company makes money on AIRTIME. You didn't use
> > airtime, or worse yet, overuse airtime...so they made nothing. So, to
> > try to prevent this from happening, the stupid decision by some
> > company bureaucrat with nothing else to do (like improve coverage) was
> > made to NOT send nameservice data to any cellphones, probably except
> > for himself and the other company bureaucrats. He think's John is an
> > idiot, too, and HE certainly wants to know when John calls...
> >
> >
> >
>
> A nice story but that is just that. A story. I respect your opinon, but I
> disagree. The reason you have presented is not realistic. The same thing
> can happen by observing the number.
>
> I think there is another answer. I imagine that some greedy CEO has had
> your thought, but this name thing was left out, a long time ago.
>
> respectfully
> buck

"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I suspect that it is a money thing...
>
> If you think about it there are millions of cell phone numbers and you
> NEED that information to activate the connection so there is little
> overhead to pass that information along to the called phone since it
> would be used in the connection diagnostics. Now the name related to
> that number is additional information that represents an sizable
> investment to pass on not to mention that the information can also
> change.
>
> Now if you were going to squeeze profits out of the customers, would
> you spend the millions to pass on the name of the caller?
>
> Not likely.
>
> TMT
> buck rojerz wrote:
>> Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > buck rojerz <[email protected]> wrote in
>> > news:Xns983F8E8683650ou812@ 216.168.3.50:
>> >
>> >> This one of my major complaints. At some point in Cell phone
>> >> history, someone had to have made a conscious decision to not
>> >> display name information. That makes my blood boil! arrrgh!
>> >> WHY??!?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Just follow the money trail.......
>> >
>> > Someone calls you and you see it's John Smith, not 404-123-3434.
>> > You say to yourself, "Geez, not again. He's an idiot and I don't
>> > want to talk to him." So, you don't answer the call. John gives
>> > up and hangs up. The cellphone company makes money on AIRTIME.
>> > You didn't use airtime, or worse yet, overuse airtime...so they
>> > made nothing. So, to try to prevent this from happening, the
>> > stupid decision by some company bureaucrat with nothing else to do
>> > (like improve coverage) was made to NOT send nameservice data to
>> > any cellphones, probably except for himself and the other company
>> > bureaucrats. He think's John is an idiot, too, and HE certainly
>> > wants to know when John calls...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> A nice story but that is just that. A story. I respect your opinon,
>> but I disagree. The reason you have presented is not realistic. The
>> same thing can happen by observing the number.
>>
>> I think there is another answer. I imagine that some greedy CEO has
>> had your thought, but this name thing was left out, a long time ago.
>>
>> respectfully
>> buck
>
>

Millions(?)... just to pass along a dozen or so characters. *That* is not
likely. I believe that you may have lost your perspective. IMHO

buck

You need to take a look at the total cost.

Those "dozen characters" are information that costs money to deal
with...and times millions of phone numbers translates into considerable
money.

Also consider that the names related to the numbers will change...which
only adds to the costs...not the profits.

Using an example...if we sat your brother- in-law down with the
millions of names that would need to be entered correctly in relation
to their numbers...how long would take him?...and how much do you pay
him a hour?

Now is he worth the money you are paying him?

And of course the customer will want it for free. LOL.

TMT

buck rojerz wrote:
> "Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > I suspect that it is a money thing...
> >
> > If you think about it there are millions of cell phone numbers and you
> > NEED that information to activate the connection so there is little
> > overhead to pass that information along to the called phone since it
> > would be used in the connection diagnostics. Now the name related to
> > that number is additional information that represents an sizable
> > investment to pass on not to mention that the information can also
> > change.
> >
> > Now if you were going to squeeze profits out of the customers, would
> > you spend the millions to pass on the name of the caller?
> >
> > Not likely.
> >
> > TMT
> > buck rojerz wrote:
> >> Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> news:[email protected]:
> >>
> >> > buck rojerz <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> > news:Xns983F8E8683650ou812@ 216.168.3.50:
> >> >
> >> >> This one of my major complaints. At some point in Cell phone
> >> >> history, someone had to have made a conscious decision to not
> >> >> display name information. That makes my blood boil! arrrgh!
> >> >> WHY??!?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Just follow the money trail.......
> >> >
> >> > Someone calls you and you see it's John Smith, not 404-123-3434.
> >> > You say to yourself, "Geez, not again. He's an idiot and I don't
> >> > want to talk to him." So, you don't answer the call. John gives
> >> > up and hangs up. The cellphone company makes money on AIRTIME.
> >> > You didn't use airtime, or worse yet, overuse airtime...so they
> >> > made nothing. So, to try to prevent this from happening, the
> >> > stupid decision by some company bureaucrat with nothing else to do
> >> > (like improve coverage) was made to NOT send nameservice data to
> >> > any cellphones, probably except for himself and the other company
> >> > bureaucrats. He think's John is an idiot, too, and HE certainly
> >> > wants to know when John calls...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> A nice story but that is just that. A story. I respect your opinon,
> >> but I disagree. The reason you have presented is not realistic. The
> >> same thing can happen by observing the number.
> >>
> >> I think there is another answer. I imagine that some greedy CEO has
> >> had your thought, but this name thing was left out, a long time ago.
> >>
> >> respectfully
> >> buck
> >
> >
>
> Millions(?)... just to pass along a dozen or so characters. *That* is not
> likely. I believe that you may have lost your perspective. IMHO
>
> buck

"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Also consider that the names related to the numbers will change...which
> only adds to the costs...not the profits.
>
>

I bet the CLEC hands them the names when they hand them the number that's
calling. The CLEC does that at home, right? Verizon doesn't need a big
database server to store all the names on the planet. They just need to
turn on ALL the data the CLEC is already feeding them, not just the number
field.



--
There's amazing intelligence in the Universe.
You can tell because none of them ever called Earth.