Incomming calls on phone bill

Steven J Sobol wrote:
> Stupid is more like it. Owners of toll-free numbers pay for the calls and
> do get incoming numbers even when the callers CID is blocked. The same should
> be true of cell users that also pay for incoming calls. I've said this often
> on alt.cellular.verizon...

A caller using CID blocking has an expectation of privacy (unless he's calling a
toll-free number). Since the caller has no easy way of determining whether the
number he's calling is landline or wireless, all non-toll-free numbers must
continue to honor CID blocking.

--
John Richards

---

› See More: Incomming calls on phone bill

In article <6O%[email protected]>,
"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Steven J Sobol wrote:
> > Stupid is more like it. Owners of toll-free numbers pay for the calls and
> > do get incoming numbers even when the callers CID is blocked.

Also to Police and fire, etc.


>> The same
> > should
> > be true of cell users that also pay for incoming calls. I've said this
> > often
> > on alt.cellular.verizon...
>
> A caller using CID blocking has an expectation of privacy (unless he's
> calling a
> toll-free number). Since the caller has no easy way of determining whether
> the
> number he's calling is landline or wireless, all non-toll-free numbers must
> continue to honor CID blocking.


But caller-ID on a Sprint-PCS phone identifies numbers of incoming
calls, but not those prepended with *67.

So the question remains, Why is it identified on the phone, but not the
bill?

"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6O%[email protected]...
> Steven J Sobol wrote:
> > Stupid is more like it. Owners of toll-free numbers pay for the calls
and
> > do get incoming numbers even when the callers CID is blocked. The same
should
> > be true of cell users that also pay for incoming calls. I've said this
often
> > on alt.cellular.verizon...
>
> A caller using CID blocking has an expectation of privacy (unless he's
calling a
> toll-free number). Since the caller has no easy way of determining
whether the
> number he's calling is landline or wireless, all non-toll-free numbers
must
> continue to honor CID blocking.

All expectation of privacy ends when someone picks up the phone and says
'hello', unless they are calling a lawyer, member of the clergy, or some
other person that is covered by statute. You should have no expectation of
privacy when initiating any type of communication that is not covered by
statute. The callers wish to remain anonymous can not be held up to be more
important than a person's wish to know who has initiated communication with
them.

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <6O%[email protected]>,
> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Steven J Sobol wrote:
> > > Stupid is more like it. Owners of toll-free numbers pay for the calls
and
> > > do get incoming numbers even when the callers CID is blocked.
>
> Also to Police and fire, etc.
>
>
> >> The same
> > > should
> > > be true of cell users that also pay for incoming calls. I've said this
> > > often
> > > on alt.cellular.verizon...
> >
> > A caller using CID blocking has an expectation of privacy (unless he's
> > calling a
> > toll-free number). Since the caller has no easy way of determining
whether
> > the
> > number he's calling is landline or wireless, all non-toll-free numbers
must
> > continue to honor CID blocking.
>
>
> But caller-ID on a Sprint-PCS phone identifies numbers of incoming
> calls, but not those prepended with *67.
>
> So the question remains, Why is it identified on the phone, but not the
> bill?

In the past, the providers have used 'privacy' as the excuse for not
including call detail on the bill. I think its more a case of them not
wanting to spend the money to modify their billing to list the call detail.

Scott Stephenson <[email protected]> wrote:

> All expectation of privacy ends when someone picks up the phone and says
> 'hello', unless they are calling a lawyer, member of the clergy, or some
> other person that is covered by statute. You should have no expectation of
> privacy when initiating any type of communication that is not covered by
> statute. The callers wish to remain anonymous can not be held up to be more
> important than a person's wish to know who has initiated communication with
> them.

I pretty much agree with Scott, except I only think that's true in the case
where the receiver is paying. Or, for that matter, when the caller is calling
with attempt to harrass or do other not-nice stuff... or is a telemarketer.

I do think, and I've said this before on the cellular newsfroups, that the
fact that I incur costs by pressing TALK trumps your right to privacy. If
tollfree carriers can list incoming numbers, so can cellular carriers, assuming
they use ANI like the tollfree carriers do (if they don't, they may not get the
incoming number at all).

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED

"Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott Stephenson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > All expectation of privacy ends when someone picks up the phone and says
> > 'hello', unless they are calling a lawyer, member of the clergy, or some
> > other person that is covered by statute. You should have no expectation
of
> > privacy when initiating any type of communication that is not covered by
> > statute. The callers wish to remain anonymous can not be held up to be
more
> > important than a person's wish to know who has initiated communication
with
> > them.
>
> I pretty much agree with Scott, except I only think that's true in the
case
> where the receiver is paying. Or, for that matter, when the caller is
calling
> with attempt to harrass or do other not-nice stuff... or is a
telemarketer.
>
> I do think, and I've said this before on the cellular newsfroups, that the
> fact that I incur costs by pressing TALK trumps your right to privacy. If
> tollfree carriers can list incoming numbers, so can cellular carriers,
assuming
> they use ANI like the tollfree carriers do (if they don't, they may not
get the
> incoming number at all).
>


From a statutory perspective, I don't believe there is any difference
between landline and cellular- once my phone rings (no matter which phone it
is), my privacy is invaded the minute I pick up the call. And seeing as the
person answering the phone is not initiating contact, their expectation of
privacy being invaded is the trump card. The caller expecting privacy and
complete anonymity on a call that is not protected by a privacy statute is
beyond logic.

From a billing perspective, I don't need to see the incoming call detail on
my landline- its a monthly blanket charge, and knowing the detail is not
important. But as Steven points out, when a person pays for service by the
number of minutes used or calls received, the service provider has a duty to
provide call level detail that allows the payee to reconcile their account.
Here's a classic example- I have two cell phones. One is provided to me by
my employer for business use, and the other is a personal unit. There have
been rare occassions where I have been carrying my personal phone and needed
to conduct a fair amount of business on my personal phone. I have the
ability to get reimbursed for business use, but under the current billing
scheme, I can only put in for outgoing calls, unless I take the time to
document each business call I receive, and unless my employer is willing to
take my word on the incoming calls.

Another situation using my business phone this time- purely hypothetical.
Let's say that my girlfriend is calling me during business hours and the two
of us are racking up thousands of minutes a month that my employer ends up
paying for? How do they identify this obvious revenue leak and probable
breach of company policy?

One last thing- contrary to popular belief, there is not 'right to privacy'.
Privacy is a luxury that we enjoy, but it is not constitutionally
guaranteed. What we enjoy is an 'expectation of privacy'.

Steven J Sobol wrote:
> I do think, and I've said this before on the cellular newsfroups, that the
> fact that I incur costs by pressing TALK trumps your right to privacy. If
> tollfree carriers can list incoming numbers, so can cellular carriers, assuming
> they use ANI like the tollfree carriers do (if they don't, they may not get the
> incoming number at all).

That's a very narrow viewpoint, looking at the issue only from the
cell phone owner's side. Actually, the courts have ruled that very few
things trump the right to privacy. Also, you failed to address the issue
of how (under your proposal) the caller is supposed to know ahead of time
whether his blocked CID will be revealed or not when he makes a call to
a non-toll-free number.

--
John Richards

"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Steven J Sobol wrote:
> > I do think, and I've said this before on the cellular newsfroups, that
the
> > fact that I incur costs by pressing TALK trumps your right to privacy.
If
> > tollfree carriers can list incoming numbers, so can cellular carriers,
assuming
> > they use ANI like the tollfree carriers do (if they don't, they may not
get the
> > incoming number at all).
>
> That's a very narrow viewpoint, looking at the issue only from the
> cell phone owner's side. Actually, the courts have ruled that very few
> things trump the right to privacy. Also, you failed to address the issue
> of how (under your proposal) the caller is supposed to know ahead of time
> whether his blocked CID will be revealed or not when he makes a call to
> a non-toll-free number.
>

The narrow viewpoint would be that anyone can invade my privacy and invoke
their own expectation of privacy as being more important - there is no basis
for this in law or logic. The caller relinquishes any expectation of
privacy when they choose to invade the privacy of others. And there is no
'right' to privacy- only a reasonable expectation- and it is that REASONABLE
expectation that is upheld by the courts.

Scott Stephenson wrote:
> All expectation of privacy ends when someone picks up the phone and says
> 'hello', unless they are calling a lawyer, member of the clergy, or some
> other person that is covered by statute. You should have no expectation of
> privacy when initiating any type of communication that is not covered by
> statute. The callers wish to remain anonymous can not be held up to be more
> important than a person's wish to know who has initiated communication with
> them.

There are lots of situations where privacy is paramount. For example, a
battered spouse calling from a women's shelter. A whistle blower calling
a newspaper editor to spill the beans on his crooked boss.
It is not up to you to determine when a specific person should feel
comfortable revealing their identity.
If you don't wish to talk to someone with a blocked ID, set your cell phone
for silent ring for that type of call.

--
John Richards

"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott Stephenson wrote:
> > All expectation of privacy ends when someone picks up the phone and says
> > 'hello', unless they are calling a lawyer, member of the clergy, or some
> > other person that is covered by statute. You should have no expectation
of
> > privacy when initiating any type of communication that is not covered by
> > statute. The callers wish to remain anonymous can not be held up to be
more
> > important than a person's wish to know who has initiated communication
with
> > them.
>
> There are lots of situations where privacy is paramount. For example, a
> battered spouse calling from a women's shelter. A whistle blower calling
> a newspaper editor to spill the beans on his crooked boss.
> It is not up to you to determine when a specific person should feel
> comfortable revealing their identity.
> If you don't wish to talk to someone with a blocked ID, set your cell
phone
> for silent ring for that type of call.
>

And neither of the people in those examples would be calling me, and the
whistleblower is protected by statute anyway. In both cases, there are
other perfectly acceptable forms of communication that could be utilized to
maintain anonymity. As far as determining whether or not a person "feels
comfortable revealing their identity", that is a line of crap. They make
the move to contact me- if they are so concerned about their own privacy,
don't call. They make the conscious decision to identify themselves by
making the call.

And this thread is not about what shows up on the caller ID- its about what
shows up on my bill days and weeks later. I'm paying for the call, and I
have the right to know what I am being charged for, in detail.

John Richards <[email protected]> wrote:

> That's a very narrow viewpoint, looking at the issue only from the
> cell phone owner's side.

Oh, I agree.

Doesn't change my mind, though. If you don't want to identify yourself,
don't call me. Period. I've told this to people who have called and left
messages and have refused to give their names.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED

Scott Stephenson wrote:

> The narrow viewpoint would be that anyone can invade my privacy and invoke
> their own expectation of privacy as being more important - there is no basis
> for this in law or logic. The caller relinquishes any expectation of
> privacy when they choose to invade the privacy of others. And there is no
> 'right' to privacy- only a reasonable expectation- and it is that REASONABLE
> expectation that is upheld by the courts.

But your privacy is NOT being invaded. You are free to configure your
line to reject blocked-CID calls so they don't even ring your phone.
Once you have decided to accept such calls, privacy is no longer
an issue, it's a mutually acceptable social interaction.

--
John Richards

Scott Stephenson wrote:
>> There are lots of situations where privacy is paramount. For example, a
>> battered spouse calling from a women's shelter. A whistle blower calling
>> a newspaper editor to spill the beans on his crooked boss.
>> It is not up to you to determine when a specific person should feel
>> comfortable revealing their identity.
>> If you don't wish to talk to someone with a blocked ID, set your cell phone
>> for silent ring for that type of call.
>>
>
> And neither of the people in those examples would be calling me, and the
> whistleblower is protected by statute anyway. In both cases, there are
> other perfectly acceptable forms of communication that could be utilized to
> maintain anonymity. As far as determining whether or not a person "feels
> comfortable revealing their identity", that is a line of crap. They make
> the move to contact me- if they are so concerned about their own privacy,
> don't call. They make the conscious decision to identify themselves by
> making the call.

Again, you are looking at the situation strictly from your selfish viewpoint.
Case law, or general telecommunications rules can't be built on someone's
personal desires, they have to take into account the good of the entire
community as a whole.

In essence you are saying you want all your incoming calls identified
come hell or high water, and you don't care what negative effects such a
policy might have on someone else.

--
John Richards

"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Scott Stephenson wrote:
> >> There are lots of situations where privacy is paramount. For example,
a
> >> battered spouse calling from a women's shelter. A whistle blower
calling
> >> a newspaper editor to spill the beans on his crooked boss.
> >> It is not up to you to determine when a specific person should feel
> >> comfortable revealing their identity.
> >> If you don't wish to talk to someone with a blocked ID, set your cell
phone
> >> for silent ring for that type of call.
> >>
> >
> > And neither of the people in those examples would be calling me, and the
> > whistleblower is protected by statute anyway. In both cases, there are
> > other perfectly acceptable forms of communication that could be utilized
to
> > maintain anonymity. As far as determining whether or not a person
"feels
> > comfortable revealing their identity", that is a line of crap. They
make
> > the move to contact me- if they are so concerned about their own
privacy,
> > don't call. They make the conscious decision to identify themselves by
> > making the call.
>
> Again, you are looking at the situation strictly from your selfish
viewpoint.
> Case law, or general telecommunications rules can't be built on someone's
> personal desires, they have to take into account the good of the entire
> community as a whole.
>
> In essence you are saying you want all your incoming calls identified
> come hell or high water, and you don't care what negative effects such a
> policy might have on someone else.

It's a catch 22 situation John. Yes, there might be an occasion I don't want
to send my caller ID, even though I don't know what that is. The point is
that we are paying for those minutes and it would be very nice to have the
capacity to answer all the calls, if we recognize the number.

I do call forwarding from my home phone number to my cell number and I still
get a ton of spam calls, even after putting my respective numbers in the Do
Not Call registry.

All the calls from my home office to yours truly come through with No Caller
ID, because of the way their PBX is configured. I do not want to miss those
calls obviously. The only way to do that is to have them call my 800 #,
which is piggy backed to my home office telephone number. So, in this case,
I'm paying twice for the call, one with my cell minutes and two, the 800
call.

Two occasions this past month, I was expecting return calls from two banks
in reference to certificates requested on my customers. Both of those also
had caller ID blocked. They called in the morning and I did not answer the
calls. I would have taken them immediately if they had transmitted caller ID
in the first place. They both left VMs for me, and I called them back, but I
would have rather taken the calls in the first place to expedite the
requests.

Bob

Bob Smith wrote:
> It's a catch 22 situation John. Yes, there might be an occasion I don't want
> to send my caller ID, even though I don't know what that is. The point is
> that we are paying for those minutes and it would be very nice to have the
> capacity to answer all the calls, if we recognize the number.

"It would be nice" is not a basis on which to construct public policy.
It is your *choice* to have a wireless phone, and the extra costs that entails,
and hopefully you give its number out only to people who have a need to
call you on that phone.

> Two occasions this past month, I was expecting return calls from two banks
> in reference to certificates requested on my customers. Both of those also
> had caller ID blocked. They called in the morning and I did not answer the
> calls. I would have taken them immediately if they had transmitted caller ID
> in the first place. They both left VMs for me, and I called them back, but I
> would have rather taken the calls in the first place to expedite the
> requests.

That's a good example of why most people shouldn't block incoming calls
lacking CID. If you happen to be a privacy fanatic, though, you'll take
your lumps and let the pieces fall where they may. :-)

--
John Richards