Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

IN Network calling- caller id issues

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
October 7, 2004 6:05:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Hello all,

I have AC Familyshare 800 plus unlimited Nights and weekends and unlimited
IN calling.

Someone once told me that the IN calling only works if you show your number
in caller ID. In other words if you call a VZW number and have caller ID
block on it will not be charged as IN Network. Is this true?
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 9:38:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:05:31 GMT, "Jason" <none@none.invalid> wrote:

>Hello all,
>
>I have AC Familyshare 800 plus unlimited Nights and weekends and unlimited
>IN calling.
>
>Someone once told me that the IN calling only works if you show your number
>in caller ID. In other words if you call a VZW number and have caller ID
>block on it will not be charged as IN Network. Is this true?
>

From what I've been reading here on this newsgroup, what you say is
correct. Otherwise the system treats your call as a regular call (peak
or off peak depending on the time/day of the call)

Dave
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 11:53:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

no, not true. Caller ID block does not cause you to use regular airtime
minutes. The Verizon system always knows your phone number, whether you
block your number to the other handset or not (how else could they bill
you?). I am in PA, and have all 4 of my family share lines "caller ID
blocked". My "in network" minutes work fine that way, to each other and to
other Verizon phones.
This was a false rumor.
"Jason" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:Lv19d.8356$Sl2.1532@trnddc09...
> Hello all,
>
> I have AC Familyshare 800 plus unlimited Nights and weekends and unlimited
> IN calling.
>
> Someone once told me that the IN calling only works if you show your
> number
> in caller ID. In other words if you call a VZW number and have caller ID
> block on it will not be charged as IN Network. Is this true?
>
>
Related resources
October 7, 2004 12:19:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 05:38:07 -0400, Diamond Dave
<dmine45.NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:

>From what I've been reading here on this newsgroup, what you say is
>correct. Otherwise the system treats your call as a regular call (peak
>or off peak depending on the time/day of the call)

I find it odd that the system wouldn't use ANI rather than CID. Are
you sure or are you just assuming?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
October 7, 2004 1:10:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Prilosec" <purple@nni.net> wrote in message
news:RrKdnYmMqJq4s_jcRVn-tg@rcn.net...
> no, not true. Caller ID block does not cause you to use regular airtime
> minutes. The Verizon system always knows your phone number, whether you
> block your number to the other handset or not (how else could they bill
> you?). I am in PA, and have all 4 of my family share lines "caller ID
> blocked". My "in network" minutes work fine that way, to each other and to
> other Verizon phones.
> This was a false rumor.

Also in PA but it is not a false rumor. In my experience "IN network" calls
made with caller ID blocked are seldom recorded properly. My buddy upgraded
his plan a few months ago and got the unlimited "IN Network". His caller ID
is blocked. A few weeks later he said that he couldn't understand why he
used his plan minutes up and only a few minutes of "IN network" were listed.
He was using the native VZW system and were mostly outgoing calls. I told
him about the caller ID problem and CS also told him the same thing when he
called.

I agree with you that they certainly know the identity of your phone. But
there is some strange flaw when caller ID blocking is used.
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 6:05:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Hi,

If the caller-ID is blocked, then the receiving side cannot allocate
the time as IN-NET. This can have consequences for your bill if you
are receiving lengthy calls without caller ID.

I recently posted a FYI about recent system problems in the North East
area that has been causing the CID to be dropped (incoming calls
appear as "restricted" although no CID blocking is in effect). We
noticed this when our family calls to each other started coming in as
"restricted". Upon exprimenting, we found that in placing consecutive
identical calls, some would come in as "restricted" without a CID and
others would carry the CID.

When I contacted Verizon, a technical support representive indicated
that recent major system problems were the cause, with precisely this
effect. Since dropping the CID can cause IN-NET minutes to be
mischarged as peak minutes on the receiving end of the call, the
representative said we should ask for an adjustment if misclassified
minutes caused us to exceed our monthly quota. I don't know what
standard of proof will be required.

See the end of the America's Choice page for information linking CID
blocking to call charges:

http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?ite...

To quote from that page:

"National IN Calling
If Caller ID is not present or Caller ID Block is initiated, National
IN Calling does not apply to incoming calls and will apply to outgoing
calls only. National IN Calling is not available to customers whose
wireless exchange restricts the delivery of Caller ID or with fixed
wireless devices with usage substantially from a single cell site.
National IN Calling does not apply to data usage, calls to check your
voice mail and calls to Verizon Wireless customers using Airfone
Service or any of the VZGlobal services."

There is similar language in the definition of Local IN Calling.




On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:05:31 GMT, "Jason" <none@none.invalid> wrote:

>Hello all,
>
>I have AC Familyshare 800 plus unlimited Nights and weekends and unlimited
>IN calling.
>
>Someone once told me that the IN calling only works if you show your number
>in caller ID. In other words if you call a VZW number and have caller ID
>block on it will not be charged as IN Network. Is this true?
>

Carl

Replace N o S p a m dot net with t i a c dot net
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 9:16:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 08:19:15 -0700, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I find it odd that the system wouldn't use ANI rather than CID. Are
>you sure or are you just assuming?

One would think VZW would use ANI, but others have said otherwise. I
don't call to many people via the IN network deal, so I can't tell
right at this moment.

Dave
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 10:16:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <s4jam0dpbeufd2da575b1118g7od30fett@4ax.com>,
<holmberg@NoSpam.net> wrote:
>See the end of the America's Choice page for information linking CID
>blocking to call charges:
>
>http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?ite...
>
>To quote from that page:
>
>"National IN Calling
>If Caller ID is not present or Caller ID Block is initiated, National
>IN Calling does not apply to incoming calls and will apply to outgoing
>calls only. National IN Calling is not available to customers whose
>wireless exchange restricts the delivery of Caller ID or with fixed
>wireless devices with usage substantially from a single cell site.

Note the the CallerID point only applies to INCOMING calls. The above
statement does not claim that your phone must have CID enabled on outgoing
calls; it claims that CID is necessary on incoming calls.

<RANT MODE>

Note that this statement has been changed recently to include the "Caller
ID Block" phrase, since CID is "present" at the VZW switch if display
on the called phone is "blocked". The whole point of implementing CID
blocking by sending the CID info through the system, but having a flag to
suppress display on the called phone, is that features like distinctive
ringing (different ring pattern), selective call forwarding, selective
call block (rejecting calls from certain numbers), and call return will
work on "blocked" numbers. Either the VZW system is braindead and loses
the CID info on blocked calls, or someone there has deliberated hobbled
the system (in the name of "privacy"?).

Maybe the same misguided "privacy" policy that does not show the calling
number on incoming calls on bills, even if the CID was unblocked and
the number showed up on the phone when the call was received.

</RANT MODE>
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 11:16:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 08:19:15 -0700, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 05:38:07 -0400, Diamond Dave
><dmine45.NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>From what I've been reading here on this newsgroup, what you say is
>>correct. Otherwise the system treats your call as a regular call (peak
>>or off peak depending on the time/day of the call)
>
>I find it odd that the system wouldn't use ANI rather than CID. Are
>you sure or are you just assuming?
>

I'd say it's a pretty good assumption. I have several VZW users who
call my home line, and if I'm not here the call rolls over to my cell,
and their call will *not* get listed as being "In Network", as they
called a BellSouth landline. However, these inbound calls do get
listed as "In Network" on my account, as the caller ID with the VZW
number gets passed along with the forwarding.

I'm not sure how/if ANI could cope with this odd forwarding issue.
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 11:20:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <sv4mm01ims31rdeasjpqthc1cu332dn8h9@4ax.com>,
The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote:
>I'd say it's a pretty good assumption. I have several VZW users who
>call my home line, and if I'm not here the call rolls over to my cell,
>and their call will *not* get listed as being "In Network", as they
>called a BellSouth landline. However, these inbound calls do get
>listed as "In Network" on my account, as the caller ID with the VZW
>number gets passed along with the forwarding.
>
>I'm not sure how/if ANI could cope with this odd forwarding issue.

That's how CID is supposed to work. The orginal calling number is supposed
to be presented to the phone which finally rings. I have noticed the
same behavior (VZW phone calls my home phone which is forwarded to my
VZW phone; they don't get IN-Network, I do).

ANI would deliver the number of the phone which has the forwarding on
it. ANI is what is used for billing purposes; if you forward your phone
to a number that is long-distance for you, YOU pay the toll on forwarded
calls for that leg, not the person calling you. And if your number is
long distance to the caller, THEY pay the toll for that leg of the call.
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 7:15:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:05:47 GMT, holmberg@NoSpam.net chose to add this to
the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>When I contacted Verizon, a technical support representive indicated
>that recent major system problems were the cause, with precisely this
>effect. Since dropping the CID can cause IN-NET minutes to be
>mischarged as peak minutes on the receiving end of the call, the
>representative said we should ask for an adjustment if misclassified
>minutes caused us to exceed our monthly quota. I don't know what
>standard of proof will be required.

But how are you going to figure out which calls were supposed to be IN when
your bill won't show you any of the incoming numbers??? (Whether CID is
blocked or not. Hummph.)

--
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.
"Oh, sure, we still teach our children some Halloween traditions. We teach
them that this is a time when we buy pumpkins and carve faces into them.
But we don't teach them the underlying spiritual reason WHY we do this,
which is that each fall, the average American pumpkin farmer produces 17
trillion of these things, and if he doesn't get rid of them, they will rot,
and everything the farmer owns, including his smaller children, will
disappear under a gigantic cloud of flies. THAT is why we buy pumpkins and
carve faces into them." - Dave Barry
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 7:15:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
news:fnrrm05ipr0irs7853qck753c0d05cfauj@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:05:47 GMT, holmberg@NoSpam.net chose to add this to
> the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
>
>
> But how are you going to figure out which calls were supposed to be IN
> when
> your bill won't show you any of the incoming numbers??? (Whether CID is
> blocked or not. Hummph.)
>
> --
The bill shows the time & date + duration of each call.
All you need to do is log the number, time & date of each incoming call.
Then you can compare your log to the bill.

But VZW putting the number on the bill would sure save a lot of work :0(
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 7:15:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:lWmbd.4142$EZ.817@okepread07...
>
> "David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
> news:fnrrm05ipr0irs7853qck753c0d05cfauj@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:05:47 GMT, holmberg@NoSpam.net chose to add this
>> to
>> the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
>>
>>
>> But how are you going to figure out which calls were supposed to be IN
>> when
>> your bill won't show you any of the incoming numbers??? (Whether CID is
>> blocked or not. Hummph.)
>>
>> --
> The bill shows the time & date + duration of each call.
> All you need to do is log the number, time & date of each incoming call.
> Then you can compare your log to the bill.
>
> But VZW putting the number on the bill would sure save a lot of work :0(
Just remembered:
My VZW bill shows the Number CALLED for outgoing & incoming calls.
Outgoing calls show the number I called.
Incoming calls - of course - always show my number.
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 8:21:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:20:44 GMT, hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH)
wrote:

>In article <sv4mm01ims31rdeasjpqthc1cu332dn8h9@4ax.com>,
>The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote:
>>I'd say it's a pretty good assumption. I have several VZW users who
>>call my home line, and if I'm not here the call rolls over to my cell,
>>and their call will *not* get listed as being "In Network", as they
>>called a BellSouth landline. However, these inbound calls do get
>>listed as "In Network" on my account, as the caller ID with the VZW
>>number gets passed along with the forwarding.
>>
>>I'm not sure how/if ANI could cope with this odd forwarding issue.
>
>That's how CID is supposed to work. The orginal calling number is supposed
>to be presented to the phone which finally rings.

Yes, I know. Knowledge of that behavior allowed me to exploit my land
line services so that I only have to give out my home number, and by
doing that, I can wash all incoming calls through BellSouth's
Anonymous Call Reject feature, one that VZW (and ALL wireless
carriers) should start offering/throwing in.

It also allowed me to cut off my personally most HATED and DESPISED
telephone "feature" of all, CALL WAITING! All my busy or unanswered
calls at home go to my VZW phone, and I had CW turned off on the VZW
line, too. If I'm on my cell and you call, you get voice mail, sorry.
First come, first serve. I just tell everyone, here's my number, just
let it ring until I answer or VM picks up. It could vary between 0-10
rings.

As an aside, my 2 kids' Ringmaster numbers don't forward, so all the
kids' calls just get dumped at the house.;-)

>ANI would deliver the number of the phone which has the forwarding on
>it. ANI is what is used for billing purposes; if you forward your phone
>to a number that is long-distance for you, YOU pay the toll on forwarded
>calls for that leg, not the person calling you. And if your number is
>long distance to the caller, THEY pay the toll for that leg of the call.

Which would seem to make it a rather large PITA to do the necessary
lookups between VZW and BellSouth (et. al.) to bypass the CID solution
they use now. Realizing that, if I know a VZW caller went though my
system and got me on my cell, I will offer to call them back directly
so it would be an "IN" call.

Thanks for the added ANI insight.
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 8:28:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:20:56 -0500, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>Incoming calls - of course - always show my number.

Yeah, that's the bullshit that really needs to be changed. Inbound
WATS line service customers have always received that info, because
they were paying for the call. Just because we pay for our cell
service using minutes in a bucket that we purchase each month (in
addition to any potential overage charges), we shouldn't be treated
any differently.
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 8:47:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
news:bvntm05pbkmgmrmvj1th6ipptqd9g4g2bn@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:20:56 -0500, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >Incoming calls - of course - always show my number.
>
> Yeah, that's the bullshit that really needs to be changed. Inbound
> WATS line service customers have always received that info, because
> they were paying for the call. Just because we pay for our cell
> service using minutes in a bucket that we purchase each month (in
> addition to any potential overage charges), we shouldn't be treated
> any differently.
>

Amen.
Anonymous
October 17, 2004 6:56:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:47:24 -0600, "Scott Stephenson"
<scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> chose to add this to the great equation
of life, the universe, and everything:

>"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
>news:bvntm05pbkmgmrmvj1th6ipptqd9g4g2bn@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:20:56 -0500, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Incoming calls - of course - always show my number.
>>
>> Yeah, that's the bullshit that really needs to be changed. Inbound
>> WATS line service customers have always received that info, because
>> they were paying for the call. Just because we pay for our cell
>> service using minutes in a bucket that we purchase each month (in
>> addition to any potential overage charges), we shouldn't be treated
>> any differently.
>
>Amen.

Double amen.

--
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 knew nothing of reality until Mummy died. She'd shielded us from
everything. And then suddenly I was having to deal with the butler, the two
chauffeurs, the cook, and everyone else." - Charlotte (de Rothschild) Brown
!