Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Incoming phone # on the billing statement

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 11:39:05 PM

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

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.
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 11:39:06 PM

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

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:39:05 GMT, 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.
>

I presume you've seen the recent thread entitled "Incoming phones
calls on your bill".
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 11:39:06 PM

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

<ilikegame@game.com> wrote in message
news:ju3gn0pj9hbnc5eastl8v59enov815lcvl@4ax.com...
> 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.
>
>

The privacy thing is laughable- last time I checked, the phone ringing in my
house was invading MY privacy. And I can't remember I invaded someone
else's privacy to make them call me.
Related resources
Anonymous
October 22, 2004 2:15:49 AM

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

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.

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. A similar argument applies concerning caller-pays;
in countries with caller-pays, wireless numbers are in their own "area
code", so the caller is aware that there will be a surcharge.
Anonymous
October 22, 2004 2:15:50 AM

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

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.
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 2:05:49 AM

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

I would love to see it. I think it would be very helpful in many many
ways.

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:39:05 GMT, 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.
>
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 2:05:50 AM

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

Sentinel wrote:
> I would love to see it. I think it would be very helpful in many many
> ways.

It won't happen. With the exception of Cingular, all of the carriers have their
collective corporate heads up their asses on this point, and I've argued it a
couple times with Verizon, and although the reps were very apologetic they said
there wasn't really anything they could do.

TTBOMK Cingular is still the only provider that shows the number on incoming calls.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 2:48:33 AM

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

"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:ntidnSm2V6X-zuXcRVn-2A@adelphia.com...

| > 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.
| >
| >
|
| The privacy thing is laughable- last time I checked, the phone ringing in
my
| house was invading MY privacy. And I can't remember I invaded someone
| else's privacy to make them call me.

funny but the number *usually* shows up on my handset but not in my bill so
what's the privacy issue?
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 6:03:30 AM

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

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:48:33 -0400, "Not Me" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>funny but the number *usually* shows up on my handset but not in my bill so
>what's the privacy issue?

That's the question everyone keeps asking, but no one except for VZW
(probably corporate level) can answer.
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 6:06:29 AM

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

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:53:51 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>TTBOMK Cingular is still the only provider that shows the number on incoming calls.

They do? My Cingular friend left her bill (combined billed with
BellSouth) in my car the other day, and as I was perusing through it,
I don't recall seeing the incoming numbers. I thought it read like my
VZW bill. I'll double check that when I see her again on Sunday.
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 2:43:48 PM

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

My Colorado-based account does not normally show incoming call numbers on
the statement. However, all calls received while roaming in California do.
Am I to understand that all California Verizon customers do NOT get incoming
numbers on their bill? Go figure!


Bill Radio
Click for Western U.S. Wireless Reviews at:
http://www.mountainwireless.com
Anonymous
November 1, 2004 8:03:34 AM

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

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
Anonymous
November 1, 2004 3:02:10 PM

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

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.
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 6:55:03 AM

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

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
!