Forwarded minutes and #MIN

[Guest]

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

I have a friend who lives a long distance call away from my home
phone, but my VZW cell is local to both exchanges. So when we want to
speak (and so I don't have to hold my Kyo-3035 to my head with it
getting hotter and hotter), he sends me an e-mail, I CF my cell to my
home, he calls my cell, we talk landline to landline, and then I turn
off CF. It has always worked fine, I have no issues with it.

But, as we usually only speak for 20-30 minutes (and almost always
during off peak hours), I've never really paid much attention to
whether the minutes used show up when using #MIN. Last Friday night,
he had some computer problems I was helping him with, and we spent
about 3 1/2 hours (all off-peak) on the phone. I did a #MIN today and
it's only showing the minutes I actually used *on* my cell (Pk 41, Off
Pk 29). The forwarded minutes aren't included. Is this normal? I
thought forwarded minutes were counted as though you used your cell,
be they free minutes or not.

Is there some screwup in VZW's billing system that would allow you to
use CF to circumvent long distance *and* cell charges in this way?

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:06:20 -0400, Matt <spammers@are.bad.com> wrote:

>I'm guessing it probably just hasn't showed up.... give it 48 hours...

It's been more than five days already. I had a native VZW digital
signal, so it's not like they have to wait for the info to come in
from one of their roaming partners. The web site shows the same MOU,
so I'm thinking it may have something to do with it being off peak
hours. I'll experiment with doing it during peak hours today or
tomorrow.

 

[Guest]

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

My VZW phone is in the 303 area code and I forward my calls most of the time
(the reception isn't stellar where I live). I have been doing this for about
a year and have NEVER had any minutes show up on the bill for the
forwarding. I am forwarding to a number that is local (also a 303) to my
phone so I am not sure if this has something to do with it not showing up.
Talk about an awesome perk, free forwarding!!

Steve

"Matt" <spammers@are.bad.com> wrote in message
news:da16r00uu4@enews1.newsguy.com...
> The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:06:20 -0400, Matt <spammers@are.bad.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm guessing it probably just hasn't showed up.... give it 48 hours...
>>
>>
>> It's been more than five days already. I had a native VZW digital
>> signal, so it's not like they have to wait for the info to come in
>> from one of their roaming partners. The web site shows the same MOU,
>> so I'm thinking it may have something to do with it being off peak
>> hours. I'll experiment with doing it during peak hours today or
>> tomorrow.
>
> Interesting.. let us know.

 

[Guest]

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

Luchini wrote:
> My VZW phone is in the 303 area code and I forward my calls most of the time
> (the reception isn't stellar where I live). I have been doing this for about
> a year and have NEVER had any minutes show up on the bill for the
> forwarding. I am forwarding to a number that is local (also a 303) to my
> phone so I am not sure if this has something to do with it not showing up.
> Talk about an awesome perk, free forwarding!!

It's not free. It uses minutes. In some markets it didn't but they used to
charge 15c/minute on forwarded calls, but all markets are supposed to be
standardized and only use airtime now.

--
JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)

"Life's like an hourglass glued to the table" --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 22:45:51 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>Luchini wrote:
>> My VZW phone is in the 303 area code and I forward my calls most of the time
>> (the reception isn't stellar where I live). I have been doing this for about
>> a year and have NEVER had any minutes show up on the bill for the
>> forwarding. I am forwarding to a number that is local (also a 303) to my
>> phone so I am not sure if this has something to do with it not showing up.
>> Talk about an awesome perk, free forwarding!!
>
>It's not free. It uses minutes. In some markets it didn't but they used to
>charge 15c/minute on forwarded calls, but all markets are supposed to be
>standardized and only use airtime now.

So why didn't those minutes show up in my off peak bucket?

 

[Guest]

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

The Ghost of General Lee wrote:

> So why didn't those minutes show up in my off peak bucket?

Don't know. Maybe things have changed.

I've seen forwarded calls listed on my VZW bills specifically as forwarded
calls.

--
JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)

"Life's like an hourglass glued to the table" --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 14:05:19 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>
>> So why didn't those minutes show up in my off peak bucket?
>
>Don't know. Maybe things have changed.
>
>I've seen forwarded calls listed on my VZW bills specifically as forwarded
>calls.

I'll have to have my friend call me on Tuesday and see how that works
out. I'll report back here with the results, especially if VZW left
that big of a loophole open.

 

[Guest]

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

last month i started to forward calls from 1 of my vzw phones to another and
allowing the call to go to voice mail (just easier to call 1 vm rather than
2)

anyways i was charged mins (from my anytime mins - not my mob to mob min's )
on both phones!
on the website i found vzw's explanation and they can do it i didn't keep
the url

i hate this company
counting the days till my contract is over



"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:da6v0u$3bm$1@ratbert.glorb.com...
> The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>
>> So why didn't those minutes show up in my off peak bucket?
>
> Don't know. Maybe things have changed.
>
> I've seen forwarded calls listed on my VZW bills specifically as forwarded
> calls.
>
> --
> JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
> Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
> temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)
>
> "Life's like an hourglass glued to the table" --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 03:11:34 GMT, "prk60091" <prk60091@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>anyways i was charged mins (from my anytime mins - not my mob to mob min's )
>on both phones!

Right, because you weren't using M2M minutes, unless a VZW phone was
calling. The M2M info is derived from the Caller ID info (which is
forwarded along when you CF), so whatever phone initiates the call is
what they base the charges on. If it's not a VZW phone calling, it's
not M2M.

It would be intersting to see the results of testing it with a VZW
phone initiating the call with CF activated.

 

[Guest]

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

The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 03:11:34 GMT, "prk60091" <prk60091@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> Right, because you weren't using M2M minutes, unless a VZW phone was
> calling. The M2M info is derived from the Caller ID info (which is
> forwarded along when you CF), so whatever phone initiates the call is
> what they base the charges on. If it's not a VZW phone calling, it's
> not M2M.

On a permutation of this, when I have my landline forwarded to my VZW
phone, calls from a VZW phone to my landline show up as M2M on my VZW
phone (CID says caller is a VZW number) and not M2M for the calling
phone (they called a non-VZW number). By design, CID reflects the
original caller, not the forwarding phone. And for some unknown reason,
VZW chose to use the unreliable, spoofable CID for M2M, rather than the
unspoofable Automatic Number Identification (ANI) that is used for
billing purposes. In the forwarding case, ANI would show the forwarding
phone, so that any long distance charges from the forwarding phone to
the number being forwarded to would be properly assigned to the
forwarding phone, not the original caller.

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 16:22:19 -0400, Matt <spammers@are.bad.com> wrote:

>Ok this thought has been going around in my head... yes it's nasty...
>but hear me out... if verizon's m2m is based on caller-id.. and if you
>block your mobile caller-ID they claim m2m may not bill correctly.. and
>if you call forward as below from one verizon phone to another.. m2m
>doesn't work... what happens if I use a landline.. set my caller-ID to a
>cellphone prefix.. or known cell number... does the person I'm calling
>get billed m2m ?!?!

If you have the ability to falsify CID info to a known VZW number,
then yes, my guess is that M2M would apply to the phone called. After
all, VZW could have used ANI, but instead chose the fastest, least
expensive way out. My guess is they thought there were too few people
who could accomplish such a feat for them to worry about.

 

[Guest]

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

Matt wrote:
> Ok this thought has been going around in my head... yes it's nasty...
> but hear me out... if verizon's m2m is based on caller-id.. and if you
> block your mobile caller-ID they claim m2m may not bill correctly.. and
> if you call forward as below from one verizon phone to another.. m2m
> doesn't work... what happens if I use a landline.. set my caller-ID to a
> cellphone prefix.. or known cell number... does the person I'm calling
> get billed m2m ?!?!

Blocking doesn't do anything but set a bit in the CID info telling the
last switch not to send the CID info to the customer's phone. The CID
info is sent through the network so related features such as call-return
and selective call blocking will work on "blocked" calls. Which is why I
can't figure out why they say M2M won't work on CID "blocked" calls;
their switch has the info regardless of the setting of the "blocked" bit.

You cannot set the CID on a regular phone line; you have to have a
special business line like ISDN-PRI to spoof it.

 

[Guest]

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

CharlesH wrote:
>
> Blocking doesn't do anything but set a bit in the CID
> info telling the last switch not to send the CID info to
> the customer's phone. The CID info is sent through the
> network so related features such as call-return and
> selective call blocking will work on "blocked" calls.
> Which is why I can't figure out why they say M2M won't
> work on CID "blocked" calls; their switch has the info
> regardless of the setting of the "blocked" bit.

I don't believe they say that. At least they did not say
that in the past. You need to see the actual wording
to understand how people misinterpret/misunderstand
it. What they are refering to is switches/partners/networks
that don't support CID. I expect they are far and few
inbetween any more. For example you could take your
VZW phone somewhere you get an old analog signal
on some mom and pop partner network, call home
to someone on the familyshare and you don't get
M2M.

-Quick

 

[Guest]

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

Matt wrote:
> Wanna bet? I just set the caller-id on my land-line (I
> work at an ISP so I've got some spare PRI lines) to be a
> cell phone... called my cell phone from the landline...
> and allowed it to sit there for 15 minutes. Then I
> waited about 15 or 20 minutes for the Verizon billing
> system to catch up and wala! 15 minutes of
> mobile2mobile time used on my phone....

Nice top post when it's already been bottom posted...
what are you responding to with the "Wanna bet?".

You have shown that they use CID to determine
M2M. That comes up every now and again here.

If there was a switch in between your switch and
VZW's switch that didn't support CID then it would
not have been charged as M2M. I think we all agree
on that and that is what VZW implies in their statements.
They are saying that even though you could be using
your VZW cell phone on both ends of a call you may
not get M2M.

If you were responding to my reply to the thread then
do one more test and set the bit to block CID. Still send
the CID but mark it as blocked. What I'm predicting is that
you will still see it charged as M2M even though you have
CID blocking turned on. That is what previous posters
have misunderstood and what I was replying to.

Simply blocking CID from your phone does not necessarily
mean no M2M.

If the phone/switch does not support CID or some switch
across the network does not support or does not relay
CID then no M2M.

-Quick

>
> Quick wrote:
>> CharlesH wrote:
>>
>>> Blocking doesn't do anything but set a bit in the CID
>>> info telling the last switch not to send the CID info to
>>> the customer's phone. The CID info is sent through the
>>> network so related features such as call-return and
>>> selective call blocking will work on "blocked" calls.
>>> Which is why I can't figure out why they say M2M won't
>>> work on CID "blocked" calls; their switch has the info
>>> regardless of the setting of the "blocked" bit.
>>
>>
>> I don't believe they say that. At least they did not say
>> that in the past. You need to see the actual wording
>> to understand how people misinterpret/misunderstand
>> it. What they are refering to is
>> switches/partners/networks that don't support CID. I
>> expect they are far and few inbetween any more. For
>> example you could take your
>> VZW phone somewhere you get an old analog signal
>> on some mom and pop partner network, call home
>> to someone on the familyshare and you don't get
>> M2M.
>>
>> -Quick

 

[Joseph]

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

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 08:18:15 -0400, Matt <spammers@are.bad.com> wrote:

>My apologizies.. I personally prefer top-posting as I can always scroll
>down to see what was talked about.. but it is nice to go through the
>thread and just be able to read the top instead of having to scroll to
>the bottom of every message..

That's only because many people are just too lazy to excise stuff in
the reply that isn't really important. MicroSloth made sure it was
easy to just dump the entire previous text back at someone rather than
clip what you don't need.
- -

 

[Guest]

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

Quick wrote:
> CharlesH wrote:
>
>>Blocking doesn't do anything but set a bit in the CID
>>info telling the last switch not to send the CID info to
>>the customer's phone. The CID info is sent through the
>>network so related features such as call-return and
>>selective call blocking will work on "blocked" calls.
>>Which is why I can't figure out why they say M2M won't
>>work on CID "blocked" calls; their switch has the info
>>regardless of the setting of the "blocked" bit.
>
> I don't believe they say that. At least they did not say
> that in the past. You need to see the actual wording
> to understand how people misinterpret/misunderstand
> it. What they are refering to is switches/partners/networks
> that don't support CID. I expect they are far and few
> inbetween any more. For example you could take your
> VZW phone somewhere you get an old analog signal
> on some mom and pop partner network, call home
> to someone on the familyshare and you don't get M2M.


Quote from the VZW Web page describing the America Choice plan:

"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."

The "Caller ID is not present" refers to lame switches dropping the CID
info somewhere along the way, as you point out. What can "Caller ID
Block is initiated" mean other than caller-initiated caller id blocking
(either *67 or setting it as the default on the line)?

 

[Guest]

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

CharlesH wrote:
> Quick wrote:
>> CharlesH wrote:
>>
>>> Blocking doesn't do anything but set a bit in the CID
>>> info telling the last switch not to send the CID info to
>>> the customer's phone. The CID info is sent through the
>>> network so related features such as call-return and
>>> selective call blocking will work on "blocked" calls.
>>> Which is why I can't figure out why they say M2M won't
>>> work on CID "blocked" calls; their switch has the info
>>> regardless of the setting of the "blocked" bit.
>>
>> I don't believe they say that. At least they did not say
>> that in the past. You need to see the actual wording
>> to understand how people misinterpret/misunderstand
>> it. What they are refering to is
>> switches/partners/networks that don't support CID. I
>> expect they are far and few inbetween any more. For
>> example you could take your
>> VZW phone somewhere you get an old analog signal
>> on some mom and pop partner network, call home
>> to someone on the familyshare and you don't get M2M.
>
>
> Quote from the VZW Web page describing the America Choice
> plan:
>
> "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."
>
> The "Caller ID is not present" refers to lame switches
> dropping the CID info somewhere along the way, as you
> point out. What can "Caller ID Block is initiated" mean
> other than caller-initiated caller id blocking (either
> *67 or setting it as the default on the line)?

Was it my LG TM-510? (or maybe it was the GSM
Nokia 3290 I had on Cingular for a short time) that
had the option to block/disable CID from the phone.
Is it the case that some devices don't even fill it in
if it's disabled? If that's the case they are likely to
use a blanket statement just like that.

-Quick

 

[Guest]

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

Quick wrote:
> CharlesH wrote:
>
>>Quick wrote:
>>
>>>CharlesH wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Blocking doesn't do anything but set a bit in the CID
>>>>info telling the last switch not to send the CID info to
>>>>the customer's phone. The CID info is sent through the
>>>>network so related features such as call-return and
>>>>selective call blocking will work on "blocked" calls.
>>>>Which is why I can't figure out why they say M2M won't
>>>>work on CID "blocked" calls; their switch has the info
>>>>regardless of the setting of the "blocked" bit.
>>>
>>>I don't believe they say that. At least they did not say
>>>that in the past. You need to see the actual wording
>>>to understand how people misinterpret/misunderstand
>>>it. What they are refering to is
>>>switches/partners/networks that don't support CID. I
>>>expect they are far and few inbetween any more. For
>>>example you could take your
>>>VZW phone somewhere you get an old analog signal
>>>on some mom and pop partner network, call home
>>>to someone on the familyshare and you don't get M2M.
>>
>>
>>Quote from the VZW Web page describing the America Choice
>>plan:
>>
>>"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."
>>
>>The "Caller ID is not present" refers to lame switches
>>dropping the CID info somewhere along the way, as you
>>point out. What can "Caller ID Block is initiated" mean
>>other than caller-initiated caller id blocking (either
>>*67 or setting it as the default on the line)?
>
> Was it my LG TM-510? (or maybe it was the GSM
> Nokia 3290 I had on Cingular for a short time) that
> had the option to block/disable CID from the phone.
> Is it the case that some devices don't even fill it in
> if it's disabled? If that's the case they are likely to
> use a blanket statement just like that.

CLID is something the system generates. You can use a prefix (*67 on VZW
phones; something else on GSM phones per the GSM standard) to tell the
system to set the "block" bit in the CLID info, just as you do on
landline phones, but the phone itself does not generate the CLID info.

 

[Guest]

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

CharlesH wrote:

> You cannot set the CID on a regular phone line; you have to have a
> special business line like ISDN-PRI to spoof it.

....or a Voice-over-IP line and an (im)properly configured Asterisk box.

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

 

[Guest]

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

Is it possible to spoof caller id with voice over Internet phonelines
(Vonage, etc)?

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 23:43:50 -0400, The Ghost of General Lee
<ghost@general.lee> wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 14:05:19 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
>wrote:
>
>>The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>>
>>> So why didn't those minutes show up in my off peak bucket?
>>
>>Don't know. Maybe things have changed.
>>
>>I've seen forwarded calls listed on my VZW bills specifically as forwarded
>>calls.
>
>I'll have to have my friend call me on Tuesday and see how that works
>out. I'll report back here with the results, especially if VZW left
>that big of a loophole open.

I just checked my bill online, and no forwarded calls appear. I also
see that in spite of a code '*' to indicate such on the bill, they
aren't doing call spanning, either. If you start a call during peak
hours, it stays peak for the duration.

I'm sure this varies by area, and I'll happily take free call
forwarding over proper call spanning.;-)