Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Why no names on Verizon caller ID?

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
April 14, 2004 2:20:21 PM

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

I have Verizon Wireless in Oakland, California.
My phone is a Motorola V60c.

When I receive a call that has caller ID on my
cellphone, I only see the calling number, not
the subscriber's name. And when I use my cellphone
to call any number (either cellular or landline),
the called party only sees my phone number, not my
name.

(I'm not considering a common cellphone feature that
matches the caller's number with the caller's name
as stored in the phone's address book and displays
the stored name. This feature is useless to me
because [1] I have my regular callers' numbers
memorized, and [2] I want names for callers who
aren't in my address book.)

Verizon concedes that it doesn't provide names for
caller ID, but customer service doesn't know why this
is so.

For calls made to Verizon cell phones, the
reason for stripping the names from caller ID might
originally have been that cell phone displays were
too small to display both the name and the number,
so Verizon chose to suppress the name.

For calls made from Verizon cell phones to landline
phones that have caller ID, I can't think of any good
reason to suppress the name.

Do all of the cellular carriers block names for
caller ID?

Why did Verizon set up their system to suppress names?

Now that cell phones have screens large enough to
display both numbers and names for caller ID, why
doesn't Verizon trasmit both?

Thanks in advance.

**********
1366294709

More about : names verizon caller

Anonymous
April 14, 2004 3:52:30 PM

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

"Mark" <xx-google@telefog.com> wrote in message
news:304679cd.0404140920.66fa9f75@posting.google.com...
>I have Verizon Wireless in Oakland, California.
> My phone is a Motorola V60c.
>
> When I receive a call that has caller ID on my
> cellphone, I only see the calling number, not
> the subscriber's name. And when I use my cellphone
> to call any number (either cellular or landline),
> the called party only sees my phone number, not my
> name.


This doesn't really answer your question but..

If that feature is important to you as it is to me, you might want to
consider some Address Book software that is compatible with your phone.

In my case I still have my trusty Audiovox 9500. I can use Quick Link Mobile
Address Book or DataPilot by Susteen.

I simply save all my contacts in the appropriate address book and then write
the entries back to my phone. It's very quick and simple.

The end result is you are Mark: When you call my cellular phone the digital
display on the phone says "Mark."

I do encounter situations where the software will at times, crop or shorten
the last name if it's particularly long. ( Can't recall what the field
character limit is)
But you can experiment with this.

It's a solution that has worked well for me.

Best,

B
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 6:03:26 PM

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

I asked verizon wireless about this and they never answers. I asked regular
verizon about this and they said something like most cell phone companies
don't send this information because the market is competitive.

I know when my brother calls my house with his T-Mobile cell phone, all his
info pops up. When I use my verizon cell phone to call my house phone (also
verizon) then my number just shows up, no other info.

"Mark" <xx-google@telefog.com> wrote in message
news:304679cd.0404140920.66fa9f75@posting.google.com...
> I have Verizon Wireless in Oakland, California.
> My phone is a Motorola V60c.
>
> When I receive a call that has caller ID on my
> cellphone, I only see the calling number, not
> the subscriber's name. And when I use my cellphone
> to call any number (either cellular or landline),
> the called party only sees my phone number, not my
> name.
>
> (I'm not considering a common cellphone feature that
> matches the caller's number with the caller's name
> as stored in the phone's address book and displays
> the stored name. This feature is useless to me
> because [1] I have my regular callers' numbers
> memorized, and [2] I want names for callers who
> aren't in my address book.)
>
> Verizon concedes that it doesn't provide names for
> caller ID, but customer service doesn't know why this
> is so.
>
> For calls made to Verizon cell phones, the
> reason for stripping the names from caller ID might
> originally have been that cell phone displays were
> too small to display both the name and the number,
> so Verizon chose to suppress the name.
>
> For calls made from Verizon cell phones to landline
> phones that have caller ID, I can't think of any good
> reason to suppress the name.
>
> Do all of the cellular carriers block names for
> caller ID?
>
> Why did Verizon set up their system to suppress names?
>
> Now that cell phones have screens large enough to
> display both numbers and names for caller ID, why
> doesn't Verizon trasmit both?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> **********
> 1366294709
Related resources
April 14, 2004 6:03:27 PM

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

I always thought it was a programming responsibility on the user's part. If
a stranger calls me, only their number shows. However, if someone calls me
whose name and phone number are already programmed in my address book, then
my screen shows whatever name I entered in the book as being associated with
that number.


"Michael Dauria" <mdauria@nospam.edu> wrote in message
news:c5judj$2n7$1@news3.bu.edu...
> I asked verizon wireless about this and they never answers. I asked
regular
> verizon about this and they said something like most cell phone companies
> don't send this information because the market is competitive.
>
> I know when my brother calls my house with his T-Mobile cell phone, all
his
> info pops up. When I use my verizon cell phone to call my house phone
(also
> verizon) then my number just shows up, no other info.
>
> "Mark" <xx-google@telefog.com> wrote in message
> news:304679cd.0404140920.66fa9f75@posting.google.com...
> > I have Verizon Wireless in Oakland, California.
> > My phone is a Motorola V60c.
> >
> > When I receive a call that has caller ID on my
> > cellphone, I only see the calling number, not
> > the subscriber's name. And when I use my cellphone
> > to call any number (either cellular or landline),
> > the called party only sees my phone number, not my
> > name.
> >
> > (I'm not considering a common cellphone feature that
> > matches the caller's number with the caller's name
> > as stored in the phone's address book and displays
> > the stored name. This feature is useless to me
> > because [1] I have my regular callers' numbers
> > memorized, and [2] I want names for callers who
> > aren't in my address book.)
> >
> > Verizon concedes that it doesn't provide names for
> > caller ID, but customer service doesn't know why this
> > is so.
> >
> > For calls made to Verizon cell phones, the
> > reason for stripping the names from caller ID might
> > originally have been that cell phone displays were
> > too small to display both the name and the number,
> > so Verizon chose to suppress the name.
> >
> > For calls made from Verizon cell phones to landline
> > phones that have caller ID, I can't think of any good
> > reason to suppress the name.
> >
> > Do all of the cellular carriers block names for
> > caller ID?
> >
> > Why did Verizon set up their system to suppress names?
> >
> > Now that cell phones have screens large enough to
> > display both numbers and names for caller ID, why
> > doesn't Verizon trasmit both?
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > **********
> > 1366294709
>
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 8:26:55 PM

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

xx-google@telefog.com (Mark) wrote in message news:<304679cd.0404140920.66fa9f75@posting.google.com>...

> When I receive a call that has caller ID on my
> cellphone, I only see the calling number, not
> the subscriber's name. And when I use my cellphone
> to call any number (either cellular or landline),
> the called party only sees my phone number, not my
> name.

> For calls made to Verizon cell phones, the
> reason for stripping the names from caller ID might
> originally have been that cell phone displays were
> too small to display both the name and the number,
> so Verizon chose to suppress the name.

If names were originally suppressed intentionally, then it would
require effort and expense to remove the suppression. If VZW doesn't
believe that their failure to provide names on CallerID is costing
them customers (and therefore MONEY), I can't see why they would go to
any expense to change it. That's not to say I wouldn't appreciate the
change, I just don't expect it.

> For calls made from Verizon cell phones to landline
> phones that have caller ID, I can't think of any good
> reason to suppress the name.

They're probably not suppressing the name. To provide the name, it
would have to be programmed into their system (probably separate from
the billing system). Again, this would require effort and expense,
and I can't see them doing this either unless they perceive that it's
costing them customers.

Here in NJ, the name that appears with calls from VZW cell phones to
landline phones is "NEW JERSEY". I think Cingular shows up as
"Wireless Caller".
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 1:02:03 AM

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

I also find this annoying. When T-Mobile callers call, I can tell who they
are. When Verizon wireless callers call, all I see is "Virginia" and the
number. This is especially annoying when Verizon Wireless callers call my
landline, since I get a bazillion calls from one-time or seldom-time
callers. I can only fit so many numbers into my telephone's directory. It's
now full.

If it can display "Virginia", I see no reason it can't as easily display
something more useful. Verizon needs to get off the stick and implement true
caller ID so that it's more useful.

"Mark" <xx-google@telefog.com> wrote in message
news:304679cd.0404140920.66fa9f75@posting.google.com...
> I have Verizon Wireless in Oakland, California.
> My phone is a Motorola V60c.
>
> When I receive a call that has caller ID on my
> cellphone, I only see the calling number, not
> the subscriber's name.
April 15, 2004 1:02:04 AM

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

"Xxxxx" <Not_gonna_give@all.com> wrote in message
news:fFhfc.30711$hd3.11067@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> I also find this annoying. When T-Mobile callers call, I can tell who they
> are. When Verizon wireless callers call, all I see is "Virginia" and the
> number. This is especially annoying when Verizon Wireless callers call my
> landline, since I get a bazillion calls from one-time or seldom-time
> callers. I can only fit so many numbers into my telephone's directory.
It's
> now full.
>
> If it can display "Virginia", I see no reason it can't as easily display
> something more useful. Verizon needs to get off the stick and implement
true
> caller ID so that it's more useful.
>
They were sending the name on the account in my market about 1~2 years ago.
That can lead to some interesting problems if you have multiple phones on
your account. My friend "Bob Smith" has a small business with 5 phones on
his account. There were a lot of questions about why "Bob Smith" was on the
caller ID.
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 1:02:04 AM

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

Xxxxx <Not_gonna_give@all.com> wrote:
> I also find this annoying. When T-Mobile callers call, I can tell who they
> are. When Verizon wireless callers call, all I see is "Virginia" and the
> number. This is especially annoying when Verizon Wireless callers call my
> landline, since I get a bazillion calls from one-time or seldom-time
> callers. I can only fit so many numbers into my telephone's directory. It's
> now full.
>
> If it can display "Virginia", I see no reason it can't as easily display
> something more useful. Verizon needs to get off the stick and implement true
> caller ID so that it's more useful.

You're talking about landline. Mark was talking about cellular, and there
is no cellular service that passes the name as well as the number to the
cell phone. Additionally, the name lookups on calls to landline require
agreements between the carriers and incur costs, and I'm thinking that a lot of
the landline companies don't want to pay the money to the cell carriers (or
other landline carriers!) for dips into the database to get the name.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 1:02:05 AM

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

He was also talking about cell to landline - I have noticed it too - a vzw
call to landline shows the number, where for example a Sprint PCS to
landline shows the name of the subscriber and number. I don't remember for
sure, but I think that T-Mobile calls to my landline also show the name of
the subscriber.

"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:_q-dneVRJpHZJuDdRVn-vA@lmi.net...
> Xxxxx <Not_gonna_give@all.com> wrote:
> You're talking about landline. Mark was talking about cellular, and there
> is no cellular service that passes the name as well as the number to the
> cell phone. Additionally, the name lookups on calls to landline require
> agreements between the carriers and incur costs, and I'm thinking that a
lot of
> the landline companies don't want to pay the money to the cell carriers
(or
> other landline carriers!) for dips into the database to get the name.
>
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 6:36:51 AM

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

That is not correct. T-Mobile passes both name and number, to cell phones
and to landlines alike.

Two of my T-Mobile friends decided not to switch to Verizon Wireless for
this very reason.

"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:_q-dneVRJpHZJuDdRVn-vA@lmi.net...
> You're talking about landline. Mark was talking about cellular, and there
> is no cellular service that passes the name as well as the number to the
> cell phone.
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 6:36:52 AM

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

Xxxxx <Not_gonna_give@all.com> wrote:
> That is not correct. T-Mobile passes both name and number, to cell phones
> and to landlines alike.

I don't recall that happening on my brother's T-Mobile phone when he carried
one. Maybe it's been changed. They would need to have agreements with all of
the other landline and cellular carriers that allow T-Mobile to do a database
query to get the subscriber name, and the other telcos would charge, so if
you are in fact correct, I'd find it very surprising, especially due to the
fact that T-Mobile is one of the least expensive carriers in the USA and
the aforementioned agreements would cut into their profits.

But if you're right, you're right. :)  My brother doesn't carry a T-Mobile
phone these days, having switched to ATTWS. And I won't use T-Mobile here
because they use Cingular's infrastructure in California, and Cingular is
part owned by SBC and I will never do business with SBC. So I will have to
defer to your superior knowledge of the subject. :) 

> Two of my T-Mobile friends decided not to switch to Verizon Wireless for
> this very reason.

Why were they considering switching in the first place? If that's one of their
primary criteria for switching or not switching, their priorities are messed
up (in my personal opinion, stuff like coverage is more important).

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 5:02:28 PM

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

Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, "Michael" <mpmorgan(no
spam)@adelphia.net> said:

; I always thought it was a programming responsibility on the user's part. If
; a stranger calls me, only their number shows. However, if someone calls me
; whose name and phone number are already programmed in my address book, then
; my screen shows whatever name I entered in the book as being associated with
; that number.

The OP specified just that: When a "stranger" calls, they are, by
definition, not in the user's address book. When this happens on a
landline, you still get the caller's info. When this happens on a
cellphone, you only get the number.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan <*> www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled <*> Send personal mail to gordol

"One of the best ways of enslaving a people is to keep them from
education. The second way of enslaving a people is to suppress the
sources of information, not only by burning books but by controlling
all the other ways in which ideas are transmitted." - Anna Eleanor
Roosevelt
April 16, 2004 1:53:27 AM

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

Your address book has to be setup with the name and the full 10 digit
phone number for the caller id to show the caller's name. If the
caller is not in your address book, you'll get the calling phone
number or restricted.


On 14 Apr 2004 10:20:21 -0700, xx-google@telefog.com (Mark) wrote:

>I have Verizon Wireless in Oakland, California.
>My phone is a Motorola V60c.
>
>When I receive a call that has caller ID on my
>cellphone, I only see the calling number, not
>the subscriber's name. And when I use my cellphone
>to call any number (either cellular or landline),
>the called party only sees my phone number, not my
>name.
>
>(I'm not considering a common cellphone feature that
>matches the caller's number with the caller's name
>as stored in the phone's address book and displays
>the stored name. This feature is useless to me
>because [1] I have my regular callers' numbers
>memorized, and [2] I want names for callers who
>aren't in my address book.)
>
>Verizon concedes that it doesn't provide names for
>caller ID, but customer service doesn't know why this
>is so.
>
>For calls made to Verizon cell phones, the
>reason for stripping the names from caller ID might
>originally have been that cell phone displays were
>too small to display both the name and the number,
>so Verizon chose to suppress the name.
>
>For calls made from Verizon cell phones to landline
>phones that have caller ID, I can't think of any good
>reason to suppress the name.
>
>Do all of the cellular carriers block names for
>caller ID?
>
>Why did Verizon set up their system to suppress names?
>
>Now that cell phones have screens large enough to
>display both numbers and names for caller ID, why
>doesn't Verizon trasmit both?
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>**********
>1366294709
Anonymous
April 16, 2004 2:48:54 AM

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

Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, ja said:

; Your address book has to be setup with the name and the full 10 digit
; phone number for the caller id to show the caller's name. If the
; caller is not in your address book, you'll get the calling phone
; number or restricted.

The "what" is not being questioned. The question being asked is "why
is it that way?"

--
Jeffrey Kaplan <*> www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled <*> Send personal mail to gordol

"Kid, at the end of a wormhole jump you're either in the right place or
you're a bucket of quarks smeared between Antares and Oz." (Meyhew
[Lois McMaster Bujold, "The Warriors Apprentice"])
Anonymous
April 16, 2004 2:48:55 AM

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

Jeffrey Kaplan <acv@gordol.org> wrote:

> The "what" is not being questioned. The question being asked is "why
> is it that way?"

I think my answer was pretty accurate - Verizon would have to ink an agreement
with each landline and cell carrier to allow them to hit the databases that
map numbers to subscriber names, and the other carriers would want money for
each dip into the database. It would cost a large amount of money, given the
number of phone calls VZW must process each day.

Of course, this is only speculation, but I think it's accurate speculation.
:) 

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
Anonymous
April 16, 2004 9:41:15 PM

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

Apparently Verizon and T-Mobile have such an agreement, as do Verizon and
Cingular. Interesting that Verizon and Verizon Wireless do not.

"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:EfCdneYc0sXgy-Ld4p2dnA@lmi.net...
> Jeffrey Kaplan <acv@gordol.org> wrote:
>
> I think my answer was pretty accurate - Verizon would have to ink an
agreement
> with each landline and cell carrier to allow them to hit the databases
that
> map numbers to subscriber names, and the other carriers would want money
for
> each dip into the database. It would cost a large amount of money, given
the
> number of phone calls VZW must process each day.
>
> Of course, this is only speculation, but I think it's accurate
speculation.
Anonymous
April 16, 2004 9:56:56 PM

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

Alan M. <letsgohokies@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Apparently Verizon and T-Mobile have such an agreement, as do Verizon and
> Cingular. Interesting that Verizon and Verizon Wireless do not.

Yup. And SBC and Sprint PCS also had such an agreement so that Sprint cell
subscribers' names showed up on SBC landline caller ID, but that ended when
they got into a fight about compensation for the database dips...

I really oughtta try calling my Verizon landline here from my VZW phone.
But I'd have to hook up my Caller ID box first... no clue where I put it :) 

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
April 17, 2004 4:08:12 AM

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

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:56:56 -0500, Steven J Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>I really oughtta try calling my Verizon landline here from my VZW phone.
>But I'd have to hook up my Caller ID box first... no clue where I put it :) 

When I was in Southwest VA, just over a year ago, my calls on my VZW
phone to my Verizon landline did not pass the name...I believe it may
have said "VIRGINIA CALL".

Mike
Anonymous
April 18, 2004 8:27:48 AM

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

Mike wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:56:56 -0500, Steven J Sobol
> <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
>> I really oughtta try calling my Verizon landline here from my VZW
>> phone. But I'd have to hook up my Caller ID box first... no clue
>> where I put it :) 
>
> When I was in Southwest VA, just over a year ago, my calls on my VZW
> phone to my Verizon landline did not pass the name...I believe it may
> have said "VIRGINIA CALL".
>
> Mike

I called Verizon today and was told that they don't send the name along with
the phone number for caller ID.
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 7:59:19 AM

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

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 21:53:27 GMT, ja <ja@socal.rr.com> chose to add this to
the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>Your address book has to be setup with the name and the full 10 digit
>phone number for the caller id to show the caller's name. If the
>caller is not in your address book, you'll get the calling phone
>number or restricted.

This is completely accurate. It also completely ignores the OP's question,
as stated in this paragraph:

>On 14 Apr 2004 10:20:21 -0700, xx-google@telefog.com (Mark) wrote:
>
>>(I'm not considering a common cellphone feature that
>>matches the caller's number with the caller's name
>>as stored in the phone's address book and displays
>>the stored name. This feature is useless to me
>>because [1] I have my regular callers' numbers
>>memorized, and [2] I want names for callers who
>>aren't in my address book.)

You're not the only person who replied in this thread who has a reading
comprehension problem, but you were the last one, so you're the one I
picked on.

--
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.
"When more and more people are thrown out of work, unemployment results."
- Calvin Coolidge
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 1:55:16 PM

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

In article <N4ednbfbw4Ml-R3dRVn-ig@lmi.net>,
Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>Alan M. <letsgohokies@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Apparently Verizon and T-Mobile have such an agreement, as do Verizon and
>> Cingular. Interesting that Verizon and Verizon Wireless do not.
>
>Yup. And SBC and Sprint PCS also had such an agreement so that Sprint cell
>subscribers' names showed up on SBC landline caller ID, but that ended when
>they got into a fight about compensation for the database dips...

A bit of detail here... In the landline network, the caller-id number
info comes along with the rest of the call setup info, but the name is
NOT included. The end switch has to make a separate database "dip" in
the caller's database to map the number to a name in order to send it
to the called phone, and contracts specifying the cost/dip have to be
in place. For whatever reason, most wireless providers don't provide
that database to the landline carrier. In the "old days", wireless
providers had a much more primitive connection to the landline system
(sort of like a super PBX rather than a peer phone company), but that
excuse doesn't apply anymore.

Similar contracts would have to be in place for landline->wireless calls,
but I am not sure if the protocol to the wireless phone supports caller
id name.
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 1:55:17 PM

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

Another twist is that I remember a while (year or two?) ago that included
with my vzw bill was a note that said that starting soon, subscriber info
would sent along with the number. For whatever reason that never
materialized.

"CharlesH" <hoch@exemplary.invalid> wrote in message
news:c607m401ut3@news3.newsguy.com...
> In article <N4ednbfbw4Ml-R3dRVn-ig@lmi.net>,
> Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
> >Alan M. <letsgohokies@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Apparently Verizon and T-Mobile have such an agreement, as do Verizon
and
> >> Cingular. Interesting that Verizon and Verizon Wireless do not.
> >
> >Yup. And SBC and Sprint PCS also had such an agreement so that Sprint
cell
> >subscribers' names showed up on SBC landline caller ID, but that ended
when
> >they got into a fight about compensation for the database dips...
>
> A bit of detail here... In the landline network, the caller-id number
> info comes along with the rest of the call setup info, but the name is
> NOT included. The end switch has to make a separate database "dip" in
> the caller's database to map the number to a name in order to send it
> to the called phone, and contracts specifying the cost/dip have to be
> in place. For whatever reason, most wireless providers don't provide
> that database to the landline carrier. In the "old days", wireless
> providers had a much more primitive connection to the landline system
> (sort of like a super PBX rather than a peer phone company), but that
> excuse doesn't apply anymore.
>
> Similar contracts would have to be in place for landline->wireless calls,
> but I am not sure if the protocol to the wireless phone supports caller
> id name.
>
August 28, 2011 3:03:06 PM

I worked for GTE/Verizon for 26 years. A lot of people in this forum are adding their opinion and not quoting facts. I don't know why Verizon elected to provide a state as the name rather than the caller's name. Although I was a senior executive (VP of IT) with them, I wasn't aware of why this decision was made.

VZW programs a state name that is passed with CNID/ANI for display. There is no requirement for lookups in the local carrier's database, that is being quoted by people who don't understand how it works.

Since I am a long time Apple user, I got an AT&T iPhone since it was not available through Verizon. I recently switched over due to poor GSM cell coverage in my area. The Verizon CDMA coverage is great and I can now actually talk on my cell phone without going outdoors or to the top of a building. However, I find the CNID/ANI display to be an issue since I want my name to appear. I'm going to contact VZW customer service and technicians to see if this can be programmed. I'll report back when I investigate further.
August 29, 2011 1:18:54 AM

This topic has been closed by Buwish
!