Listing the owner of an unlisted number? illegal?

[Guest]

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

I have just looked over the FCC web site to see if this is true, can't find
anything, so I thought maybe someone here would know if listing the owner of
an unlisted number, in a public forum, like this one, is illegal?

This question originates from CreditBoards, where people who have collection
agents calling all day sometimes post an unlisted number from there caller
ID to see if anyone recognizes it.

Does anyone have a link to the US law or regulation on this?

 

[Guest]

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

Breezy <suziq4you2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have just looked over the FCC web site to see if this is true, can't find
> anything, so I thought maybe someone here would know if listing the owner of
> an unlisted number, in a public forum, like this one, is illegal?

No. Unethical, perhaps, but as far as I know, not illegal.

> This question originates from CreditBoards, where people who have collection
> agents calling all day sometimes post an unlisted number from there caller
> ID to see if anyone recognizes it.

If the person paying for the phone number allows it to be passed over called
ID, it's not even unethical - they're not making it private. You can always
block caller ID on your outgoing calls if you really don't want people to
know your number, and companies running PBXs have other options too.

--
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

 

[kc]

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

there are plenty of ways to get a non pub tn besides it
being listed in some book. It will always show on caller id if it's not
blocked. Also anytime you dial a toll feee # they will get your # blocked
or not - they are paying for the call and therefore have to right to view
itemized calls they received....

"Breezy" <suziq4you2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KsWsc.3292$Ly.3041@attbi_s01...
> I have just looked over the FCC web site to see if this is true, can't
find
> anything, so I thought maybe someone here would know if listing the owner
of
> an unlisted number, in a public forum, like this one, is illegal?
>
> This question originates from CreditBoards, where people who have
collection
> agents calling all day sometimes post an unlisted number from there caller
> ID to see if anyone recognizes it.
>
> Does anyone have a link to the US law or regulation on this?
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"Calling a toll free number costs the called party for the call so they
should have the right to view the caller's number."

Most cell phone owners must pay for calls they receive - but blocked numbers
do not show on the phone and NO incoming numbers show on Verizon's bills.


"KC" <kimmy.campbell@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ko9tc.21973$4%3.5159@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> there are plenty of ways to get a non pub tn besides it
> being listed in some book. It will always show on caller id if it's not
> blocked. Also anytime you dial a toll feee # they will get your # blocked
> or not - they are paying for the call and therefore have to right to view
> itemized calls they received....
>

 

[Guest]

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

IMHO <imho@net.net> wrote:
> "Calling a toll free number costs the called party for the call so they
> should have the right to view the caller's number."
>
> Most cell phone owners must pay for calls they receive - but blocked numbers
> do not show on the phone and NO incoming numbers show on Verizon's bills.

Yes, and this is a big complaint I have with the carriers - except Cingular.
Cingular does show incoming caller ID. Verizon doesn't. I actually got the
addresses for both the Exec office here in Southern California (the one
that services your area may be different if you're not in LA or San Diego or
environs) - and for Dennis Strigl at VZW corporate HQ in New Jersey (he's
the CEO). But I'm not going to bother complaining, since I'm shutting off
my VZW lines within a month or two anyhow.

As far as I know, no one else besides Cingular shows incoming caller ID
on the bill details. Unfortunately, since Cingular is owned in part by my
least favorite landline telephone company, and I therefore will never use
a Cingular phone, I won't have that privilege.


--
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

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 26 May 2004 23:57:43 -0500, Steven J Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>As far as I know, no one else besides Cingular shows incoming caller ID
>on the bill details. Unfortunately, since Cingular is owned in part by my
>least favorite landline telephone company, and I therefore will never use
>a Cingular phone, I won't have that privilege.

Alltel's bills display available numbers on the bill. Calls I get
that say "unavailable" on the phone show "incoming call". I've never
paid attention to the few that are blocked.

 

[Guest]

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

You raise an interesting point. One of the reasons you can't tele-market to
a cell phone is because the cell-phone user is paying for the call.
Wouldn't the same reason apply then to inbound calls and caller-id? Since
you are paying for the call, (use of the airways, cell phone, towers, etc)
shouldn't you see the caller-id of the person calling you?

You are correct, as I understand it, if you call an 800 number, even if you
attempt to block the caller-id, it will be displayed. Having the number
display is part of the service in an 800 number.

I was going to continue, but it is unlikely that we will change Verizon
Wireless policy with this thought...

the dr.

"KC" <kimmy.campbell@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ko9tc.21973$4%3.5159@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> there are plenty of ways to get a non pub tn besides it
> being listed in some book. It will always show on caller id if it's not
> blocked. Also anytime you dial a toll feee # they will get your # blocked
> or not - they are paying for the call and therefore have to right to view
> itemized calls they received....
>
> "Breezy" <suziq4you2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:KsWsc.3292$Ly.3041@attbi_s01...
> > I have just looked over the FCC web site to see if this is true, can't
> find
> > anything, so I thought maybe someone here would know if listing the
owner
> of
> > an unlisted number, in a public forum, like this one, is illegal?
> >
> > This question originates from CreditBoards, where people who have
> collection
> > agents calling all day sometimes post an unlisted number from there
caller
> > ID to see if anyone recognizes it.
> >
> > Does anyone have a link to the US law or regulation on this?
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:42:47 GMT, "dr.wireMORE"
<dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote:

>You are correct, as I understand it, if you call an 800 number, even if you
>attempt to block the caller-id, it will be displayed. Having the number
>display is part of the service in an 800 number.
>
>I was going to continue, but it is unlikely that we will change Verizon
>Wireless policy with this thought...

It's probably a technical issue as much as a policy issue. I'd
imagine that changing over from a CID based system to ANI would be an
expensive hurdle.

The true solution for them is simple. Do like their landline
counterparts and offer anonymous call block for cell lines.

 

[Guest]

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

dr.wireMORE wrote:

> You raise an interesting point. One of the reasons you can't tele-market to
> a cell phone is because the cell-phone user is paying for the call.
> Wouldn't the same reason apply then to inbound calls and caller-id? Since
> you are paying for the call, (use of the airways, cell phone, towers, etc)
> shouldn't you see the caller-id of the person calling you?
>
> You are correct, as I understand it, if you call an 800 number, even if you
> attempt to block the caller-id, it will be displayed. Having the number
> display is part of the service in an 800 number.

Actually, I think it's still an apples and oranges comparison. For
starters, some 800 packages have zoned pricing, and some are rated based
on distance. Therefore, for accounting purposes, it generally accepted
that you'll want to know the number that called you to find out its
distance and whether the correct rate was charged. Even on flat-rate
800 calling packages, some states have different rates for in-state
calls, so you will still want to know which calls were in-state and thus
rated differently.

On a cell phone, however, incoming calls don't vary in rate at all based
on distance. In fact, if anything, what you're paying is the same
regardless of who calls you, with the only variations being maybe time
of day or whether it's a in-network call (and with WLNP, it's becoming
increasingly hard to tell just by looking at the number whether the call
is in-network). Thus, it makes the the CID info moot for that purpose.

--
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?)

In article <bnltc.22597$9H6.11443@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
dr.wireMORE <dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote:
>You raise an interesting point. One of the reasons you can't tele-market to
>a cell phone is because the cell-phone user is paying for the call.
>Wouldn't the same reason apply then to inbound calls and caller-id? Since
>you are paying for the call, (use of the airways, cell phone, towers, etc)
>shouldn't you see the caller-id of the person calling you?
>
>You are correct, as I understand it, if you call an 800 number, even if you
>attempt to block the caller-id, it will be displayed. Having the number
>display is part of the service in an 800 number.

Calls to 800 numbers deliver the ANI (Automatic Number Identification)
of the caller, not the caller-id. The ANI is the billing number, which
is usually the same as the caller-id for residential users, but may
well be different for businesses; e.g., CID would show the extension of
the caller, but ANI would show the main billing number of the company.
The ANI is what the phone companies use for billing, so, unlike CID, is
not readily spoofed. 800 numbers are treated equivalently to "collect"
calls, with the "we will accept the charges" preauthorized.

While the argument that "I am paying for incoming wireless calls, so
I should see who is paying for it" makes sense at first, consider that
delivering blocked CID to cell phones would completely negate the value
of blocking. Anyone could just forward their landline to a cellphone to
bypass the CID block, since CID reflects the original caller, not the
forwarding phone. (On a forwarded call, the ANI reflects the forwarding
phone, so if you forwarded your phone to a toll-free number, they would
get your number, not the original caller's number.)

When one calls a toll-free number, one knows ahead of time that the
calling number is available to the called party. When calling any other
number, one expects the CID blocking to be honored.

Delivering blocked CID to the end user is a major regulatory no-no
(whether it is always enforced is another matter).

Also, CID blocking and unlisted are two unrelated things, and doing
one not effect the other. If you have an unlisted number and don't want
people to get your CID, you have to explicitly arrange for your CID to
be blocked.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 27 May 2004 11:23:21 -0400, The Ghost of General Lee
<ghost@general.lee> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the
universe, and everything:

>It's probably a technical issue as much as a policy issue.

But they USED TO have it, until about a year ago. That's what really
cheeses me off.

--
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.
"A little vagueness goes a long way in this business." - Jerry Brown

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:07:12 -0400, Isaiah Beard
<sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> chose to add this to the great equation of
life, the universe, and everything:

>On a cell phone, however, incoming calls don't vary in rate at all based
>on distance. In fact, if anything, what you're paying is the same
>regardless of who calls you, with the only variations being maybe time
>of day or whether it's a in-network call (and with WLNP, it's becoming
>increasingly hard to tell just by looking at the number whether the call
>is in-network). Thus, it makes the the CID info moot for that purpose.

It's not moot at all. If you recognize the number, you know whose it is and
how the call should be billed. *Very* few of my calls are from numbers I
don't know.

--
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 spent countless fun hours watching my Lionel train go around and around,
and of course around. The train had a milk car with a milkman who loaded
and unloaded milk cans by means of the mysterious power of -- prepare to
become excited -- magnetism! There was even a missile car that used
magnetism to launch a missile, which went straight up and came back down on
the train, sometimes hitting the milkman, who apparently represented some
kind of military threat." - Dave Barry

 

[Guest]

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

On 27 May 2004 18:55:43 GMT, hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) chose to add
this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>In article <bnltc.22597$9H6.11443@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
>dr.wireMORE <dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote:
>>You raise an interesting point. One of the reasons you can't tele-market to
>>a cell phone is because the cell-phone user is paying for the call.
>>Wouldn't the same reason apply then to inbound calls and caller-id? Since
>>you are paying for the call, (use of the airways, cell phone, towers, etc)
>>shouldn't you see the caller-id of the person calling you?
>>
>>You are correct, as I understand it, if you call an 800 number, even if you
>>attempt to block the caller-id, it will be displayed. Having the number
>>display is part of the service in an 800 number.
>
>While the argument that "I am paying for incoming wireless calls, so
>I should see who is paying for it" makes sense at first, consider that
>delivering blocked CID to cell phones would completely negate the value
>of blocking. Anyone could just forward their landline to a cellphone to
>bypass the CID block, since CID reflects the original caller, not the
>forwarding phone. (On a forwarded call, the ANI reflects the forwarding
>phone, so if you forwarded your phone to a toll-free number, they would
>get your number, not the original caller's number.)

CID blocking is totally irrelevant to this discussion. If someone calls me
with CID blocked, that is their prerogative and it is mine to answer the
call, or not.

The question posed by the OP is whether a number that is "unlisted" can be
posted to a public forum.

The tangent this went off onto, while also irrelevant to the OP's question,
is highly relevant to this forum: why is it that they can show you the CID
of an incoming call in real time on your phone but not a couple of weeks
later on your bill. The excuse of "privacy" makes no sense because it's on
the phone at the time of the call. Obviously there is some cost to VZW in
putting it on the bill over and above the cost of putting it on the phone,
but I really don't see how it costs more to say the call came FROM
<caller's number> than it does to say that it came TO <my number>.

--
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.
"Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering kaboom!"
- Marvin Martian

 

[Guest]

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

>
> The question posed by the OP is whether a number that is "unlisted" can be
> posted to a public forum.
>

I appreciate eveyones feedback on this issue, "Its all good"

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:52:44 GMT, David S
<dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 May 2004 11:23:21 -0400, The Ghost of General Lee
><ghost@general.lee> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the
>universe, and everything:
>
>>It's probably a technical issue as much as a policy issue.
>
>But they USED TO have it, until about a year ago. That's what really
>cheeses me off.

What region? I know of no carrier who has ever offered ANI service
instead of CID.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:52:55 GMT, David S
<dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

>The tangent this went off onto, while also irrelevant to the OP's question,
>is highly relevant to this forum: why is it that they can show you the CID
>of an incoming call in real time on your phone but not a couple of weeks
>later on your bill. The excuse of "privacy" makes no sense because it's on
>the phone at the time of the call. Obviously there is some cost to VZW in
>putting it on the bill over and above the cost of putting it on the phone,
>but I really don't see how it costs more to say the call came FROM
><caller's number> than it does to say that it came TO <my number>.

The problem is likely one of the system never having been programmed
to capture and *SAVE* the CID info for display on the bill. The
stream is simply passed along to the phone when the call comes in and
is likely not saved in the call's billing record.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 04:00:34 -0400, The Ghost of General Lee
<ghost@general.lee> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the
universe, and everything:

>On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:52:44 GMT, David S
><dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 May 2004 11:23:21 -0400, The Ghost of General Lee
>><ghost@general.lee> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the
>>universe, and everything:
>>
>>>It's probably a technical issue as much as a policy issue.
>>
>>But they USED TO have it, until about a year ago. That's what really
>>cheeses me off.
>
>What region? I know of no carrier who has ever offered ANI service
>instead of CID.

I don't know from ANI and CID. I was referring to putting the number of the
person who called you on your bill. See my other response to you in this
thread.

--
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.
"Are A Big Problem
Are A Big Problem"
- headline in the New York 'Times'

 

[Guest]

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

David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

>>What region? I know of no carrier who has ever offered ANI service
>>instead of CID.
>
> I don't know from ANI and CID. I was referring to putting the number of the
> person who called you on your bill. See my other response to you in this
> thread.

ANI is Automatic Number Identification, which identifies the incoming
phone number even if the caller has blocked caller ID from being sent with
the call. Typically used on toll-free lines where the call recipient pays
for the call, as well as on certain types of non-toll-free lines like PRI
circuits...

--
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.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 04:06:58 -0400, The Ghost of General Lee
<ghost@general.lee> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the
universe, and everything:

>On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:52:55 GMT, David S
><dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
>
>>The tangent this went off onto, while also irrelevant to the OP's question,
>>is highly relevant to this forum: why is it that they can show you the CID
>>of an incoming call in real time on your phone but not a couple of weeks
>>later on your bill. The excuse of "privacy" makes no sense because it's on
>>the phone at the time of the call. Obviously there is some cost to VZW in
>>putting it on the bill over and above the cost of putting it on the phone,
>>but I really don't see how it costs more to say the call came FROM
>><caller's number> than it does to say that it came TO <my number>.
>
>The problem is likely one of the system never having been programmed
>to capture and *SAVE* the CID info for display on the bill. The
>stream is simply passed along to the phone when the call comes in and
>is likely not saved in the call's billing record.

My bill used to say the number all incoming calls came from (unless they
were blocked, I suppose, but I don't think I ever got any such calls). It
stopped doing so a little over a year ago. It was yet another good thing we
had that was taken away from us. When I complained, they said the reason
was "privacy", to which I say bullsh*t.

--
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.
"In medical news, researchers studying heart-attack victims announce that a
person who drinks a glass or two of wine or beer is, quote, 'significantly
more likely to do the Macarena.'" - Dave Barry

 

[Guest]

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

In article <5ncac0t1607vcrim2nvrfs2difd0kka4m9@4ax.com>,
David S <dwstreeter@att.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 04:06:58 -0400, The Ghost of General Lee
><ghost@general.lee> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the
>universe, and everything:
>My bill used to say the number all incoming calls came from (unless they
>were blocked, I suppose, but I don't think I ever got any such calls). It
>stopped doing so a little over a year ago. It was yet another good thing we
>had that was taken away from us. When I complained, they said the reason
>was "privacy", to which I say bullsh*t.

I'd like to see them explain why it is not a privacy concern when the
CID is displayed on the phone, but IS when displayed on the bill.

Apparently, some people don't realize that having your number unlisted
is unrelated to whether your CID is blocked.

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 03:36:35 GMT, David S
<dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

>>The problem is likely one of the system never having been programmed
>>to capture and *SAVE* the CID info for display on the bill. The
>>stream is simply passed along to the phone when the call comes in and
>>is likely not saved in the call's billing record.
>
>My bill used to say the number all incoming calls came from (unless they
>were blocked, I suppose, but I don't think I ever got any such calls). It
>stopped doing so a little over a year ago. It was yet another good thing we
>had that was taken away from us. When I complained, they said the reason
>was "privacy", to which I say bullsh*t.

I'd be willing to bet your area was switched to a different billing
system. I've been with VZW since they were BAM 9 years ago, and I
have never received the calling numbers on any bill.

If there's a reason for not putting it on the bill, it certainly has
more to do with cost than privacy.

 

[Guest]

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

"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
news:rlsjc0hee2hln2r7hifdc4b2oaudqel0c9@4ax.com...


>
> If there's a reason for not putting it on the bill, it certainly has
> more to do with cost than privacy.
>

Agreed- although I find it funny that none of the regulatory agencies making
headlines by imposing themselves on the industry have required this, as they
did for 800 numbers. Of course, they are working on the really important
stuff, like font size on the Service Agreeement.