Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: ihlpf!kityss@att.uucp (Arnette P Baker +1 708 510 6437)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Message-ID: <10389@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 3 Aug 90 14:13:00 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 46
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 538, Message 15 of 15


As previously reported by many telecom readers, I too called from our
PBX.  As expected, I was given the "billing number" for our location
(708) 510-4000.  My DID number is (708) 510-6437.  In many cases a
PBX's billing number will also be that of the switch board (as is the
case here), but may also be a non-existent number (i.e. it can't be
dialed, it is for billing only).  In this case it sounds like the
system gets very confused.

A couple of other observations.  I listened carefully to the
recording.  Several people have said the system noted that they were
calling over MCI.  Are you sure?  What I heard was a pitch selling MCI
based 800 ANI services.  Sounds like this outfit is a re-seller
(aggregator) of MCI services.  I was definitely NOT calling over MCI,
since I work for AT&T and called from my desk. |^)

Also, I was slightly amused to see someone from Bell Labs mention that
they were surprised that there ISDN private call feature only worked
INTRA-group.  There were two reasons that this failed.  1) ISDN based
caller-id, and the associated call blocking (privacy) feature, are
only tariffed for INTRA-Group use here in Illinois.  Caller-ID is
currently being debated in the state legislator - and it does not look
good for proponents of the feature.  This INTRA-Group restriction on
ISDN services applies in most places, unless that area is tariffed for
Caller-ID.  Note, this is a legal restriction not a technical one.  2)
The 800 service that delivers ANI does not work on the same
protocol/mechanism that Caller-ID does.  Caller-ID is a SS7 (CCS7)
based service that delivers calling party identification via out of
band signalling.  ANI delivers the billing number (not always that of
the calling party) through a different protocol.  I am not sure of the
mechanism of ANI delivery, but it is not SS7 based.  Because of this
difference, call block (either per call or permanent blocking) will
not work to block ANI delivery - the call block feature is for SS7
services.

I should point out that Caller-ID may also deliver the wrong number
for PBX, Multi-party, or Multi-line group calls.  Since, most PBXs are
connected to the CO by a trunk (as opposed to a line), the number
transmitted by Caller-ID tends to be the "main" (pilot) number for
these types of lines, because that is all the CO knows about.  This
problem may depend on the type of CO switch, but to my knowledge there
is no protocol yet defined to pass SS7 type information from a PBX to
a CO.


Arnette Baker  AT&T Network Systems  Lisle, Il. 60532  kityss@ihlpf.att.com