Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary?
Message-ID: <10508@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 6 Aug 90 18:16:34 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Lines: 21
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 545, Message 13 of 15


In article <10462@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write:

>   What I don't understand is why the telcos are allowed to have the
>*complete* number of the calling party.  They should only be allowed
>the local prefix, for billing purposes (IMHO.)

Funny you should mention that.  In France, itemized phone bills have
only become available in the past few years.  Before that, it was just
impulse counts like most other places outside North America.

French phone bills leave out the last few digits of each number,
explicitly for privacy purposes.  I don't know if there's any way to
get the omitted digits if you want them, or if they are even stored
anywhere.


Regards,

John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl