Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: John Decatur KA2QHD Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? Message-ID: <10702@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 9 Aug 90 02:50:56 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: KA2QHD - OCEAN NJ Lines: 26 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 558, Message 9 of 11 In article <10462@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mtv@milton.u.washington.edu (David Schanen) writes: > In article <10445@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon > writes: > >Ok, folks, time to set this straight. There is confusion here. 800 ANI > >sends the CALLING number NOT the billing number. ........ Ack. No it doesn't. Sorry John. The IXC receives only the billing number via carrier interconnection signaling. The IXC never receives the calling party number; therefore, it is only possible for the IXC to deliver to the called party the billing number. All the stories about the ANI identifier number being posted should confirm this -- all those weird numbers (the BBN number from 25 years ago, an undialable IBT number, switchboards, and various undialable numbers) are all billing numbers for various centrex groups, PBXes, etc. David G Lewis Teleport Communications -- New York +1.718.983.2079 Engineer -- New Technologies !att!tsdiag!ka2qhd!deej