Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: David Lewis Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Caller ID Message-ID: <3410@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 31 Jan 90 16:48:17 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ Lines: 48 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 68, message 8 of 11 In article , well!rocke@ lll-crg.llnl.gov (Peter Marshall) writes: > Re: Dave Levenson's 1/20 post on this topic, the technology you refer > to is generally called "blocking." Apparently, relevant > Bellcore-designed software had such capacity built in, according to a > Bellcore witness in the PA Caller ID case; Whoa. There is no Bellcore-designed caller ID software; please don't go misquoting Elena Worrall (who, I believe, is the Bellcore witness to whom you're referring). Bellcore wrote generic requirements for Calling Number Delivery, as well as for the other CLASS (SM) features, including Calling Number Delivery Blocking. Software designed and developed by, among others, AT&T and NTI may or may not have the capability built in. (Offhand, I think they both do, but I wouldn't swear to it.) But we didn't design the software; we wrote generic requirements and other folks designed the software. Regarding the fact that the calling number can be delivered when calling a 900 number as well as an 800 number, I was unaware that anyone was offering this service. Technically it's clearly feasible; I wasn't aware that any IC was offering to do it, though. MCI, it should be noted, will be offering ("real soon now") in-band delivery of ANI. This essentially means that any call carried via MCI (or, by extension, by any IC who choses to implement the same technology and offer the same service) could result in the billing number being delivered to the called party. There is no current way to block this from the originating end. Explanation for the "no current way to block this..." statement: The billing number is sent by the originating local exchange carrier to the IC via Equal Access MF signaling. The originating LEC is obligated to send this information to the IC as part of the Equal Access arrangements; the caller can not specify that this not be sent to the IC because the IC would then have no billing information. Once the IC has the billing number, the calling party is out of the loop. It is technically feasible, I suppose, to add a special sequence to the MF signaling "protocol" meaning "caller requests billing number privacy", but that doesn't exist currently and it's not clear it would go over that well -- performance impacts and all that.} David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."