1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!

Incoming calls NOT listed...

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Michael, Dec 19, 2003.

  1. David S

    David S Guest

    On 22 Dec 2003 19:57:41 GMT, hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) chose to add
    this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >The argument that "I am paying for it, so I should see it" has the
    >problem that the caller has no way of knowing that their number will
    >not be blocked; with 8XX toll-free numbers, it is repeatedly publicized
    >that *67 will NOT block it, but there is no way for a caller to know
    >that a number is cellular (especially now with number portability).


    If it shows up blocked on my cell phone, I can choose not to answer,
    thereby not paying for it.

    -
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Please, Captain, not in front of the Klingons." - Spock



    › See More: Incoming calls NOT listed...
  2. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
    X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
    Lines: 23
    Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular.verizon:132071

    On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:55:58 GMT, David S <dwstreeter@att.net> wrote:

    >On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 04:36:50 GMT, noone@home.com (Larry W4CSC) chose to add
    >this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
    >
    >>On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 18:08:36 -0600, Steven J Sobol
    >><sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Yes, VZW PTT runs over 1X CDMA. (there's some alphabet soup for you! yummy.)
    >>>

    >>You can't confuse me. I used to work for COMMIDEASTFOR, CRUDESFLOT6,
    >>MFSGA, CNSYD, TRACORESD, EILINST, RCA, etc. Abbreviation City...(c;

    >
    >I can't top that, but I work in AV at NNHS in NCUSD203.
    >

    Oh, now I'm jealous!....(c;

    Larry, Code 132.12, Bldg 177, QAO, CNSYD
    Wonder who has my AUTOVON phone number, now?

    Larry W4CSC

    NNNN
  3. Peter Ross

    Peter Ross Guest

    Scott Stephenson wrote:

    > "CharlesH" <hoch@exemplary.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:bs7ibl0mu5@enews4.newsguy.com...
    >
    >
    >>I agree that the privacy argument is bogus. Why not just post the
    >>same number in the bill that the caller-id displayed on the phone when
    >>the call came in? If blocked/not available, then say that.
    >>
    >>The argument that "I am paying for it, so I should see it" has the
    >>problem that the caller has no way of knowing that their number will
    >>not be blocked; with 8XX toll-free numbers, it is repeatedly publicized
    >>that *67 will NOT block it, but there is no way for a caller to know
    >>that a number is cellular (especially now with number portability).
    >>

    >
    >
    > I'm really struggling to find a legitimate rationale for someone placing a
    > call to me and not wanting me to know who it is. The 'right to privacy'
    > (which I'm not sure I buy in this case) is blown the second the call is
    > connected and a conversation starts. Even telemarketers are being forced to
    > unblock their numbers when placing calls (first of the year?).


    There are various valid reasons for a caller, not hiding his or her
    identity when on the phone, but not wanting the calling number to be
    known. They range from what is, to most people, clearly morally valid
    like someone calling from a battered women's shelter to the more
    questionable, someone calling, purporting to be in one place, but
    actually in another to people who just don't want their phone numbers
    known. Those people being called, but bothered by this can choose not
    to take the call just as people calling a number which "doesn't accept
    calls from blocked numbers" can choose either to unblock the calling
    number or not make the call. Sounds fair to me.
    >
    >
  4. Peter Ross <pross@att.net> wrote:

    > There are various valid reasons for a caller, not hiding his or her
    > identity when on the phone, but not wanting the calling number to be
    > known. They range from what is, to most people, clearly morally valid
    > like someone calling from a battered women's shelter to the more
    > questionable, someone calling, purporting to be in one place, but
    > actually in another to people who just don't want their phone numbers
    > known.


    Then they shouldn't call me, especially people who just don't want me to
    know where they are, just because.

    > Those people being called, but bothered by this can choose not
    > to take the call just as people calling a number which "doesn't accept
    > calls from blocked numbers" can choose either to unblock the calling
    > number or not make the call. Sounds fair to me.


    But either way, the bill should show incoming numbers. You're right, you
    shouldn't take blocked calls if it really bugs you, but that doesn't negate
    the fact that I should still AT LEAST see calls that aren't blocked. And as
    far as I'm concerned - if a battered woman calls a toll-free hotline, they
    WILL have her number, blocked or not, because they pay for the call - and it
    should be the same for cell phones, because we pay for incoming calls. If she
    doesn't want certain people to have the phone number, all she needs to do is
    simply not call their cell phones.


    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Geek In Charge * 888.480.4NET (4638) * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  5. CharlesH

    CharlesH Guest

    In article <7uWdnd90gfRz_3WiRVn-hA@lmi.net>,
    Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
    >But either way, the bill should show incoming numbers. You're right, you
    >shouldn't take blocked calls if it really bugs you, but that doesn't negate
    >the fact that I should still AT LEAST see calls that aren't blocked. And as
    >far as I'm concerned - if a battered woman calls a toll-free hotline, they
    >WILL have her number, blocked or not, because they pay for the call - and it
    >should be the same for cell phones, because we pay for incoming calls. If she
    >doesn't want certain people to have the phone number, all she needs to do is
    >simply not call their cell phones.


    So the "certain people" just forward their home phone to a cell phone,
    to find out where the little lady is staying... (Caller-id reflects
    the original caller, not phone with forwarding enabled.) And with
    number portability, how is she supposed to know if she is calling
    a cell phone?
  6. "CharlesH" <hoch@exemplary.invalid> wrote in message
    news:bsa2ij01f4n@enews4.newsguy.com...
    >
    > So the "certain people" just forward their home phone to a cell phone,
    > to find out where the little lady is staying... (Caller-id reflects
    > the original caller, not phone with forwarding enabled.) And with
    > number portability, how is she supposed to know if she is calling
    > a cell phone?
    >


    Not talking about Caller ID here- just the detail of calls days and weeks
    later on the bill. The Caller ID can still be blocked at the time of the
    call.
  7. Joe Burke

    Joe Burke Guest

    "AL" <al145 @ delete.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:%K_Eb.4359$GO2.955@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
    > I called about this because my Cingular service provides "free" detailed
    > billing and lists incoming and outgoing calls. Every single one! Verizon
    > says the reason they don't do this is because the government doesn't allow
    > it and it is done for "privacy" reasons.
    >
    > I like CDMA for technical reasons, but in my testing of Cingular they are
    > providing so much more, without backtalk and excuse from CSR's.
    >
    > Now detailed billing is free from Cingular, and I can get it from free

    from
    > Vzw by going on-line and looking, but no incoming calls from Vzw. I have
    > both on-line from Cingular.
    >
    > AL
    >
    > "Michael" <betterthanthis@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:3fe380b8_1@127.0.0.1...
    > > Why doesn't Verizon list the incoming calls on their bill? I mean they
    > > certainly have the technology to do this and it would be MUCH easier for

    a
    > > customer to analyze their bill to see what's up. I'm wondering if there

    is
    > a
    > > reason why Verizon does this since my friend's cellular service lists

    the
    > > incoming #'.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet

    > News==----
    > > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000

    > Newsgroups
    > > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via

    Encryption
    > =---
    >
    >
    >


    Here's a good question, if the caller's number shows up on your display on
    your phone, it means the switch has to be compatible with CID, right? All
    they would have to do is sit in their cozy lether desk chair at the NOC and
    change the billing system to log that data from the switch. Sound simple?
    Yes. Will they ever do it? Probably not unless the FCC tells them they have
    to do it.

    Joe
    TH/K ED W,NY
  8. David S

    David S Guest

    On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 19:44:41 GMT, "Joe Burke" <abc@123.com> chose to add
    this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >Here's a good question, if the caller's number shows up on your display on
    >your phone, it means the switch has to be compatible with CID, right? All
    >they would have to do is sit in their cozy lether desk chair at the NOC and
    >change the billing system to log that data from the switch. Sound simple?
    >Yes. Will they ever do it? Probably not unless the FCC tells them they have
    >to do it.


    But they USED TO do it!!! Last spring, they took the action of CHANGING so
    they don't do it any more. That's what pisses me off.

    -
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "It's not as easy as it looks, being on all the time. I mean, what happens
    if I'm in a bad mood?" - Vanna White
  9. Bill Rubin

    Bill Rubin Guest

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    >
    > "CharlesH" <hoch@exemplary.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:bsa2ij01f4n@enews4.newsguy.com...
    > >
    > > So the "certain people" just forward their home phone to a cell phone,
    > > to find out where the little lady is staying... (Caller-id reflects
    > > the original caller, not phone with forwarding enabled.) And with
    > > number portability, how is she supposed to know if she is calling
    > > a cell phone?
    > >

    >
    > Not talking about Caller ID here- just the detail of calls days and weeks
    > later on the bill. The Caller ID can still be blocked at the time of the
    > call.


    Is this for incoming calls only or for both incoming and
    outgoing calls? I just signed up with Verizon today via their
    website, and was surprised to find a "detailed billing" optional
    feature for $1.99 a month. I looked into what it was, and it
    turns out that they charge you for seeing the list of calls in
    your printed bill, but you can allegedly see them on their
    website.

    Or is this not what the issue is?

    Bill
  10. CK

    CK Guest

    Yes, you can view the complete call detail for free on the web without
    paying the $1.99.

    "Bill Rubin" <billrubin@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    news:3FF0CBBF.19B7FF3C@prodigy.net...
    > Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > >
    > > "CharlesH" <hoch@exemplary.invalid> wrote in message
    > > news:bsa2ij01f4n@enews4.newsguy.com...
    > > >
    > > > So the "certain people" just forward their home phone to a cell phone,
    > > > to find out where the little lady is staying... (Caller-id reflects
    > > > the original caller, not phone with forwarding enabled.) And with
    > > > number portability, how is she supposed to know if she is calling
    > > > a cell phone?
    > > >

    > >
    > > Not talking about Caller ID here- just the detail of calls days and

    weeks
    > > later on the bill. The Caller ID can still be blocked at the time of

    the
    > > call.

    >
    > Is this for incoming calls only or for both incoming and
    > outgoing calls? I just signed up with Verizon today via their
    > website, and was surprised to find a "detailed billing" optional
    > feature for $1.99 a month. I looked into what it was, and it
    > turns out that they charge you for seeing the list of calls in
    > your printed bill, but you can allegedly see them on their
    > website.
    >
    > Or is this not what the issue is?
    >
    > Bill
  11. David S

    David S Guest

    On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 00:50:54 GMT, Bill Rubin <billrubin@prodigy.net> chose
    to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >Scott Stephenson wrote:
    >>
    >> "CharlesH" <hoch@exemplary.invalid> wrote in message
    >> news:bsa2ij01f4n@enews4.newsguy.com...
    >> >
    >> > So the "certain people" just forward their home phone to a cell phone,
    >> > to find out where the little lady is staying... (Caller-id reflects
    >> > the original caller, not phone with forwarding enabled.) And with
    >> > number portability, how is she supposed to know if she is calling
    >> > a cell phone?

    >>
    >> Not talking about Caller ID here- just the detail of calls days and weeks
    >> later on the bill. The Caller ID can still be blocked at the time of the
    >> call.

    >
    >Is this for incoming calls only or for both incoming and
    >outgoing calls? I just signed up with Verizon today via their
    >website, and was surprised to find a "detailed billing" optional
    >feature for $1.99 a month. I looked into what it was, and it
    >turns out that they charge you for seeing the list of calls in
    >your printed bill, but you can allegedly see them on their
    >website.
    >
    >Or is this not what the issue is?


    The issue (at least MY issue) is that the call detail, both online and the
    $1.99 printout, shows YOUR NUMBER as the "number called" on incoming calls
    rather than telling you who it was that called you.

    -
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "The [hydrogen] bomb's brilliant gleam reminds me of the brilliant shine
    Gleam gives to floors. It's a science marvel."
    - ad in the Pittsburgh 'Press,' 1954
  12. CharlesH

    CharlesH Guest

    In article <6n02vvg5cluc98t1174lntlboep0of78pu@4ax.com>,
    David S <dwstreeter@att.net> wrote:
    >The issue (at least MY issue) is that the call detail, both online and the
    >$1.99 printout, shows YOUR NUMBER as the "number called" on incoming calls
    >rather than telling you who it was that called you.


    Well, the column IS accurately labelled: it WAS your number which was
    called. :) :)

    (Like Microsoft error messages: completely accurate and totally unhelpful.)
  13. Isaiah Beard

    Isaiah Beard Guest

    Larry W4CSC wrote:

    > Verizon is a hodge-podge of systems acquired from various
    > previous owners made of amazingly incompatible hardwares and softwares
    > dating way back into the 1980s. Some switches are old Motorolas,
    > others from other manufacturers. This happens when you buy up systems
    > to gain control over territory, as opposed to a company like Sprint
    > who started from scratch and built from the ground up.


    To be fair to Verizon, even Sprint isn't one big happy homogenous
    network. They have their own mix of Lucent, Motorola, Nortel (though I
    think they got rid of those, they used to be quite buggy), and even
    Samsung switches depending in which city you're in and what vendor gave
    them the sweetest deal when that city was built out. And many
    less-populated areas are actually run by affiliates, with Sprint
    handling the back-end CS and billing functions on their behalf. Though,
    Sprint does get credit in that these differences are largely transparent
    to Sprint customers and all features work the same regardless of what
    vendor's gear is in use. The advantage isn't in having the same
    equipment everywhere; it's in making that different equipment work the
    same from the get-go. :)

    But it could still be worse. At least Verizon didn't take a Specialized
    Mobile Radio (SMR) system and force it to work like a cellular system,
    ala Nextel. :)


    --
    E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
    Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
  14. Isaiah Beard

    Isaiah Beard Guest

    Steven J Sobol wrote:



    > And - Is your area 1x-capable, and wouldn't they have had to upgrade the old
    > outdated switches to get 1x capability?


    The switch, maybe, but not the billing system. Actually, not even the
    switch needs to be upgraded in many cases, just the base stations that
    modulate the signal, with the addition of network infrastructure to
    enable 'net access. The voice part of the switching system can still be
    the same good ol' 5ESS that was around when AMPS was in its heyday.

    --
    E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
    Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
  15. Isaiah Beard

    Isaiah Beard Guest

    Michael wrote:

    > I would imagine that for the customer's benefit since we are paying premium
    > rates we'd like to know who those incoming calls are. We are billed for them
    > aren't we? Basically, I can Verizon customer service and bother the hell out
    > of them and tell them I received NO CALLS from one date to another date. All
    > I see is incoming, which means nothing to me. I bet I'd get out of paying
    > for some of these calls due to their incompetent billing system.


    Uhm, no, you couldn't. The fact that an incoming call was recorded
    still pretty much serves as the correct billing for that. And if you
    didn't go over your minute allowance, then what difference would it make
    anyway? After all, you would have been paying the same monthly fee
    whether you used all of your minutes in the bucket, or zero.

    > Pathetic company and I can't wait for the day some one
    > buys them out!


    *sigh* It's always the same. Someone who may or may not have a
    legitimate complaint at the outset will pretty much screw their own
    credibility when they make a stupid comment like "I hope someone buys
    them out!" As if that'll change anything.

    But, a buyout of Verizon is unlikely, considering that for the past
    several years, Verizon Wireless has been the one doing the acquiring of
    smaller companies. At present, you couldn't even hope for a merger of
    equals.

    --
    E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
    Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
  16. Isaiah Beard

    Isaiah Beard Guest

    Scott Stephenson wrote:


    > I'm really struggling to find a legitimate rationale for someone placing a
    > call to me and not wanting me to know who it is.


    I can think of a few reasons, none of which have to do with the motive
    of the caller.

    1. The person may be calling from a customer care center (not a
    telemarketer, but say, that doctor's office where you wanted to set up
    an appointment) that has multiple DID (direct inward dial) numbers, but
    their system is not set up to display the correct DID number outward.
    In such a case, you'd get get the number of whatever random trunk the
    outgoing call was placed on, and if you try to call that number back,
    the call will result in a glare condition (your call connects with
    someone actually trying to dial OUT, thus causing quite a bit of confusion).

    2. Some (very) old cell switches are also not appropriately equipped for
    caller ID, and you'll get a trunk number instead of the calling party's
    number. Call that number, and you'll get either dead air or the
    aforementioned glare condition.

    3. Someone's calling from a pay phone, and the COCOT has set that pay
    phone to not allow incoming calls. Whatever number you get will then be
    useless.


    > The 'right to privacy'
    > (which I'm not sure I buy in this case) is blown the second the call is
    > connected and a conversation starts.


    Well, if you really want to get political, the current White House
    administration contends that the "right to privacy" is similarly blown
    the second you open a bank account, apply for a loan, gamble at a
    casino, buy a car, or even buy postage (see: http://tinyurl.com/3hkau ).
    But that's neither here nor there. Because one person doesn't see a
    "legitimate reason" for something to be private doesn't automatically
    make that privacy illegitimate (well, at least until recently). That's
    what (used to) make this country so great.



    --
    E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
    Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
  17. Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
    > Scott Stephenson wrote:
    >
    >
    >> I'm really struggling to find a legitimate rationale for someone placing a
    >> call to me and not wanting me to know who it is.

    >
    > I can think of a few reasons, none of which have to do with the motive
    > of the caller.
    >
    > 1. The person may be calling from a customer care center (not a
    > telemarketer, but say, that doctor's office where you wanted to set up
    > an appointment) that has multiple DID (direct inward dial) numbers, but
    > their system is not set up to display the correct DID number outward.
    > In such a case, you'd get get the number of whatever random trunk the
    > outgoing call was placed on, and if you try to call that number back,
    > the call will result in a glare condition (your call connects with
    > someone actually trying to dial OUT, thus causing quite a bit of confusion).


    So set the outgoing CLID to the 800 number of the call center, a number that
    is advertised as being the center's public number. That's different from
    just not showing a number. And that's not a Verizon issue, that's an issue
    with the company placing the call...

    > 3. Someone's calling from a pay phone, and the COCOT has set that pay
    > phone to not allow incoming calls. Whatever number you get will then be
    > useless.


    Which is fine...

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Geek In Charge * 888.480.4NET (4638) * sjsobol@JustThe.net

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?