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!

Verizon and Fraud?

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Michael, Dec 28, 2003.

  1. John

    John Guest

    hmmm. I didn't realize this subjece was alread "in play"!!!!

    tells me something... hmmmm....

    John

    John wrote:
    > Thank you for your reply.
    >
    > I boiled down the facts to the core. I will provide the State Attorney
    > General
    > or other legal agent with the specifics of which I have documentation
    >
    > John
    >
    > Scott Stephenson wrote:
    >
    >> "Vaughn" <sailor303@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >> news:6xGJb.44677$E17.21371@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
    >>
    >>> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:v%5Ib.3074$zC4.3553771@news2.news.adelphia.net...
    >>>
    >>>> "Michael" <betterthanthis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:Tdadneh1m6yxdW2iRVn-hw@comcast.com...
    >>>>
    >>>>> Which leads to my question...if they don't provide me phone number's

    >>
    >>
    >> on
    >>
    >>>> the
    >>>>
    >>>>> incoming calls I inquire about then I shouldn't be liable to pay for
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> them?
    >>>
    >>>> A very appropriate line of thinking. The only thing that might shoot

    >>
    >>
    >> the
    >>
    >>>> whole thing to hell is a line of fine print in your contract that says

    >>
    >>
    >> you
    >>
    >>>> agree to pay for calls that fall into this category. If its not there,

    >>
    >>
    >> I
    >>
    >>>> don't see how they can force you to pay for them.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Even if the fine print wasn't there, they could then decide to not have

    >>
    >>
    >> the
    >>
    >>> person as a customer. If he complains to all the providers (since
    >>> none can
    >>> provide 100% due to technology issues), he won't have a cell phone.
    >>> Cell
    >>> phones aren't life line devices so providers can deny service.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Are you saying that their inability to provide 100% absolves them of the
    >> responsibility to itemized all calls charged for? I doubt this attitude
    >> would hold up in court- simply telling someone they owe for something
    >> is no
    >> good without any documentation.
    >>
    >>

    >



    › See More: Verizon and Fraud?
  2. Elector

    Elector Guest

    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:uAJJb.1155$yW1.1005961@news2.news.adelphia.net...
    <snip>
    > OK- I'll bite. What possible staute would exist to prohibit

    disclosure of a
    > phone number?
    >
    >


    Privacy would be the first one to come to my mind. And the individuals
    right to it superceded the right of you having to see it. (the number)

    Elector
  3. "Elector" <elector@my-deja.com> wrote in message
    news:WqVJb.51830$q55.34473@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
    >
    > "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    > news:uAJJb.1155$yW1.1005961@news2.news.adelphia.net...
    > <snip>
    > > OK- I'll bite. What possible staute would exist to prohibit

    > disclosure of a
    > > phone number?
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Privacy would be the first one to come to my mind. And the individuals
    > right to it superceded the right of you having to see it. (the number)
    >


    There is no right to privacy. It is not mentioned anywhere in the
    Constitution, which is where our 'rights' are established. Privacy is a
    privelege afforded to us bythe government, and while certain aspects of that
    privelege are drawn out by statute (medical records, etc), there is no
    statute on any book that defines the totality of the concept.

    Now, I do understand the expectation of having a 'privacy shell' in today's
    society, and accept that. But the protection ends once a person makes an
    action or decision that takes them outside of this shell. Once a number is
    dialed and the answering party says hello, the expectation of privacy is
    gone, unless the nature of the conversation itself (lawyer-client, for
    example) is protected by statute- the person has made the decision to leave
    the shell. How many court cases have been won due to the statements made by
    a party during a phone conversation? If the 'right to privacy' applied to
    phone communications, none of these statements would be admissable.

    Bottom line- an unprotected form of communication can not be private unless
    both parties agree to it. If protection of privacy is the main concern, the
    call should never be made.
  4. David S

    David S Guest

    On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 16:36:39 GMT, "Elector" <elector@my-deja.com> chose to
    add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    >news:yMVJb.1317$yW1.1146158@news2.news.adelphia.net...
    >> There is no right to privacy. It is not mentioned anywhere in the
    >> Constitution, which is where our 'rights' are established. Privacy

    >is a
    >> privelege afforded to us bythe government, and while certain aspects

    >of that
    >> privelege are drawn out by statute (medical records, etc), there is

    >no
    >> statute on any book that defines the totality of the concept.
    >>
    >> Now, I do understand the expectation of having a 'privacy shell' in

    >today's
    >> society, and accept that. But the protection ends once a person

    >makes an
    >> action or decision that takes them outside of this shell. Once a

    >number is
    >> dialed and the answering party says hello, the expectation of

    >privacy is
    >> gone, unless the nature of the conversation itself (lawyer-client,

    >for
    >> example) is protected by statute- the person has made the decision

    >to leave
    >> the shell. How many court cases have been won due to the statements

    >made by
    >> a party during a phone conversation? If the 'right to privacy'

    >applied to
    >> phone communications, none of these statements would be admissable.
    >>
    >> Bottom line- an unprotected form of communication can not be private

    >unless
    >> both parties agree to it. If protection of privacy is the main

    >concern, the
    >> call should never be made.

    >
    >The rights of any individual stop at my door step (or your door step)
    >under the constitution and the free speech statutes. You may have a
    >right to do this or that but not when it infringes on the rights of
    >others. And please remember the US constitution is not valid outside
    >the 50 states and possessions of the US. so that leaves hundreds of
    >nations not covered by it. But back to the cell phone issue. And read
    >the amendments to the US Constitution you will be surprised at what is
    >and isn't in it.
    >http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#amendments
    >and http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
    >
    >My right to privacy is granted in many Federal, State, County, City
    >and Municipal laws that have been acted on over the years. In my
    >locality (NY) my right to want my number listed on your bill or not is
    >up to me. I have many folks that have the "blocks" on the line that
    >state they do not accept "private calls" and that is all well and
    >good. It is their right to have it that way, I usually tell them when
    >they eventually call me or run into me that I will not be calling
    >their home etc. due to that decision of theirs and to please don't be
    >offended via my not staying in touch. This is if they know my numbers
    >or not. I am not dialing *82 and then the number etc.
    >
    >That is my right.
    >
    >It is also my right when I call someone to block them from seeing my
    >number, many business phones don't have blocks so they want to make
    >money and this is not a problem. It would be very stupid to have a
    >business block private home or cell numbers and still want to be in
    >business.
    >
    >In my home life and in my cellular service I block my number, why?
    >Well first off *I pay* for that number and if I want you or anyone
    >else to have it on a bill detail or any other means then I would not
    >have went to the trouble to block it. Your options and is your right
    >is to not accept *private calls* it is plan and simple.
    >
    >If by chance the issue resolves around the number of minutes a person
    >uses on a cellular invoice and your not wanting to get ripped off then
    >I would suggest that a personal log of the calls you actually make be
    >maintained by you. I have gotten wrong or misdialed numbers on
    >occasions as well as have made them. I have gotten callers that dial
    >my number and say "Oh I am sorry, is this xxx-xxxx" and I say no you
    >have the wrong number. I can call customer service and ask for a
    >refund of the minute I spent on the phone but I don't. Mistakes do
    >happen.
    >
    >I don't answer the cell phone with my number nor do I use a system
    >greeting with my cell number. Why? Again, it is my phone and I am
    >paying for it. My phone, my plan, my payments and therefore my rules.
    >I am not going to have someone on the other end of the telephone state
    >they *have to have my number* for their call details. Your only option
    >is to call *611 and ask for a credit.


    What does any of this have to do with VZW not showing ANY incoming numbers,
    whether or not the caller blocked it?

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Now go do... that voodoo... that you do... so well!" - Hedley Lamarr
    "Woo, do that voodoo that you do so well." - Col. Sherman Potter
  5. David S <dwstreeter@att.net> wrote:

    > What does any of this have to do with VZW not showing ANY incoming numbers,
    > whether or not the caller blocked it?


    The most likely excuse for VZW's actions is "privacy"...

    --
    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
  6. Elector

    Elector Guest

    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:kNZJb.1374$yW1.1190513@news2.news.adelphia.net...
    <Snip>
    > What you have failed to address in all of this is the FACT that all
    > expectations for privacy end the minute you make the decision to

    call anyone
    > not protected by a specific statute (lawyer, doctor, etc). By

    making the
    > call, you have given up the very privelege you are trying to defend.

    And
    > that is fact of law- not opinion, not rumor, not story.
    >
    >


    My right, is to have that number seen or unseen. Be it through
    regulation or through paid service. That is why the 800 number issue
    you mentioned exists.
    They who pay for the service govern the lists of the numbers that call
    it. It is a paid service.

    I pay not to have my number listed on my own invoices nor anyone
    else's. It is my freedom of choice, the same way I list my home
    numbers on the Do Not Call Registry in both New York and now with the
    Federal Government. It is to be left alone and not bothered.

    In Verizon's eyes the telephone numbers of the people that don't pay
    for the all call restrict can have their numbers shown on a call
    detail. At one time the telephone company was selling the call detail.
    Not sure if they still do. Granted in some respects your correct and
    they (verizon) knows the numbers of the callers but through regulation
    or payment do not release them.

    Again through general calling a mistake could have been made and then
    why would my right to not have my number given to you have to broached
    because you called and complained.

    I can also see where some monkey business can occur if you were
    getting say a call detail that said this call lasted 30 minutes or 60
    minutes and you did not initiate the call, but it was received. And
    then the cell company did not show the charge of the call to be
    valid. Then you have a valid point.

    At one time when I had AT&T for long distance service I was a first
    getting 1 or 2 numbers that were not of my making on the invoice and
    they took them off after a few words. Then it was 5-6 calls and the
    numbers were all over the country and it totaled $25 dollars and I
    told them via the call detail it was not anyone I knew or had spoken
    to. They generally say your pulling a scam and say they won't take the
    charge off. I dropped them for service and had a lawyer send them a
    letter. The charges were removed, but I can see where not having the
    listed number can lead to even greater miss-use of the billing system.

    It is sort of like in the old days of *69 or *66 to call a number
    back. I noted that it would seem once or twice a month the telephone
    would ring and I would push that button and low and behold the
    telephone company was making $1.50 plus tax for those two call
    returns. Think of it. Take my two calls and multiply that by 200,000
    customers, I called and had it removed from doing these features and
    the phantom calls stopped. See my point.

    Elector
  7. "Elector" <elector@my-deja.com> wrote in message
    news:uI0Kb.4842$Dq1.4290@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

    > >
    > >

    >
    > My right, is to have that number seen or unseen. Be it through
    > regulation or through paid service. That is why the 800 number issue
    > you mentioned exists.
    > They who pay for the service govern the lists of the numbers that call
    > it. It is a paid service.


    Right to my point- how does that paid service differ from a cellular service
    that bills by the call?

    >
    > I pay not to have my number listed on my own invoices nor anyone
    > else's.


    I'll bet it still shows up on an 800 service bill.

    >It is my freedom of choice, the same way I list my home
    > numbers on the Do Not Call Registry in both New York and now with the
    > Federal Government. It is to be left alone and not bothered.


    Two different things- a paid service and a government program. But you are
    absolutely right- it is a freedom of choice, and not a right.

    >
    > In Verizon's eyes the telephone numbers of the people that don't pay
    > for the all call restrict can have their numbers shown on a call
    > detail. At one time the telephone company was selling the call detail.
    > Not sure if they still do. Granted in some respects your correct and
    > they (verizon) knows the numbers of the callers but through regulation
    > or payment do not release them.


    There is no regulation.

    >
    > Again through general calling a mistake could have been made and then
    > why would my right to not have my number given to you have to broached
    > because you called and complained.


    Are you in the habit of paying for services or goods that require a per-pice
    payment? Do you buy 25 2x4's from the lumber yard and take their word that
    you got 25?

    >
    > I can also see where some monkey business can occur if you were
    > getting say a call detail that said this call lasted 30 minutes or 60
    > minutes and you did not initiate the call, but it was received. And
    > then the cell company did not show the charge of the call to be
    > valid. Then you have a valid point.


    That is certainly a huge point. There is no accountability for call usage
    that is paid for on a by-the-minute basis in every case, except for thosewho
    have totally unlimited plans (a very small majority).

    Let me throw another scenario at you. I won a business and provide all of
    my employees with phones for business communication only. All of my
    employess are good about use of the phone, but there is one employee
    consistently using a larger block of minutes than everybody else. And let's
    say that the great majority of his minutes are being used talking to his
    girlfriend, who has called him and has her number blocked. As the person
    paying for the service, how am I ever to determine that this is going on?

    >
    > At one time when I had AT&T for long distance service I was a first
    > getting 1 or 2 numbers that were not of my making on the invoice and
    > they took them off after a few words. Then it was 5-6 calls and the
    > numbers were all over the country and it totaled $25 dollars and I
    > told them via the call detail it was not anyone I knew or had spoken
    > to. They generally say your pulling a scam and say they won't take the
    > charge off. I dropped them for service and had a lawyer send them a
    > letter. The charges were removed, but I can see where not having the
    > listed number can lead to even greater miss-use of the billing system.
    >


    There you go- that's a huge concern with cellular companies today.


    > It is sort of like in the old days of *69 or *66 to call a number
    > back. I noted that it would seem once or twice a month the telephone
    > would ring and I would push that button and low and behold the
    > telephone company was making $1.50 plus tax for those two call
    > returns. Think of it. Take my two calls and multiply that by 200,000
    > customers, I called and had it removed from doing these features and
    > the phantom calls stopped. See my point.
    >
    > Elector


    I do see your point to a degree. I have no problem with people blocking
    their number at the time of the call. That is certainly a tool (not a
    right) that people are free to use. You'll notice that through all of this,
    I have never disagreed with your use of call block at the time of the call.
    What I do have a problem with is paying for a service with incomplete
    information. And don't take anything that I've said personally- this is a
    situation where people tend to get a little huffy at times. And I
    personally have a problem when people try to portray their actions as a
    'right', when it is indeed more of an option. And when these actions step
    on protections and true rights that I have been given through legislation, I
    identify it as a problem. My phone ringing is an invasion of my privacy,
    not the callers. At that point, the ball swings to my court, and there is
    no statute, constitutional amendment or legal opnion on the books anywhere
    that states that a person initiating any form of communication is afforded
    any sort of privacy priveleges that outweigh the privacy the person has
    intruded upon.
  8. Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

    > Right to my point- how does that paid service differ from a cellular service
    > that bills by the call?
    >
    >> I pay not to have my number listed on my own invoices nor anyone
    >> else's.

    >
    > I'll bet it still shows up on an 800 service bill.


    I know it will show up on mine and always would have.

    --
    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
  9. CharlesH

    CharlesH Guest

    In article <ppadnb7gN_vsEmWiRVn-tw@lmi.net>,
    Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
    >David S <dwstreeter@att.net> wrote:
    >
    >> What does any of this have to do with VZW not showing ANY incoming numbers,
    >> whether or not the caller blocked it?

    >
    >The most likely excuse for VZW's actions is "privacy"...


    Still doesn't explain why they don't print whatever CID that was available on
    the phone when you received the call. If blocked or unavailable, then
    so be it, but if the number showed up on the phone, why not on the bill??
  10. Elector

    Elector Guest

    "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    news:4qCdnf9i_6b3dGWi4p2dnA@lmi.net...
    > Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
    >
    > > Right to my point- how does that paid service differ from a

    cellular service
    > > that bills by the call?
    > >
    > >> I pay not to have my number listed on my own invoices nor anyone
    > >> else's.

    > >
    > > I'll bet it still shows up on an 800 service bill.

    >
    > I know it will show up on mine and always would have.
    >
    > --
    > 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
    >


    Now you see Steve that is why I never call you :)

    Elector
  11. Elector

    Elector Guest

    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:We3Kb.1549$yW1.1256775@news2.news.adelphia.net...
    <snip>
    > Let me throw another scenario at you. I won a business and provide

    all of
    > my employees with phones for business communication only. All of my
    > employess are good about use of the phone, but there is one employee
    > consistently using a larger block of minutes than everybody else.

    And let's
    > say that the great majority of his minutes are being used talking to

    his
    > girlfriend, who has called him and has her number blocked. As the

    person
    > paying for the service, how am I ever to determine that this is

    going on?
    >

    <Snip>

    Now this is something I can speak from experiences. I regulate the use
    of the 30 cell phones my agency uses and what was happening was we
    sent out a memo that any non state calls were to be paid for at the
    end of the month. The state of new york has unique numbers. But we
    have a few folks that stated they needed the cells to make "some
    personal" or Non State calls. Which is perfectly legit in our rules
    and regulations.

    The problem was a matter of trust. We could have billed the calls at
    ..09¢ a minute and then pissed off the employee an a few of the
    employees were under my union which has no standard for such rebates
    back to the agency nor are we required to give money back without it
    being in our contracts. After a while we felt the use of a unlimited
    plan would be the best way to go, we tried it and low and behold the
    calls on the detail sheet increased many were not business calls but
    when your paying $19 for the plan rate we could not see any difficulty
    with the situation. But the budget office did and we ended up changing
    back to per minute and taking away the cells until they were actually
    needed. Funny everyone went out and bought a cell phone on their own
    and it costs more for the reimbursement then it did for the original
    phones. So it may be something for you to look into. "Unlimited plans"
    saves you and them a ton of hassle.

    Elector
  12. Elector

    Elector Guest

    "CharlesH" <hoch@exemplary.invalid> wrote in message
    news:btaqcr0s3p@enews3.newsguy.com...
    > In article <ppadnb7gN_vsEmWiRVn-tw@lmi.net>,
    > Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
    > >David S <dwstreeter@att.net> wrote:
    > >
    > >> What does any of this have to do with VZW not showing ANY

    incoming numbers,
    > >> whether or not the caller blocked it?

    > >
    > >The most likely excuse for VZW's actions is "privacy"...

    >
    > Still doesn't explain why they don't print whatever CID that was

    available on
    > the phone when you received the call. If blocked or unavailable,

    then
    > so be it, but if the number showed up on the phone, why not on the

    bill??
    >


    They don't show up on my phone unless they are in my address book. On
    my invoice they show up as "Incoming" calls with a number if the party
    has not blocked their number or just "incoming" without a number if it
    is blocked. But the time and date and length are all listed.

    Elector
  13. "Elector" <elector@my-deja.com> wrote in message
    news:BbcKb.9311$Dq1.1663@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

    \
    >
    > They don't show up on my phone unless they are in my address book. On
    > my invoice they show up as "Incoming" calls with a number if the party
    > has not blocked their number or just "incoming" without a number if it
    > is blocked. But the time and date and length are all listed.


    My non-Verizon phone does a pretty good job of displaying the number at the
    time of the call, whether or not they are in my phone book. The billing is
    a different story- horrendous.
  14. "Elector" <elector@my-deja.com> wrote in message
    news:W9cKb.9305$Dq1.6420@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

    >
    > Now this is something I can speak from experiences. I regulate the use
    > of the 30 cell phones my agency uses and what was happening was we
    > sent out a memo that any non state calls were to be paid for at the
    > end of the month. The state of new york has unique numbers. But we
    > have a few folks that stated they needed the cells to make "some
    > personal" or Non State calls. Which is perfectly legit in our rules
    > and regulations.
    >
    > The problem was a matter of trust. We could have billed the calls at
    > .09¢ a minute and then pissed off the employee an a few of the
    > employees were under my union which has no standard for such rebates
    > back to the agency nor are we required to give money back without it
    > being in our contracts. After a while we felt the use of a unlimited
    > plan would be the best way to go, we tried it and low and behold the
    > calls on the detail sheet increased many were not business calls but
    > when your paying $19 for the plan rate we could not see any difficulty
    > with the situation. But the budget office did and we ended up changing
    > back to per minute and taking away the cells until they were actually
    > needed. Funny everyone went out and bought a cell phone on their own
    > and it costs more for the reimbursement then it did for the original
    > phones. So it may be something for you to look into. "Unlimited plans"
    > saves you and them a ton of hassle.
    >


    As I said, it was a totally hypothetical situation, but one that is probably
    more common than anyone could imagine. The unlimited plan would be a great
    idea if you could get into one for less than $100 a phone (although I'm sure
    the State of New York gets some pretty killer deals for their business).
    And I agree that charging the employees for calls would be
    counterporductive. But if the business owner could go over his bill in
    detail, he could identify those few abusing the program and point it out to
    them- once a person realizes he's being monitored, the behavior will usually
    go away.
  15. David S

    David S Guest

    On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:45:46 GMT, "Elector" <elector@my-deja.com> chose to
    add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >In Verizon's eyes the telephone numbers of the people that don't pay
    >for the all call restrict can have their numbers shown on a call
    >detail.


    No, in Verizon's eyes all incoming callers -- paying for a restriction or
    not -- are NOT shown on the detail, the excuse being "privacy". And this
    has only been since last spring.

    What I want to know is why. Did some new law take effect that says they
    can't tell me the numbers of the people who called me, even if those
    callers don't give a damn? Did they get sued by someone claiming his
    privacy was violated? WHY???

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Reason notwithstanding, the Universe continues unabated."
    - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
  16. David S

    David S Guest

    On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 11:49:53 GMT, "Elector" <elector@my-deja.com> chose to
    add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >"CharlesH" <hoch@exemplary.invalid> wrote in message
    >news:btaqcr0s3p@enews3.newsguy.com...
    >> In article <ppadnb7gN_vsEmWiRVn-tw@lmi.net>,
    >> Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
    >> >David S <dwstreeter@att.net> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> What does any of this have to do with VZW not showing ANY

    >incoming numbers,
    >> >> whether or not the caller blocked it?
    >> >
    >> >The most likely excuse for VZW's actions is "privacy"...

    >>
    >> Still doesn't explain why they don't print whatever CID that was

    >available on
    >> the phone when you received the call. If blocked or unavailable,

    >then
    >> so be it, but if the number showed up on the phone, why not on the

    >bill??
    >
    >They don't show up on my phone unless they are in my address book. On


    We all have that, I think, but we're not talking about names, just numbers.

    >my invoice they show up as "Incoming" calls with a number if the party
    >has not blocked their number or just "incoming" without a number if it


    You sure you still have that on your most recent bill? Since last April or
    May, *all* of my incoming calls just show as "incoming" and have my own
    number. And I know the callers are not blocking it (for one thing, I've
    never gotten a call that showed up on the phone as restricted (got my first
    one just 2 weeks ago, and I haven't been billed for that call yet)).

    >is blocked. But the time and date and length are all listed.


    Right, but without the numbers, how do you know if they're really
    legitimate?

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Charlie, would you arrange for my middle daughter to come see me at her
    earliest possible convenience?" - President Jed Bartlet
    "Yes, sir." - Charlie
    "Aah, screw her convenience. Get her ass down here." - President Bartlet
  17. Elector

    Elector Guest

    "David S" <dwstreeter@att.net> wrote in message
    news:eek:72nvvkp42cd85b5371oo6gvt99v504bl8@4ax.com...
    <Snip>
    > You sure you still have that on your most recent bill? Since last

    April or
    > May, *all* of my incoming calls just show as "incoming" and have my

    own
    > number. And I know the callers are not blocking it (for one thing,

    I've
    > never gotten a call that showed up on the phone as restricted (got

    my first
    > one just 2 weeks ago, and I haven't been billed for that call yet)).
    >
    > >is blocked. But the time and date and length are all listed.

    >
    > Right, but without the numbers, how do you know if they're really
    > legitimate?
    >
    > --
    > David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    > http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    > Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    > "Charlie, would you arrange for my middle daughter to come see me at

    her
    > earliest possible convenience?" - President Jed Bartlet
    > "Yes, sir." - Charlie
    > "Aah, screw her convenience. Get her ass down here." - President

    Bartlet
    >


    I just checked and your absolutely correct. It now shows my own cell
    number and the words incoming. It will show the numbers I am calling
    as outgoing. So it has changed from the days when they showed the
    numbers that called.

    Elector

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?