IAM callername instead of CNAM
hi all, has anyone heard of a US residential carrier transmitting the callername parameter from the IAM instead of doing a normal CNAM lookup? i have some users--for whom the pbx is (intentionally) set up to transmit an invalid cpn--who are claiming that when they call their home phones from the office, their internal (sip) caller name appears on the caller id along with the invalid cpn, which makes no sense from a CNAM lookup standpoint. the only thing i could think of (other than they are nuts/lying) is that their gateway is transmitting the sip callername in the IAM and the carrier is passing that along instead of doing a lookup. the btn is the same for all users so that can be ruled out. they are all on cablevision or time warner. thanks, milosz
Time Warner does transmit the name info that you send. We have a TWTC PRI and I've seen the same thing when calling another number on their network. It has even happened to numbers on other networks, though now I can't remember which ones. One of their engineers confirmed that they do this on purpose, but also couldn't tell me which other networks accept this from them. On 2/3/10 9:24 AM, milosz wrote:
hi all,
has anyone heard of a US residential carrier transmitting the callername parameter from the IAM instead of doing a normal CNAM lookup? i have some users--for whom the pbx is (intentionally) set up to transmit an invalid cpn--who are claiming that when they call their home phones from the office, their internal (sip) caller name appears on the caller id along with the invalid cpn, which makes no sense from a CNAM lookup standpoint. the only thing i could think of (other than they are nuts/lying) is that their gateway is transmitting the sip callername in the IAM and the carrier is passing that along instead of doing a lookup. the btn is the same for all users so that can be ruled out.
they are all on cablevision or time warner.
thanks,
milosz
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003 Advanced phone services simplified
That's a mistake/misconfiguration. I believe Canada sends CNAME inband, but in the US, it probably just means somebody is using a client-profile PRI for a carrier circuit, doing toll-bypass, or playing other games. We have seen this type of misconfiguration on smaller VoIP carriers. Time Warner may carry CNAM internal on their network so they can save the money on CNAM dips, but obviously that won't go far. Cheers, David. ----- On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
Time Warner does transmit the name info that you send. We have a TWTC PRI and I've seen the same thing when calling another number on their network. It has even happened to numbers on other networks, though now I can't remember which ones. One of their engineers confirmed that they do this on purpose, but also couldn't tell me which other networks accept this from them.
On 2/3/10 9:24 AM, milosz wrote:
hi all,
has anyone heard of a US residential carrier transmitting the callername parameter from the IAM instead of doing a normal CNAM lookup? i have some users--for whom the pbx is (intentionally) set up to transmit an invalid cpn--who are claiming that when they call their home phones from the office, their internal (sip) caller name appears on the caller id along with the invalid cpn, which makes no sense from a CNAM lookup standpoint. the only thing i could think of (other than they are nuts/lying) is that their gateway is transmitting the sip callername in the IAM and the carrier is passing that along instead of doing a lookup. the btn is the same for all users so that can be ruled out.
they are all on cablevision or time warner.
thanks,
milosz
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
Advanced phone services simplified _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
I guess I should have specified that this is a client-profile PRI which we have allocated as a one-to-one relationship for a specific customer. However TWTC did tell me that they do this on all PRIs. On 2/3/10 10:34 AM, David Birnbaum wrote:
That's a mistake/misconfiguration. I believe Canada sends CNAME inband, but in the US, it probably just means somebody is using a client-profile PRI for a carrier circuit, doing toll-bypass, or playing other games. We have seen this type of misconfiguration on smaller VoIP carriers.
Time Warner may carry CNAM internal on their network so they can save the money on CNAM dips, but obviously that won't go far.
Cheers,
David.
-----
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
Time Warner does transmit the name info that you send. We have a TWTC PRI and I've seen the same thing when calling another number on their network. It has even happened to numbers on other networks, though now I can't remember which ones. One of their engineers confirmed that they do this on purpose, but also couldn't tell me which other networks accept this from them.
On 2/3/10 9:24 AM, milosz wrote:
hi all,
has anyone heard of a US residential carrier transmitting the callername parameter from the IAM instead of doing a normal CNAM lookup? i have some users--for whom the pbx is (intentionally) set up to transmit an invalid cpn--who are claiming that when they call their home phones from the office, their internal (sip) caller name appears on the caller id along with the invalid cpn, which makes no sense from a CNAM lookup standpoint. the only thing i could think of (other than they are nuts/lying) is that their gateway is transmitting the sip callername in the IAM and the carrier is passing that along instead of doing a lookup. the btn is the same for all users so that can be ruled out.
they are all on cablevision or time warner.
thanks,
milosz
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
Advanced phone services simplified _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003 Advanced phone services simplified
not sure whether what you are saying can apply here, since this is a case of a call from a non-tw pri to their residential tw voip phone. doesn't that necessarily mean that tw is not doing a CNAM dip on the call? maybe genericname gets sent if CNAM turns up unknown/invalid? On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:34 PM, David Birnbaum <davidb at pins.net> wrote:
That's a mistake/misconfiguration. I believe Canada sends CNAME inband, but in the US, it probably just means somebody is using a client-profile PRI for a carrier circuit, doing toll-bypass, or playing other games. We have seen this type of misconfiguration on smaller VoIP carriers.
Time Warner may carry CNAM internal on their network so they can save the money on CNAM dips, but obviously that won't go far.
Cheers,
David.
-----
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
Time Warner does transmit the name info that you send. We have a TWTC PRI
and I've seen the same thing when calling another number on their network. It has even happened to numbers on other networks, though now I can't remember which ones. One of their engineers confirmed that they do this on purpose, but also couldn't tell me which other networks accept this from them.
On 2/3/10 9:24 AM, milosz wrote:
hi all,
has anyone heard of a US residential carrier transmitting the callername parameter from the IAM instead of doing a normal CNAM lookup? i have some users--for whom the pbx is (intentionally) set up to transmit an invalid cpn--who are claiming that when they call their home phones from the office, their internal (sip) caller name appears on the caller id along with the invalid cpn, which makes no sense from a CNAM lookup standpoint. the only thing i could think of (other than they are nuts/lying) is that their gateway is transmitting the sip callername in the IAM and the carrier is passing that along instead of doing a lookup. the btn is the same for all users so that can be ruled out.
they are all on cablevision or time warner.
thanks,
milosz
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
Advanced phone services simplified _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
It sure sounds like it. TWTC is "cheating", I suppose, and depriving the rightful owner of that number of their CNAM revenue (should you take the carrier view of things). Regardless of what the "best" answer is, in the US all carriers are supposed to deliver CNAM by dipping the central database, paying the owning carrier, and delivering the result to their subscriber. But that's really a discussion for another thread. Cheers, David. ----- On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, milosz wrote:
not sure whether what you are saying can apply here, since this is a case of a call from a non-tw pri to their residential tw voip phone.? doesn't that necessarily mean that tw is not doing a CNAM dip on the call?
maybe genericname gets sent if CNAM turns up unknown/invalid?
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:34 PM, David Birnbaum <davidb at pins.net> wrote: That's a mistake/misconfiguration. ?I believe Canada sends CNAME inband, but in the US, it probably just means somebody is using a client-profile PRI for a carrier circuit, doing toll-bypass, or playing other games. ?We have seen this type of misconfiguration on smaller VoIP carriers.
Time Warner may carry CNAM internal on their network so they can save the money on CNAM dips, but obviously that won't go far.
Cheers,
David.
-----
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
Time Warner does transmit the name info that you send. ?We have a TWTC PRI and I've seen the same thing when calling another number on their network. It has even happened to numbers on other networks, though now I can't remember which ones. ?One of their engineers confirmed that they do this on purpose, but also couldn't tell me which other networks accept this from them.
On 2/3/10 9:24 AM, milosz wrote: hi all,
has anyone heard of a US residential carrier transmitting the callername parameter from the IAM instead of doing a normal CNAM lookup? ?i have some users--for whom the pbx is (intentionally) set up to transmit an invalid cpn--who are claiming that when they call their home phones from the office, their internal (sip) caller name appears on the caller id along with the invalid cpn, which makes no sense from a CNAM lookup standpoint. ?the only thing i could think of (other than they are nuts/lying) is that their gateway is transmitting the sip callername in the IAM and the carrier is passing that along instead of doing a lookup. ?the btn is the same for all users so that can be ruled out.
they are all on cablevision or time warner.
thanks,
milosz
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
Advanced phone services simplified _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On 2/4/10 7:59 AM, David Birnbaum wrote:
It sure sounds like it. TWTC is "cheating", I suppose, and depriving the rightful owner of that number of their CNAM revenue (should you take the carrier view of things).
Regardless of what the "best" answer is, in the US all carriers are supposed to deliver CNAM by dipping the central database, paying the owning carrier, and delivering the result to their subscriber. But that's really a discussion for another thread.
Another "cheater" that has a very annoying policy... Cox Communications seems to have a 6-18 month lag in their CNAM update policy. I really don't know how they do it (download and store all CNAM?), but all CNAM changes take a very long time to reach their customers. It's a source of constant complaints when our customers (businesses) call their homes (Cox) and get an old CNAM. -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003 Advanced phone services simplified
Carlos Alvarez wrote:
On 2/4/10 7:59 AM, David Birnbaum wrote:
It sure sounds like it. TWTC is "cheating", I suppose, and depriving the rightful owner of that number of their CNAM revenue (should you take the carrier view of things).
Regardless of what the "best" answer is, in the US all carriers are supposed to deliver CNAM by dipping the central database, paying the owning carrier, and delivering the result to their subscriber. But that's really a discussion for another thread.
Another "cheater" that has a very annoying policy... Cox Communications seems to have a 6-18 month lag in their CNAM update policy. I really don't know how they do it (download and store all CNAM?), but all CNAM changes take a very long time to reach their customers. It's a source of constant complaints when our customers (businesses) call their homes (Cox) and get an old CNAM.
Usually this is because they're using data from TargusInfo that is woefully outdated, based on Directory data, or a number of other issues. Syniverse and TNS use this data for their SS7 based CNAM products (as well as their IP based ones, if I recall). Thus those who use those providers will often see such discrepancies. Very frustrating. -Paul
Sounds like CNAM caching. On 2/4/2010 10:13 AM, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
On 2/4/10 7:59 AM, David Birnbaum wrote:
It sure sounds like it. TWTC is "cheating", I suppose, and depriving the rightful owner of that number of their CNAM revenue (should you take the carrier view of things).
Regardless of what the "best" answer is, in the US all carriers are supposed to deliver CNAM by dipping the central database, paying the owning carrier, and delivering the result to their subscriber. But that's really a discussion for another thread.
Another "cheater" that has a very annoying policy... Cox Communications seems to have a 6-18 month lag in their CNAM update policy. I really don't know how they do it (download and store all CNAM?), but all CNAM changes take a very long time to reach their customers. It's a source of constant complaints when our customers (businesses) call their homes (Cox) and get an old CNAM.
One could argue that limited caching is acceptable (a day? a week?) Six months is a bit inappropriate. David. ----- On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Lee Riemer wrote:
Sounds like CNAM caching.
On 2/4/2010 10:13 AM, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
On 2/4/10 7:59 AM, David Birnbaum wrote:
It sure sounds like it. TWTC is "cheating", I suppose, and depriving the rightful owner of that number of their CNAM revenue (should you take the carrier view of things).
Regardless of what the "best" answer is, in the US all carriers are supposed to deliver CNAM by dipping the central database, paying the owning carrier, and delivering the result to their subscriber. But that's really a discussion for another thread.
Another "cheater" that has a very annoying policy... Cox Communications seems to have a 6-18 month lag in their CNAM update policy. I really don't know how they do it (download and store all CNAM?), but all CNAM changes take a very long time to reach their customers. It's a source of constant complaints when our customers (businesses) call their homes (Cox) and get an old CNAM.
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On 2/4/10 9:44 AM, Lee Riemer wrote:
Sounds like CNAM caching.
I thought that at first, but now I'm pretty sure it's not caching. We've assigned numbers that were in our inventory for a year or two, and were never used, but find that the data for them is old even with the first call to a Cox number. Someone could have used fake CID to generate a lookup and caching, but very unlikely to have happened across so many numbers. -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003 Advanced phone services simplified
Carlos, What was the name that came up on the new/unused numbers? Sounds like someone populated a CNAM database with NPA-NXX-X rate-center names like "BOSTON MA", or "CELL - MONTRE CA". David M. Sarvai -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Alvarez Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:56 AM To: Lee Riemer Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] IAM callername instead of CNAM On 2/4/10 9:44 AM, Lee Riemer wrote:
Sounds like CNAM caching.
I thought that at first, but now I'm pretty sure it's not caching. We've assigned numbers that were in our inventory for a year or two, and were never used, but find that the data for them is old even with the first call to a Cox number. Someone could have used fake CID to generate a lookup and caching, but very unlikely to have happened across so many numbers. -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003 Advanced phone services simplified _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On 2/4/10 10:36 AM, David Sarvai wrote:
Carlos,
What was the name that came up on the new/unused numbers? Sounds like someone populated a CNAM database with NPA-NXX-X rate-center names like "BOSTON MA", or "CELL - MONTRE CA".
Yes, they are pre-populated with a generic entry. -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003 Advanced phone services simplified
after some testing i've verified (within reason) that tw only falls back to genericname if the cpn is invalid. sounds like some engineer somewhere thought "wow, it would be cool if we did this!" valid cpn & genericname = "milosz" -> tw caller id = cpn cnam entry invalid cpn & genericname = "milosz" -> tw caller id = "milosz" invalid cpn & genericname = null -> tw caller id = "0" On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:59 AM, David Birnbaum <davidb at pins.net> wrote:
It sure sounds like it. TWTC is "cheating", I suppose, and depriving the rightful owner of that number of their CNAM revenue (should you take the carrier view of things).
Regardless of what the "best" answer is, in the US all carriers are supposed to deliver CNAM by dipping the central database, paying the owning carrier, and delivering the result to their subscriber. But that's really a discussion for another thread.
Cheers,
David.
-----
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, milosz wrote:
not sure whether what you are saying can apply here, since this is a case
of a call from a non-tw pri to their residential tw voip phone. doesn't that necessarily mean that tw is not doing a CNAM dip on the call?
maybe genericname gets sent if CNAM turns up unknown/invalid?
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:34 PM, David Birnbaum <davidb at pins.net> wrote: That's a mistake/misconfiguration. I believe Canada sends CNAME inband, but in the US, it probably just means somebody is using a client-profile PRI for a carrier circuit, doing toll-bypass, or playing other games. We have seen this type of misconfiguration on smaller VoIP carriers.
Time Warner may carry CNAM internal on their network so they can save the money on CNAM dips, but obviously that won't go far.
Cheers,
David.
-----
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
Time Warner does transmit the name info that you send. We have a TWTC PRI and I've seen the same thing when calling another number on their network. It has even happened to numbers on other networks, though now I can't remember which ones. One of their engineers confirmed that they do this on purpose, but also couldn't tell me which other networks accept this from them.
On 2/3/10 9:24 AM, milosz wrote: hi all,
has anyone heard of a US residential carrier transmitting the callername parameter from the IAM instead of doing a normal CNAM lookup? i have some users--for whom the pbx is (intentionally) set up to transmit an invalid cpn--who are claiming that when they call their home phones from the office, their internal (sip) caller name appears on the caller id along with the invalid cpn, which makes no sense from a CNAM lookup standpoint. the only thing i could think of (other than they are nuts/lying) is that their gateway is transmitting the sip callername in the IAM and the carrier is passing that along instead of doing a lookup. the btn is the same for all users so that can be ruled out.
they are all on cablevision or time warner.
thanks,
milosz
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
Advanced phone services simplified _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
I'm guessing that the TCAP lookup failure for an invalid CPN would cause it to still contain the generic name as an automatic feature to interoperate with canadian CNAM and as a "better than nothing" option, and was probably put in by the vendor as an unchangeable default. -Paul milosz wrote:
after some testing i've verified (within reason) that tw only falls back to genericname if the cpn is invalid. sounds like some engineer somewhere thought "wow, it would be cool if we did this!"
valid cpn & genericname = "milosz" -> tw caller id = cpn cnam entry invalid cpn & genericname = "milosz" -> tw caller id = "milosz" invalid cpn & genericname = null -> tw caller id = "0"
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:59 AM, David Birnbaum <davidb at pins.net <mailto:davidb at pins.net>> wrote:
It sure sounds like it. TWTC is "cheating", I suppose, and depriving the rightful owner of that number of their CNAM revenue (should you take the carrier view of things).
Regardless of what the "best" answer is, in the US all carriers are supposed to deliver CNAM by dipping the central database, paying the owning carrier, and delivering the result to their subscriber. But that's really a discussion for another thread.
Cheers,
David.
-----
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, milosz wrote:
not sure whether what you are saying can apply here, since this is a case of a call from a non-tw pri to their residential tw voip phone. doesn't that necessarily mean that tw is not doing a CNAM dip on the call?
maybe genericname gets sent if CNAM turns up unknown/invalid?
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:34 PM, David Birnbaum <davidb at pins.net <mailto:davidb at pins.net>> wrote: That's a mistake/misconfiguration. I believe Canada sends CNAME inband, but in the US, it probably just means somebody is using a client-profile PRI for a carrier circuit, doing toll-bypass, or playing other games. We have seen this type of misconfiguration on smaller VoIP carriers.
Time Warner may carry CNAM internal on their network so they can save the money on CNAM dips, but obviously that won't go far.
Cheers,
David.
-----
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
Time Warner does transmit the name info that you send. We have a TWTC PRI and I've seen the same thing when calling another number on their network. It has even happened to numbers on other networks, though now I can't remember which ones. One of their engineers confirmed that they do this on purpose, but also couldn't tell me which other networks accept this from them.
On 2/3/10 9:24 AM, milosz wrote: hi all,
has anyone heard of a US residential carrier transmitting the callername parameter from the IAM instead of doing a normal CNAM lookup? i have some users--for whom the pbx is (intentionally) set up to transmit an invalid cpn--who are claiming that when they call their home phones from the office, their internal (sip) caller name appears on the caller id along with the invalid cpn, which makes no sense from a CNAM lookup standpoint. the only thing i could think of (other than they are nuts/lying) is that their gateway is transmitting the sip callername in the IAM and the carrier is passing that along instead of doing a lookup. the btn is the same for all users so that can be ruled out.
they are all on cablevision or time warner.
thanks,
milosz
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
Advanced phone services simplified _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On 2/4/10 3:00 PM, milosz wrote:
after some testing i've verified (within reason) that tw only falls back to genericname if the cpn is invalid. sounds like some engineer somewhere thought "wow, it would be cool if we did this!"
That could be. My experience with them is that the NOC engineers are both knowledgeable and empowered. I've been able to have discussions and pull off requests that other companies won't do. ("Can we force port these numbers at midnight even though the losing carrier has failed to respond? Sure!") -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003 Advanced phone services simplified
This is quite possible. You could have a customer who is either sending the name and the carrier is translating it directly to the GenericName field in the ISUP, or they're sending it on a PRI in the Facilities or Display IE and the switch is translating it to GenericName. Why do terminating carriers listen to the contents of the GenericName field, one might ask? (Shouldn't they be doing a CNAM dip unconditionally, after all?) Because Canadian calls implement caller ID with name that way. They don't use a CNAM database like we do in the US. If you ignore GenericName, you lose out on caller ID with name data on Canadian calls. -Paul milosz wrote:
hi all,
has anyone heard of a US residential carrier transmitting the callername parameter from the IAM instead of doing a normal CNAM lookup? i have some users--for whom the pbx is (intentionally) set up to transmit an invalid cpn--who are claiming that when they call their home phones from the office, their internal (sip) caller name appears on the caller id along with the invalid cpn, which makes no sense from a CNAM lookup standpoint. the only thing i could think of (other than they are nuts/lying) is that their gateway is transmitting the sip callername in the IAM and the carrier is passing that along instead of doing a lookup. the btn is the same for all users so that can be ruled out.
they are all on cablevision or time warner.
thanks,
milosz ------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On 2/3/10 9:55 AM, Paul Timmins wrote:
Why do terminating carriers listen to the contents of the GenericName field, one might ask? (Shouldn't they be doing a CNAM dip unconditionally, after all?) Because Canadian calls implement caller ID with name that way. They don't use a CNAM database like we do in the US. If you ignore GenericName, you lose out on caller ID with name data on Canadian calls.
I wish all carriers would do this. Sure would make life a lot easier for me. Why wouldn't you? -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003 Advanced phone services simplified
I wish all carriers would do this. Sure would make life a lot easier for me. Why wouldn't you?
well, i just wish that behavior wouldn't vary across carriers. but that's a pipe dream. also, isn't there some kind of ridiculous non-argument about how CNAM reduces spoofing or something?
participants (6)
-
carlos＠televolve.com -
davidb＠pins.net -
dsarvai＠DSCICORP.com -
lriemer＠bestline.net -
mewash＠gmail.com -
paul＠timmins.net