Terminating 800 traffic with Caller ID of an 800 #
Hi folks, We have a customer who is insisting on setting their outbound Caller ID to an 800 #. They are complaining that they can't call other 800 #s. Our testing reveals that many carriers are refusing to route the call when the Caller ID is set as an 800 #. In addition, if we try setting the ANI as one number via the From: header and then add a remote party ID header as Caller ID, it seems that most carriers use the From: and deliver that as the Caller ID to the alternate/receiving 800 #. Any thoughts on this? I am aware that it's up to the receiving 800 # to decide what NPAs to allow through and that what they're proposing complicates billing, so I suspect I just need to tell the client to deal, but they are insisting that this used to work on their PRI. My theory is that it did not work on their PRI but nobody ever noticed before. - Darren
We recently started experiencing the same issue. Many of our customers are businesses and like to pass their TF number as their CID. Recently a lot of their calls have been going to permanent 183 ringing states with early media intercept messages. We have contacted our upstream carriers and they are giving us the same story. The first complaints really began popping up about 2 weeks ago. Geoff From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Darren Schreiber Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 4:30 PM To: VoiceOps at voiceops.org Subject: [VoiceOps] Terminating 800 traffic with Caller ID of an 800 # Hi folks, We have a customer who is insisting on setting their outbound Caller ID to an 800 #. They are complaining that they can't call other 800 #s. Our testing reveals that many carriers are refusing to route the call when the Caller ID is set as an 800 #. In addition, if we try setting the ANI as one number via the From: header and then add a remote party ID header as Caller ID, it seems that most carriers use the From: and deliver that as the Caller ID to the alternate/receiving 800 #. Any thoughts on this? I am aware that it's up to the receiving 800 # to decide what NPAs to allow through and that what they're proposing complicates billing, so I suspect I just need to tell the client to deal, but they are insisting that this used to work on their PRI. My theory is that it did not work on their PRI but nobody ever noticed before. - Darren
On 02/15/2012 06:29 PM, Darren Schreiber wrote:
Hi folks, We have a customer who is insisting on setting their outbound Caller ID to an 800 #. They are complaining that /they /can't call other 800 #s. Our testing reveals that many carriers are refusing to route the call when the Caller ID is set as an 800 #.
In addition, if we try setting the ANI as one number via the From: header and then add a remote party ID header as Caller ID, it seems that most carriers use the From: and deliver that as the Caller ID to the alternate/receiving 800 #.
Any thoughts on this? I am aware that it's up to the receiving 800 # to decide what NPAs to allow through and that what they're proposing complicates billing, so I suspect I just need to tell the client to deal, but they are insisting that this used to work on their PRI. My theory is that it did not work on their PRI but nobody ever noticed before.
This would actually work if their carrier had been setting the ANI as their billing telephone number, and letting them only change the CallingPartyNumber field. If I recall in my testing, the ANI (ChargeNumber) field in the IAM is what the switches are supposed to route based on. Are you doing the tollfree dips yourself, or are you sending them untranslated to another carrier for dip and termination? -Paul
On 2/15/12 3:29 PM, Darren Schreiber wrote:
Hi folks, We have a customer who is insisting on setting their outbound Caller ID to an 800 #. They are complaining that /they /can't call other 800 #s. Our testing reveals that many carriers are refusing to route the call when the Caller ID is set as an 800 #.
There's a reason for that. Many carriers also refuse to route email when the sender claims to be wealthy royalty from Nigeria. If you are a legitimate operation, calling with a TF number as your CLID raises the same red flags as sending email in all caps claiming to be wealthy royalty from Nigeria. They can't call my friend's house, either, without jumping through a hoop. 99% of those calling with a TF caller-ID, 000-000-0000 or anything else not matching the NANP are rogue telemarketing scum who call despite the target number being on the do-not-call list. The other 1% are people like your customer that think it's a good thing to claim to be originating calls from a DID that by definition isn't supposed to originate calls and don't mind raising red flags. I think he also directs calls with CNAM matching the name of any US state similarly. Here's how he handles it. Asterisk does a challenge-response. It answers the phone, says "hello", pauses two seconds to fool the answering-machine-detect of predictive dialers, then plays a recording instructing these callers, if human and not a telemarketer, to hang up and call back within five minutes and enter a 4-digit number generated at random and read to them (which stays valid for five minutes). Humans behind telemarketing dialers may not even know what number they have dialed and don't often have the ability to call back anyway. Legitimate persons calling from a business which has CLID (stupidly, IMHO) set to a TF number generally do know and can call back. If they pass the challenge, it rings the phone. If not, subsequent calls go here... http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/Asterisk+Telemarketer+Torture There are a few TF numbers in his whitelist that have passed the challenge, his stockbroker, for example. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
Some providers require a charge number to be present. They won't route the call if only the 800# exists. On Feb 15, 2012, at 4:29 PM, Darren Schreiber wrote:
Hi folks, We have a customer who is insisting on setting their outbound Caller ID to an 800 #. They are complaining that they can't call other 800 #s. Our testing reveals that many carriers are refusing to route the call when the Caller ID is set as an 800 #.
In addition, if we try setting the ANI as one number via the From: header and then add a remote party ID header as Caller ID, it seems that most carriers use the From: and deliver that as the Caller ID to the alternate/receiving 800 #.
Any thoughts on this? I am aware that it's up to the receiving 800 # to decide what NPAs to allow through and that what they're proposing complicates billing, so I suspect I just need to tell the client to deal, but they are insisting that this used to work on their PRI. My theory is that it did not work on their PRI but nobody ever noticed before.
- Darren
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
So is there anything other than industry best practice on this? Something official maybe from a LEC or IXC at least, FCC or NANPA would be even better. I've had this argument with customers again and again, and I can tell them what may happen, but I've never had any document from someone they'd believe to back it up. From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Mark Holloway Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 11:55 PM To: Darren Schreiber Cc: VoiceOps at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Terminating 800 traffic with Caller ID of an 800 # Some providers require a charge number to be present. They won't route the call if only the 800# exists. On Feb 15, 2012, at 4:29 PM, Darren Schreiber wrote: Hi folks, We have a customer who is insisting on setting their outbound Caller ID to an 800 #. They are complaining that they can't call other 800 #s. Our testing reveals that many carriers are refusing to route the call when the Caller ID is set as an 800 #. In addition, if we try setting the ANI as one number via the From: header and then add a remote party ID header as Caller ID, it seems that most carriers use the From: and deliver that as the Caller ID to the alternate/receiving 800 #. Any thoughts on this? I am aware that it's up to the receiving 800 # to decide what NPAs to allow through and that what they're proposing complicates billing, so I suspect I just need to tell the client to deal, but they are insisting that this used to work on their PRI. My theory is that it did not work on their PRI but nobody ever noticed before. - Darren _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Scott Berkman <scott at sberkman.net> wrote:
So is there anything other than industry best practice on this?
Something official maybe from a LEC or IXC at least, FCC or NANPA would be even better.? I?ve had this argument with customers again and again, and I can tell them what may happen, but I?ve never had any document from someone they?d believe to back it up.
In my view, if an intermediate carrier is refusing to route the call, they are in clear and direct violation of the FCC's recent orders. In October, the FCC made it quite clear that incorrect, incomplete, or otherwise untraceable billing information is not a basis for call blocking. If the call is IP originated, the use of a toll-free number provides no greater nor less information about the jurisdiction of the call than a jurisdictional number. If it's PSTN, then I think asserting it is questionable, because you are deliberately not including juridictional information. (Of course, if you're able to assert jurisdictional information as the ANI, and the 8xx as the Caller-ID, the problem goes away). Finally, if the recipient of the call is refusing to accept it, well, that's the recipient's choice. -jbn
On 2/16/12 4:41 PM, Justin B Newman wrote:
In my view, if an intermediate carrier is refusing to route the call, they are in clear and direct violation of the FCC's recent orders. In October, the FCC made it quite clear that incorrect, incomplete, or otherwise untraceable billing information is not a basis for call blocking.
You may be right in terms of an intermediate carrier blocking it to a non-toll-free destination number. What about the terminating toll-free carrier? Do the FCC's orders specifically apply to calls terminating on a toll-free number? These are treated differently from conventional lines in that the callee pays the freight and caller-ID blocking is supposed to be ineffective. A carrier could argue that TF numbers aren't capable of origination so any call claiming to originate from one is by definition fraudulent and therefore not valid. This would be particularly true if the called party is the one paying for the call. Are carriers required by FCC to deliver fraudulent calls? In any case, the destination end user can certainly refuse it. This is particularly true if the terminating number is toll-free and the ANI is missing or populated with a spoofed TF origin. I'm not sure if this is still the case but within the last year Verizon's customer service number of 800-483-2000 would not accept calls coming from a toll-free CLID and the reason for the failure wasn't readily apparent to the caller. I believe it gave a "call cannot be completed as dialed" intercept. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
If Tollfree owners were required to accept all calls under all conditions, they wouldn't give us the 'intercepts' field in the CPR. You can define rules where someone gets an 'OBA' intercept (this number is not available from your area) or a VBA intercept (this number cannot be completed as dialed or is disconnected), aka Vacant. Sent from my iPad On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:22 AM, Jay Hennigan <jay at west.net> wrote:
On 2/16/12 4:41 PM, Justin B Newman wrote:
In my view, if an intermediate carrier is refusing to route the call, they are in clear and direct violation of the FCC's recent orders. In October, the FCC made it quite clear that incorrect, incomplete, or otherwise untraceable billing information is not a basis for call blocking.
You may be right in terms of an intermediate carrier blocking it to a non-toll-free destination number. What about the terminating toll-free carrier? Do the FCC's orders specifically apply to calls terminating on a toll-free number? These are treated differently from conventional lines in that the callee pays the freight and caller-ID blocking is supposed to be ineffective.
A carrier could argue that TF numbers aren't capable of origination so any call claiming to originate from one is by definition fraudulent and therefore not valid. This would be particularly true if the called party is the one paying for the call. Are carriers required by FCC to deliver fraudulent calls?
In any case, the destination end user can certainly refuse it. This is particularly true if the terminating number is toll-free and the ANI is missing or populated with a spoofed TF origin.
I'm not sure if this is still the case but within the last year Verizon's customer service number of 800-483-2000 would not accept calls coming from a toll-free CLID and the reason for the failure wasn't readily apparent to the caller. I believe it gave a "call cannot be completed as dialed" intercept.
-- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Jay Hennigan <jay at west.net> wrote:
On 2/16/12 4:41 PM, Justin B Newman wrote:
In my view, if an intermediate carrier is refusing to route the call, they are in clear and direct violation of the FCC's recent orders. In October, the FCC made it quite clear that incorrect, incomplete, or otherwise untraceable billing information is not a basis for call blocking.
You may be right in terms of an intermediate carrier blocking it to a non-toll-free destination number. ?What about the terminating toll-free carrier? ? Do the FCC's orders specifically apply to calls terminating on a toll-free number? ?These are treated differently from conventional lines in that the callee pays the freight and caller-ID blocking is supposed to be ineffective.
There's no distinction. Nor need there be. In both cases, it's phantom traffic. For intermediate carriers, payment is no different ... it's just a question of which end pays. For the terminating end, there's an argument that they needn't pay for the calls, as they cannot be properly rated.
A carrier could argue that TF numbers aren't capable of origination so any call claiming to originate from one is by definition fraudulent and therefore not valid. ?This would be particularly true if the called party is the one paying for the call. ?Are carriers required by FCC to deliver fraudulent calls?
Yes, I think intermediate carriers ARE required to deliver "fraudulent" calls. The FCC has put call completion above all else. Aside from technical inability to complete the call, I don't think there is any basis for an intermediate carrier to block a call.
In any case, the destination end user can certainly refuse it. ?This is ?particularly true if the terminating number is toll-free and the ANI is missing or populated with a spoofed TF origin.
I agree. And in the end, this is the key. Ultimately, those placing calls with a TF ANI need to understand that their call completion rate will suffer. Carriers who are unable to populate the ANI and Caller ID fields distinctly may find themselves with less business. Perhaps this is an argument against giving up all of one's TDM trunks. For those of us in the SIP world, this is functionality we may need to demand from those with whom we interconnect. Or, perhaps in time, this demand will evaporate as people forget this once worked. Or the nominal demand will ultimately remain unmet as more and more carriers give up this distinction. Personally, on my home PBX, I send all calls originating from an 8xx directly to voicemail. -jbn
participants (7)
-
d＠d-man.org -
gmina＠connectfirst.com -
jay＠west.net -
justin＠ejtown.org -
mh＠markholloway.com -
paul＠timmins.net -
scott＠sberkman.net