Delivery of ANI on a non-IN WATS call? [telecom]

Is your cable-TV company also a telco (CLEC)? If so, then they _ARE_ a telephone company, and as such, have access to C-ID info at their own switch, even for per-line suppressed originating C-ID, as well as

*67/11-67 prefix per-call suppressed originating C-ID.

Remember that "per-line" and *67/11-67 per-call "blocking" isn't really completely "blocking" SS7-delivered C-ID, at least not between (SS7-capable) c.o.switches/trunks, but only suppressing it from actual delivery over the final loop to the end-customer. Telcos (and possibly even PBX systems of "non-telco" companies) can easily pickup ANY (delivered) C-ID on incoming calls to their business offices, even if the calling customer has "per-line" or *67/11-67 per-call "blocking" (actually suppression) to the far-end.

And it's also likely possible that the cable-TV company, _also acting as a CLEC_, has access to any ANI info delivered as well.

Mark J. Cuccia markjcuccia at yahoo dot com

Follow-up (and I should have figured this out) AT&T is indeed setting the privacy flag when I precede my call to my cable company. But, the cable company operates an LEC (DMS-500) as well as a cable television company. It is them that is not honoring the privacy flag for calls to their money office. Rather shabby, and all-too-typical of the corporate arrogance we sadly see these days.

I filed an informal complaint with the California PUC, but I am not holding my breath.

In article you write:

Nope. It sets a do-not-display flag that is supposed to be interpreted by whatever does the displaying, which I suppose is the terminating switch on POTS and either the switch or the phone on ISDN sets.

If Comcast sees your number, it's because their switch isn't paying attention to the do-not-display flag.

R's, John

Yes, indeed, they do operate a CLEC. I fail to see why that gives the right to ignore the privacy flag sent by my LEC, and display it to any directory number they service, including their combined cable television/CLEC business office.

I question whether a PBX receiving ANI is even subject to any state or federal regulatory orders on the subject. It's the called party's own equipment, not public switched network equipment, so why would any such rules have been written in the first place?

***** Moderator's Note *****

PBX's are not supposed to receive blocked CID info: they are, as you point out, _PRIVATE_ branch exchanges, not a part of the DDD network. However, the problem here appears to be that Comcast, which is a CLEC, is ignoring the rule that the last class-5 office should honor the display flags. Their switch is _NOT_ a PBX: it is part of the DDD network.

Bill Horne Moderator

[snippage]

Original poster complained that, despite prepending his call with "*67", his calls to a "regular number" (not 1-800) at his cable company gave them his CNID.

Others have explained the technical issues, namely that the number _is_ always sent as far as the (roughly speaking) last central office, and it's _there_ that the block (if so requested by the caller) is implemented.

And... that since the number is sent all that way, a lot of CLECs are a bit careless about following that privacy flag, and do, in fact, send it the rest of the way. -------

---- I can't pull up the FCC docket at this time, but about a decade ago I was involved in a related filing.

ahh... thank you, FCC search index. It's docket RM-7397 of 2001

A group of universities and hospitals (and some related businesses), loosely affiliated under the name "Insight 100", chosen because they all use the Nortel Networks MSL 100 PBX, petitioned the FCC to let them send the CPN (calling party number) to the actual phone set that was dialed.

Their rationale was that these groups often provided emergency and first responder actions. One obvious example would be the campus public safety office.

Hence their request that calls to these folk be given the same treatment, that is, sending full caller ID, that the more official PSAPS (Public Safety Answering Points, aka the 911 centers) receive.

I wrote in expressing our concern that this _not_ be made the default for calls going through those switches, but only be applied to the phone lines traditionally associated with emergency use. As I put it in my submission,

" (we recommend) that the 'emergency number', whether it reaches a nursing desk in the (hospital's) emergency room, an ambulance station, or a security office, should receive CPN even when the outgoing (caller) is trying to 'block' it. However, calls to the accounting division or any other 'routine' area should have their CNID (blocked)."

One of the other submitters replied that, eyup, that's what they'd be doing. (At least once I had pointed it out...)

So yes, groups operating their own central-office type equipment are mandated to follow these rules even in house.

Just for the record, it is Cox Communications of Orange County, California. They first operated as a cable television company. Later, they added local exchange service from a DMS-500 so they could offer dial tone anywhere they had cable in the street. Finally, they added high-speed internet service as a third option. Each of the three services is stand-alone.

Interestingly, their local directory number, 949-240-1212, appears to the uninformed to be an AT&T (Pacific Bell) number in AT&T's Capistrano Exchange. For many years it was indeed a number that belonged to Pacific Bell and was serviced by them. Then, when Cox expanded to become an CLED, they ported the Pacific Bell number to the Cox DMS-500.

I suspect that the PBX is receiving ANI and not CID and is therefore not in violation of any federal regulation.

In any event, Comcast wouldn't operate anything resembling a Class 5 switch as it's all VoIP, and wouldn't even own a switch. Comcast doesn't even provide dial tone to a single-line subscriber! That comes from the telephony cable modem.

It is not Comcast. It is Cox Communications. They operate as a CLEC with a DMS-500. Their CLEC Designation is 7661 Cox California Telecom, Inc., Switch RSMGCAHADSO, Switch Type NT5, rate center Trabuco, California. The number at issue is an ordinary directory number that used to belong to Pacific Bell and is now ported to RSMGCAHADSO.

Because this is an intra-state issue I presume this section of the California Public Utilities Code governs:

2893. (a) The commission shall, by rule or order, require that every telephone call identification service offered in this state by a telephone corporation, or by any other person or corporation that makes use of the facilities of a telephone corporation, shall allow a caller to withhold display of the caller's telephone number, on an individual basis, from the telephone instrument of the individual receiving the telephone call placed by the caller. However a caller shall not be allowed to withhold the display of the caller's business telephone number when that number is being used for telemarketing purposes.

So the PBX, if it's received ANI, could log the call. If sent to a work station in a call center, the customer's account could pop up, if the telephone number is suppressed.

Unless there is an explicit regulation that states that ANI shall not be forwarded to the subscriber's PBX by the telephone company, then there's no practical protection of privacy.

I assume that ANI makes it all the way to the PBX because the PBX is expected to translate it into Caller ID for display on the extension telephone instrument.

Aren't you confusing "PBX" with "Centrex-CO"?

Other posters have said that the cable company in question is using a DMS-500, and that the cable company is also an ILEC, so I don't see how their switch could be considered a PBX.

Bill

-- Bill Horne (Filter QRM for direct replies)

You know, Bill, you insisted on having this discussion in private email, then you posted your followup anyway after I already explained to you that I was doing no such thing.

Please don't accuse me of nonsense completely out of left field.

It's Cox Telephone of California, a CLEC, which operates a DMS-500 and serves its subscribers via it regional cable system. It would be subject to the same rules for honoring the CPN privacy flag that apply to AT&T, Verizon, et al, for intra-state directly number calls within California.

I don't see where ANI would be any part of this for a calling party billable call.