Bogus Caller-ID [telecom]

From comments to my earlier message, it appears that there are (at least)

>two sets of data that are being transmitted from the originating LEC. One >is related to the caller-ID information which appears to be a rather >fluid transition of data and not always accurate--and nor does it appear >that it was designed to be. A second appears to be revenue associated >data that flows through the ANI protocol. While there are legal safeguards >in place to prevent faux-info from flowing through the caller ID function, >it is clear that those protections are not comprehensively effective. I >wonder if at some point, the LEC will allow the customer to select >(presuming the technology would support such a choice) which data set a >customer would prefer to receive for incoming calls--either the caller ID >data, or the ANI data. Understanding that the ANI data was not designed >for this purpose, and it would contain some flaws, it would never the less >likely be more accurate.
Reply to
Andrew Kaser
Loading thread data ...

The above makes good sense.

Some folks criticize the use of ANI since it would conflict with PBXs. But back when ANI was developed, provisions were made to use the main directory number instead of the actual trunk for PBX subscribers. If they could do this in 1958, they certainly could accomodate it today.

formatting link
feature found on page 1305)

Reply to
HAncock4 Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.