"Ron T." <not@home> wrote in message
news:FO6dnTZCo9QOeUTX4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
> I'm a former Alltel customer that got taken over byVerizon. Prior to
> moving south, I was in Chicago, with Verizon, and was very happy.
>
> When I called someone, their caller ID would show my name and number.
>
> Moving south, noVerizon, so I switch to Alltel. Same thing on caller ID,
> name and number. That was ~4-5 years ago.
>
> So, Verizon takes over, and all of a sudden I'm sending and getting ID's
> that simply says what town the cell tower is in, and the number.
>
> People in my phone book don't even come up ID'd.
>
> I called Verizon about this, an the rep said, "Oh we don't have that
> capability".
>
> Now I know that's BS, but I'm certainly not debating that with an employee
> that gets grief all the time anyway.
>
> Anybody know any farther facts on the absence of enhanced caller ID?
>
Verizon does not specifically support name in the callerID function. That
makes me happy for a number of reasons which I'll get into later. However,
if the land line carrier is Verizon, AND, you have not "opted out" of
letting Verizon Wireless share your information within its own internal
organizations, you may then see a name on the receiving land-line callerID.
The norm is that receiving land-lines do not have the ability to "dip into"
the VZW database holding name information.
Therefore, the norm on the receiving land line is that it will assign
whatever it likes to your "name" when it displays it on the receiving
system. In most cases the land-line carriers will choose to display
"Wireless Caller", or "City, State" of the sending VZW switching station.
My thoughts:
The reason I'm happy about this is because the odds of getting the name
right are very low. For a family plan with, say, 3 phones, the name will
only be correct 1 out of 3 times. With 5 phones, 1 out of 5 times. With
business plans, 1 out of maybe 2000 times. The whole concept displaying the
"name" of the caller is ridiculous and prone to inaccuracy. That's probably
whey the real "standard" for callerID does not require a name. Only a
number. As it should.
"Ron T." <not@home> wrote in message
news:FO6dnTZCo9QOeUTX4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
: I'm a former Alltel customer that got taken over byVerizon. Prior to
moving
: south, I was in Chicago, with Verizon, and was very happy.
:
: When I called someone, their caller ID would show my name and number.
:
: Moving south, noVerizon, so I switch to Alltel. Same thing on caller ID,
: name and number. That was ~4-5 years ago.
:
: So, Verizon takes over, and all of a sudden I'm sending and getting ID's
: that simply says what town the cell tower is in, and the number.
:
: People in my phone book don't even come up ID'd.
:
: I called Verizon about this, an the rep said, "Oh we don't have that
: capability".
:
: Now I know that's BS, but I'm certainly not debating that with an employee
: that gets grief all the time anyway.
:
: Anybody know any farther facts on the absence of enhanced caller ID?
:
All the current MTSO switches have the capability.
There is a charge from the providing system for the data. It has long been
a problem with various carries where they don't want to spend the $ for the
data access and thus use excuses to justify the lack. VZN is for whatever
justification very proud of their data. By the same measure VZN is
reluctant to pay for the data for their users.
"NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:hbcuji$ps9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Ron T." <not@home> wrote in message
> news:FO6dnTZCo9QOeUTX4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
> : I'm a former Alltel customer that got taken over byVerizon. Prior to
> moving
> : south, I was in Chicago, with Verizon, and was very happy.
> :
> : When I called someone, their caller ID would show my name and number.
> :
> : Moving south, noVerizon, so I switch to Alltel. Same thing on caller ID,
> : name and number. That was ~4-5 years ago.
> :
> : So, Verizon takes over, and all of a sudden I'm sending and getting ID's
> : that simply says what town the cell tower is in, and the number.
> :
> : People in my phone book don't even come up ID'd.
> :
> : I called Verizon about this, an the rep said, "Oh we don't have that
> : capability".
> :
> : Now I know that's BS, but I'm certainly not debating that with an
> employee
> : that gets grief all the time anyway.
> :
> : Anybody know any farther facts on the absence of enhanced caller ID?
> :
> All the current MTSO switches have the capability.
>
> There is a charge from the providing system for the data. It has long
> been
> a problem with various carries where they don't want to spend the $ for
> the
> data access and thus use excuses to justify the lack. VZN is for whatever
> justification very proud of their data. By the same measure VZN is
> reluctant to pay for the data for their users.
>
>
I personally do not believe that you have any insight into the financial
decisions made by Verizon and Verizon Wireless. As such, I have to accept
your reasoning as to "reluctant to pay" as your opinion. Likely based on
equally unjustified opinions you've read on the Internet. 'Course, we all
know if you read it on the Internet it has to be true. LOL.
There are TONS of reasons why this name thing is stupid. I only cited one in
my earlier post. However, even if Verizon did start supporting this, it
would cost them way more than the implementation costs. They would have to
pay support personel who would have the responsibility to manage the
configuration. In other words, on a Family share plan, you'd have to be able
to call in and say, "hey, I use the xxx-xxx-xxxx number on the family share
plan and I want my name assigned to that number. Or, I want my company name
assigned to this number because I use this phone for business. Or, I don't
like my real name (required for the Verizon contract) I want to use Tom,
Dick or Harry instead. It's endless.
IF Verizon would allow us to configure this as we wished (including a
no-name option) I would be all for it. But I don't believe it would be
implemented that way. So I am against it.
In any case, we don't have much choice but to believe Verizon's stated
position on this subject. And that is that it protects your privacy. I like
that too.
"Frankster" <frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote in message
news:Wc-dnS-o5JNcjEfXnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@giganews.com...
:
: "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
: news:hbcuji$ps9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
: >
: > "Ron T." <not@home> wrote in message
: > news:FO6dnTZCo9QOeUTX4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
: > : I'm a former Alltel customer that got taken over byVerizon. Prior to
: > moving
: > : south, I was in Chicago, with Verizon, and was very happy.
: > :
: > : When I called someone, their caller ID would show my name and number.
: > :
: > : Moving south, noVerizon, so I switch to Alltel. Same thing on caller
ID,
: > : name and number. That was ~4-5 years ago.
: > :
: > : So, Verizon takes over, and all of a sudden I'm sending and getting
ID's
: > : that simply says what town the cell tower is in, and the number.
: > :
: > : People in my phone book don't even come up ID'd.
: > :
: > : I called Verizon about this, an the rep said, "Oh we don't have that
: > : capability".
: > :
: > : Now I know that's BS, but I'm certainly not debating that with an
: > employee
: > : that gets grief all the time anyway.
: > :
: > : Anybody know any farther facts on the absence of enhanced caller ID?
: > :
: > All the current MTSO switches have the capability.
: >
: > There is a charge from the providing system for the data. It has long
: > been
: > a problem with various carries where they don't want to spend the $ for
: > the
: > data access and thus use excuses to justify the lack. VZN is for
whatever
: > justification very proud of their data. By the same measure VZN is
: > reluctant to pay for the data for their users.
:
: I personally do not believe that you have any insight into the financial
: decisions made by Verizon and Verizon Wireless. As such, I have to accept
: your reasoning as to "reluctant to pay" as your opinion. Likely based on
: equally unjustified opinions you've read on the Internet. 'Course, we all
: know if you read it on the Internet it has to be true. LOL.
Believe what you will or not no skin off my nose.
Having worked on the switch and handset provisioning side I've sat in on the
engineering and marketing meeting for VZN and a few of their predecessors as
well as their competitors both wireless and wire side.
The data is hard to find but it's also been presented in public hearings.
"Frankster" <frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote in
news:Wc-dnS-o5JNcjEfXnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@giganews.com:
>
> "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:hbcuji$ps9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Ron T." <not@home> wrote in message
>> news:FO6dnTZCo9QOeUTX4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
>> : I'm a former Alltel customer that got taken over byVerizon. Prior
>> : to
>> moving
>> : south, I was in Chicago, with Verizon, and was very happy.
>> :
>> : When I called someone, their caller ID would show my name and
>> : number.
>> :
>> : Moving south, noVerizon, so I switch to Alltel. Same thing on
>> : caller ID, name and number. That was ~4-5 years ago.
>> :
>> : So, Verizon takes over, and all of a sudden I'm sending and getting
>> : ID's that simply says what town the cell tower is in, and the
>> : number.
>> :
>> : People in my phone book don't even come up ID'd.
>> :
>> : I called Verizon about this, an the rep said, "Oh we don't have
>> : that capability".
>> :
>> : Now I know that's BS, but I'm certainly not debating that with an
>> employee
>> : that gets grief all the time anyway.
>> :
>> : Anybody know any farther facts on the absence of enhanced caller
>> : ID?
>> :
>> All the current MTSO switches have the capability.
>>
>> There is a charge from the providing system for the data. It has
>> long been
>> a problem with various carries where they don't want to spend the $
>> for the
>> data access and thus use excuses to justify the lack. VZN is for
>> whatever justification very proud of their data. By the same measure
>> VZN is reluctant to pay for the data for their users.
>>
>>
>
> I personally do not believe that you have any insight into the
> financial decisions made by Verizon and Verizon Wireless. As such, I
> have to accept your reasoning as to "reluctant to pay" as your
> opinion. Likely based on equally unjustified opinions you've read on
> the Internet. 'Course, we all know if you read it on the Internet it
> has to be true. LOL.
>
> There are TONS of reasons why this name thing is stupid. I only cited
> one in my earlier post. However, even if Verizon did start supporting
> this, it would cost them way more than the implementation costs. They
> would have to pay support personel who would have the responsibility
> to manage the configuration. In other words, on a Family share plan,
> you'd have to be able to call in and say, "hey, I use the xxx-xxx-xxxx
> number on the family share plan and I want my name assigned to that
> number. Or, I want my company name assigned to this number because I
> use this phone for business. Or, I don't like my real name (required
> for the Verizon contract) I want to use Tom, Dick or Harry instead.
> It's endless.
Or they could do it like Sprint and allow the user to control it from
their online account.
"Frankster" <frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote in message
news:Wc-dnS-o5JNcjEfXnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:hbcuji$ps9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Ron T." <not@home> wrote in message
>> news:FO6dnTZCo9QOeUTX4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
>> : I'm a former Alltel customer that got taken over byVerizon. Prior to
>> moving
>> : south, I was in Chicago, with Verizon, and was very happy.
>> :
>> : When I called someone, their caller ID would show my name and number.
>> :
>> : Moving south, noVerizon, so I switch to Alltel. Same thing on caller
>> ID,
>> : name and number. That was ~4-5 years ago.
>> :
>> : So, Verizon takes over, and all of a sudden I'm sending and getting
>> ID's
>> : that simply says what town the cell tower is in, and the number.
>> :
>> : People in my phone book don't even come up ID'd.
>> :
>> : I called Verizon about this, an the rep said, "Oh we don't have that
>> : capability".
>> :
>> : Now I know that's BS, but I'm certainly not debating that with an
>> employee
>> : that gets grief all the time anyway.
>> :
>> : Anybody know any farther facts on the absence of enhanced caller ID?
>> :
>> All the current MTSO switches have the capability.
>>
>> There is a charge from the providing system for the data. It has long
>> been
>> a problem with various carries where they don't want to spend the $ for
>> the
>> data access and thus use excuses to justify the lack. VZN is for
>> whatever
>> justification very proud of their data. By the same measure VZN is
>> reluctant to pay for the data for their users.
>>
>>
>
> I personally do not believe that you have any insight into the financial
> decisions made by Verizon and Verizon Wireless. As such, I have to accept
> your reasoning as to "reluctant to pay" as your opinion. Likely based on
> equally unjustified opinions you've read on the Internet. 'Course, we all
> know if you read it on the Internet it has to be true. LOL.
>
> There are TONS of reasons why this name thing is stupid. I only cited one
> in my earlier post. However, even if Verizon did start supporting this, it
> would cost them way more than the implementation costs. They would have to
> pay support personel who would have the responsibility to manage the
> configuration. In other words, on a Family share plan, you'd have to be
> able to call in and say, "hey, I use the xxx-xxx-xxxx number on the family
> share plan and I want my name assigned to that number. Or, I want my
> company name assigned to this number because I use this phone for
> business. Or, I don't like my real name (required for the Verizon
> contract) I want to use Tom, Dick or Harry instead. It's endless.
>
>
I respectfully disagree with the name thing being stupid. Especially on
land lines it is very evident that many callers would rather you didn't know
who was calling...to prevent you from effectively screening your calls.
Having a name as well as a number appear on your phone (land or cell) would
be a terrific act of customer service. LOL, guess that's why they don't do
it.
P.S. Please, no freedom of speech responses. Everyone has the right to
his/her free speech, but I am absolutely under no obligation to listen (or
use my minutes).
stevev wrote:
>
> "Frankster" <frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote in message
> news:Wc-dnS-o5JNcjEfXnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>> "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:hbcuji$ps9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> "Ron T." <not@home> wrote in message
>>> news:FO6dnTZCo9QOeUTX4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
>>> : I'm a former Alltel customer that got taken over byVerizon. Prior to
>>> moving
>>> : south, I was in Chicago, with Verizon, and was very happy.
>>> :
>>> : When I called someone, their caller ID would show my name and number.
>>> :
>>> : Moving south, noVerizon, so I switch to Alltel. Same thing on
>>> caller ID,
>>> : name and number. That was ~4-5 years ago.
>>> :
>>> : So, Verizon takes over, and all of a sudden I'm sending and getting
>>> ID's
>>> : that simply says what town the cell tower is in, and the number.
>>> :
>>> : People in my phone book don't even come up ID'd.
>>> :
>>> : I called Verizon about this, an the rep said, "Oh we don't have that
>>> : capability".
>>> :
>>> : Now I know that's BS, but I'm certainly not debating that with an
>>> employee
>>> : that gets grief all the time anyway.
>>> :
>>> : Anybody know any farther facts on the absence of enhanced caller ID?
>>> :
>>> All the current MTSO switches have the capability.
>>>
>>> There is a charge from the providing system for the data. It has
>>> long been
>>> a problem with various carries where they don't want to spend the $
>>> for the
>>> data access and thus use excuses to justify the lack. VZN is for
>>> whatever
>>> justification very proud of their data. By the same measure VZN is
>>> reluctant to pay for the data for their users.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I personally do not believe that you have any insight into the
>> financial decisions made by Verizon and Verizon Wireless. As such, I
>> have to accept your reasoning as to "reluctant to pay" as your
>> opinion. Likely based on equally unjustified opinions you've read on
>> the Internet. 'Course, we all know if you read it on the Internet it
>> has to be true. LOL.
>>
>> There are TONS of reasons why this name thing is stupid. I only cited
>> one in my earlier post. However, even if Verizon did start supporting
>> this, it would cost them way more than the implementation costs. They
>> would have to pay support personel who would have the responsibility
>> to manage the configuration. In other words, on a Family share plan,
>> you'd have to be able to call in and say, "hey, I use the xxx-xxx-xxxx
>> number on the family share plan and I want my name assigned to that
>> number. Or, I want my company name assigned to this number because I
>> use this phone for business. Or, I don't like my real name (required
>> for the Verizon contract) I want to use Tom, Dick or Harry instead.
>> It's endless.
>>
>>
> I respectfully disagree with the name thing being stupid. Especially on
> land lines it is very evident that many callers would rather you didn't
> know who was calling...to prevent you from effectively screening your
> calls. Having a name as well as a number appear on your phone (land or
> cell) would be a terrific act of customer service. LOL, guess that's
> why they don't do it.
>
> P.S. Please, no freedom of speech responses. Everyone has the right to
> his/her free speech, but I am absolutely under no obligation to listen
> (or use my minutes).
Caller ID on land-line phones tells me who's calling and if it's someone
I want to talk to. If caller ID is blocked I pick up the phone prepared
to be rude and/or to spout obscenities! Or maybe I let the answering
machine deal with it.
I'm on the National Do Not Call List but that's not terribly effective.
I have not yet been troubled with junk calls on my cell phone. Every
two or three years I get a miss-dialed call but that's about it.
Ron T. wrote:
> I'm a former Alltel customer that got taken over byVerizon. Prior to moving
> south, I was in Chicago, with Verizon, and was very happy.
>
> When I called someone, their caller ID would show my name and number.
>
> Moving south, noVerizon, so I switch to Alltel. Same thing on caller ID,
> name and number. That was ~4-5 years ago.
>
> So, Verizon takes over, and all of a sudden I'm sending and getting ID's
> that simply says what town the cell tower is in, and the number.
>
> People in my phone book don't even come up ID'd.
>
> I called Verizon about this, an the rep said, "Oh we don't have that
> capability".
>
> Now I know that's BS, but I'm certainly not debating that with an employee
> that gets grief all the time anyway.
>
> Anybody know any farther facts on the absence of enhanced caller ID?
>
>
It works on my VZW phone. I'm in a former Alltel area, too, but I've
always had Verizon.
"Janet Wilder" <kelliepoodle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0038af2e$0$24325$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Ron T. wrote:
>> I'm a former Alltel customer that got taken over byVerizon. Prior to
>> moving south, I was in Chicago, with Verizon, and was very happy.
>>
>> When I called someone, their caller ID would show my name and number.
>>
>> Moving south, noVerizon, so I switch to Alltel. Same thing on caller ID,
>> name and number. That was ~4-5 years ago.
>>
>> So, Verizon takes over, and all of a sudden I'm sending and getting ID's
>> that simply says what town the cell tower is in, and the number.
>>
>> People in my phone book don't even come up ID'd.
>>
>> I called Verizon about this, an the rep said, "Oh we don't have that
>> capability".
>>
>> Now I know that's BS, but I'm certainly not debating that with an
>> employee that gets grief all the time anyway.
>>
>> Anybody know any farther facts on the absence of enhanced caller ID?
> It works on my VZW phone. I'm in a former Alltel area, too, but I've
> always had Verizon.
>
> --
> Janet Wilder
> Way-the-heck-south Texas
> Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.
Thanks for all responses, and, yes, I'm still irritated.
I realise that some people don't want their name/number on there, and when i
was working in the Chi area, I had my info stripped from one of my phones.
However, I had E caller ID there, I had it here with Alltel, and now I
don't, and am told that the capability vanished.
I've never had a beef with Verizon, but this is irritatating for reasons
that would not seem important to most people.
I live in a very rural area. Everybody uses a cell phone. Pretty much,
everbody sounds the same.
When I get a call, it's usually like, "Hey....if y'all ain't busy, and you
come over to my east 80 and help me pull the truck out? I buried it."
Now, I only know about 30 people with "east 80's", and after talking to them
for years, it's just embarrsaing to say, "Sure....who is this?"
I know that sounds trivial to most, but it's a different social circle down
here.
They could at least let my phone book numbers show up by name.
I reckon it's not life or death, but I just hate it when someone pisses down
my back and tells me it's raining.
Ron T. wrote:
> "Janet Wilder" <kelliepoodle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:0038af2e$0$24325$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>> Ron T. wrote:
>>> I'm a former Alltel customer that got taken over byVerizon. Prior to
>>> moving south, I was in Chicago, with Verizon, and was very happy.
>>>
>>> When I called someone, their caller ID would show my name and number.
>>>
>>> Moving south, noVerizon, so I switch to Alltel. Same thing on caller ID,
>>> name and number. That was ~4-5 years ago.
>>>
>>> So, Verizon takes over, and all of a sudden I'm sending and getting ID's
>>> that simply says what town the cell tower is in, and the number.
>>>
>>> People in my phone book don't even come up ID'd.
>>>
>>> I called Verizon about this, an the rep said, "Oh we don't have that
>>> capability".
>>>
>>> Now I know that's BS, but I'm certainly not debating that with an
>>> employee that gets grief all the time anyway.
>>>
>>> Anybody know any farther facts on the absence of enhanced caller ID?
>> It works on my VZW phone. I'm in a former Alltel area, too, but I've
>> always had Verizon.
>>
>> --
>> Janet Wilder
>> Way-the-heck-south Texas
>> Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.
>
> Thanks for all responses, and, yes, I'm still irritated.
>
> I realise that some people don't want their name/number on there, and when i
> was working in the Chi area, I had my info stripped from one of my phones.
> However, I had E caller ID there, I had it here with Alltel, and now I
> don't, and am told that the capability vanished.
>
> I've never had a beef with Verizon, but this is irritatating for reasons
> that would not seem important to most people.
>
> I live in a very rural area. Everybody uses a cell phone. Pretty much,
> everbody sounds the same.
>
> When I get a call, it's usually like, "Hey....if y'all ain't busy, and you
> come over to my east 80 and help me pull the truck out? I buried it."
>
> Now, I only know about 30 people with "east 80's", and after talking to them
> for years, it's just embarrsaing to say, "Sure....who is this?"
>
> I know that sounds trivial to most, but it's a different social circle down
> here.
>
> They could at least let my phone book numbers show up by name.
>
> I reckon it's not life or death, but I just hate it when someone pisses down
> my back and tells me it's raining.
>
>
The last is a function performed by your phone. I have had lots of
different phones on VZW and also used many more and have never seen a
phone that didn't do a contact lookup based on incoming CID. Maybe there
is something funky about your phone? I also agree that sending CID
without a name works for me and wouldn't want to see it change.
> Caller ID on land-line phones tells me who's calling and if it's someone I
> want to talk to.
That's the point! It does not reliably tell you "who's calling". It just
tells you some programmed-in name or phrase associated with that number.
That may or may not be "who's calling".
"George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:hbf3pl$qug$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Ron T. wrote:
>> "Janet Wilder" <kelliepoodle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> The last is a function performed by your phone. I have had lots of
> different phones on VZW and also used many more and have never seen a
> phone that didn't do a contact lookup based on incoming CID. Maybe there
> is something funky about your phone? I also agree that sending CID without
> a name works for me and wouldn't want to see it change.
Wife and I have been using that same phones for over 2 years, and friends on
Verizon have the same result.
"Evan Platt" <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote in message
news:i1cmd51chlqaqi4fn24r698scalfjgfllb@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 07:51:55 -0500, "Ron T." <not@home> wrote:
>
>>They could at least let my phone book numbers show up by name.
>>
>>I reckon it's not life or death, but I just hate it when someone pisses
>>down
>>my back and tells me it's raining.
>
> How do you store the numbers in the book, and what phone is it?
>
> ie do the phone entries have
>
> 12025551212 ? 2025551212 202-555-1212, etc?
> --
> To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.
It's just the standard phone entries, out in like, "June cell 340-XXXX"
Then when june calls, it would just say, "June cell" on the screen.
Now it says "cellular call", or Memphis" and the phone number.
> People in my phone book don't even come up ID'd.
I have two Verizon accounts, and three PagePlus/Verizon accounts, and on
all phones the caller ID system will display the name of the person
calling if they're in my phone book. That's a phone function, not a
carrier function.
> I called Verizon about this, an the rep said, "Oh we don't have that
> capability".
Are you talking about a system that will look up names in some database
that the carrier maintains and send the name to the phone like some
Caller ID systems for landlines do? I didn't know any wireless carriers
did that. That would be pretty nice, though since so many people have
complete caller ID blocking I wonder how useful it would be.
Ron T. wrote:
> "Evan Platt" <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote in message
> news:i1cmd51chlqaqi4fn24r698scalfjgfllb@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 07:51:55 -0500, "Ron T." <not@home> wrote:
>>
>>> They could at least let my phone book numbers show up by name.
>>>
>>> I reckon it's not life or death, but I just hate it when someone pisses
>>> down
>>> my back and tells me it's raining.
>> How do you store the numbers in the book, and what phone is it?
>>
>> ie do the phone entries have
>>
>> 12025551212 ? 2025551212 202-555-1212, etc?
>> --
>> To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.
>
> It's just the standard phone entries, out in like, "June cell 340-XXXX"
>
> Then when june calls, it would just say, "June cell" on the screen.
>
> Now it says "cellular call", or Memphis" and the phone number.
Very strange. Do all of your phone book entries include the area code?
Ron T. wrote:
> "George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hbf3pl$qug$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Ron T. wrote:
>>> "Janet Wilder" <kelliepoodle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> The last is a function performed by your phone. I have had lots of
>> different phones on VZW and also used many more and have never seen a
>> phone that didn't do a contact lookup based on incoming CID. Maybe there
>> is something funky about your phone? I also agree that sending CID without
>> a name works for me and wouldn't want to see it change.
>
> Wife and I have been using that same phones for over 2 years, and friends on
> Verizon have the same result.
>
>
Never heard of that. The phone is where the incoming CID is matched to a
phonebook entry. Is there any reason you don't want to specify what
model phones you are using? Someone may actually be able to offer a
suggestion.
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4adc9aa7$0$1594$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
: Ron T. wrote:
: > "Evan Platt" <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote in message
: > news:i1cmd51chlqaqi4fn24r698scalfjgfllb@4ax.com...
: >> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 07:51:55 -0500, "Ron T." <not@home> wrote:
: >>
: >>> They could at least let my phone book numbers show up by name.
: >>>
: >>> I reckon it's not life or death, but I just hate it when someone
pisses
: >>> down
: >>> my back and tells me it's raining.
: >> How do you store the numbers in the book, and what phone is it?
: >>
: >> ie do the phone entries have
: >>
: >> 12025551212 ? 2025551212 202-555-1212, etc?
: >> --
: >> To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.
: >
: > It's just the standard phone entries, out in like, "June cell 340-XXXX"
: >
: > Then when june calls, it would just say, "June cell" on the screen.
: >
: > Now it says "cellular call", or Memphis" and the phone number.
:
: Very strange. Do all of your phone book entries include the area code?
Mine do as there are many areas of the country that require 10 digit dialing
even for local calls. That and I travel so 10 digit phone book means less
hassle.
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4adc9a5b$0$1594$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
: Ron T. wrote:
:
: > People in my phone book don't even come up ID'd.
:
: I have two Verizon accounts, and three PagePlus/Verizon accounts, and on
: all phones the caller ID system will display the name of the person
: calling if they're in my phone book. That's a phone function, not a
: carrier function.
:
: > I called Verizon about this, an the rep said, "Oh we don't have that
: > capability".
:
: Are you talking about a system that will look up names in some database
: that the carrier maintains and send the name to the phone like some
: Caller ID systems for landlines do? I didn't know any wireless carriers
: did that. That would be pretty nice, though since so many people have
: complete caller ID blocking I wonder how useful it would be.
The protocols exist in the standards and are part of industry handset
certification. As to the data fields being populated that's a carrier
controlled function.
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4adc9aa7$0$1594$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Ron T. wrote:
>> "Evan Platt" <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote in message
>> news:i1cmd51chlqaqi4fn24r698scalfjgfllb@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 07:51:55 -0500, "Ron T." <not@home> wrote:
>>>
>>>> They could at least let my phone book numbers show up by name.
>>>>
>>>> I reckon it's not life or death, but I just hate it when someone pisses
>>>> down
>>>> my back and tells me it's raining.
>>> How do you store the numbers in the book, and what phone is it?
>>>
>>> ie do the phone entries have
>>>
>>> 12025551212 ? 2025551212 202-555-1212, etc?
>>> --
>>> To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.
>>
>> It's just the standard phone entries, out in like, "June cell 340-XXXX"
>>
>> Then when june calls, it would just say, "June cell" on the screen.
>>
>> Now it says "cellular call", or Memphis" and the phone number.
>
> Very strange. Do all of your phone book entries include the area code?
No, just the ones that would be long distance locally, and they come up the
same as others.
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4adc9a5b$0$1594$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Ron T. wrote:
>
>> People in my phone book don't even come up ID'd.
>
> I have two Verizon accounts, and three PagePlus/Verizon accounts, and on
> all phones the caller ID system will display the name of the person
> calling if they're in my phone book. That's a phone function, not a
> carrier function.
>
>> I called Verizon about this, an the rep said, "Oh we don't have that
>> capability".
>
> Are you talking about a system that will look up names in some database
> that the carrier maintains and send the name to the phone like some Caller
> ID systems for landlines do? I didn't know any wireless carriers did that.
> That would be pretty nice, though since so many people have complete
> caller ID blocking I wonder how useful it would be.
Now, if someone calls me from a land line, I get name/number ID.
Any cell phone call, I get either "cellular call", "State call", or "cell
site call", with number.
All I'm saying is, I know they have the "capabilities", as it was some time
after they took over that the enhanced ID stopped, and it ran fine then with
the same system they took over from Alltel.
"George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:hbi62h$k6b$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Ron T. wrote:
>> "George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:hbf3pl$qug$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Ron T. wrote:
>>>> "Janet Wilder" <kelliepoodle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> The last is a function performed by your phone. I have had lots of
>>> different phones on VZW and also used many more and have never seen a
>>> phone that didn't do a contact lookup based on incoming CID. Maybe there
>>> is something funky about your phone? I also agree that sending CID
>>> without a name works for me and wouldn't want to see it change.
>>
>> Wife and I have been using that same phones for over 2 years, and friends
>> on Verizon have the same result.
>
> Never heard of that. The phone is where the incoming CID is matched to a
> phonebook entry. Is there any reason you don't want to specify what model
> phones you are using? Someone may actually be able to offer a suggestion.
Ron T. wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:4adc9a5b$0$1594$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> Ron T. wrote:
>>
>>> People in my phone book don't even come up ID'd.
>> I have two Verizon accounts, and three PagePlus/Verizon accounts, and on
>> all phones the caller ID system will display the name of the person
>> calling if they're in my phone book. That's a phone function, not a
>> carrier function.
>>
>>> I called Verizon about this, an the rep said, "Oh we don't have that
>>> capability".
>> Are you talking about a system that will look up names in some database
>> that the carrier maintains and send the name to the phone like some Caller
>> ID systems for landlines do? I didn't know any wireless carriers did that.
>> That would be pretty nice, though since so many people have complete
>> caller ID blocking I wonder how useful it would be.
>
> Now, if someone calls me from a land line, I get name/number ID.
>
> Any cell phone call, I get either "cellular call", "State call", or "cell
> site call", with number.
>
> All I'm saying is, I know they have the "capabilities", as it was some time
> after they took over that the enhanced ID stopped, and it ran fine then with
> the same system they took over from Alltel.
>
> I know it's desired by some, a bane to others.
>
>
Anyone who considers Caller ID a "bane" is probably someone I don't want
to talk to! Not a problem, yet, with cell phones.
On the land line, even the national "Do not call" database seems to be
ignored by just about everyone! If you complain to the FCC, you'll get
a form back that you're supposed to fill in with the caller's name,
company, phone number, marital status, number of children, etc, etc!
They want to know if you have a recording of the call! Right!!! For
some reason I lack the proper equipment to legally record the call. I
don't propose to spend my limited funds to buy it either.
> On the land line, even the national "Do not call" database seems to be
> ignored by just about everyone! If you complain to the FCC, you'll get
> a form back that you're supposed to fill in with the caller's name,
> company, phone number, marital status, number of children, etc, etc!
> They want to know if you have a recording of the call! Right!!! For
> some reason I lack the proper equipment to legally record the call. I
> don't propose to spend my limited funds to buy it either.
I have no idea if it does any good, but I'm optimistic, and they usually
stop. I report even the ones that I may have or do "business" with.
If I don't know who is calling, I never answer. If they don't leave a
message, they never get through. If they leave a message and I'm
unimpressed, they never get through. And I report it EVERY time.
"Evan Platt" <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote in message
news:u7dsd5993tacoaipbt5m8su7gsge3qhbu9@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:36:37 -0500, "Ron T." <not@home> wrote:
>
>>It's just the standard phone entries, out in like, "June cell 340-XXXX"
>>
>>Then when june calls, it would just say, "June cell" on the screen.
>>
>>Now it says "cellular call", or Memphis" and the phone number.
>
> What phone model is it?
>
> Look at a incoming call the next time it comes in, and try changing
> the entry in the phone book to match exactly how the call shows on the
> incoming CID (Well, except for dashes maybe)
>
> So if the incoming call says
> INCOMING CALL
>
> 1 202 555 1212
>
> change the phonebook entry to have the number be 12025551212. See what
> that does.
> --
> To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.
I'll tell you what this is starting to remind me of.
I have several riding mowers of various years, and about 3 years ago, one of
them wouldn't start. Wouldn't crank, nothing.
I am certinly not a mechanic type.
So, I load it up, and take it to my rural "I fix anything" guy, and leave it
with him.
The day comes to pick it up, and some switch has gone out, and now there's a
toggle switch by the ignition.
He gives me explicit instructions on, to start it, flip the toggle switch to
"off", and then turn the key, and to shut it off, turn the toggle switch to
"on", which kills the engine, and then shut the key off.
I'm thinking that expecting anything to work tomorrow in version 2.0, as it
did today in version 1.2, is an unreasonable expectation.
No enhanced caller ID with Verizon? 
Linear Mode
