Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

CID Number and/or Name

55 views

Skip to first unread message

Mark J. Cuccia

unread,

Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96

Regarding whether "name only" CID would be better than "number only"
CID, the method used to display the name is determined by a LIDB (Line
Information Data Base) lookup *based on the number* which is
transmitted.

The original standards were developed to transmit (via SS7) the number
of the calling party (or trunk line) and to display (or not display,
based on the use of *67/11-67 flagging by the called party or per-line
default) that number.

When they bagan to develop the "Name" with Caller-ID, the standards
are *not* that the "Name" is transmitted from the originating switch.
Only the number transmits. The receiving end switch then does a LIDB
lookup based on that number (via SS-7) to get the "Name". If the
number is not found, the receiving end switch will display either
dashes, the city/state, province name, or some other indication that
the name is unavailable, while still displaying the number.

Recently, I received a call from a number I frequently get calls from.
It also happened that the number was in *my own central office
switch*, 504-24X. But I received "NEW ORLEANS, LA" in the name part of
the CID box, when I usually get the calling party number "account"
name. It could have been that the database lookup was slow, and the
actual call was 'more important' than waiting for database (LIDB)
lookup.

And it has been reported here that *not* all LIDB's are yet
interlinked for CID-Name when the call is between two different LEC's.
That's why we are still getting city/state, or state (province)
spelled out on long distance calls while still getting the full
ten-digit number.

As for blocking or allowing far-end display of name but not number or
number but not name, instead of 'only' blocking both or allowing both,
I think that in Canada they have that option. If I'm not mistaken,
there are distinct Bellcore assigned *-XX (11-XX) codes to block
*just* number but allow the name, or vise-versa, as well as
block/allow both, regardless of the default status of your line
regarding display on the far end. I don't know off-hand what each code
is, other than *-67 (11-67) and *-82 (11-82), for blocking both and
displaying both (respectively), regardless of the 'default' status of
the calling line. Of course, this all depends on whether the long
distance carrier or interoffice SS-7 trunks (or the originating switch
itself) can even transmit the number, rather than doing an
"out-of-area".

BTW, as CID (number only at the time) was being introduced locally in
individual areas, there were some areas where *-67 (11-67) 'toggled'
the status of your line. You would have to know *in advance* that the
line was 'default display' or 'default private' before deciding
whether or not to use *-67 (11-67). Some locations used *-67 (11-67)
to 'privatize' the number and *-67 (11-68) to 'display' the number,
regardless of the default status. Then Bellcore changed the 'master'
list of 'display' from *-68 (11-68) to *-82 (11-82) a few years ago.

0 new messages