VoIPo outgoing CNAM

[stevech]

Some time back, on advise of VoIPo Tech support, I had them choose a different phone number which they said would assure that my outgoing caller ID/name (CNAM) would correct itself from the initial randomness on the receiving end. I think it was related to what number VoIPo assigned me and how that number is routed by its owner/carrier. But I'm not an exspurt in this.

Time goes by and I'm increasingly dissatisfied with the name announced by POTS phones receiving my calls - saying "cellular caller" or other arbitrary like "Out Of Area", in error.

I was surprised when VoIPo's tech support today say that they do not send any CNAM for outgoing calls. Does this mean none is sent so others that route the call and ANI info see a blank and stuff in something arbitrary? Or the VoIP industry is not organized as are the SS7 network operators with respect to CID/ANI processing?

Is it logical that VoIPo does not attempt to source a correct CNAM?

[usa2k]

That reminds me of this other post:

http://forums.voipo.com/showpost.php...3&postcount=30

[stevech]

Does the link to the Level-3 DIScussion relate to the outgoing CNAM topic of this thread?

[usa2k]

Sorry. I thought is was clear that outbound CNAM has mostly to do with the carrier VOIPo uses to register your name. That is how it propagates through the LIDB servers. (Is your number on Level3, or another provider that VOIPo used?)

When you call someone, their phone company looks up a LIDB server to get the name that matches the number. That is also how VOIPo gets the names on your incoming calls.

Nobody sends CNAM for outgoing calls. It is the receiving carrier's responsibility to use LIDB.

Looks like this http://forums.voipo.com/showthread.php?t=2108 is a parallel thread on CNAM.

[Russell]

Nobody sends CNAM for outgoing calls. It is the receiving carrier's responsibility to use LIDB.

VoicePulse claims to be able to do it (at least my reading of http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r250...ble-on-request). Not sure how much of this is "marketing" but on the face of it, it appears to be a nice feature.

[stevech]

Sorry. I thought is was clear that outbound CNAM has mostly to do with the carrier VOIPo uses to register your name.

This posting is because VoIPo suggested that I pay to get a new/better number so that VoIPo's contracted carrier would support CNAM. I did so. But still, I get "cellular caller" as the CNAM for outgoing calls to frequently used numbers.

The impetus for this thread was VoIPo saying

We do not send caller ID name information. It is queried from the database for the underlying number partner. It should say the rate center. It may be cached at the recipient's end where it shows "Cellular Caller" in the name field.

What's not said here is if VoIPo is responsible for publishing name/number to these external databases. And sustain it. Maybe VoIP providers cannot?

All this crud aside, the WAF score suffers for the flaw.


Perhaps this means that VoIPo publishes the name/number pairing and they hope it gets distributed and they hope that the carriers that VoIPo do CNAM lookup (which cost a penny or so), then forward that on in the routing.

Why does AT&T and Sprint long lines most always get CNAM right in POTS and VoIPo et al seem to rarely do so? Is it the penny that the carrier-partners don't want to spend? Is it a technical reason?

[VOIPoTim]

We don't officially support Outgoing Name. The vast majority of our carrier partners including our primary do not support it at all at this time. In the past we've tried to accommodate some users by moving them around to other carrier partners that do but that's hit or miss as well so our official stance now is that we just don't offer it.

The problem is that VoIP providers have no access to put names in the databases.

The only company that can put a name in or update a name is the underlying provider of the number (for us that'd be our CLEC partners). No one else has any ability to do so.

With a landline company or a cell phone company, they are the underlying provider as well so they can put the names in directly. With VoIP providers we can only get a name in there if the underlying provider will put it there.

Some of our providers offer it, most don't, and some do at a steep price.

Level3 is an example of a provider that will offer it if you push hard enough but they make it so expensive that it's not compatible with a budget VoIP model. They will only offer it the phone number is a special type of number...what they refer to as "Enhanced" which basically is an expensive bundle of things where you not only get the number, but also E911, local calling, etc from them. Typical number costs are about $0.20. These ELS numbers run several dollars and we can't even use the bundled features since we use third-party E911, etc. In addition, they're address restricted and we have to provide them a "service address" for the number in the local ratecenter of the number. Basically it's a lot of hoops to jump though and very expensive. I think the stance is they don't want to offer it but make it available so that if someone reallllly has to have it, they will pay a steep price for it.

Another one of our carriers will do it, but they charge $15 one-time and $1.50 per month. Again that's not something compatible with budget VoIP.

Our primary carrier Bandwidth.com has been promising that this would be coming soon. We migrated thousands of numbers from Level3 to their new CLEC this year. The only thing holding them up I'm told is just the administrative side. They are waiting to put together the software and processes to handle the updates. They claimed it would be here this year, but it's not yet. We do not they are working on it, but when they will have it in place is anyone's best guess.

Bottom line, only the actual carrier can do it and most are not cooperative at this point.

[stevech]

... one of our carriers will do it, but they charge $15 one-time and $1.50 per month. Again that's not something compatible with budget VoIP.
.

I for one would pay $1.50/mo for outgoing CNAM. That's a trivial cost on top of the low VoIPo rates. That would fix a *major* WAF factor in accepting VoIP.

The expletive POTS carrier I have to use charges many times that for their add-ons for CID and anonymous call blocking and other stuff totaling $61/mo for basic national POTS. They charge for an answering service I don't want and cannot disable and must pay for none the less. To change to an unlisted number to discourage telemarketers - they have the gall to charge for that too. And they refuse to block known large scale offenders like Bay Area Credit Corp with their Bangalore call center.

So give me the choice of outgoing CNAM as an add-on cost option and I'll jump on it. To me, "budget" as is said above means (1) dumping you-know-who carrier and (2) cut the rates in half or better. This is VoIPo's competition in residential VOIP, I say. Time Warner Cable modem based VoIP is just a bit over half that of ye ole Ma Bell, but I want to use a good/small VoIP company and not another indifferent bureaucratic monopolistic company like Time Warner cable.

So give the option and see what happens!

[usa2k]

I for one would pay $1.50/mo for outgoing CNAM. That's a trivial cost on top of the low VoIPo rates. That would fix a *major* WAF factor in accepting VoIP.

That really may be worth it for some. Especially if the main number is used for all outgoing (such as an added virtual number on the second line.)

I can see it get expensive if needed for every number. Such a being a feature for the Reseller Plan where Businesses could be using many numbers. Yet businesses could likely afford that. Perhaps it is worth charging $20 setup and $20 yearly - I can't see it worth doing at cost.

[Russell]

I for one would pay $1.50/mo for outgoing CNAM. That's a trivial cost on top of the low VoIPo rates. That would fix a *major* WAF factor in accepting VoIP.

So give the option and see what happens!

What makes VOIPo so attractive is the low bottom line price. So as long as Tim doesn't lose sight of that (and it doesn't look like he is) and it's an option the rest of us should have no complaints :-).