Enhancement request for call history

[MacGyverLabs]

As I browse through my call history and the plethora of numbers I have received calls from, it occurs to me that an additional field would be helpful...

Since VoIPo is now performing CNAM lookups on all inbound calls (to present as caller ID information), would it be possible to include that information in the call history log? I believe the CNAM max length is 15 characters, so there appears to be plenty of room in the Call History panel... :)

Anyone else think this might be useful?

Many thanks!

[voipoh]

Already there. Click on the number.

[MacGyverLabs]

True, the information is available by clicking on each number, however I would like to have the option of seeing it along side the numbers in the call history page so I can quickly scan or search for a specific name.

[kbuck320]

I agree. The CNAM or whatever is in the Contact database should be displayed there.

[VOIPoTim]

True, the information is available by clicking on each number, however I would like to have the option of seeing it along side the numbers in the call history page so I can quickly scan or search for a specific name.

The problem with doing that is that we have to pay for every single name lookup from the real CNAM database. We (or any other provider) aren't allowed to cache or store that information or we can get fined and have our access to the database services to do the lookups revoked. So the only option is to lookup each one every time the info is needed and pay for each of those lookups.

So if we have it right on the main page, it would have to lookup every single number there every time you loaded the page from the main database service and we would have to pay for every single number there every single time the page was loaded.

By putting it in the little popup, we only lookup (and incur the cost to lookup) numbers that you specifically want more info on.

The Customer Caller ID name is shown on the main page too since it's a lookup from our database (free).

Hope that makes sense.

[MacGyverLabs]

It does make sense, Tim... thanks!

It's definitely a 'nice to have', but certainly not worth paying for 100+ database hits every time the call history tab is accessed. It's a real shame you're not allowed to cache the information!

Tim, Thanks for providing the details... all things considered, the enhancement is not worth the expense!

[dteague]

The problem with doing that is that we have to pay for every single name lookup from the real CNAM database. We (or any other provider) aren't allowed to cache or store that information or we can get fined and have our access to the database services to do the lookups revoked. So the only option is to lookup each one every time the info is needed and pay for each of those lookups.

You know this was something that I really had not realized that it did not have until it was brought up. I'm still porting my number over from AT&T CallVantage. I just checked my call history @ CallVantage and they have listed as shown below (And I don't have these folks in my phonebook)

10/03/09 07:03PM In (574) 753-xxxx MILLER DAVID W (317) 318-xxxx
10/02/09 09:18PM In (317) 865-xxxx HART,KAREN (317) 318-xxxx
10/02/09 10:21AM In (608) 271-xxxx EPIC SYSTEMS CO (317) 318-xxxx
09/28/09 06:29PM In (317) 467-xxxx GREENFIELD HLTH (317) 318-xxxx
09/28/09 06:19PM In (317) 467-xxxx GREENFIELD HLTH (317) 318-xxxx
09/28/09 06:18PM In (317) 467-xxxx GREENFIELD HLTH (317) 318-xxxx

So, how is AT&T doing it?

[fisamo]

Heh... That was going to be one of my comments. ATTCV always did this. I don't recall if Vonage stored the names in the call logs or not.

One thing to consider, though, is that ATTCV could do the lookups in their own databases--as an incumbent provider, they don't have to pay for the database access.

My question for Tim (that I think he's already answered) is whether the prohibition against caching is absolute or if there's any kind of exemption for call history. It makes sense that a LIDB administrator would want to protect an income stream by preventing their subscribers from caching the information to pop up on future incoming calls, but at the same time, it seems extreme that they would require additional lookups to verify and/or browse past call history. It might be worth taking another look at the LIDB's TOS to see if call history is in any way exempted from the caching prohibition.

[usa2k]

I kinda remember Vonage doing it too.

[Russell]

Heh... That was going to be one of my comments. ATTCV always did this. I don't recall if Vonage stored the names in the call logs or not.

One thing to consider, though, is that ATTCV could do the lookups in their own databases--as an incumbent provider, they don't have to pay for the database access.

My question for Tim (that I think he's already answered) is whether the prohibition against caching is absolute or if there's any kind of exemption for call history. It makes sense that a LIDB administrator would want to protect an income stream by preventing their subscribers from caching the information to pop up on future incoming calls, but at the same time, it seems extreme that they would require additional lookups to verify and/or browse past call history. It might be worth taking another look at the LIDB's TOS to see if call history is in any way exempted from the caching prohibition.

Yes, it would seem logical that if you've already paid for that lookup for that particular call you shouldn't have to pay again for the same call. I guess the legal guys need to look at the contract closely to see if it can be so interpreted.