I know some have said that, if you try to block your phone number (by using *67) when calling an 800 number, your number will still be visible.
I contacted Qwest, which provides local telephone service.
Here is the reply:

Your concern about 800 number companies getting your telephone number if
you first block the call are for nothing. The statements for the toll free companies you might call will only show the area code the call was generated from. It will not show your actual number if you dial *67
first.

This might be a concern IF you call certain distributors and block your call. Especially since some people who 'work at home' are now telemarketing.

If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please post it.

I have certainly heard just the opposite. Namely, that you cannot block your number (with *67) from being displayed to the owner of the 800 number. I'll search for some evidence.

Newbie

Newbie (not)

LAST EDITED ON 05-29-02 AT 04:59 PM (CDT)

Quote: (from a Qwest website)
Caller ID Blocking
Product Description
This service prevents the telephone number from being delivered to the Caller ID subscriber. Caller ID Blocking does not block information from being forwarded when calling 911, 800/888 WATS numbers or 900 numbers. The words "Private" or "Anonymous" appear on the display unit or telephone set display screen when Caller ID Blocking is in effect.

Details at: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/clecs/features/calleridblocking.html

Quote:
The second sidelight involves 800 and 900 numbers. The Caller ID educational materials have pointed out that blocking does not work with 800 and 900 numbers because a different technology, called Automatic Number Identification (ANI), is involved. Most consumers are not aware that when they call 800 numbers, they are transmitting their own phone numbers. Many contacted the phone company, CPUC, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and other consumer organizations to indicate their outrage about ANI and to express frustration at not being able to block their phone numbers on those calls.

Details at: http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/callerid.htm

Quote:
Selective Blocking
(Minimum Privacy Protection)
With Selective Blocking, your name and phone number are always transmitted unless you choose to block it. To block your number on selected calls with selective blocking, you must press *67 (1167 on rotary phones) before you dial your number. Blocking does not work when calling 800/888 & 900 services and 9-1-1.

Details at: http://www.astound.net/callerID_block.htm

Quote:
When does blocking not work?
800,888 and 900 numbers. When you call an 800, 888 or 900 number, blocking does not work. Your number will be transmitted to the called party, and can be captured and displayed using a technology called Automatic Number Identification (ANI). For example, many mail order companies with 800 numbers link their incoming phone service to a computer data base of all customers' account information. When their phone rings, the data base automatically retrieves customer information. Federal regulations place restrictions on the use and sale of your phone number when you call an 800, 888 or 900 number. (47 CFR 64.1602) Your consent is required if your phone number is reused or sold for purposes unrelated to your original call, for example marketing purposes.

Details at: http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs19-cid.htm


JeffCoShark

This is why we call those 800-U-LOSE-W8 voicemail numbers from payphones. It's the only guarantee for anonymity.

Telcos transmit ANI to the recipients of 800/888 and 900 service numbers for the following reasons:
1) for toll-free calls, the cost of the call is the responsibility of the owner of the 800/888 number. A percentage of their cost also goes to the telco that the originator of the call is connected to, as a 'connect fee', as well as any extra charges for calls from payphones.
The owner of the toll-free number is guaranteed this info in case someone abuses his/her service by calling it excessively.
They can use this information to submit formal complaints to the originating caller's telco, or bill to the caller directly.
This is also done for 800 services that optionally offer premium features that charge (like those "first 2 minutes free" psychic lines that charge to your line, even though it's an 800 number)

2) 900-number owners must have the caller's number and call-routing information to forward billing info directly to the caller's telco. There's no way to bill a 900 call without this info.

By they way, are there any other telco-geeks here that have access to SMS800? It would be wonderful if we could use it to find customer and routing info for the numbers we see on the signs.

>
>By they way, are there any
>other telco-geeks here that have
>access to SMS800? It
>would be wonderful if we
>could use it to find
>customer and routing info for
>the numbers we see on
>the signs.
Is SMS800 the new name for the LIDB database? It seems like it should be easy for someone with access to immediately determine the LEC, or CLEC, or IEC that is serving the customer who owns the number.

Newbie

Newbie (not)

thanks for the info/links.

I find this (from the web site) interesting:

Caller ID Blocking does not block information from being forwarded when calling 911, 800/888 WATS numbers or 900 numbers. The words "Private" or "Anonymous" appear on the display unit or telephone set display screen when Caller ID Blocking is in effect.

Will forward this to the person who told me the opposite and ask for clarification. Will post that, as well.

I have had no problems with people (that I have called) calling me).

Thanks!

Be careful with how it was worded. There should have been paranthesis around the middle sentence, or the middle sentence should have been moved to the end, like this:

Caller ID Blocking
Product Description
This service prevents the telephone number from being delivered to the Caller ID subscriber. The words "Private" or "Anonymous" appear on the display unit or telephone set display screen when Caller ID Blocking is in effect. Caller ID Blocking does not block information from being forwarded when calling 911, 800/888 WATS numbers or 900 numbers.

In fact, the word HOWEVER should lead off the last sentence in my modified version!

JeffCoShark

Yes, that paragraph is confusing because it's poorly written.
I mean, it needs a 'but' or 'however' in the last sentence, like you said.
I wonder if anyone has had problems because of being misled with this information?
It seems that Qwest doesn't mind people having incorrect information. I know in the phone book (also put out by Qwest) there is no mention of 800 numbers in the paragraph on caller id blocking.

"800 Service Management System"

www.SMS800.com

It's an evil organization operated by the BOCs that pretty much monopolizes the storage, retreival, and maintenance of the toll-free number database. They make it extremely difficult for private individuals to have access to call routing and owner/forward info.

After just a little digging, I found a resource that will trace a toll-free number, but it costs $99 if they get a hit. No charge if they can't complete the trace. Too pricy for a typical Shark, but it could be helpful to Code Enforcement officials.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?C31A508F

I'll see if I can find other methods too.

JeffCoShark

I know it was here recently...
what is the url of the site to find out who a particular web site is registered to?
Thanks

SOS

LAST EDITED ON 06-03-02 AT 07:04 AM (CDT)

Hi:

Here it is:
http://www.betterwhois.com

Send me a personal message if you have additional questions in this area.

DenverShark

Here is the latest reply from Qwest, about 800 numbers getting your phone number even if you use call blocking.
Essentially it says "don't worry about it", which is very comforting. I find it interesting because it contradicts the information (which I have relied upon) posted in the Qwest telephone directory.



The fact is that, being an
"800 company," we have some insight as to how these things actually do
work and should have been able to give you a clear answer right away.
99.9% of all companies that subscribe to an 800 line do not have a
Caller ID unit in the building-it's pointless because there are so many
other things the company is concerned with. There is a slight chance
that a small business owner that ALSO has an 800 number (and a Caller ID
unit at home-where the 800 line rings to) and a penchant for stalking
could record your number if you called the business for information.
But, in a corporate environment, only the area code of the caller shows
up on toll-free calls-and on the statements for that matter.

Your worries about this happening are fairly unnecessary and there is
NOT currently a product available that would protect you from the slight
chance that a small business owner, with Caller ID, and some serious
problems, could retrieve your number once you called. The only true
protection (100%) from this is not calling the numbers, which you have
the control over.

LAST EDITED ON 06-04-02 AT 06:25 PM (CDT)

>Here is the latest reply from
>Qwest, about 800 numbers getting
>your phone number even if
>you use call blocking.
>Essentially it says "don't worry about
>it", which is very comforting.

I would disregard their advice, which is geared toward alleviating customer concerns about this infringement of privacy.


>I find it interesting because
>it contradicts the information ...

Yes, it does.



>99.9% of all companies that subscribe
>to an 800 line do
>not have a
>Caller ID unit in the building-it's
>pointless ...

They don't even know what it's called. It is called "ANI" for "Automatic Number Identification". Many 800 companies have these. In fact, they are typically connected through the telephone switch into the company database so that it will pull up the customer name, address, and other information based upon the phone number.

Have you ever called a bank, support center, or brokerage and had the customer service rep ask you for your address for security purposes? They are comparing it with their database information, which more often than not, is automatically keyed on the ANI information.

Or how about when you call the 800 number, they say "Mr/Ms xyz?", using your name? They therefore must be using such a system. Reps are trained not to respond that way because it bothers customers, so they ask you for your name instead and compare it with the name on their screen.

>But, in a corporate environment,
>only the area code of
>the caller shows
>up on toll-free calls-and on the
>statements for that matter.

Not true. I have been told otherwise directly by companies using ANI. In fact, the complete calling number shows up on the company phone statement, even if they do not use ANI.


>Your worries about this happening are
>fairly unnecessary

Wrong


> The only true
>protection (100%) from this is not
>calling the numbers, which you
>have the control over.

Correct.



References:

ANTITELEMARKETER.COM http://www.antitelemarketer.com/

Telemarketing http://www.ecofuture.org/jmtelem.html

JUNKBUSTERS Telemarketing http://www.junkbusters.com/ht/en/telemarketing.html


Hope this helps,

DenverShark

I once had an 800 number for my business.

Every number that called me showed up on my paper statement.

I concur completely with DenverShark and Dudley. The full calling number is readily available.

When people use a low cost service bureau voicemail box with an 800 number, it is quite possible that the service bureau never bothers to capture the ANI because few, if any, of their customers have ever asked for it. This is just a guess.

Newbie

Newbie (not)

Here is Qwest's attempt to answer my questions/concerns, followed by my reply:

Thank you for your recent e-mail inquiry to Qwest.
>
> Sure, if you want, it (Qwest's previous answer) can be wrong. The problem here is that depending on what you need or consider important as a customer, this is open to interpretation. So, in order to answer correctly the greatest
number of customers in the greatest number of situations, we answered it
> the way we did. I have used ANI for 5 straight years now, for 2 separate companies, and have utilized all 3 major manufacturer's software. The truth is, this is in no way how we, or companies like us,
> get our leads. Nobody uses 800# list-builders because they are
> innefficient and the leads they produce are very cold.
>
> I will forward your suggestions to our webmaster but just wanted to put
> your mind at ease here. I mean, you must realize that it matters not to
> Qwest whether you prove that this is the case or not-we are simply
> telling you the answer to the question you asked. This is not a problem
> in the telecommunications world right now. There are some security
> problems, this just isn't one of the major ones.
>
> As I stated in my earlier e-mail, if you don't want to worry about ANI
> systems, don't call 800 numbers. That's it. But in all reality, it
> would be a very rare case where what you are describing actually
> happened (where one calls an 800 number and that number is used to telemarket the consumer)... nobody cares that much to need to sift through call log
> sheets under an advanced analysis.
>
> If you need further assistance, feel free to e-mail us anytime or call
> 1-800-244-1111 from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Mountain Time, Monday through
> Friday.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> J****
> Qwest Customer Care
> Consumer Markets

MY REPLY:

You are right, security is important.
That's why, when I call a business, I don't think I should give up my security or right to privacy. I know *67 blocks my number to many businesses, but I wasn't sure about 800 numbers. And since many businesses have 800 numbers, using *67 might not be very effective.
If I call a company I give up my rights under the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The company can then call me to try to sell me things. I do not want them to be able to do that because I value my privacy.
I think, if Qwest is seriously concerned with the security of its customers, Qwest should correct the statement in the Qwest directory regarding call blocking to include that "it may not work when calling 800 numbers." Then it would be accurate and not as misleading as what is currently in the directory or on the Qwest web site.
I am not saying Qwest uses the ability to retrieve numbers as a way to generate business for itself; rather, other businesses can use the information anyway they want. That's what bothers me. The companies can generate call lists based on who has called them, or they could sell the information to other companies.
I realize Qwest makes its money by selling telephone service so obviously not knowing about Call blocking/800 numbers works to the advantage of Qwest but to the disadvantage of Qwest residential consumers.
ALL businesses have an obligation to serve their customers to the best to their ability.
By printing inaccurate information in the Qwest directory and on the Qwest website, Qwest is not serving its customers well.

This is off-topic...

Friends tell me that QWest in Denver is now methodically laying off its high-tech American workers and outsourcing all IT (Information Technology) work to Indian companies. Morale there is terrible; everyone is waiting for the axe to fall.

I refer interested parties to the articles: "Qwest Replaces American Citizens with Foreigners"
http://www.sierratimes.com/02/05/15/arra051502.htm
and "Qwest's overseas hires irk workers"
http://www.hireamericancitizens.org/rmnqwest.html

Get the Facts on H-1B's:
http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/


"Debunking the Myth of a Desperate Software Labor Shortage"
Dr. Norm Matloff
http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.html


DenverShark

>This is off-topic...
>
>Friends tell me that QWest in Denver is now methodically laying off its high-tech American
>workers and outsourcing all IT (Information Technology) work to Indian companies. Morale there is
>terrible; everyone is waiting for the axe to fall.

What do you expect? Qwest, like all telecoms, is hurting badly right now. Unlike the other descendants of the baby bells, however, Qwest is doing really poorly. Stock at an all-time low (about $5/share now, was more than $60 two years ago), very large debt, they just eliminated their dividend, their bonds are now rated "junk" grade, etc.

I'm not defending them -- I don't like the practice of using less expensive foreign workers either -- just don't be surprised when it happens.
--
Remora
Remora@Resourceful.com

remora
--
remora@resourceful.com

I walk past the Qwest headquarters several times a week when I'm not traveling or overseas.

Two months ago the unions were holding up signs on major street corners to protest what was happening at Qwest.

Can you guess what signs said?

"What's the difference between Qwest and Enron?"

"Six months."

JeffCoShark