Problem With Callcentric Incoming Caller ID
sdb-:
Well, google is obviously not setting the privacy attribute nor anything in that logfile.
google is simply calling a DID. That does not pass a privacy attribute. The provider of that DID is doing an analog to digital conversion and creating the metadata trace log record posted by CC. That trace log simply shows that CC needs to look closer to the DID to discover why the privacy attribute has been set.
The only thing google could be doing is NOT passing the CID information to the DID (ala *67). In which case why would CC need to be "stripping the CID information"? There would be nothing to strip.
One interesting thing I see in that line is the "party=calling;id-type=subscriber". That sounds like this record is calling party information, and further that CC is recognizing the calling party as a subscriber. How would CC do that recognition except by receiving the caller id of the calling party? I wonder if GV is passing a CID that CC recognizes as belonging to a subscriber, and CC is then recording that event and prepping for later filtering it out by setting the privacy setting. Do you have GV set to use your GV number or the calling part as the CID? Did you add your GV number to your CC account?
powaking:
I asked CC to take a look at calls I received with caller ID intact from last week and this is their response. Find it hard to believe but....
We do not have detailed SIP logs for the calls from last week, only from the last couple of days.
If you call your Free Phone Number directly you will see that your caller ID is sent without issue. We are not blocking caller Id’s from Google Voice, they are sending us the privacy flag that we have shown you.
If you have any other questions please feel free to contact us at any time, thank you.
lhm.:
Ponder this from DSL Reports today in their forum.
"reply to pagemen
I'm starting to think this is becoming more spread than just GV.
I just tried calling my NY DID using Anveo, and it comes through as anonymous.
I then tried calling my normal DID, and it works fine.
join:2000-03-21
reply to pagemen
I've started to notice this, too.
Calling my Callcentric free NY DID directly from Localphone I get an incoming CID of Anonymous.
Calling my GV# from Localphone (which is forwarded to Callcentric), I also get an incoming CID of Anonymous.
It wasn't always like this.
hey mods · actions · Today 6:38 am ·
tommyanon
@comcast.net
could be that there is a certain route that offers lower pricing that many providers have started using to call the callcentric DIDs and that particular route does not pass caller ID properly. if the callcentric DIDs have a higher than normal termination rate that could explain why several carriers start using the same problem route assuming that route offeres a lower than average termination charge.
it may even be intentional. i seem to remember reading several years ago about carriers stripping caller ID because they were terminating long distance calls as local to get around very high rural termination fees. if i recall this was related to some Iowa based conference calling services."
slowbiscuit:
Quote from: gmercator on October 16, 2013, 10:07:51 pm
If anyone notices any other strange behaviors with the Free NY DID's, please let us know here.
Yeah I'm having one, GV to CC inbound calls to a free DID doesn't work half the time, and rings late the other half:
http://www.obitalk.com/forum/index.php?topic=6922.msg43663#msg43663
dircom:
Today I got a call thru my GV # which forwards to my CC DID
GV history shows the proper caller ID 203-xxx-xxx, but Callcentric and OBI show New York, NY 917-281-xxxx
The caller received the telemarketer msg press x to continue call, even though the 203-xxx-xxxx is listed in my CC phone book
most of the posts are complaining of the call showing up as anonymous. How is this call showing up with the same area code as my free CC DID? 917-7xx-xxxx
edit, I am also getting some caller ID's that show up as GEOCONNECT LLC 917-281-xxxx
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page