On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 10:02 AM Glen Gerhard wrote:
> I agree with Paul. From what I know the 8YY ANIs are handled like any
> other ANI.
>
Are underlying carriers treating these as indeterminate, or given their own
jurisdiction and rates?
___
I agree with Paul. From what I know the 8YY ANIs are
handled like any other ANI.
~Glen
On 5/14/2020 9:08, Paul Timmins wrote:
What's the news on using TFN as a caller ID?
People have been doing
1. What's the news on using TFN as a caller ID?
1. People have been doing it for years
2. Does this require a local charge number in P-Charge-Info or
P_Asserted_Identity or elsewhere?
1. It does if you want calling other toll-free numbers or 911 to
work, otherwise it doesn't
Calvin,
I wonder if you got any insight to this question?
Regards,
Oren
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 5:01 PM Calvin Ellison
wrote:
> It looks like Somos is pushing TFN CNAM, press release below from Mar 30,
> 2020. I've always understood TF ANI to be invalid.
>
> What's the news on using TFN as a
It looks like Somos is pushing TFN CNAM, press release below from Mar 30,
2020. I've always understood TF ANI to be invalid.
What's the news on using TFN as a caller ID?
Does this require a local charge number in P-Charge-Info or
P_Asserted_Identity or elsewhere?
Has the FCC or anyone else
