<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
On 02/15/2012 06:29 PM, Darren Schreiber wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:CB617FE0.5589B%25d@d-man.org" type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div>Hi folks,</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>We
have a customer who is insisting on setting their outbound
Caller ID to an 800 #. They are complaining that <i>they </i>can't
call other 800 #s. Our testing reveals that many carriers are
refusing to route the call when the Caller ID is set as an 800
#.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>In
addition, if we try setting the ANI as one number via the From:
header and then add a remote party ID header as Caller ID, it
seems that most carriers use the From: and deliver that as the
Caller ID to the alternate/receiving 800 #.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Any
thoughts on this? I am aware that it's up to the receiving 800 #
to decide what NPAs to allow through and that what they're
proposing complicates billing, so I suspect I just need to tell
the client to deal, but they are insisting that this used to
work on their PRI. My theory is that it did not work on their
PRI but nobody ever noticed before.</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
This would actually work if their carrier had been setting the ANI
as their billing telephone number, and letting them only change the
CallingPartyNumber field.<br>
<br>
If I recall in my testing, the ANI (ChargeNumber) field in the IAM
is what the switches are supposed to route based on.<br>
<br>
Are you doing the tollfree dips yourself, or are you sending them
untranslated to another carrier for dip and termination?<br>
-Paul<br>
</body>
</html>