<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Some providers require a charge number to be present. They won't route the call if only the 800# exists. <div><br><div><div>On Feb 15, 2012, at 4:29 PM, Darren Schreiber wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><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><div><br></div><div>- Darren</div><div><br></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>VoiceOps mailing list<br><a href="mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org">VoiceOps@voiceops.org</a><br>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>