Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

ANAC 800-437-7950


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 resistor X

resistor X

    Mack Daddy 31337

  • Members
  • 214 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Linux Heaven

Posted 17 February 2011 - 01:46 AM

Calling it right now. It says :

Calling ANI xxx-xxx-xxxx. Charge ANI xxx-xxx-xxxx.


Calling ANI? Charge ANI?

It appears it's now differentiating between the "number it shows you're calling from" and the "number to which calls are billed to/responsible billing party, so to speak".

Gets me thinking of how useful this can be since it's identifying both. The number you're calling from may sometimes not be the number to which calls are billed to - but now it'll tell you both.

Although.... calling it from my GV #, it gave both numbers as the same - my GV#. Goog must have it configured to not show their billing number - who knew that would happen. Someone like Goog would be an exception and no doubt there are others.

Edited by resistor X, 17 February 2011 - 01:49 AM.


#2 JmanA9

JmanA9

    SUPR3M3 31337 Mack Daddy P1MP

  • Members
  • 432 posts
  • Location:NPA 724

Posted 18 February 2011 - 11:51 AM

The "Calling ANI" is your CPN and the "Billing ANI" is your BTN.

This number has been around for at least 8 years. The update makes me thing that MCI must be still using it, which is something I doubted.

#3 resistor X

resistor X

    Mack Daddy 31337

  • Members
  • 214 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Linux Heaven

Posted 18 February 2011 - 01:52 PM

I hope it stays this way for a long time. I'm thinking of the possibilities here of when a person might need to know the BTN....

Like for example, I'm in a building some place. I can call the ANAC from a phone of theirs and have it give me the BTN. Then having that, I can..... go from there and discover the name of the person(s) who owns the building.

Kinda of handy while on the go and it can possibly save me having to research the issue via the internet. I can simply just call right on the spot and get their number, then make a SE call to the respective phone company and get their name possibly.

Not counting if the BTN I get in question is a non-listed non-pub # which I couldn't otherwise have gotten my hands on. Sweeet. No wonder it's MCI who has this, since M.C.I. stands for :

M-ighty
C-ool
I-dentifier

Thanx MCI, you've lived up to your name. ;)

#4 ThoughtPhreaker

ThoughtPhreaker

    BinRev veteran

  • Members
  • 1,158 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 February 2011 - 02:43 PM

I've given the ANAC a couple of situations where the calling/charge ANI fields are set as different things, and it seems to just be reading the CPN back twice for me. Is there a scenario for anyone where it's legitimately given back two different fields?

Although.... calling it from my GV #, it gave both numbers as the same - my GV#. Goog must have it configured to not show their billing number - who knew that would happen. Someone like Goog would be an exception and no doubt there are others.




One thing you have to keep in mind is that SIP has just one field for ANI, unlike SS7, so unless the PSTN gateway is introducing something on it's own, you're more than likely just going to get one. If you want to compare it just for good measure, 800-223-1104, passcode 910777 and 877-299-4444 both read BTN back. Having an opportunity to read it can be pretty handy, since a lot of things - particularly some calling cards, call forwarding, and a lot of extenders will like to set the two fields to different things.

#5 resistor X

resistor X

    Mack Daddy 31337

  • Members
  • 214 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Linux Heaven

Posted 18 February 2011 - 03:19 PM

I've given the ANAC a couple of situations where the calling/charge ANI fields are set as different things, and it seems to just be reading the CPN back twice for me. Is there a scenario for anyone where it's legitimately given back two different fields?

Although.... calling it from my GV #, it gave both numbers as the same - my GV#. Goog must have it configured to not show their billing number - who knew that would happen. Someone like Goog would be an exception and no doubt there are others.



One thing you have to keep in mind is that SIP has just one field for ANI, unlike SS7, so unless the PSTN gateway is introducing something on it's own, you're more than likely just going to get one. If you want to compare it just for good measure, 800-223-1104, passcode 910777 and 877-299-4444 both read BTN back. Having an opportunity to read it can be pretty handy, since a lot of things - particularly some calling cards, call forwarding, and a lot of extenders will like to set the two fields to different things.


Damn, trying to leave a reply here but I'm encountering mess ups and it's not taking it. Excuse it.
.

Edited by resistor X, 18 February 2011 - 03:19 PM.


#6 resistor X

resistor X

    Mack Daddy 31337

  • Members
  • 214 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Linux Heaven

Posted 18 February 2011 - 04:49 PM

ThoughtPhreaker -


I just made some test calls using 877-299-4444 from one of my GV #'s which I *67'ed 1st and only once did it read back my GV #. The other times it read back 646-558-0000.

GV I presume is the cause for the weird results I got.

P.S. I said in my prior post I had a problem posting a reply, well this is the reply I tried to post but couldn't. I'm obviously going to have to reset my modem. It's been causing problems on sites and loading issues ever since I tried some experiment on it, lol.
Just saying this as an fyi.

Edited by resistor X, 18 February 2011 - 04:52 PM.


#7 JmanA9

JmanA9

    SUPR3M3 31337 Mack Daddy P1MP

  • Members
  • 432 posts
  • Location:NPA 724

Posted 21 February 2011 - 08:49 PM

Is there a scenario for anyone where it's legitimately given back two different fields?

Yes. When I set my CPN using voip.ms, they always keep the same BTN. The MCI ANAC read off the CPN I set and the BTN that voip.ms sets.




BinRev is hosted by the great people at Lunarpages!