Have any of you noticed an increase in customer complaints of malformed caller
ID?
We do a test call out as the customer, whether it's to one of our cell phones
or one of the incumbent's POTS lines. Everything shows up as expected. The
number is formatted correctly. The Caller ID name is form
Ran into this issue a long time ago, make sure you're passing callerID
strictly in E.164 format
On our end, it was only really an issue when calling into some rural
telecom companies and the virgin islands.
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 5:05 PM Mike Hammett wrote:
> Have any of you noticed an incre
The first thing I thought of was Least Cost Routing to a rural area. My
telco is rural. We see issues like that now and then. Setup the same
call over and over again and you will probably get a handful of
different CID/CNAM results at the recipient end.
Not saying this is your issue, but it
I finally got a number! It's suburban Chicago Sprint (now T-Mobile).
I guess that kind of throws the rural carrier idea out the window.
Apparently a non-zero number of people are expecting caller ID name to work on
their mobile devices, but there are clearly caveats to that.
-
That sounds exactly like you're sending stuff that should be E.164 formatted
out as 10 digit national. I looked up DeKalb IL and the first two digits of
your area code are "81". Which is the country code for Japan. So your calls are
being interpreted as +8157563626 instead of +18157563626 and a
