Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 04-Apr-12 13:56, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

The subscriber CANNOT set the number of the trunk that's sent in ANI.

Yes, Adam, they can--and do. I've been in the telecom industry for
nearly two decades, and we can set ANI/CNIS to whatever we want. The
carriers don't care.

Is CNIS what shows up as Caller ID?

If he could, phone companies would have a hell of a time billing.

Why? They bill WATS calls on a flat rate per minute; the calling number
is now only provided to the customer as a convenience.

The call has to be billed to somebody.

ANI provides an Inward WATS (aka toll-free) customer with the caller's
number so they can do intelligent things with it, like connect them to
the nearest store location.

That works only if it's passed along PRI-ISDN or some similar digital
line.

Trunks are now almost exclusively PRI or VoIP, both of which include
calling number.

Analog? No real-time ANI,

Analog trunks are almost unheard of today.

Right. So don't make it seem like ANI was exclusively for billing purposes
on inward WATS.

The outbound trunk has to have a number, else the call can't be billed.
As far as I know, each outbound trunk has its own number allowing
specific calls to be logged to the specific trunk.

Um, no.

Billing for outbound calls is _not_ based on the calling number (CNIS);
there is one bill is for all calls on the entire trunk group, with the
rate for each call determined by the called number (DNIS).

One bill? No ****. You don't believe the carrier logs which trunk was
used regardless of whether it's reported to the subscriber on the bill?
You're wrong.

The carrier doesn't _care_ which trunk was used. Why would they?

Carriers log everything.

CNIS isn't the trunk number. For gawd's sake, will you knock off
these tangents?

These are not tangents, Adam. It is an explanation of complex things
that you simply don't understand and therefore mistakenly attribute to
other, unrelated things.

Statement: CNIS is not the trunk number. I notice you're not
disputing that. You're still arguing, though.