Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Caller ID Made Simple

rdegges.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–66 of 66 posts

Re: Caller ID Made Simple

#61

Post by paxswill »

daralthus wrote: post #58
paxswill wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only an issue for non-GSM phones i.e. CDMA phones used in the US and parts of Asia. CDMA does not allow data and voice to run at once over the same radio, while GSM does. Since LTE is an entirely IP network, voice can be run over it like any other IP network. Current phones/carriers do not support it though, but there's some talk that it will be introduced in the next year or so.

Can anybody tell me more about the cdma and gsm usage ratio in the US?

Two of the major carriers in the US use CDMA (Verizon and Sprint), while the other two major carriers use GSM (T-Mobile and AT&T). I'm having some trouble finding recent market share numbers for them, but it's mostly half and half.

Re: Caller ID Made Simple

#62

Post by guan »

joshaidan wrote: post #57

For what it's worth, and for all those asking questions about Canadian numbers, caller id name is handled differently in Canada than in the states. When a carrier sends an outgoing call, they include the caller id name in the SS7 IAM (Initial Message), unlike the states where the receiving carrier has to do a database lookup on the number to retrieve the name. This likely explains why a lot of Canadian numbers are no…

I believe this is also the case for public switched telephone network in the US. On a landline, the name and number of the calling party is transferred by Bell 202 and a lot of phones will display this information.

Re: Caller ID Made Simple

#63

Post by gruntle888 »

tocomment wrote: post #59
tocomment wrote: post #56

It just says "wireless caller" for my number. Does it usually provide more information? I don't know how useful this is otherwise.

Does anyone have any insight into this? Are you'all getting better results?

That's probably an intentional choice by your carrier, many wireless carriers do that rather than provide an actual name for each number.

Re: Caller ID Made Simple

#64

Post by gruntle888 »

sashametro wrote: post #32

I wonder if the providers of this service have thought about crowd-sourcing the caller-id information, like http://mrnumber.com/ whose free tier harvests number->name mapping from users address books...

This would not work because of the sheer number of users who store nicknames, particularly uncomplimentary ones. Would you want your name displaying as "that douchebag" or "bar slut"?

Re: Caller ID Made Simple

#65

Post by gruntle888 »

guan wrote: post #62
joshaidan wrote: post #57

For what it's worth, and for all those asking questions about Canadian numbers, caller id name is handled differently in Canada than in the states. When a carrier sends an outgoing call, they include the caller id name in the SS7 IAM (Initial Message), unlike the states where the receiving carrier has to do a database lookup on the number to retrieve the name. This likely explains why a lot of Canadian numbers are no…

I believe this is also the case for public switched telephone network in the US. On a landline, the name and number of the calling party is transferred by Bell 202 and a lot of phones will display this information.

This discussion is about how the name is delivered to the telephone company being called, not from that company to your phone. In the US, the calling telephone company sends the number, the called company looks it up in a database, then sends the name they get to your phone. Everything but the delivery to the phone takes place over the SS7 network.
Post reply on HN