Making the Case for Wireless Collect Calling

Wireless companies are constantly searching for additional revenue-generating features and applications. Providing wireless customers with the ability to receive collect calls and enhanced Caller ID service (CNAM) are two options.

Wireless providers able to offer full CNAM service—which shares some operational features with wireless collect calling—could charge subscribers an additional fee each month the same way wireline providers charge for Caller ID. For a provider with 100,000 subscribers, an additional CNAM monthly fee of $2 could be a revenue boost of up to $2.4 million a year.

Background

For the majority of wireline providers, information regarding telephone service, subscriber name, number and billing company data is stored in line information databases (LIDBs). Wireless companies, on the other hand, have chosen other forms of information storage. They store numbers and corresponding subscriber information in home location registers (HLRs). If there were just a few HLRs, it might be relatively simple to devise an access process, but there are actually hundreds of these databases with many different architectures. In addition, they use different access protocols, making it extremely complex to access them from the outside. For wireless collect calling and true CNAM to be possible, the ability to access the information is essential.

For example, when someone makes a collect call to a wireline number, the collect calling company sends a query out to the database where the receiving party number is stored to determine if that number is valid and if the collect call can be billed to that number. Sometimes, a block can be placed on numbers, or certain numbers can be identified as unbillable or unlikely to pay, but if the information comes back positive, the call is usually connected.

With the HLR system used by wireless numbers, collect calling companies are unable to query the data because they don’t have the ability to locate it or access it. If they did, they would also need to know what format is being used to store the information as well as the correct database access protocol. Without that information, they will not connect the call. There are too many variables and too many question marks for collect calling companies, and if they don’t know they will be paid, it isn’t to their benefit to connect the calls.

Unlike the wireline industry, there are not that many relationships between wireless companies and the collect calling or 10-10 number billing companies. On the wireline side, companies like Billing Concepts, ILD Telecommunications and Integretel have worked hard to establish billing relationships with most of the major RBOCs to put a line on a local phone bill for them to get paid on behalf of long distance companies, collect calling companies and the like.

Without a standardized system of storage for wireless providers, billing companies won’t be interested in forming the expensive relationships because there will be no guarantee of payment. The billing companies encountered that kind of problem previously when CLECs came into existence. CLECs originally had different storage platforms, but calls were being completed as a default. Unfortunately for the billing companies, when no agreements existed, it was difficult to collect payment for the completed calls. Eventually, the access fields in LIDBs were changed to weed out those companies that didn’t have billing agreements with each other. As such, when a call is placed now, an immediate check is made to the LIDB to determine if the call can be billed. If not, the call is not processed.

Porting numbers raises additional issues. Mobile phones have two sets of identification numbers, one of which is difficult to change. When a number is ported elsewhere, the HLR can become confused regarding the number to which the call should be billed. It doesn’t know if it should bill to the code source or to the new ported location.

All of the difficulties add up to missed revenue opportunities for collect calling companies, billing companies and wireless providers, not to mention the inconvenience to those used to, or in need of, collect calling.

Fixing the Problem

Is there a simple fix for the problem? No and yes. No in the sense that persuading all of the wireless companies to agree on a standard system could take a long time and a lot of headache medicine. But, they might not have to agree. There are existing solutions that don’t require everyone to agree on a standard.

One of the simplest ways to enable wireless collect calls would be for wireless companies to store their number information in LIDBs. This would require the translation and transfer of information from the HLR and its format (whatever that format might be) to the LIDB and its format. While it may be too time-consuming and too expensive for the wireless companies to undertake the process themselves, outsourcing the process may be a viable alternative.

A handful of companies are capable of accessing and translating between different protocols. They include Accudata Technologies, SBC SNET, TSI Telecommunication Services and VeriSign Telecommunications Services.

What Can We Do Now?

The simple standardized LIDB storage system suggested above offers wireless providers additional revenue-generating benefits—among them true Caller ID. Wireless phones lack this functionality because there is no standardized access protocol or storage format.

With numbers stored in an LIDB, the process would work the same way it does with wireline phones. When someone calls a wireline phone with the Caller ID feature activated, the company that provides service for the call recipient sends out a query to determine the name and number of the calling party. When the query reaches the LIDB (or separate CNAM database)—or “dips” into the appropriate database—the information is collected and displayed on the receiving party’s phone. The database owner charges a nominal fee for each dip, but in some cases, the owners share revenue with the carriers whose numbers are stored inside. A portion of each dip fee is given to the number owner, which is one more way wireless providers could generate revenue.

It’s important to acknowledge that services like collect calling and CNAM aren’t likely to become killer apps, but they do provide additional convenience for wireless subscribers. In the highly competitive wireless market, subscribers are notoriously fickle, but offering a few more valuable services certainly can’t hurt the cause of providers who are looking to keep or add subscribers.



Greg Smith is president and CEO of Accudata Technologies, which serves as an access hub for validating information associated with telephone numbers. Prior to joining Accudata, Smith served as president and CEO of Revenue Communications and held senior management positions with ROLM/IBM/Siemens Rockwell International and InterVoice. He has also taught at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and served as an officer in the U.S. Army. He can be reached at gregs@accudatatech.com.