HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler)
Subject: Re: CALLER ID
Organization: =>ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE, WA.<=
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 20:01:44 GMT

In article <Hei7PB2w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>Already there are a slew of ways that businesses get my number. A good 
>portion of the "junk" calls I get come from business which didn't use
>a number generator to call, but used a list they got from somewhere. 
>Perhaps you don't mind having your evenings with the family interrupted
>(I've had nights where I got 8 of these crap calls), but I certainly do.
>If I want something, I'll go buy it. I don't want companies chasing me
>down in an attempt to make a sale.

    Don't you get it?  You are already getting a slew of junk calls often
at inconvenient times.  The couple of percentage more calls you might get
from companies having caller id (which seldom would they already not have
a line on most people anyway) is totally made up for by the fact that if
you have caller id in your own home that you can screen ALL incoming calls.
Caller ID means that you never have to answer a junk mail call in which
invades your home (an ad you can't ignore) ever again.

>widely available which they're looking at. And they should. If a system
>I didn't want caused my family or property harm, you can bet your butt
>I'd sue them out of a million years worth of the revenues they'd gain
>from offering the service. And, I'm anything but alone.

   So, what you're saying is that people who receive threatening calls
which cause them anquish and fear and affect their lifestyles who have
no way to know the origion of the calls and the calls stop by the time
the police get around to setting up the ability to trace it, they should
be suing the phone company out of a million years worth of revenues right
now because the phone company isn't offering them caller id?

   Despite the "harrasing phone calls will be made from phone booths"
argument someone has already made the statistics that in test areas
that harrasing calls go down by around 50% when caller id is implemented.

-- 
****************************************************************************
* Dave                          *               The Alpinist               *
* alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com *            DARE to be stoopid!           *
****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: pnw.general,seattle.general
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: CALLER ID
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 07:21:18 GMT

danc@milton.u.washington.edu (Dan Comden) writes:

>So....why should I pay for *your* Caller Line ID (it *doesn't* ID the
>caller - only the phone line) when my answering machine will do
>a more effective job of screening callers?

*Any* _modern_ switch can supply Caller-ID. To supply it for calls from
*other* switches requires some extra hardware to handle "SS7 signalling".
But that hardware is *required* to be in place within a year *anyway*
because it is needed to meet an FCC order regarding 800 service. US West
is the *farthest* behind on installing this hardware.

You *do* need to buy and install some extra software on the switch to get
the services that include Caller-ID. 

>As you point out, there are more than enough "general reaming charges"
>from good ol' US West without adding yet another fee for a service I
>neither want or need.

US West is probably trying the usual trick of "let's find a way to soak
as many people as possible for this".

BTW, a perfect example of the way phone companies figure costs was
in the case of the "hackers" accused of stealing a document relating to
911 services a few years back. The phone company claimed that the document
was worth several hundred thousand dollars. *After* the trial, it came
out that *anybody* could buy a copy for $9.95 or so.

How did they get the huge price? 

They charged the *entire* cost of the Vax it was prepared on, the
operating system for the Vax, the word processing software, the 
man-hours to write it.....

Want to bet that the "costs" that US West presents to the PUC aren't
just as inflated?

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Xref: sparky pnw.general:1896 seattle.general:2759
From: danc@milton.u.washington.edu (Dan Comden)
Newsgroups: pnw.general,seattle.general
Subject: Re: CALLER ID
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:02:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug26.150222.1536
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <MS-C.714788142.1103527590.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> Mark Crispin <mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> writes:

>Tracy's question about why the public should pay for this feature is easier to
>answer.  It's good old --> liberal <-- policy, and one that is hard to argue
>against.  The argument goes that telephone service is a general public need
>that should be provided to everyone without regard to the actual cost to the
>telephone company.  It doesn't matter that it costs US West $20,000 to bring
>out a line so you have dial tone in your cabin 20 miles from the nearest
>telephone phone; you pay the same `installation charge' as people in the city
>do.
>
>Now you know why city people pay an outrageous $60 to `install' a new line
>when in fact the cost to US West to do so is much less.  It isn't US West's
>greed; it's that city people are subsidizing rural service.

So....why should I pay for *your* Caller Line ID (it *doesn't* ID the
caller - only the phone line) when my answering machine will do
a more effective job of screening callers?

As you point out, there are more than enough "general reaming charges"
from good ol' US West without adding yet another fee for a service I
neither want or need.

-*- Dan
(danc@u.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: pnw.general,seattle.general,rec.backcountry
From: ericj@eskimo.celestial.com (Eric Jorgensen)
Newsgroups: pnw.general,seattle.general
Subject: Re: CALLER ID
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:53:10 GMT
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-

rayj@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones) writes:
> It may be difficult to understand the desire for Caller ID for those of
> you that have not been harassed by a 10 year old with an automatic
> dialer for three hours.  It sure would be nice to be able talk to their
> parents.

I totally agree... I myself was on the recieving end of 83 'wrong numbers' for
a "Frank" IN ONE NIGHT (between 10pm and 2am). I know for a FACT it was 83,
because I counted them. Between 12:30 and 1:00, I had the phone off the hook
(I was watching a movie at the time), and wouldn't you know it...RIGHT when I
put the phone back on, it rang with the same woman asking "Is Frank there?"
for the times 66-83 (#67-83 just entailed me picking the phone up and dropping
it).

And this was an adult! I would have LOVED to call her right back and tell her
not to call my number again (which I told her countless times)...or even worse,
program ot into my phonebook file and give her a tatse of about 5 minutes of
call after call after call after... I'm POSITIVE *that* would have stopped it.
:)
From: andrew@frip.WV.TEK.COM (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:26:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: shaman.1665
Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon

[]

	"Guess what? Call Trace is part of the *same* package of
	features as Caller-ID. And *requires* the same hardware and
	software. If it is in place, it costs *nothing* extra to supply
	Caller-ID to customers."

This isn't strictly true.  The manufacturer of the CO switch gets a
royalty from the telco when a subscriber selects a feature.

  -=- Andrew Klossner  (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com)
                       (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)
Newsgroups: pnw.general,seattle.general
From: rayj@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones)
Subject: Re: CALLER ID
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:19:02 GMT

In <crystal.714794603@glia> crystal@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Crystal) writes:



>Isn't there something in that Caller ID package that allows people to
>NOT be identified by the system if they so choose?  (Seems I heard 
>that one a while back)

This is a feature that has been much talked about.   Some people (with
unlisted numbers mostly) want to be able to make a call and not be identified.
I have no objection to this feature, if and only if, I can also have a
feature that automaticaly reject any unidentified caller.  That is, not
ring my phone and tell the caller why the call is not going through.

That would also solve the problem stated below:
>That woudl solve the "battered wives" shelter problem and such.  Of course,
>It would also mean that the obnoxious salesmen could turn their numbers
>off, too, so what would we gain??

> ...we would gain the ability to NOT answer an anonymous caller ID number
> because it would most LIKELY be a call we didn't want to begin with (our
> friends, of course, being ones least likely to hide their phone numbers)
>  :>

It may be difficult to understand the desire for Caller ID for those of
you that have not been harassed by a 10 year old with an automatic
dialer for three hours.  It sure would be nice to be able talk to their
parents.
-- 
Onager Systems			 Ray A. Jones
18710 NE 59th Ct.		UUCP .....uunet!camco!onager!ray
# 2053       			...ray@onager.Celestial.COM
Redmond, WA 98052               206-885-3568 
Newsgroups: pnw.general,seattle.general
From: dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman)
Subject: 800 Numbers (was: Re: CALLER ID)
Organization: Tacoma Screw Products, Inc.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:01:51 GMT

In article <kkt.714881320@milton> kkt@milton.u.washington.edu (Patrick Scheible) writes:
>
>Do 800 numbers really alredy have caller ID?  Hm. 

Yes.  Remember, the people with the 800 number are paying for the
call.  If you have an 800 number you get a statement every month,
just like your home phone bill in reverse.  Ours lists every number,
date and time, call duration and state or province of origination.
There are also statistical summaries by area code, distance in miles,
day, number of calls, duration of calls, as well as the number of calls
which got a busy signal, etc.  This information is provided on a
printout, and/or tape or (for small accounts) floppy disk.  However,
you have no fear of being called at your dinner hour by somebody
pitching threaded fasteners, nobody even looks at the report here.
BTW, you can't block this information - the people paying the bill
have a right to know what they're paying for.

-- 
David Breneman     Sys Admin, Tacoma Screw Products, Inc. |  ____  ____  ____
dcb@tacoma.uucp           |   SCREWIE the TSP CLOWN sez-  |   /   /___  /___/ 
 ..!uunet!tacoma!dcb      |  "Nylok lock nuts lose their  |  /   ____/ / 
CompuServe: 75760,1232    | binding strength after 1 use!"|
From: scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: digitally encrypted communications (was deadlock on Caller ID)
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:04:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpcvca.1992Aug28.230438.8360
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

andrew@frip.WV.TEK.COM (Andrew Klossner) writes:
: 
: 	"Just don't use a portable/cellular phone.  Or, get one that is
: 	digitally encrypted."
: 
: Specify manufacturer and model, please?  I've been looking, and haven't
: found one that's available other than to government spooks.

I saw an ad in one of the airline magazines for one; it was NEC or Toshiba.
It was not cheap, around $250.  This was *not* a cellular phone, but a
portable phone for home use.  I haven't looked for a digital cellular phone;
they are probably not legal for some reason or another.

I can't remember the model number; it was too much for my needs.


Scott Linn
scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: markmc@sierra.com (Mark McWiggins)
Subject: Re: Friends want to adopt a baby
Organization: Sierra Geophysics Inc.,  Kirkland, Wa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:40:56 GMT

bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:

>markmc@sierra.com (Mark McWiggins) writes:

>> PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS ACCOUNT. I'm posting this for a friend, who
>> wants her notice to read as follows:
>> 
>>                   We'd Love to Adopt a Baby!
>> 
>> Loving, financially secure couple will provide much joy, opportunities for
>> growth & education and lots of hugs & kisses for this newborn. Please call
>> us to discuss an adoption plan that assures you this child will know what
>> a loving choice you made. Approved home study.
>> 
>>                 Betsy & Norm 206-839-5137
>>                 Attorney, Michelle Hinz:
>>                   206-682-4000 days
>>                   206-735-0928 eves/weekends
>>                   collect calls accepted

>Not that it may change much, but this very ad was discussed at length
>in other usenet newsgroups. It seems that this ad is not from a couple
>named Betsy and Norm, but instead it's an agency which makes a profit
>by locating adoptable babies.

>The discussions I read included some people who'd followed up on the
>ad, and discovered that there is no compensation for the parents who
>give up the child (save attorney fees for an adoption action), but the
>adoptive parent candidates pay a finder fee to "Betsy and Norm."

>These ads were posted on college campuses all over the country, and a
>few were apparently placed in other places where young adults frequented.

>Some of the complaints that were posted about the agency included racial 
>overtones --however I hasten to add that this is hearsay (rumor).

>Just FYI.

Make that 'FYM' -- for your misinformation. This particular ad was placed
on Usenet only.

Betsy is a friend of mine who loves children and is heartbroken over her
inability to conceive. 

Perhaps there was a simliar ad for some scam, but this isn't it. If you
don't believe me, try calling the number.

--
Mark McWiggins           +1 206 822 5200x377 days      Box 31356
markmc@sierra.com        +1 206 632 1905 24 hrs.       Seattle WA 98103-1356

Xref: sparky pnw.general:2015 seattle.general:2890
From: gee7759@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Glenn Elliott)
Newsgroups: pnw.general,seattle.general
Subject: Re: CALLER ID
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:59:47 GMT
Followup-To: pnw.general
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle

leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes:

>He's a court offficer working out of his home. So he has the blocking on.

Why?  If he's on official business, then he should not turn on blocking.
If he *always* works out of his home, then he should have a separate
business line that he uses for work.  A rather flimsy hypothetical
situation, but it will suffice.

>He tries to call you to get information that he is *required by law* to get
>one way or another. You see the blocked ID and don't answer. He has
>*no choice* but to have a warrant issued. And there won't be one thing
>you can do about it.

First, he is *required by law* to make several attempts before having a
warrant issued.  The judge would laugh him out of court if he'd only tried
once before asking for a warrant.  He may even be *required by law* to
attempt a personal visit before asking for a warrant.  A warrant is a last
resort which most judges do not give away freely.

Second, if I have an answering machine, I will get his message and return
the call.  If I am simply trying to avoid him, then caller ID has *nothing*
to do with it - I can avoid him just as well by letting my answering machine
pick up all my calls and picking the ones I want to respond to.

>He doesn't like it any better than you do. He's *complaining* that 
>he's going to have to send cops after people who refuse to answer 
>calls from blocked numbers. 

He already has to send cops after people who refuse to answer their phone
because they have an answering machine.  This is a seriously flawed
argument, especially when you consider that answering machines are one of
the big arguments that opponents of caller ID like to use to defend their
position.

>Would you try to sue a lawyer for having a process server sent after
>you when he needed you as a witness and you wouldn't answer your 
>phone? You'd get laughed out of court.

True, but it has nothing to do with caller ID.  It doesn't matter why
I'm not answering my phone...

Glenn
-- 
Glenn E. Elliott               | Anyone who believes that what I say or do
Computing Systems Analyst      | represents the policies or procedures of
Boeing Computer Services       | The Boeing Company has more lawyers than
gee7759@eeidf002.ca.boeing.com | they have common sense.
From: martin@adpgate.UUCP (Martin Golding)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:40:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: adpplz.1529
Distribution: pnw
Organization: ADP Dealer Services R&D, Portland, OR

nealf@mdd.comm.mot.com (Neal Friedman) writes:
: Caller ID is a lousy idea, that will only be used to make $$$ for the phone
: company, and allow business to gather more information on me than I want.

No, it won't. If you don't want their phone to get your number, you don't
use their phone. They bought it and pay for it; why do you insist that you
get to say how they use it? If you don't want them to know who you are or
what you're doing, walk in and pay cash. Or do business with someone whose
practices you approve of.


: It provides no gain or advantage to me, the individual consumer.  

It provides advantages to _me_, the owner of the phone in question. It
lets me decide whether an incoming caller talks to me (my friends,
work, relatives) my wife (her friends) or the answering machine, WHICH
I DETEST. I don't like using them and I don't like talking to them. I
particularly don't care for forcing my father to deal with one. Sure
that's personal. So is MY phone.


When we had a harassing caller, he called us at breakfast time, mostly,
while still eating. He couldn't have used a pay phone to annoy us.
Whether or not it's _true_, the phone company insisted there wasn't
anything they could do. Caller ID would have let us ignore him, or
call him back and at least make him nervous.

As a matter of interest, since most phone numbers are committed by now,
when we changed our number to get rid of him we got SOMEONE ELSE'S
obscene calls. It took THREE MONTHS to convince them that she wasn't
at that number, and we _still_ get two or three a year for her.


As to business, everybody I actually deal with either knows who I am
or can find out. With caller ID to screen my calls, I don't care if
my number gets on someone's list. It already does, anybody who has
an address and a phone gets on somebody's list somewhere. And if having
caller ID makes doing business easier and cheaper, it's a good thing for me.
(I don't have to remember an ID, and they won't get the wrong address.
I'd much prefer that badge-a-minit, for instance, be computerized. Or
Ethel M'S: "Yes, Mr. Golding. Same order, same credit card?" "Yes,
thank you." "Thank you, and have a nice day." And like magic, three
pounds of the world's best chocolates are winging their way me-wards.
OK, so they probably won't do it. If not, what are you worried about?)


If you really, really don't want businesses to get your phone number, 
don't deal with anybody that uses caller ID. If enough people give a
damn, they'll be scrambling to advertise their unID'd phone numbers.
Given the prevelance and convenience of 1-800 numbers, I don't think
enough people give a damn.


And if it's so convenient for a harassing caller to use a pay phone
just for idle fun, why is it tough for you to do business that way?


Martin Golding    | My opinions, mine, mine mine oh what the heck...
Dod #0236         |  here, you have them too.
[motcsd!]mcspdx!adpgate!martin
Newsgroups: pnw.general,seattle.general
From: paul@maunakea.Data-IO.COM (Paul Brownlow)
Subject: Re: The way Bumbershoot and Folklife treat volunteers
Organization: Data I/O Corporation
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:08:27 GMT

In article <m-gn1--.allyn@netcom.com>, allyn@netcom.com (allyn) writes:
|> I am curious, is it my own demented imagination or does the Northwest
|> Folklife festival treat its volunteers betters and with more dignity than
|> Bumbershoot??

Not only does Folklife treat its volunteers better, but it also treats
its performers (at least local types) better.  Bumbershoot is too pretentious
for my tastes, and it is reflected in the way they treat volunteers and
performers.  They need to be humbled.  On the other hand, I can't say
enough good things about the folks who run Folklife.

I've been a performer at both.
-- 
Paul Brownlow				|         Visualize 
Data I/O Corp.  Redmond, WA		|	   Whirled
paul@data-io.com			|	    Peas
					|
Newsgroups: pnw.general,seattle.general
From: crystal@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Crystal)
Subject: Re: CALLER ID
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:03:23 GMT



Isn't there something in that Caller ID package that allows people to
NOT be identified by the system if they so choose?  (Seems I heard 
that one a while back)

That woudl solve the "battered wives" shelter problem and such.  Of course,
It would also mean that the obnoxious salesmen could turn their numbers
off, too, so what would we gain??

 ...we would gain the ability to NOT answer an anonymous caller ID number
 because it would most LIKELY be a call we didn't want to begin with (our
 friends, of course, being ones least likely to hide their phone numbers)
  :>

Crystal
  ;>

Newsgroups: pnw.general,seattle.general
From: Mark Crispin <mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
Subject: Re: CALLER ID 
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
To: Dan Comden <danc@milton.u.washington.edu>
Organization: University of Washington
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:49:15 GMT

Dan Comden -

     Nobody is suggesting that you pay for my Caller ID service.  I am fully
prepared to pay the silly $3/month or so charge for them to set the bit on my
line so that the CID signal is passed instead of suppressed.  So, I believe,
would a number of other people who have been waiting impatiently for the damn
state bureaucrats to let US West sell us this service.

     The reason for the delay is that a small, noisy, and very well-organized
group has been fighting Caller ID tooth and nail.  For whatever reason, they
claim we have no right to know who is calling us.  They demand a feature so
that the caller can suppress Caller ID, and that it be automatic.

     The problem is, that makes Caller ID useless.  I can't simply ignore
calls with no ID, because it could be coming from someone in a region where
the switch does not yet support the ID signals.  The risk of missing the
"Help, I'm at a pay phone at xx, the car broke down, nobody's around, it's
getting cold and dark and I'm scared, come get me!!" call is serious.  I'm
also not sure what sort of ID, if any, would appear with international calls.

     Bottom line: I can understand anonymous calls from a pay phone, or from a
region where technical limitations prevent it.  Otherwise, I don't want
anonymous calls, and I don't agree with the bizarre notion that there is some
`right' to make anonymous calls.

Newsgroups: pnw.general