From: jxm@engin.umich.edu (John Murray)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: The Most Advanced Caller-ID Box I've Seen Yet
Date: 12 Dec 92 18:59:11 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 900, Message 10 of 14

In article <telecom12.893.10@eecs.nwu.edu> stevef@wrq.com (Steve
Forrette) writes:

> In an article, a TELECOM Digest participant writes:

>> I need a Caller-ID box that will not just display the incoming call
>> identification, but will also differentiate between calls which have
>> been purposely blocked and those from locations which do not have the
>> facility available. Also, it should automatically dial the code for
>> blocking my number on outgoing calls, everytime I unhook the phone.

> So, you want to be able to identify people that call you, and
> especially those who purposely block their numbers, but you want all
> of YOUR outgoing calls to be automatically blocked?

> I don't want to single out the person who asked the question, but it
> seems like they want to have their cake and eat it too.
 
I was the poster of the request for an automatic blocking device.
Several people mailed me with similar comments to Steve's one above.
At the risk of sounding like a flamer, here are several thoughts on
the issue. (They SEEM somewhat well reasoned to me, so apologies in
advance if they come across as unmitigated flames:-))
 
* Unlike some locations, my local telco does not offer me the option
of per-line blocking. A unit which automatically issues the block code
would provide me with that function. Just like someone who has
per-line blocking, I could disable the unit if I found that Great-Aunt
Mildred preferred to see my number before answering.

* If we take Steve's analogy to cake, then yes, I'm prepared to pay
the monthly charge (plus equipment cost) for whatever incoming
Caller-ID data my local telco can offer. And yes, I'm also prepared to
pay additionally for the equivalent of per-line blocking. One is not
predicated upon the other however. Indeed, the only reason the telco
has to offer per-call blocking for free is because they'd otherwise be
withdrawing a service (privacy of my residence phone) and then selling
it back to me.

* The Caller-ID vested interests (telcos, businesses, etc.) have very
successfully confused the issue of residence vs. business access to
the information. Residence lines can be treated differently, given
different defaults, etc. As I pointed out in my deposition with the
Calif. Public Utilities Commission some years ago, the assertion that
the same class of facilities has to be offered to ALL customers on
technical grounds is nonsense. If that were the case, then the phone
companies would not be able to charge different rates for different
lines. (Unfortunately, many other opponents of per-call blocking there
did not understand the technology very well, and consequently made
rather poor presentations.)
 
* Even my having the cake won't benefit me all that much. The source
number presented by large corporations can be that of the main switch
rather than the actual internal extension. Telemarketing companies can
locate in areas where the service is (perhaps purposely) not
available, so I'll still not know if it's an incoming foreign call or
not. Most of my calls are to local businesses and dealerships of one
kind or another.  Why should I have to put up with them calling me
back every few weeks to tell me of yet another closing-out sale?

In summary, it seems to me that the technology is flexible enough to
provide everyone with their individual needs, and the one-size-fits-all 
solution shouldn't really be necessary. That way, we all can have our
cake and eat it too!


John Murray    Univ. of Michigan