From: merlyn@romulus.reed.edu (Randal L. Schwartz)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Re: Backing off on Caller Line ID...
Date: 29 Aug 92 21:13:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: romulus.MERLYN.92Aug29141310
	<ueT9PB1w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Organization: Reed College

In article <ueT9PB1w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
   mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes:

   >      Unfortunately, whenever a new technology appears there will always
   > be irrational technophobes who will oppose it.

[...]
   BTW: You're rather incorrect at the outset. I'm not so sure I'd call
   users of this computer network 'technophobes.'

I also resent somewhat the implication that not liking caller ID is
the same as being a technophobe.  On the contrary, I make my living
from crawling through networks and explaining (overly :-) complicated
software systems in books and in lectures.  I am certainly nobody's
definition of technophobe.

I dislike caller ID for the way it is *marketed* and the way the
resulting marketing will be generating revenue for the phone company.
I am actually *for* caller ID, if it is marketed properly, namely:

	We now have the technology to bring you the caller's phone
	number automatically.  You can pay $x.xx/month for this
	service.  However, the number won't be available if the caller
	is calling from an outdated phone system, or the caller
	chooses not to reveal the number.

	We don't believe this will make your life much easier, but you
	can choose to pick up the phone based on the number on your
	screen.  Please be aware that people != phone numbers, so you
	may pick up calls that you don't want, or miss calls that you
	do want if you choose to implement such a choice.

	Note that you do *not* need to purchase this feature to deal
	with calls that fit the legal definition of "harrassment". We
	already have adequate and effective technololgy and procedures
	in place to handle such calls.  (And besides, the only thing
	you could do with a phone number on your own would be
	harrassment anyway.)

	When you are calling someone else, you should now be aware
	that your number is being transmitted to them by default
	should they choose to purchase this service.  You may prevent
	such transmissions by pressing 61# before placing the call, or
	by calling us to get your line permanently so marked.  (Note
	that there will be people that will refuse your call based on
	your refusal to provide the phone number, so we don't
	recommend this option.)  Either choice is *free* to you.

If it was marketed this way, I would rally around it.  Unfortunately,
it is being marketed to tecnologically naive people, and the phone
company will stand to make a fortune on "implied threat" of a phone
call, giving caller ID as the sole solution.  Blech.

Please show me as being *for* caller ID along with the indicated
marketing strategy, or *against* caller ID if marketed the way I've
seen it so far.

Just another person concerned with snake-oil-selling phone companies...

--
Randal L. Schwartz / Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095
merlyn@reed.edu (guest account) merlyn@ora.com (better for permanent record)
cute quote: "Welcome to Portland, Oregon -- home of the California Raisins!"
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general