From: csmith@plains.NoDak.edu (Carl Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Caller ID block?
Date: 19 Dec 92 20:59:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: ns1.BzIyAp.J4t
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Dec19.161509.4892@lunatix.uucp> chelf@lunatix.uucp (Chad Helfenberger) writes:
>In article <BzHpzM.DJw@ns1.nodak.edu> csmith@plains.NoDak.edu (Carl Smith) writes:
>>>either subscribe to, or start reading Risks Digest.  It's not in your best 
>>>interest to give your number to any business, OR person you call.  
>>
>>I see you point here.  I was just pushing my views to the extreme to make
>>my point.  But, I would probably let my number go to almost everyone I
>>call.  The only common situation that I would probably block my ID is when
>>I am calling businesses to ask about their products.  If they had my 
>>number then they could call back to ask why I didn't buy their product.
>>But, then again, after one call I would put them in the "KILL" list
>>of numbers...  
>
>The only problem I see with the kill list idea is that most businesses have 
>multiple phone lines, and I'm pretty sure (not certain) that the kill list 
>will have a limited memory.

Well, at this time I am not aware of any currently marketed product that
does what I want (different rounting decisions based on number and time of
day, to the phone or answering machine.  If one does not exist when caller
id becomes available in my area, I plan on putting my electronics experience
to work and design one.  In that case, the number of calls I could put
in the kill list would be limited only by the amount of money I want to 
invest in memory chips...  :)  And, like I said before, it wouldn't be a
"kill" list, it would be a "Always dump these calls to the answering
machine without even ringing the phone" list.

>>>This is what I meant by a 'protocol'.  
>>
>>That's exactly the way I feel.  You have every right to block your ID.
>>And I have every right to not answer blocked calls.  It is then up to
>>you to decide if talking to me is important enough to not block or to
>>use a payphone.  What I don't like are people who think I OWE it to 
>>them to answer their calls, blocked or not...
>
>You say you feel exactly the same way on this particular topic.  How would 
>you feel when people call you from a payphone?  I _assume_ (correct if 
>wrong) that you would place these on the kill list (as they are placed).

Assuming I had never previously received a call from the particular pay
phone the person used, the number of that phone wouldn't be in the "kill"
list, and it wouldn't be in the "important" list, so if it was placed
during the day the phone would ring normally, and I would answer it.  If
I decided to put that caller in the "kill" list, and I didn't know it was
a pay phone, then all calls from that pay phone would be dumped to the
answering machine in the future.  Another flaw...  The solution would be
for the phone company to somehow identify that it was a pay phone (don't
hold your breath).  Then I would leave the pay phone's number out of the
"kill" and "important" lists. 

>>At night the ID system wouldn't let the phone ring, if it did then
>>there would be no point, as all calls would bother me at night anyway.
>>In that case I wouldn't get the emergency call untill I listened to the
>>answering machine messages.  That is the only problem I have thought of 
>>yet, and I don't know what the solution would be.  Perhaps a message to 
>>press a certain touch tone if the call is a REAL EMERGENCY.  The phone
>>would then ring as many times as the caller wants.  But then I would 
>>have to put up with salesman who think selling me their product qualified 
>>as an emergency...  So, it's not perfect, what what is?
>
>In my _opinion_, I'd rather have to put up with a few seconds of marketers 
>and pressuring salesmen than miss ANY important call, whether it be a friend 
>calling from a payphone whose car broke down, or any number of other things.  
>It's just not worth it.

Well, like I said, I would have to build my call router so that the callers
could get around it in case of an emergency.  So, if they follow the
instructions, "press 1 if this is a real emergency," all the important
calls would get through.  But undesireables could abuse that and press 1
to get me on the phone even if it wasn't an emergency.  So the usefulness
of it all depends on how honest the telemarketers are...

>>I agree that simply putting an ID display on the line and not answering
>>numbers that you don't know could cause you to miss quite a few
>>important calls.
>>
>>But, as a whole, I think the advantages of caller id FAR OUTWEIGH, the
>>few disadvantages.
>
>This is where we disagree, I think.

I suppose it all depends on how much the telemarketers annoy you, and how
much it angers you to answer the phone at 3am to hear "sorry, wrong number"
as soon as you say hello...


To clarify how my proposed ID system would work:

There would be 2 lists of numbers.  An "important" list, and an "annoyance"
or kill list.  What happens to a call would depend on if it is in either of
the lists, and what time of day it was:

During the day:  "Important" calls would ring the phone normally, and be
picked up by the answering machine after 4 rings if I didn't answer, just
like an answering machine works normally.  "Annoyance" calls would be 
dumped to the answering machine without even ringing the phone.  Calls not
on either list would either ring the phone normally, or go to the answering
machine with the volume up all the way, so I could screen them, like people
already do with answering machines.

During the night:  "Important" calls would ring the phone normally, and be
dumped to the answering machine if I didn't answer.  "Annoyance" calls 
would be dumped to the machine without even ringing the phone.  Calls not
on either list would go to the answering machine.

At any time of day, the system could be "shut off" by a certain touch tone
to be used only by emergency calls.  The phone would then ring no matter
what time of day it was.  Instuctions to do this would have to be given in
the answering machine.  Maybe I would prevent this for calls in the 
"annoyance" list, as emergency services numbers would either be in the
important list already, or not in either of the "important" or "annoyance"
lists...

Gee, my call router system gets more complicated the more I talk about it.
:)

-- Carl D. Smith Jr.
-- csmith@plains.nodak.edu
Xref: sparky alt.cyberpunk:6626 sci.electronics:20725