From: gilbert@mdd.comm.mot.com (John Gilbert)
Subject: Re: capturing caller id data
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:26:11 GMT

In article <35021@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> edp@math.zko.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.172401.10710@mdd.comm.mot.com>,
>gilbert@mdd.comm.mot.com (John Gilbert) writes:
>
>>Tell you what, why not take a moment and describe HOW you will use CLID to
>>get what you want.  Be sure to include calls from people you did not
>>anticipate, and ones from people you know, but are not at a number you
>>would expect them to be at.  Let's say the call is somewhat urgent...
>
>All calls from unrecognized numbers are left for my answering machine to
>deal with.  Calls from recognized numbers I will answer immediately. 
>This algorithm has the following features:
>
>Unanticipated or other-than-usual-number calls go to the answering
>machine and get answered after the person has identified themself.  This
>is a small inconvenience.  However, for people at other-numbers, it is
>not much more of an inconvenience than dialing a special code as you
>suggested, especially since they only have to talk to the machine when
>at an unusual number rather than dialing an extra code all the time. 
>Further, this scheme gets unanticipated calls all the time, a capability
>that might not exist on the equipment that rejects calls from people
>without a code.

Yes, but if you can handle ALL calls this way...  you don't need
CLID to do this...

>It allows me to selectively decide who I want to answer calls from. 

You mean immediately using CLID, no?  'Cause the same is true with
just the answering machine...

>E.g., always answer friends and family,

When they use one of the "approved" phones to call you...

>                                  answer calls from the office if
>I'm in the mood, answer a call from a business only if I am expecting
>them to get back to me on something.  This capability would not be
>available with the machine you suggest; once a person had a special
>code, it would be difficult to turn their code on and off, even if every
>caller were given a different code.

Why?  I would have complete control.  I can add and delete codes at will.
I have a bunch of fixed codes for my regular friends, and I give out
temporary ones to others that I change each week, or month.  And
there is always "or press 1 to leave a message on my answering machine",
which is no worse than the scheme you proposed.  Maybe better...
wonder how many computer-dialer messages would be prevented from
dumping on my machine if it had to have some miniscule intelligence to
acivate it?

There are (expensive) devices that do this today.  It is quite likely that
consumer level answering machines will be available with these features
in the not too distant future.

What you are saying, I believe, is that for SOME calls, CLID will let you
answer before it goes to your answering machine.

Now, your scheme has you paying for BOTH an answering machine AND the
CLID box, PLUS the monthly service charge for CLID (which usually
works out to something like 20% of your monthly basic fee).

And what do you get?  You get to answer calls from numbers you
recognize before they go to your answering machine.  That's the
only extra benefit you describe from CLID.

I realize how it all works, but am not sure the extra cost is worth
that little extra.  You could improve the accuracy of your scheme
with a personal code filter, and avoid the monthly service costs
as well.

>Further, no call, no matter how urgent, can depend on me even being HOME
>to answer the phone, let alone willing to answer, so there's a limit on
>how important it is to handle "urgent" calls.  In a real emergency, call
>911, not me.

What a strange statement.  Does 911 really care that your child is in
the emergency room at the hospital?  If you ARE home, how would you
feel if you missed it...?

John

-- 
John Gilbert
gilbert@mdd.comm.mot.com
..!uunet!mdisea!gilbert
Newsgroups: misc.consumers