From: kkt@milton.u.washington.edu (Patrick Scheible)
Newsgroups: pnw.general,seattle.general
Subject: Re: CALLER ID
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:08:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: milton.kkt.714881320
Organization: University of Washington

Mark Crispin <mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> writes:

>I have been waiting for caller ID service for a long time, and the ACLU's
>position against it is one reason why I don't support the ACLU.  There has
>been truly mass hysteria against caller ID, claiming that it will let
>businesses get your unlisted phone number (the fact is, 800 numbers have had
>caller ID for a long time...) or that husbands of abused women could get the
>secret phone number of the battered women's shelter (*WHY* would she be
>calling him?????).

She might be calling him to arrange picking up her possessions, kids,
to arrange a meeting with a lawyer, all sorts of reasons.  He finds
the number, and from that through the reverse directory the address of
the shelter.

Do 800 numbers really alredy have caller ID?  Hm.  Still, if locals
had it too it would just be made worse.  The trouble is, phone numbers
are sold like mailing lists, eventually bought up by the least
scrupulous marketing firm.  Only much more harrassing because they
demand your attention RIGHT THEN.

Which leads me to the main reason I'm against it:  It's not very
useful to individuals.  Say I have caller-ID, the phone rings, and I
don't recognize the calling number.  I almost certainly answer it
anyway -- it might be family or a friend in trouble at a pay phone.
(It should really be called calling-phone ID, not caller-ID.)  I guess
if there were some specific individual I wanted to avoid, it would
work, but even then once they caught on they could go to a pay phone.
(Then there's the trouble lots of people would have of recognizing a
phone number in the few seconds you have to decide whether or not to
answer it.)

   ...

>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.

Exactly, general telephone service is a =general= public good.  Caller
ID is not.  The general public would be hurt by more harrassing phone
calls; the benefit goes only to the telemarketers and the phone
company.  The phone companies get to charge everyone for the cost of
installing the "service", then charge the public to be protected from
it, and then charge telemarketers to block calls which have caller-ID
blocked... they'll line their pockets selling devices to protect
everyone from each other.

>The extra charge for unlisted numbers was justified in that it entailed
>greater overhead for directory assistance service.  Now that directory
>assistance is no longer a free service, it may be time to review the charges.

Don't hold your breath.
Xref: sparky pnw.general:1916 seattle.general:2783