Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 17:52:47 -0700
From: gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: CPSR and Class: Rebuttal to Forrette, Harrell and Higdon
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 644, Message 1 of 3

Steve Forrette, John Higdon, and Ben Harrell all go ballistic over a
CPSR press release forwarded to the Digest.  What is most interesting
is the way they contradict themselves on the issue of business access
to CNID data.

Steve Forrette is extremely vociferous in his denunciations of CPSR
for mentioning the words business and CNID in the same sentence.
(That is, for stating the obvious -- that CNID is more useful to
businesses than individuals).  I personally have not seen such a
strong denial in the several years since a Gilbert Amine of Rochelle
Communications made similar claims.  Shortly afterwards Gilbert Amine
announced new software for use by businesses integrating CNID and a
database of callers on a PC.  I wonder if Forrette has a vested
financial interest in CNID?

Mr. Higdon says that small *businesses* should be able to get what
large *businesses* have now.  And Mr. Harrell says that why should
anyone complain about CNID when there is ANI?  He also says it is only
fair to the LEC to let them deliver CNID to *businesses* if the IXCs
can deliver ANI data to *businesses*.  I would like to note that the
CA PUC claims no ability to regulate ANI; they can regulate CNID.
Further, by analogy just because the FCC has decided to minimize
regulation of rates does not mean that the CPUC should also.

Now to the specifics.

Steve Forrette writes:

> There is so much misinformation and misrepresentation in this press
> release, I'm not sure where to start.

Just substitute "your posting" for "this press release" and we agree.

>> CNID allows businesses to collect the phone numbers of customers who call

> Allows BUSINESSES?  Caller ID allows *any* subscriber access to the
> calling number.

Just because A allows B does not imply that A does not allow C. I
think if the CPUC banned businesses from getting CNID some of the
controversy would end.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that computers like
numbers, humans prefer names and faces.  If the service were really
geared to humans, a name, not a number would be sent.  A name would
not be good for a computer needing that unique key, however.

> Nowhere is it mentioned that the primary purpose of Caller ID is to
> enhance the privacy of residential customers, not businesses.

Do you really believe what you have written?  The primary purpose of
CNID is to generate revenue for the phone company.  They don't care
about your privacy or mine.  Further, no one ever said the purpose was
to protect the privacy of business, rather one of the purposes is to
enable businesses to collect information about who calls them.  (See
Mr. Harrell's posting).

> Never mind the fact that Caller ID  helps protect residential
> subscribers *against* the privacy intrusions of businesses who interrupt
> the dinner hour, family gatherings, and sleep patterns.

An answering machine works just as well, if not better, and at lower
cost.  Anyway, many of the solicitions are from out of state because
long distance costs and wage rates are lower.  CNID doesn't do diddly
for these, at least yet.

> Also, look at the telco marketing efforts.

The first thing you ought to know is that business rarely markets the
truth.  Mostly they try to sell sex -- better use our X or members of
the opposite sex won't be attracted to you.  Sometimes they take their
weakest point and pitch it as plus.  You probably noticed some recent
comments in this newsgroup about PacBell's advertising for other class
features.  (One of the ads, incidentally, uses sex, but does not tell
the truth about how the product works.)

In this case, the telcos use fear of obscene callers as the reason for
CLID.

> Have they marketed Caller ID as a wonderful new service to business,
> which will allow them to collect the numbers of people who call, then
> generate huge direct-mail lists?

I have seen plenty of advertisements and "news stories" to this effect.

>> The Commission's order guarantees privacy protections for all
>> Californians.  PacBell proposes to eliminate a key privacy protection
>> called Per-Line Blocking with Per-Call Unblocking.  

> Not all Californians, not even a majority of Californians.  It
> protects the privacy considerations of those who like to make
> anonymous calls.

First note what CPSR says PacBell proposes to eliminate -- not
Per-Line Blocking, but Per-Line Blocking with Per-Call Unblocking.

Actually, PacBell is hoping for at most a 3% penetration rate.  That
is, most Californians would rather not subscribe to CNID, at least
with the current rate structure.  With 40% or higher rates of unlisted
numbers in major CA cities, more citizens see blocking rather than
CNID as the way to protect their privacy.

> "Being collected by businesses" Again, the CPSR is completely ignoring
> the facts of the record.

No, the fact is that people are more concerned about giving out their
numbers to businesses than their friends.  Most people probably don't
care if their number gets delivered to parents or friends, but there
are some cases where delivery is a problem.

There are also ethical problems.  For example, if a doctor is making a
house call, it would be a violation of his ethics to call someone else
and have the recipient of the call know where the doctor is calling
from.

>> "What people want to know is who is calling, not what phone is being
>> used.  If my wife's car breaks down and she calls me from a pay phone,
>> that's a call I want to answer.  CNID doesn't give me any information
>> that will help me do that."

> "If you don't find Caller ID useful, then don't buy it!"

And the way I don't buy it is with free per-line blocking.

Suppose that were many local loop providers instead of just one.  In
that marketplace, I would go with the one who promises not to use SS7,
and not to implement CNID.  Since I don't have choice, I favor a
regulatory requirement.

> I hate to keep returning to reality, but the fact of the matter is
> that there are a great many people who have very real and frequent
> interruptions of their personal business in their homes by unwanted
> telephone calls, and no effective way to distinguish the desirable
> from the undesirable.

Call screen with an answering machine.  Works great.  Also, keep your
name off of mailing lists and telephone lists.  Does wonders to reduce
those calls.  If you never answer the phone, and never respond to junk
mail, they have less incentive to bother you.  You can also do things
like subscribe to magazines with accidental spelling mistakes for your
name or address, and a statement that you are only subscribing
provided they never release any information about you to others.  If
you see the magazine selling your name, cancel your subscription.

> As far as the "wife at the unknown payphone" example goes, I agree
> that someone who took the stance of "I won't answer any calls from
> numbers I don't recognize" would be setting themselves up for
> problems.  But, in practice, I seriously doubt that very many current
> Caller ID subscribers use the service in this manner. 

If you still pick up unknown numbers, then you can still be
interrupted by calls you don't want.  The best way is to screen with
an answering machine.  Most telemarketers hang up immediately. When
you hear a voice you want to talk to, pick up the phone, otherwise
don't.

> And if someone gets it only to find that they don't find it useful
> since it identifies the calling number, and not the identity of the
> caller, they can always cancel the service.

Yes, I'd like to cancel it with per line blocking.

> Do people with unlisted numbers purchase some sort of right to make
> anonymous calls to other residential subscribers (who are the vast majority
> of Caller ID subscribers)?

They pay for it.  I think so.

> And as far as business "junk mail" list generation goes, where is a
> business going to get the addresses that go with the phone numbers?

Of all your questions, this has got to be the most disingenuous.
First, they might call back.  (We know how they got your phone
number.)  Second, there are many ways to get addresses.  The post
office, for example.  Also credit bureaus, DMVs (but not in CA), etc,
etc.  I bet PAT could write an article on how easy it is.

> People with unlisted numbers will already be screened from this type
> of assault on their mailboxes,

People with unlisted numbers get plenty of junk mail.

> Then why not allow per-line blocking, but with the default for the
> blocking off?

I'd have no problem with this solution.

> By the way, it is interesting to note that in states where per-line
> blocking is free for the asking, the number of people who request it
> (having to pay nothing to do so) is dwarfed by the number of people
> who pay $60+ for a Caller ID box, plus the $5 or so per month for the
> service.

I think the cost is generally at least $6.00 per month.  And I would
like to see some hard statistics on the your claim.  I have heard that
very few people actually get CNID.  Even touch tone dialing is not
universally used and the cost is much lower.

John Higdon writes:

> The fact of the matter is that the PUC decision goes way beyond the
> restrictions found in other states offering CNID.

Not really.

> but then I do not make as many anonymous phone calls as most,
> apparently.

It's not so much the number, but the ability to decide when I should
be anonymous and when I should not be.  If I go the supermarket, for
example, I don't -- and you have said you don't -- pay with some card
that allows them to build a database on our purchases.  The same
should be true if I decide to call them.

> Of course, the real reason this organization is against CNID in any
> real form is that it gives to the little guy similar capability that
> business already has. Apparently the Computer/Social people only want
> big businesses to be able to know who is calling via 800/ANI and do
> not want small businesses and private people to have this power.

Now Steve Forrette says that businesses aren't that interested, that
CLID is for residences.  As I have said many times, in this forum, to
the PUC, and elsewhere, CLID and ANI should be banned.  PUC says they
don't have jurisdiction.

Just provide equal access for the local loop, and I will pick the
company that does not use SS7.

Ben Harrell writes:

> If [people like me] would do just a little bit of basic research,
> they would know that there has never been any privacy of single party
> residential service in the US since AT&T started offering automatic
> number identification (ANI) service with their 800 Service offering
> and other IXC followed suit.

I already know that; I have already campaigned against it.  I just
don't make 800 number calls from home anymore.  I would, however, like
to have some use for my phone.

> CLASS CLID levels the LEC/IXC competitive playing field a little bit.
> As long as there are no restrictions on the delivery of ANI anywhere
> in the US be IXCs, I don't think there should any restricts on CLID
> either.

The solution is ban the delivery of ANI information to the recipient.
BTW, there are documented cases of the ANI data being used incorrectly.  
John provided one himself in an early post.


David