John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> (04/10/91)
There has been much talk of the hearings concerning CLASS features in
California. A widely debated issue at each hearing so far has been the
matter of per line vs per call blocking. Many, including some on this
forum seem to prefer per line blocking.
To me, the term 'per line blocking' would be synonymous with 'no
Caller ID'. Why? A customer calls the telco business office to
establish service. After the vitals are exchanged, the rep asks, "And
which long distance carrier do you want? Measured or unmeasured?
Listed or unlisted? Any Custom Calling features? Blocked or
unblocked?"
"What?", you say. "Do you want your line to always reveal your number
to any person you call that subscribes to Caller ID, or do you want it
to never reveal it?" Now realistically, what do you think 99.999% of
all telephone customers are going to answer at this point?
Now as a customer, you order Caller ID. However, the rep becomes
uncharacteristically candid with you and points out that ten people in
your area have "unblocked" lines and suggests reconsidering your
order.
So come on now, all you per line blocking advocates. Isn't per line
blocking just the new code for "no Caller ID"?
John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395
john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !trebor@uunet.uu.net> (04/11/91)
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > So come on now, all you per line blocking advocates. Isn't per line > blocking just the new code for "no Caller ID"? Actually, John, maybe we just need to take the idea a little further, in order to come up with a solution that suits everybody! I hereby place the following Solomonic(TM) solution into the Public Domain. The problem with "per line blocking" is that it is all or nothing, and that it places the Phone Company (which wants to sell the "Caller-ID" service to people and companies) at odds with their subscribers (who may not want to give out their numbers). So why not do the following: Phone customers are allowed to set a PRICE at which they are willing to sell their caller-ID information, and Caller-ID customers are allowed to set a price they will PAY for Caller-ID information. Caller-ID is then only provided when the price a CID customer will pay is >= the price asked by the phone customer. If it is, then the phone company charges the Caller-ID customer, delivers the CID info, and credits the phone customer's bill with the fee just charged to the Caller-ID user (less a percentage for the phone company, of course). Both the CID customer and the phone customer can revise the fee they will pay/will demand at any time, for a small fee, of course. There would also be a * code that would say "for the next call, give out my caller-ID for free," that would be useful in certain circumstances (such as when you call a number you "trust" with your caller information). This lets the market make the decisions. Telemarketers will quickly determine how valuable the caller information is to them, and telephone users will be able to set a price on their privacy. And the phone company gets a fee for being the broker in this transaction. You could even go so far as to allow the setting of seperate prices for giving your number to residential or business customers. What's more, the phone company could sell the following information: the price a particular phone number has set for getting it's caller-ID. This is important because if you've set a high price on your caller-ID info, then you are likely to not want telemarketing calls. Probably the best way to structure this is for a telemarketer to buy a list from the phone companuy of all the numbers that have a price < some value (or > some value!). The best way to insure privacy, IMHO, is make it a commodity, such that anyone who wants to invade it has to pay a price (measured in economic units I will dub Saddams). The market will do the rest. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp
Steve Forrette <c164-as%cordelia.Berkeley.EDU@berkeley.edu> (04/11/91)
John Higdon writes: > To me, the term 'per line blocking' would be synonymous with 'no > Caller ID'. Why? A customer calls the telco business office to > establish service. After the vitals are exchanged, the rep asks, "And > which long distance carrier do you want? Measured or unmeasured? > Listed or unlisted? Any Custom Calling features? Blocked or > unblocked?" > "What?", you say. "Do you want your line to always reveal your number > to any person you call that subscribes to Caller ID, or do you want it > to never reveal it?" Now realistically, what do you think 99.999% of > all telephone customers are going to answer at this point? > So come on now, all you per line blocking advocates. Isn't per line > blocking just the new code for "no Caller ID"? Maybe it could be available on a per-request basis. They wouldn't necessarily have to ask you if you wanted it, but merely have it available for those who ask, much like 900/976 blocking. After all, why would the LEC want to encourage people to have blocking? Even if things were the way you suggested, it would not affect my desire for Caller ID, as I would simply not answer blocked calls. Actually, I would have my voice processing board intercept with a message indicating that blocked calls are not accepted, and that they should redial the call without blocking. This way, callers would know exactly what the problem was, and how to fix it. A related idea solves the "But what if they're calling from a payphone?" Since the Caller ID signaling standard transmits ASCII data, why not just deliver "From Payphone" when appropriate? That way, you could decide to answer all such calls if you wanted to, and still be able to ignore calls from unknown numbers (such as businesses or childern with nothing better to do). BTW, I was discussing per-call and per-line blocking with my Pacific Bell friend. He's involved in the actual CLASS tests on the DMS-100 switches. The *67 code acts as a "toggle". Should Pacific Bell be required to offer per-line blocking, *67 would ENABLE it for blocked lines, so that people with blocked lines could still call people that refuse anonymous callers. A third method, a "supressed line", would NEVER reveal its number. *67 would either have no effect or would be disallowed. This would be available in limited circumstances, such as for the infamous "Battered Womens' Shelter", where a person may not know that the line has per-line blocking, dials *67 to turn it off, but ends up turning it on instead. Even if most people had per-line blocking, I wouldn't have a problem with forcing them to dial *67 if they wanted to reach me. After all, if they are a Privacy Phreak to start with, they certainly could understand and respect my right to privacy, now couldn't they? And all the arguments against Caller ID I've heard so far relate to the commercial, boiler-room applications, not on residential use. Which brings up another idea: if there's not a big problem among the Privacy Phreaks about residential-to-residential Caller ID, why not offer Caller ID only to residential customers? I'm sure that the demographics of the Caller ID subscribers in areas that have had it awhile would show that a very high percentage were residential customers anyway, so telco wouldn't lose very much revenue. Unless, of course, what the Privacy Phreaks are *really* concerned about is having to remember to dial *67 before each and every anonymous, harassing call they make. It would be such a bother! :-) Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: Thanks to all who have contributed to this string, but once again it is time to ask that the string be moved into the privacy list if further discussion is desired. Thanks. PAT]
johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) (04/11/91)
In article <telecom11.280.7@eecs.nwu.edu> is written: > "What?", you say. "Do you want your line to always reveal your number > to any person you call that subscribes to Caller ID, or do you want it > to never reveal it?" You'll never get far in advertising. The question will be more like this: "Would you like your line automatically to take advantage of our new Caller*ID service, which, for a limited time only*, is available at no charge to you, and will allow your closest friends to know that you're calling, even before they pick up the phone?" (Yes, that's misleading. When did that ever stop the telco?) * - "limited time" == until we can persuade the PUC to charge both for per-line blocking and per-line unblocking. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl
"Marc T. Kaufman" <kaufman@neon.stanford.edu> (04/12/91)
In article <telecom11.284.6@eecs.nwu.edu> Robert J Woodhead <kddlab! lkbreth.foretune.co.jp!trebor@uunet.uu.net> writes: > So why not do the following: Phone customers are allowed to set a > PRICE at which they are willing to sell their caller-ID information, > and Caller-ID customers are allowed to set a price they will PAY for > Caller-ID information. > Caller-ID is then only provided when the price a CID customer will pay > is >= the price asked by the phone customer. If it is, then the phone > company charges the Caller-ID customer, delivers the CID info, and > credits the phone customer's bill with the fee just charged to the > Caller-ID user (less a percentage for the phone company, of course). I like it. And there's more. Once we get individualized pricing, we can set the price to receive a call. After midnight, or from a telemarketer, I would set a higher price to trip the ringer than I would for calls received during the day or from friends. Might as well make telemarketing profitable -- for us. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu)
Telecom Privacy List Moderator <telecom-priv@pica.army.mil> (04/12/91)
The TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Thanks to all who have contributed to this string, > but once again it is time to ask that the string be moved into the > privacy list if further discussion is desired. Thanks. PAT] OK. I have posted the last articles on this to the telecom-priv digest. Further discussions go to telecom-priv@pica.army.mil, admin requests to telecom-priv-request@pica.army.mil. Dennis [Moderator's Note: Thanks. Although I enjoy putting some Caller ID commentary here in the TELECOM Digest, I am becoming increasingly reluctant to do so because of the amount of space it consumes with endless arguments which never resolve. Caller ID *news* and *tech questions/comments* are quite welcome here, but follow-up commentary should really go to Dennis. PAT]
Paul Durham <durham@mprgate.mpr.ca> (04/14/91)
In article <telecom11.280.7@eecs.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@zygot.ati. com> writes: > To me, the term 'per line blocking' would be synonymous with 'no > Caller ID'.... > "What?", you say. "Do you want your line to always reveal your number > to any person you call that subscribes to Caller ID, or do you want it > to never reveal it?" Now realistically, what do you think 99.999% of > all telephone customers are going to answer at this point? "Never", of course. > Now as a customer, you order Caller ID. However, the rep becomes > uncharacteristically candid with you Not very likely ;-). > and points out that ten people in your area have "unblocked" lines > and suggests reconsidering your order. > So come on now, all you per line blocking advocates. Isn't per line > blocking just the new code for "no Caller ID"? No, not at all. If you are a caller ID zealot, you can screen your incoming calls to eliminate anyone calling without caller ID (automatically, of course). If anybody wants to call _you_ they will have to be unblocked. However, if they can get line blocking, people can prevent their phone numbers (and names) from being accumulated by businesses without any extra cost or inconvenience. Remember, people enjoy this _already_. To keep the network fully connected, per-call unblocking would have to be provided, of course. Everybody would be happy - except the telemarketers and the phone company (due to loss of caller ID revenue). Sounds good to me. P. Durham
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (04/15/91)
In article <telecom11.280.7@eecs.nwu.edu>, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > "What?", you say. "Do you want your line to always reveal your number > to any person you call that subscribes to Caller ID, or do you want it > to never reveal it?" Now realistically, what do you think 99.999% of > all telephone customers are going to answer at this point? > Now as a customer, you order Caller ID. However, the rep becomes > uncharacteristically candid with you and points out that ten people in > your area have "unblocked" lines and suggests reconsidering your > order. > So come on now, all you per line blocking advocates. Isn't per line > blocking just the new code for "no Caller ID"? Maybe you are right, John. The phone companies seem to think so. However, as a residential customer, I subscribe to phone service for my convenience, not anyone else's. If you have an idea for an information product that is eagerly endorsed by potential buyers of the data and boycotted by potential suppliers of the information, you have a product whose time has not yet come. If the only way you can acquire the information that you seek to sell is to take it by force, there are some ethical issues that arise. I want per line blocking with per call unblocking that works from a rotary dial pulse phone before they start selling caller id (sic) here. I also want them to stop LYING and calling it "caller id" when it is CALLING STATION id. But, then, the advocates here in this forum think of it as caller id and describe a great variety of uses that work only when knowing the calling station happens to identify the calling party. Try this scenario on for size -- perhaps there is a teenager with whom my son logs hours of talk time per week. Perhaps he offends her so she refuses to answer calls from him. How do I get through for my one three minute conversation per month with her parent? There are four or five people originating calls from my phone. On the basis of relative volumes, her assumption that caller id (sic) showing my number identifies a call from my son is a good assumption. I can imagine a product that reads the caller id (sic) data and looks the number up in an internal directory and displays a caller name from the directory. Because the directory was entered by the owner of the product, it would show my son's name as the caller. Any time he was persona non grata, I would have great difficulty getting through. I really think that caller id (sic) is not the great boon to mankind that most of the contributors here seem to think it is. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Peter Creath <peterc@taronga.hackercorp.com> (04/26/91)
In article <telecom11.296.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab. com writes: > I also want them to stop LYING and calling it "caller id" when it is > CALLING STATION id. > But, then, the advocates here in this forum think of it as caller id > and describe a great variety of uses that work only when knowing the > calling station happens to identify the calling party. > I can imagine a product that reads the caller id (sic) data and looks > the number up in an internal directory and displays a caller name from > the directory. Because the directory was entered by the owner of the > product, it would show my son's name as the caller. Any time he was > persona non grata, I would have great difficulty getting through. According to the most recent issue of {Popular Science} (in the What's New - Electronics section), they said a new box for Caller ID is now available, one which displays the callers NAME as well as phone number. Now, it didn't specify whether the name was transmitted by the Caller ID system or whether the owner of the box had to program in names and numbers. peterc@taronga.hackercorp.com peterc@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com (same thing...) [Moderator's Note: Well I would rather suspect the owner of the box has to load the information matching certain numbers and names. How would telco know who was calling? All they can say for sure is the number. PAT]
Jamie Mason <jmason@utcs.utoronto.ca> (04/28/91)
In article <telecom11.307.2@eecs.nwu.edu> Peter Creath <peterc@taronga. hackercorp.com> writes: > According to the most recent issue of {Popular Science} (in the What's > New - Electronics section), they said a new box for Caller ID is now > available, one which displays the callers NAME as well as phone number. > Now, it didn't specify whether the name was transmitted by the Caller > ID system or whether the owner of the box had to program in names and > numbers. > [Moderator's Note: Well I would rather suspect the owner of the box > has to load the information matching certain numbers and names. How > would telco know who was calling? All they can say for sure is the > number. PAT] Here in Toronto, we have Caller-ID, only the call it 'Call Display', as part of Bell Canada's 'Call Management Services' line of services. The box for Caller-ID that we use is a Northern Telecom widget called 'Interlude'. According to the manual for this device, it will display the name, as well as the number of the calling part, subject to local availability. There is *NO WAY* "the owner of the box" could "to load the information matching certain numbers and names". The box has the following interfaces to the external world: - Two single-twisted-pair modular connector jacks. - One dot-matrix lcd-pixel display. - One buttong on the front - One two-position switch on the back. You plug the phone into one jack, and the wall into the other one. :-) The display displays, the number, the time and date of the most recent call from that number, (and potentially the name). The button on the front used to review the circular buffer of the last five calls. The switch on the back switches between English and French. Holding down "review" while toggling the language switch initiates a self-test and reset. That's it, that's all there is. How will the owner load the data? By bit bashing, using the 'review' button as CLOCK and the "language" switch as DATA? :-) Because of the "Subject to local availability", and the fact that my box works, but does not display names, I must assume that if the name is to be provided, it is provided in the Caller-ID datagram which is inserted between the first and second rings. By the way, I *really wish* it *would* display the name. Either that, or I would appreciate a reverse phone book, by phone number, of Toronto, preferrably on computer. It would also be nice if Bell would release the standard (method of transmission and format) of the Caller-ID datagram, for us curious folk. I can conceive of answering machines, for instance, which could record the number as well as the time on the tape, for those who are shy of answering machines and don't leave a message. I can also coneive of modems which could make the calling number available to the computer ... but this requires devices made by other companies than Northern Telecom to be able to decode the datagram. Jamie
tnixon@uunet.uu.net> (04/29/91)
In article <telecom11.307.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, the Moderator commented: > [Moderator's Note: Well I would rather suspect the owner of the box > has to load the information matching certain numbers and names. How > would telco know who was calling? All they can say for sure is the > number. PAT] Actually, they ARE working on including the subscriber name along with the number in future "Caller ID" systems. The name delivered will be the subscriber name associated with number according to the phone company's computers. It _still_ won't constitute "Caller" ID, but "Calling Line" ID. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net
klopfens@cis.ohio-state.edu> (05/06/91)
From article <telecom11.307.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, by peterc@taronga. hackercorp.com (Peter Creath): > In article <telecom11.296.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab. > com writes: >> I also want them to stop LYING and calling it "caller id" when it is >> CALLING STATION id. > According to the most recent issue of {Popular Science} (in the What's > New - Electronics section), they said a new box for Caller ID is now > available, one which displays the callers NAME as well as phone number. My understanding is that the "enhanced" Caller ID services would display the directory name of the number from which the call originated. Hence, if I call from a friend's house, his/her name will be displayed, not mine. Therefore, once again, it is not Caller ID at all. Bruce C. Klopfenstein | klopfens@barney.bgsu.edu Radio-TV-Film Department | klopfenstein@bgsuopie.bitnet 318 West Hall | klopfens@bgsuvax.UUCP Bowling Green State University | (419) 372-2138; 372-8690 Bowling Green, OH 43403 | fax (419) 372-2300