0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) (02/26/91)
The January 1 issue of {TE&M Magazine} carried a colorful map
of the US, showing the year-end status of Caller ID state by state.
Here's a text rundown of that status:
APPROVED WITHOUT CALL BLOCKING APPROVED WITH BLOCKING
New Jersey Maine
Virginia Maryland
West Virginia District of Columbia
Tennessee South Carolina
Kentucky
DECLARED ILLEGAL Nevada
Pennsylvania
STATES WITH FILED TARIFF, BUT NO REGULATORY DECISION AS YET
Vermont Ohio
Indiana Illinois
North Carolina Georgia
Alabama Florida
California
STATES WITH NO REGULATORY ACTION AS YET
New Hampshire Massachusets
Rhode Island Connecticut
New York Delaware
Michigan Wisconsin
Mississippi Louisiana
Texas Oklahome
Arkansas Kansas
Missouri Nebraska
Iowa Minnesota
South Dakota North Dakota
Arizona New Mexico
Utah Colorado
Idaho Wyoming
Montana Oregon
Washington
There's obviously been much movement since this list was first
generated. US West had, for example, conducted some technical trials
in North Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa and Idaho. And, it's certain there
have been others. But, nationwide deployment still seems far from on
a rapid track, and wide divergence in the details of operation and
information content seem to be likely state by state.cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (02/28/91)
The chart that was cited neglected California, one-seventh of the national telecommunications market. In California, blocking of Caller ID is mandated by law, whenever the trials actually begin. Bob Jacobson [Moderator's Note: Thanks for pointing this out. I wonder if the lack of California details in the chart was an oversight by the original author or somehow a typo error by the person sending it here? PAT]
nol2105%dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil@dsac.dla.mil (Robert E. Zabloudil) (03/08/91)
In article <telecom11.166.12@eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Moderator responds
to cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson):
< [Moderator's Note: Thanks for pointing this out. I wonder if the lack
< of California details in the chart was an oversight by the original
< author or somehow a typo error by the person sending it here? PAT]
I thought I only counted 49 entries. Since DC was included, that would mean
another state was left off?