larson@snmp.sri.com (Alan Larson) (02/09/91)
As I understand it, Caller-ID works by sending the information out after the first or second ring. Why doesn't it send it out before the first ring, so the phone could know if it was to ring at all. That would leave a great market for pre-programmed boxes to modify the ring signal to indicate when selected numbers were calling, to selectively ignore numbers, or to automatically route the calls to fax or modem equipment. It seems kind of obvious, why wouldn't it be done that way? Alan [Moderator's Note: I do not think the intent of Caller*ID is to tell folks what calls NOT to accept (Call Screening is intended for that). I think its purpose is merely to *identify* the origin of the call in the event you wish to know that information. In other words, do not choose to answer or not based on what the Caller*ID box displays -- remember the many examples of someone you want to talk to calling from a different phone than usual -- but instead, answer the phone as you normally would and use the identification provided for recourse to the caller if desired. PAT]
dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) (02/11/91)
In article <74363@bu.edu.bu.edu>, larson@snmp.sri.com (Alan Larson) writes: > As I understand it, Caller-ID works by sending the information out > after the first or second ring. Why doesn't it send it out before the > first ring, so the phone could know if it was to ring at all. The Caller*ID display devices I have seen use the first ring to turn on the detector, and then sense the data carrier. Data preceding the first ring would not be noticed by these devices. One could certainly build a device that intercepts the first ring, and doesn't pass it through to the telephone instrument until it has received and processed the Caller*ID transmission. I have not seen such a device on the market yet, however. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857
gordon@utacfd.uta.edu (Gordon Burditt) (02/12/91)
>I think its purpose is merely to *identify* the origin of the call in >the event you wish to know that information. In other words, do not >choose to answer or not based on what the Caller*ID box displays -- >remember the many examples of someone you want to talk to calling from >a different phone than usual -- but instead, answer the phone as you >normally would and use the identification provided for recourse to the >caller if desired. PAT] Regardless of the intent, people are allowed to use it that way. I suspect a number of people would like to use it to route calls: known fax machines get the fax machine, known computers get the computer, known teenagers get the phone in the teenager's room, known adults get the parent's phone, known nuisances that won't fit into Call Screening get a recorded insult, and unknown callers get the answering machine (which someone might pick up). Granted, there are some ambiguities possible (the guy with the computer might want to make a voice call to the operator of the machine). The people who invented RingMaster (distinctive ringing based on CALLED number: user gets two or three numbers) probably intended it to identify a class of callers, not route calls, but based on the ring-identifying switch boxes available, a lot of people want to use it that way. It only gives a 3-way choice, though. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
dorl@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Michael (NMI) (02/14/91)
If you'll tolerate another addition to this thread... In article <74397@bu.edu.bu.edu>, m21198@mwunix.mitre.org (John McHarry) writes... >larson@snmp.sri.com (Alan Larson) writes: >>after the first or second ring. Why doesn't it send it out before the >>first ring, so the phone could know if it was to ring at all. >>[Moderator's Note: I do not think the intent of Caller*ID is to tell >>folks what calls NOT to accept (Call Screening is intended for that). >Indeed! You don't expect Ma to leave any money on the table do you? >I think, however, that we shall soon see caller ID boxes that swallow >the first ring burst until they have the number to decide how to treat >the call. I, for one, would like to send some numbers to my answering >machine, but not others. >[Moderator's Note: Precisely my point! I cannot imagine telco >encouraging people to NOT answer their phone. If the calling party >does not connect then there is no profit for telco. Call Screening is >an exception, but please note it is one of the higher priced features >available now ... so telco makes money, answer or no answer, because >the called party is paying telco to *not* put the call through. Then >too, there are the numerous examples of 'what do you do if someone you >*do* want to speak with is calling from a different phone number?'. >A policy of 'do not pass ringing from a number that is not recognized' >is not a good one because there will always be parties you want to >hear from calling from an unrecognized number (payphone, new phone >line just installed, etc). By sending a 'courtesy ring' first, you >have the option of examining your readout and deciding what to do >next. The problem of a box which will 'absorb the first ring and act >on the data received' is how do you prevent other extensions on the >same line from giving a first ring also? PAT] My first reaction to Caller ID was to oppose its deployment without blocking. Articles in this forum have shown me that caller id may benefit me in avoiding unwanted calls. I disagree with our moderator's comments above. I think there's no right or wrong here and I really care little what the phone company wants; if the caller id information is available, I'll use for whatever purpose I want. The consumer electronics industry is going to make products that folks want and I for one want products that will shield me from unwanted calls. It's going to be cheaper for me to buy a box to do call screening than to rent that same service from the phone company. In my opinion, the one thing the industry could do to make Caller ID appealing to the general public would be to provide even more information. For example if the Caller ID information included a call type (direct marketing, residential, commercial, etc.) the market would provide products to screen out calls I don't want. The direct phone marketing business is driving public opinion on this topic. Surveys I've seen show the majority of folks are against Caller IDd because they are afraid of the resulting follow on marketing. I've taken to asking all direct market calls to please wait and then abandoning the phone until they hang up. Michael Dorl (608) 262-0466 fax (608) 262-4679 dorl@vms.macc.wisc.edu MACC / University of Wisconsin - Madison dorl@wiscmacc.bitnet 1210 W. Dayton St. / Madison, WI 53706