bill%gauss@gatech.edu (bill) (01/29/91)
I just spoke with Southern Bell's marketing department today to get
the latest info on Caller*ID. You may remember that according to my
"inside source" at Southern Bell, CLID was supposed to have been
available FOR ORDERING today (Jan. 28). That is not currently the
case. A "no-later-than" implemementation date for the metropolitan
Atlanta area was set for February 14, according to Southern Bell PR
folks (as of my conversation with them in late Dec. '90).
As of sometime in the past week or so, Southern Bell is referring all
CLID questions to their Marketing department - the folks who will
actually market (naturally) and take orders for this new service. My
call today to marketing - (404) 780-2525 - revealed that Southern Bell
will be holding training for their people beginning Feb. 14 and that
is quite likely the earliest date at which orders will now be taken.
Technically speaking, as of my last conversation with my "inside
source", the switching equipment and SS7 is all ready for CLID and the
appropriate software has been loaded to the various metro Atlanta
switches. What currently stands between this stage and the next in
which the service is actually offered to the public is a (1)
testing/debugging phase (currently in progress) and (2) training of
the order-takers (see above), currently scheduled for Feb. 14.
Bottom line and my personal assessment: CLID will not be on-line until
Feb. 14 at the earliest. With all due credit to Southern Bell, they
never went public with any date prior to Feb. 14. It now appears that
their "no-later-than" date has since become a "no-sooner-than" date.
The feelings that I get from my various conversations with Southern
Bell employees (including my "Deep Throat"), is that they have
received quite a few inquiries about CLID - and that the greater
number of their calls have been to ask about when-can-I-order-it? One
order clerk (with whom I spoke at relatively great length) did admit
that she had received a call from a somewhat upset "older gentleman"
along the lines of 'if Southern Bell follows through on offering CLID,
I'm going to have my phone disconnected!'
I'll keep the list posted, as I find out more.
Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu
[Moderator's Note: The service rep talking to the 'older gentleman'
should have called his bluff on the spot: If I'd been responding to
him I'd have probably said "Oh, my! Well, Mr. Jones, we'll certainly
be sorry to lose you as a good subscriber after X years. It has been
approved and will be available around February 14. Do you want me to
process the disconnect order on your service for the same day or would
you want me to have the service turned off sooner?" (pause, let him
take it from there ...) PAT]
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (01/29/91)
I was really sorry to see the Moderator assume a pro-Caller ID stance in an addendum to a posting on this topic. It's a controversial and by no means trivial topic, and one that could have severe repercussions for the telephone industry. If this sort of bias pervades discussions of Caller ID, I will have cause to wonder about the objectivity of moderation extended to other topics here. Bob Jacobson [Moderator's Note: I am very much pro-Caller*ID and make no bones about it. Is it biased to favor Caller*ID but unbiased to take a stance against it? Actually, discussion of Caller*ID -- at least the politics of it -- is kept to a minimum here because of the amount of controversy it generates both ways. For continued discussion of the topic I suggest our companion mailing list which specifically deals with the several facets of telecommuications privacy. Messages should be addressed to: telecom-priv@pica.army.mil. To contact Dennis Rears, the maintainer of the list so that you can be added if you wish to read what others have written: telecom-priv-request@pica.army.mil. PAT]