dhepner@hpcuhc.cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner) (12/05/90)
>From: dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) >| The proposed Pac Bell scheme doesn't allow for easy >| limiting of incoming calls to only those which contain CID info. >It's easy enough: look at your CID display, and if it says "blocked," >"private," or "refused," don't pick up the phone. Case 1: You're awakened by a call at night, turn on the light, see the "blocked" indication, and decide not to answer the phone. Contrast that to having slept through the entire event because the phone never rang. Case 2: It's now near morning, and case 1 has now just occurred for the 18th time. Contrast that to having missed the entire event because the phone never rang. Dan Hepner
jmm@uunet.uu.net (John Macdonald) (12/10/90)
In article <15249@accuvax.nwu.edu> dhepner@hpcuhc.cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner) writes: |>It's easy enough: look at your CID display, and if it says "blocked," |>"private," or "refused," don't pick up the phone. |Case 1: You're awakened by a call at night, turn on the light, see the |"blocked" indication, and decide not to answer the phone. Contrast |that to having slept through the entire event because the phone never |rang. |Case 2: It's now near morning, and case 1 has now just occurred for the |18th time. Contrast that to having missed the entire event because the |phone never rang. In case anyone thinks that case 2 is stretching the imagination somewhat, consider that it just might be the *same* caller every time -- and that caller is wondering "Just when is he going to get home?". There is a big difference to the caller (and to the amount of telco resources and to the number of calls that must be ignored) between an intercept explaining the choice of not accepting anonymous charges and an unanswered phone. John Macdonald jmm@eci386