Jack Winslade <Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org> (08/13/90)
(For those of you who aren't tired of this ...)
That's a handy number to have. Since they disabled (or changed ??)
the 958 and/or 311 numbers here, there's been no easy way to identify
which line you're calling from.
Anyway, here's a summary with some expected -- and unexpected results:
1. Home. Worked fine and gave the complete, correct number, even
though the Pollen Alert prompted me to enter a number.
I used one of the modem lines, so if some sleazoid telemarketer
calls, he'll just get the tone. (Serves him right ;-)
2. Office. (System 85 w/DID) Gave the number for one of the trunks
used for outgoing only, not the calling extension. Accounting
and billing is done internally with a call detail recorder, so
I can see how it's not important.
3. Cellular. Gave a number on one of the prefixes with the switch
in the same building as the Ma Bell cellular switch. Nothing
even close to the actual calling phone number.
4. Here's the interesting one. COCOT's.
The first one I tried was at the University. It's a Genuine
Bell <tm> COCOT, complete with logo. (I would have thought that
Genuine Bell would have put in something better than that funky
phony dial tone. Sounds like a 555 chip. Also I would have
thought Genuine Bell would have silenced the real dial tone and
the outpulsing of the stored DTMF.) Surprisingly, the ANI
registered the EXACT number posted on the phone. When I tried
it from another phone ... 'The nummmberrr you have reaaaached
... is not in {scratch!} serrrrrvice {click} for incoming ...'.
At a local shopping mall, there's a whole row of counterfeit
Bell COCOTs (sans logo, of course) all with the same number.
ANI gave NOT the posted number, but a similar number on the
same prefix. Out of curiosity, I called it. It rang, but
the COCOT did not ring. When I picked it up, it was obvious
that it was the correct number, but talking path (both ways)
was blocked. When I punched the keypad of the called COCOT,
it did transmit to the calling phone.
The bottom line is -- were I a telemarketer <gag!!> and I were
compiling a list of numbers to harass, er.. I mean contact, would I
find this service of use ?? Out of four examples, only two gave an
accurate report of the calling number. Out of those two, one of them
is a COCOT which cannot receive incoming calls. That drops it down to
25%, if you consider the modem line to be a valid 'hit'. If you
consider only the cases where a telemarketer could call the number and
get someone with a pulse, it scores a big zero.
In any case, it's a good demonstration of what the system can and
cannot do. I think that's what they had in mind.
Good Day! JSW
[1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666)
--- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org