ofsevit%ultra.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (David Ofsevit) (03/24/89)
In response to some of John Higdon's statements in Telecom 9:103: > If the husband [of a battered wife in a shelter] had an IQ of more than 50, > he would assume that his wife went to a shelter. Besides, is he going to > bust in to do harm to her? Isn't that what shelters are for, to prevent > that sort of thing? He might assume that his wife went to a shelter, but he might not know which shelter. Yes, he just might try to break in and do violence. Even if the shelter provided effective protection, it would not provide protection if the wife wished to leave; knowing where the wife was, the husband could effectively (not necessarily physically, but certainly psychologically) imprison her in the shelter. > > 4) Should a person have the right to call an airline and request fares, > > for example, without disclosing his telephone number? Risks > [a bunch of hypothetical stuff about businesses keeping a database to > get back at YOU, deleted] > > If a business can save money and streamline its operation by more > expeditiously handling different types of customers, more power to > them. More power to them? Is the almighty buck more important than people's rights? RISKS is not hypothetical; almost every day it describes real-world cases of how people can be harmed by mindless dependence on automation. > > 8) There are risks associated with Caller ID as well. What happens if > > you do not answer a call because you do not recognize the phone > > number and it turns out that that call was an emergency call? > > Then you miss the call. Would you like twenty other reasons why you > might miss an emergency call? Starting with phone unplugged 'cause it > was driving you crazy.... I can hardly wait for the lawsuits to begin: "I lost a lot of money on that deal! Why didn't you call me?" "I did call you. I was at a pay phone, and you wouldn't answer." "Oh yeah, sorry..." "SORRY MY $#&%@#$!!! You'll hear from my lawyer!" > > 4) The peak rate calling period will become much shorter for business > > customers with branches on the East and West Coast. If it is cheaper > > to have the phone call completed in the opposite direction, then the > > companies' phone system will automatically refuse the call and then > > call back in the opposite direction. The business will make 2 calls > > instead of one, but pay less than before. > > No business I know of would go to this much trouble for a typical short > business call. This is really reaching. This is not "reaching." This is real-world economics. Companies could program their switchboards to make this happen automatically. > > 5) The phone company will argue that consumers can always pay extra and > > not allow Caller ID or punch extra digits to disable it on a call by > > call basis. Why should a consumer have to pay extra or push extra > > buttons to not get a service he does not want? > > Because, for one thing, he would be trying to stop a person from > getting a service that *was* being paid for, namely Caller ID. In this > society it costs a little extra and takes a little more effort to > preserve one's privacy. We may not like it, but the universe doesn't > care. You can protect everybody's privacy at no cost at all--don't implement Caller ID! ----- And in response to Gary Delong: > I think I can see the moderator's point. It is interesting to note > that the A**U always seems to be more concerned with the rights of > the criminals than those of the victims. I too have often thought > that 'Civil Liberties' didn't seem to fit their actions. > > Of course they do seem to shy away from cases where victims become > the accused. > ... > PS: Is there a "conservative" verison of the ACLU? The ACLU has stood up for such fine liberal types as the Skokie Nazis and Oliver North. The ACLU believes in the Bill of Rights, even for those like Ollie and the Nazis who don't believe in it. The ACLU believes that as you begin to tear down individual rights, you set the stage for knocking over many other rights. ----- David Ofsevit Digital Equipment Corporation (which, I hope, does not know, care, or associate with my opinions)
edw@wells.uucp (Ed Wells) (04/07/89)
How does the caller ID work (technically)? Is it a DTMF code before
the phone rings? Some other kind of digital code? What ESS switch
does this feature start on?
--
=========================================================================
Edward E. Wells Jr., President Voice: (215)-943-6061
Wells Computer Systems Corp., Box 343, Levittown, Pa. 19058
{dsinc,francis,hotps,lgnp1,mdi386,pebco}!wells!edwdave@rutgers.edu (Dave Levenson) (04/12/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0128m03@vector.dallas.tx.us>, edw@wells.uucp (Ed Wells) writes: > > How does the caller ID work (technically)? Is it a DTMF code before > the phone rings? Some other kind of digital code? What ESS switch > does this feature start on? Caller*Id service is offered by NJ Bell using 1ESS and 1aESS switches. The calling number is delivered to the called party by a short blast of 1200 bps fsk data (similar, but not identical, to the modulation pattern used by 202 (half-duplex) 1200 bps modems). This occurs immediately after the first ring. It is not repeated after additional rings, nor is any ACK expected. In other words, it's simplex analog transmission, using 1960's modem technology. -- Dave Levenson /-----------------------------\ Westmark, Inc. | If you can't give me your | Warren, NJ USA | Phone number, don't call! | {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave \-----------------------------/
lmg@hoqax.att.com (Lawrence M Geary) (08/14/89)
Special ringing could probably be performed by a smart phone that
also handles caller ID signals. Now that the caller ID feature is
getting around, does anyone know of telephones offered or in the
works that would display the called number and perform other tricks?
--Larry
--
lmg@hoqax.att.com Think globally ... Post locally att!hoqax!lmgbrian@apt.uucp (Brian Litzinger) (09/13/89)
It seems rather simple to solve the caller ID problems discussed on
this forum. Let us imagine the following scenario:
I buy a phone and lease/rent a local and long distance service to
perform various local and long distance services for me. Now I have
particular things I wish to do with my phone. That is I wish to allow
people to call me, and I'd like to call some people. (people includes
businesses).
In the previous utopian society I lived in, I was happy to have anyone
who wanted to call me call. However, recently I've been contacted by
an increasing number of people that I don't want to talk to.
So I got an unlisted number and only gave it to people I wanted to
talk to. Unfortunately, I still got calls from people I did not wish
to talk with. In fact, I got even more calls from people I did not
wish to talk to than I got with the previous number.
Well, I've decided that I'm not going to talk with anyone who is not
willing to identify themselves before I have to talk with them. Right
now I'm up in the air as to whether you will have to provide your
actual phone number to me or some other means of identifying
yourself. In either case, if you aren't willing to provide your number
or some sort of identifying substitute, I do not wish to talk with you.
It is that simple, I will not talk to you unless you provide the
identification. I'm happy and your rights are not being violated
because you don't have to call me. And the fact that you don't want
to provide the identification makes it very clear to me that I don't
want to talk to you, and everyone is happy.
There are also people I wish to call to whom I do not wish to provide
my identification. I'll simply enter a code before the number and the
phone won't send my identification before attempting to place the
call. Now, if the receiving party doesn't accept unidentified calls,
great! I'm happy and the recepient is happy!
However, if the recipient is the type that still wants to take the
call eventhough the identification is missing then great! They can
simply pick up the phone and everyone is still happy!
So everyone is happy. You and I and everyone else can choose to accept
or ignore identified or unidentified calls. And you and I and everyone
else can determine on a call by call basis whether or not our
identification is sent before the call.
We have now re-attained our utopian society.
You are, however, still at a little risk from this solution. That is
that I can do whatever I wish with you identification once I receive
it. I could publish it or sell it. Well, if you are worried I'd do
that or anything else you might not approve of, I'd strongly suggest
you don't call me.
I'm very much "an eye for an eye" sort of person, so I've now decided
that your identification must be your phone number. Once, again
you don't have to call me, and I don't want you calling me unless you
provide your actual number.
There are some problems with this system. For example, what if someone
is calling from a public phone whom I wish to speak with. The
obvious solution of a portable ID is useless because those ID's will
be misused and we'll be back to square one. Or perhaps they will work
well enough?
There are solutions to the public phone problem, as there are solutions
to the Caller ID question even if Caller ID is legislated out of existence.
In fact, Caller ID has existed in our society, for those who can afford it,
for far longer than the posters to this forum seem to suspect.
--
<> Brian Litzinger @ APT Technology Inc., San Jose, CA
<> UUCP: {apple,sun,pyramid}!daver!apt!brian brian@apt.UUCP
<> VOICE: 408 370 9077 FAX: 408 370 9291sp@pro-palace.cts.com (Sten Peeters) (10/05/89)
Does PA have a caller ID service yet because it was included in the list of
services I could get with my phone line.
Sten
Name:Sten Peeters proline:sp@pro-palace UUCP:sp@pro-palace.cts.com
pro-palace:215/678-4438 US mail:2005 buckman ave Wyomissing, PA 19610
House Phone:215/678-7954 "Shortwave is AWESOME!!"-me
[Moderator's Note: Good question. I've heard some judge said no. Probably
the literature was printed before the decision, and it is temporarily not
available, until Bell of PA gets the decision overturned at a higher level.
Or they may petition a higher court to be allowed to continue offering it
pending reversal of the original decision. PT]jjc@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jeffrey James Bryan Carpenter) (10/10/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0435m06@vector.dallas.tx.us> you write: >Does PA have a caller ID service yet because it was included in the list of >services I could get with my phone line. I checked with Bell of PA on Friday, and they told me that it is being tested in select areas of Harrisburg and Philadelphia righ now. It is hoped that it will become widely available (CO's where it can be programmed) in the first quarter of 1991 (!!). Jeffrey J. B. Carpenter, University of Pittsburgh, Computer Center USMAIL: 600 Epsilon Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15238 (412) 624 6424, FAX (412) 624-6436 | JJC@PITTVMS.BITNET | jjc@cisunx.UUCP JJC@VMS.CIS.PITT.EDU or jjc@unix.cis.pitt.edu
alonzo@uunet.uu.net (12/16/89)
We have been discussing all these problems with telephone solicitation, caller ID, privacy of the caller, privacy of the receiver, robot calls, sequential autodialing, etc. Perhaps we should consider some kind of licensing arrangement. This way, the caller ID feature can display a license number instead of a telephone number. Telephone solicitors would have to have an appropriate license. Your phone could be programmed to reject all calls from licenses of a certain class. Privacy of callers is maintained as there is no way to map a license onto a name or telephone number without the licensees prior consent. The receiver's privacy is maintained because no one can make a call without disclosing their license number. If you receive an obscene call, the license can be reported to authorities and the problem dealt with in an appropriate manner. In the meantime you have the ability to reject calls from that source. The key thing here is that one has a telephone number to receive calls and a license for making them. Most telephones would have both. One can imagine the license encoding several pieces of information, especially for commercial users: 1. owner id License owner 2. service type Licensed uses 3. telephone Sublicense for a particular line The service type can encode such things as: solicitation, computer communications, general business, emergency services, private residence, local only, operator, language preference. Use of a telephone for solicitation without an appropriate license would be against the law. Other license notations such as for language preference and computer use can be on a voluntary basis. If you get a line for your computer it will have a license indicating its use. Non-computer users can reject all such calls. There is some potential here for dealing with phone abusers in a way more lenient than taking away their service altogether. You can imagine various special services such as: -outgoing only service (no telephone number) -incoming only service (no license) -licenses that are rejected by default unless specifically enabled -license as phonecard (with extra password) not necessarily tied to a phone -automatic collect call approval -automatic routing based on language Alonzo Gariepy alonzo@microsoft
levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) (12/17/89)
The solution to the Caller-ID controversy seems obvious to me. So
here is the Ken Levitt plan for ANI.
1. Every line should have a parameter set at the CO to indicate the default
selection for that line. By default the ID will either be sent or
not sent depending on this setting. There would be no charge to
establish your default the first time when you install a new line.
There would be a small charge to change your default setting.
2. There would be two special codes that could be entered prior to each
call to force ANI on or off for that one call.
3. Calls that have ANI turned off at the source should be identified on
the receiving end with some code different than the code used to
indicate that ANI information is not available.
4. Subscribers should be able to request an alias ANI for each line.
The alias would be a unique number with a special area code to indicate
that it is not a real number. All calls from that line would transmit
the alias number unless ANI is suppressed for that call. The alias system
could also be used to transmit the main number for a location that has
several lines.
If such a system existed, I would want the following system installed at
my home:
1. A programmable computer would check ANI on all incoming calls.
2. Based in the ANI information and the time of day, the call would be
routed to one of the following:
a. A real phone
b. An answering machine
c. A modem
d. A FAX machine.
3. I would be able to reprogram the computer at any time to meet my needs
at that point in time. I would also want the system to send all calls
destined to the real phone to my answering machine after some specified
number of rings. It would also be very nice to be able to pick up any
extension in the house and enter a code to tell the computer to switch
to some special program like "Do not disturb" which would force all
calls to the answering machine.
Some people say that calls from the police or a hospital should not be
ignored because I have not listed them as calls that I want to take.
This is the ultimate in "Big Brother Syndrome". It is my business and
no one else's as to which calls I choose to take. There is no law on
the books that requires me to talk to the police or a hospital if I
have decided not to take calls at that time. I do not wish to be a
slave to my telephone.
I would be interested in knowing if anyone can find a flaw in my plan.
Unless you believe that I should be forced to answer some calls, I
don't think that anyone should have an objection to such a system.
Ken Levitt - via FidoNet node 1:16/390
UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edugkj@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gregory K Johnson) (12/21/89)
In article <2230@accuvax.nwu.edu> microsoft!alonzo@uunet.uu.net writes: >Perhaps we should consider some kind of licensing arrangement. This >way, the caller ID feature can display a license number instead of a My main problem with this is that it will require us all to dial an additional 10-digit number to make a phone call. I do this already on the PBX we use here (it takes two digits plus a seven-digit code to get an outside line) and it is really an unnecessary hassle. Just think of having to use your calling card to make every call, how annoying it is when you misdial, etc. I doubt the public, which complains about having to dial an extra 3 digits occasionally when an area code is split, will take kindly to having to dial a personal ID code every time they make a call. Greg
jeffj@pedsga.UUCP (Jeff Jonas) (12/22/89)
In article <2229@accuvax.nwu.edu>, levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) writes: > 2. Based in the ANI information and the time of day, the call would be > routed to one of the following: > a. A real phone > b. An answering machine > c. A modem > d. A FAX machine. I like that idea! Wouldn't it be nice if ALL fax machines could identify themselves BEFORE anything picked up so the same line could share devices? That way, data calls (FAX, MODEM) would automatically route themselves to devices WITHIN A TELEPHONE NUMBER. This could be done if there were a user definable field after the phone number in ANI. As a human, I'd put my name there. Machines would put some standard ID there so all modems would recognize each other. Soliciters would be required (by their telemarketing license as well as laws I'd like to see on the Federal/state level) to put some message like "solicitor". Now, you can know a little about the call requested as well as the originating line number. It could be used like the "subject" line in articles. This way, you could use this information to help screen your calls. All emergency calls (hospital, police) could be identified by this user field, despite your never seeing the number before. Isn't this that you want - the ability to prioritize your calls? A cutsey feature could be programming each phone in your house to transmit a different I.D. That way, when I use the office phone, my name appears on the callee's phone. Other people in the household have their names appear when they use their phones. That way, a recipient knows not just that the call is from the Jonas household, but also can identify who the call is to or from! No more picking up the phone for others! The closest thing I know to this is extensions within a telephone number. It hasn't been mentioned here lately, so I'll ask. Isn't there an ability to pre-dial numbers that get passed to the subscriber (ex: dial the desired extension after the phone number without waiting for the call to complete)? If so, will this be made available to us with the Caller-ID boxes, or will we need a full ISDN feed? I thought some 800 numbers had this, but that's for commercial users that will pay big bucks for features. Some people here on comp.dcom.telecom have premises equipment. I recall reading how they're used to manage several outgoing lines as well as internal services (call holding, intercom). What about some support for multiple extensions (beyond call hunting)? Jeffrey Jonas jonas@cooper.cooper.edu [yes, I know there are devices that discriminate between fax and voice calls, but they introduce a delay that I find inexcusable.]
alonzo@uunet.uu.net (12/22/89)
In article <2229@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: > The solution to the Caller-ID controversy seems obvious to me. So > here is the Ken Levitt plan for ANI. >... > 4. Subscribers should be able to request an alias ANI for each line. > The alias would be a unique number with a special area code to indicate > that it is not a real number. All calls from that line would transmit > the alias number unless ANI is suppressed for that call. The alias system > could also be used to transmit the main number for a location that has > several lines. This is a better alternative than licensing. You either give out your number or you have have a pseudo number that does the same as a license. You can choose to have your number revealed (a convenience to both caller and receiver) on a per call basis. We could get a measure of control by giving particular kinds of users (emergency, phone company, telemarketers, etc.) an identifying pseudo area code (most such users would prefer not to give out there real numbers anyway). This is a good plan and should be given real thought. Does anyone know if there is some hidden agenda behind Caller-ID (conspiracies everywhere...)? Alonzo Gariepy microsoft!alonzo
alonzo@uunet.uu.net (12/22/89)
In article <2323@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: > In article <2230@accuvax.nwu.edu> microsoft!alonzo@uunet.uu.net writes: > >Perhaps we should consider some kind of licensing arrangement. This > >way, the caller ID feature can display a license number instead of a > My main problem with this is that it will require us all to dial an > additional 10-digit number to make a phone call. I don't think there is such a requirement. Each licensed line can pass this information itself. Indeed this is necessary to guard against forgery. While calling cards would probably take the form of such licenses, this does not imply that all calls would require a calling card. The suggestion made about using pseudo phone numbers for the license allows users to substitute the actual phone number if (and when) they want. This would be done by quick setting of the line and not necessarily on a per call basis. This idea may never get to the detail stage... Alonzo Gariepy microsoft!alonzo
tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) (12/28/89)
Among other things, Jeffrey Jonas asked about ways of routing fax calls away from voice calls on the same line. There are a few devices out there that work with distinctive ringing service. This is where for a few extra bucks a month, the phone company assigns more than one phone number to a line, each with distinctive ringing. A detector on the line can then route incoming calls to a telephone, modem, or FAX, based upon the ringing cadence. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP
Thomas E Lowe <tel@cdsdb1.att.com> (12/30/89)
>Wouldn't it be nice if ALL fax machines could identify themselves >BEFORE anything picked up so the same line could share devices? That >way, data calls (FAX, MODEM) would automatically route themselves to >devices WITHIN A TELEPHONE NUMBER. New Jersey Bell (and others) are now offering something called "Ident-A-Ring" where a single phone line is assigned up to three different phone numbers. (Kind of a glorified use of an old fashioned party line.) Each number would have a distinctive sounding ring. Wouldn't it be nice to have a little box with one input and three outputs. Then, based on which ring it received, it would switch to the appropriate output. You could put FAX on one, MODEM on another, and VOICE on the last. Cheap and Simple. Tom Lowe tel@cdsdb1.ATT.COM attmail!tlowe 201-949-0428 AT&T Bell Laboratories, Room 2E-637A Crawfords Corner Road, Holmdel, NJ 07733 (R) UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T (keep them lawyers happy!!)
kvitek@pro-party.cts.com (Keith Vitek) (01/12/90)
How can you stop Caller ID on your line? UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!kvitek ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party!kvitek@nosc.mil INET: kvitek@pro-party.cts.com Keith Vitek | Voice: 512/852-1841 | I want my NeXT... 5914 LiptonShire | or: 512/852-1780 | I want my AmigaUUCP... Corpus Christi, TX 78415 | FIDO: 1:160/40 | I want .......... [Moderator's Note: Do you mean, how can you stop someone who is equipped with a Caller-ID readout from seeing your number? You can't, however at the present time, the display seems to be limited to calls within the local community. Long distance identification is not very common yet. PT]
Keith Vitek <kvitek@pro-party.cts.com> (01/14/90)
In-Reply-To: message from kvitek@pro-party.cts.com Well, I saw on 20/20 or some show like that said that the technology to stop Caller ID was here. I was wondering if anyone knew what they were talking about... UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!kvitek ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party!kvitek@nosc.mil INET: kvitek@pro-party.cts.com Keith Vitek | Voice: 512/852-1841 | I want my NeXT... 5914 LiptonShire | or: 512/852-1780 | I want my AmigaUUCP... Corpus Christi, TX 78415 | FIDO: 1:160/40 | I want .......... [Moderator's Note: Well, it is news to me. Does anyone know of a way to legally (via some application of the tariff) avoid ID'ing themselves? I guess there are some places where possibly the more sensitive customers may be exempted, i.e. the 'women's shelter' example. PT]
deej@bellcore.bellcore.com> (02/01/90)
In article <telecom-v10i0054m03@chinacat.lonestar.org>, well!rocke@ lll-crg.llnl.gov (Peter Marshall) writes: > Re: Dave Levenson's 1/20 post on this topic, the technology you refer > to is generally called "blocking." Apparently, relevant > Bellcore-designed software had such capacity built in, according to a > Bellcore witness in the PA Caller ID case; Whoa. There is no Bellcore-designed caller ID software; please don't go misquoting Elena Worrall (who, I believe, is the Bellcore witness to whom you're referring). Bellcore wrote generic requirements for Calling Number Delivery, as well as for the other CLASS (SM) features, including Calling Number Delivery Blocking. Software designed and developed by, among others, AT&T and NTI may or may not have the capability built in. (Offhand, I think they both do, but I wouldn't swear to it.) But we didn't design the software; we wrote generic requirements and other folks designed the software. Regarding the fact that the calling number can be delivered when calling a 900 number as well as an 800 number, I was unaware that anyone was offering this service. Technically it's clearly feasible; I wasn't aware that any IC was offering to do it, though. MCI, it should be noted, will be offering ("real soon now") in-band delivery of ANI. This essentially means that any call carried via MCI (or, by extension, by any IC who choses to implement the same technology and offer the same service) could result in the billing number being delivered to the called party. There is no current way to block this from the originating end. Explanation for the "no current way to block this..." statement: The billing number is sent by the originating local exchange carrier to the IC via Equal Access MF signaling. The originating LEC is obligated to send this information to the IC as part of the Equal Access arrangements; the caller can not specify that this not be sent to the IC because the IC would then have no billing information. Once the IC has the billing number, the calling party is out of the loop. It is technically feasible, I suppose, to add a special sequence to the MF signaling "protocol" meaning "caller requests billing number privacy", but that doesn't exist currently and it's not clear it would go over that well -- performance impacts and all that.} David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."
mjs1@bellcore.bellcore.com (Michael Sonnier) (02/23/90)
In article <3966@accuvax.nwu.edu>, comcon!roy@uunet.uu.net (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: > In article <3841@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com! > fleming@uunet.uu.net writes: > > Why aren't the BOCs rushing to offer this (calling name delivery) > > as a solution? > > Simple... Judge Greene won't let them. Running a phone number through > > a database and flashing an associated ASCII string onto your screen > > qualifies as an information-processing service, and that's a no-no. > I haven't studied the break-up too closely, but it would seem this is > an ideal opportunity for a symbiotic service. Couldn't the private > sector produce a company to service this information-processing? And > wouldn't that be seperate from the BOC itself? Independent of who provides the database lookup, there are very real network performance issues (read $$$s) to be considered. Considering simply the volume of queries to this database that are likely, the amount of processor time sucked up on switching systems could be huge. A few moments reflection leads me to believe there are (at least) 4 major alternative ways to provide such a service (Labeled A1, A2, B1, and B2): A> Do the lookup at the originating end of the call, and pass the information in the SS7 call setup message (Initial Address Message) This has the advantage that the data can be somewhat localized. The big disadvantage is that it must be done on every call (or at least every inter-switch call) since it is not known whether the terminating party subscribes to the feature. A1> Store the data on the switch, and have the switch do the lookup There is a clear impact on the memory requirements as well as processor real time of the switch. The memory to store the ID strings, as well as indexing information to aid in rapid lookup, is huge, especially relative to some of the older technology electronic switching products that exist (and will continue to exist for a LONG time) in the network. In addition, the per call addition to average processor time used could be quite significant. A2> Store the data on a database accessed by the switch There is still some impact on the switch processor real time used, though likely smaller than case A1. However, some delay is added to the processing of each call (and remember that 100ms is considered large when dealing in Initial Response Time for call setup), causing both a degradation of service for customers, but also increasing the holding time of every call at the switch resulting in increased usage of switch resources (e.g., either need to pay for more resources or decrease the capacity of the switch). Cases A1 and A2 are especially painful since they must be processed on (almost) every call in the network. This makes these alternatives essentially infeasible, since the marginal cost will be quite high, especially if few people subscribe to the service. B> Do the lookup at the terminating end of the call: This has the advantage that you only need the lookup if the terminating party subscribes to the feature. B1> Store the data on the switch All of the same concerns as case A1 apply, with the magnification that the database for all network users, not just those served by this switch, must be stored at each switch. Clearly not a feasible approach! B2> Store the data on a database accessed by the switch Again, either the data will need to be copied many places in the network (i.e., near each switch) or these data queries will involve lengthy distances. In the first case, data must still be duplicated, which is very costly both in terms of equipment and overhead to populate and maintain the many copies of the data in a coordinated fashion. The second case is similar to case A2, except the cost per query will be much higher, consuming more resources due to the distance. In addition, the anticipated delay in call processing will probably be larger due to the distance. Again, the cost in terms of network capacity could be large for alternatives B1 and B2. Though there is an order of magnitude decrease in the number of data lookups to be perfomed over the A cases, the cost per lookup and the delay resulting are larger. And I haven't even gotten into the difficulties where inter-LATA calls are involved! (Yes, I know that calling number display doesn't apply today on inter-LATA calls, but that doesn't mean it won't ever.) The prospect of some third party providing the data lookup for the TelCo is very scary. Not only do all of the above concerns exist, but there are many significant new concerns: the delay properties of the network, service reliability, and quality of the network provided service are largely out of the TelCo's control. Who are you going to call when the service doesn't work properly? Who's going to get flamed when call setup takes longer? I must point out that I have not studied this area in any depth. I do not mean to suggest that such a service cannot or will not be offered, or even that such a service is not under consideration. Frankly, I don't work on this, and just don't know whether or not that is the case. My only purpose in writing this is to point out that there are significant technical hurdles to providing such a service, and that such a service MAY potentially be very costly. How much would YOU be willing to pay for such a service? SPECIAL DISCAIMER: This is presented solely as my opinion, and has no connection in any manner whatsoever to the opinions of my employer. I make no claim as to the accuracy or quality of the opinions presented, nor to their relationship to anything, or anyone. Any similarity to persons, places, things, or ideas living or dead is purely coincidental. Michael J. Sonnier @ Bellcore; Navesink Research & Engineering Center Logical: [...]!bellcore!nvuxg!mjs1 | Audible: (201) 758-5787 Physical: 331 Newman Springs Rd #2Z419; Red Bank, NJ 07701 "Trust us; we're the phone company and we're here to help you; WE know what's best!" ;-) Disclaimer: How can you infer this is the opinion of my employer? I don't even know if it's mine yet!