cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) (02/01/90)
Somebody wrote: >> the theory goes that non-pubs cause extra aggravation for the >> operator because of the people, who not finding it in the book, >> call to argue with the operator about it; particularly when he >> can't find it either. Some phone books have this common-courtesy reminder: When you are told that a number is unlisted (or, merely using a different way of saying the same thing, non-published), please do NOT persist in trying to get it; it is not available, period. [Moderator's Note: Not only that, but over sixty years ago, the cover of the Chicago Telephone Company (predecessor of IBT) alphabetical directory printed this admonition to subscribers: "We ask that our subscribers extend the same courteous speech to our operators that they wish to hear in return. Our operators are not required by the Company to remain connected with, or listen to a subscriber who uses profane language in addressing them." Like what is it 'they' say? Trying to bail out the ocean using a one gallon bucket..... Operators are terribly mistreated by some crude, belligerent customers. PT]
Chris Johnson <chris@com2serv.c2s.mn.org> (02/03/90)
In article <3455@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 70, message 9 of 10 >Somebody wrote: >>> the theory goes that non-pubs cause extra aggravation for the >>> operator because of the people, who not finding it in the book, >>> call to argue with the operator about it; particularly when he >>> can't find it either. >Some phone books have this common-courtesy reminder: When you are told >that a number is unlisted (or, merely using a different way of saying >the same thing, non-published), please do NOT persist in trying to get >it; it is not available, period. Would this half-baked idea make any sense: What if the unlisted (which at least here in Minneapolis and in Denver means just not in the phone book but available via Information) and the unpublished (you can't get it at all) person's names were listed in the phone book, but instead of a phone number, it just said "Unlisted" or "Unpublished", as the case may be? The first argument against that is it would give away that the person in question _did_ have a telephone. But you can usually glean that from calling information and asking for their number, anyway. Sure, the information operators might give the same "I'm sorry, that number is not published" answer for a non-existant telephone subscriber/customer, but _I've_ never had them do that. I always come away from calling information with either the number I want, or the knowledge that either the person does not have a phone in their name, or the phone company just is not going to give it to me. Any other arguments? It seems to me it would reduce information calls to some extent, but would it be a significant amount? Chris Johnson DOMAIN: chris@c2s.mn.org Com Squared Systems, Inc. ATT: +1 612 452 9522 Mendota Heights, MN USA FAX: +1 612 452 3607 [Moderator's Note: Here, the theory is you can sit all day and brouse through the directory, looking for names, addresses, etc; where calling DA requires you to have a *name and address to start with*. And DA won't fool around chatting with you for more than a few seconds. They won't do your brousing for you. By brousing the directory you can (if your idea was implemented) learn of the *existence* of people and addresses who wish to maintain their privacy. It is unlikely you would gain this much knowledge from a call to DA. PT]