bnelson@ccb.bbn.com (Barry C. Nelson) (03/18/89)
After reading Bernie's input today I got the idea that there could be people out there who REALLY don't want to have their numbers displayed under any circumstances, and may be willing to pay for privacy services in areas where there was no masking (CLIR) option available. What sort of trouble would a company get into with the following scheme? Say they opened an inward WATS (1-800) service someplace and then (for a nominal fee) forwarded the calls of privacy seekers to their intended destinations, whereupon THEIR outWATS number would be displayed, giving the recipient no info as to the caller (except that privacy was precious). (This is purely an academic question, of course.) Barry
merlyn@decwrl.dec.com (Randal L. Schwartz @ Stonehenge) (03/21/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0096m08@vector.UUCP>, bnelson@ccb (Barry C. Nelson) writes: | What sort of trouble would a company get into with the following scheme? Say | they opened an inward WATS (1-800) service someplace and then (for a nominal | fee) forwarded the calls of privacy seekers to their intended destinations, | whereupon THEIR outWATS number would be displayed, giving the recipient no | info as to the caller (except that privacy was precious). I will grant you your wish. Repeat after me: ALDS Just sign up for an alternate long-distance service travel card (one of those with an 800-number), and make all your "secret" calls with the card. Sheesh. This one was easy. -- Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 on contract to BiiN (for now :-), Hillsboro, Oregon, USA. ARPA: <@intel-iwarp.arpa:merlyn@intelob> (fastest!) MX-Internet: <merlyn@intelob.intel.com> UUCP: ...[!uunet]!tektronix!biin!merlyn Standard disclaimer: I *am* my employer! Cute quote: "Welcome to Oregon... home of the California Raisins!"